/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/211207.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, December 7, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 238
Headlines
AEROTEK INC: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Barreto Suit Claims
APPLE INC: Judge Trims Class Action Over Intercepted Facetime Calls
AUSTRALIA: Attorney Discusses Splendour Strip Search Class Action
BIOMARIN PHARMA: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of Dec. 22 Deadline
BRITTLAN II: Faces Class Action Over Workers' Fingerprint Scans
CAMBER ENERGY: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of December 28 Deadline
CANADA: Calgary Education Board Faces Sexual Assault Class Action
CANADA: More Than 40% Military Sexual Misconduct Claims From Men
CANADA: Racism Class Action Certification Hearing Set in Sept. 2022
CATCH 22: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Hernandez Suit Claims
CITRIX SYSTEMS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of January 18 Deadline
CITRIX SYSTEMS: Robbins LLP Reminds of January 18 Deadline
COLES COUNTY, IL: Replies to Class Cert. Bid Due Dec. 21
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Settles COVID Tuition Fee Refund Class Action
D-MARKET ELEKTRONIK: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Dec. 20 Deadline
DENSO CORP: Settlements Reached in Price Fixing Class Actions
EARTH TECH: Faces Robinson Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
EXXON MOBIL: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Action Lawsuit
FIAT CHRYSLER: Feb. 17, 2022 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
FIELDALE FARMS: Chicken Products Class Action Reached Settlement
FOUNTAINHEAD COMMERCIAL: Judge Tosses Class Action Over PPP Loans
GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Goldenberg Files Suit in S.D. Florida
GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Jarvis Files Suit in S.D. Florida
GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Karpel Files Suit in S.D. Florida
GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Kendall Files Suit in S.D. Florida
GINKGO BIOWORKS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of January 17 Deadline
GINKGO BIOWORKS: Klein Law Firm Reminds of January 18 Deadline
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Class Action Over Android Lockbox Program
HORRY COUNTY, SC: Faces Another Class Action Over Road Fees
INSURANCE AUSTRALIA: Faces Suit Over COVID-19 Business Interruption
JAGUAR LAND: Infotainment Class Action Partly Dismissed
LIGHTSPEED COMMERCE: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Jan. 18 Deadline
LIPPERT COMPONENTS: Appeals Ruling in Sheets Liability Suit
LIPPERT COMPONENTS: Forest Appeals Ruling in Sheets Liability Suit
LOS ANGELES, CA: Attorneys to Plead Guilty in DWP Kickback Scheme
MCMC AUTO: Leslie Sues Over Failure to Refund Unearned Fees
META PLATFORMS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of December 27 Deadline
MITSUI OSK: Appeal Tribunal to Hear Motorists' Class Action Suit
NAVY FEDERAL: Morrow Appeals Breach of Contract Suit Dismissal
NET RETAILERS: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NEW YORK, NY: Issues Emergency Exec. Order 304 Amid Class Action
NISSAN MOTOR: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Side Curtain Airbags
NOVAVAX INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of January 11 Deadline
NUIX LTD: Faces Second Shareholder Class Action in Australia
ON24 INC: ClaimsFiler Reminds of January 3, 2022 Deadline
OPPENHEIMER & CO: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme
OWLET INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of January 18 Deadline
PLAYTIKA HOLDING: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of January 24 Deadline
POINT QUEST: Hutt Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PRINTFUL INC: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PROSPECT FARMS: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
PUBLISHERS CLEARING: Green Files Suit in E.D. New York
PUBLISHERS CLEARING: Kenter Files Suit in E.D. New York
QSUPER LTD: Shine Lawyers File Class Action Over Life Premiums
RAY'S HOSPITALITY: Underpays Housekeepers, Sanchez Suit Claims
RJR VAPOR: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ROBERTSON ANSCHUTZ: Ubaldi Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Fisher Sues Over Failure to Secure PII
ROCKET SCIENCE: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SEQUOIA BENEFITS: Winsor Appeals ERISA Class Suit Dismissal
SHISEIDO AMERICAS: Powell Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois
SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SNAP INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of January 10 Deadline
SNAP INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds of January 10 Deadline
SNAP-ON INCORPORATED: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SOVEREIGN LENDING: Mannacio Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
ST. JOSEPHS HOSPITAL: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
STONECO LTD: Howard G. Smith Reminds of January 18, 2022 Deadline
STONECO LTD: Robbins LLP Reminds of January 18 Deadline
STRICOFF FINE ART: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SUNFAR CONTRACTING: Chaves et al. Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
SWEETHEART GALLERY: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
THIRDLOVE INC: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TRIBUNE PUBLISHING: Settles TCPA Class Action for $1.7MM
TRIPADVISOR LLC: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
UF HEALTH: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Ransomware Attack
ULTIMATE SERVICES: Servil Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
UMB BANK: Mississippi Delta Farmers Sue Over Seizure of Harvests
UNITED STATES: ACLU's Class Action Over CARRP Ongoing
UNITED STATES: Alvarez Appeals Labor Suit Dismissal to 4th Cir.
UNITED STATES: Barnes & Thornburg Attorneys Discuss Settlement
UNITED STATES: Summary Judgment in Doe v. ATF Appealed to Fed. Cir.
US DEPARMENT OF HOUSING: Center Suit Transferred to D. Conn.
UTAH: Ringgold Suit Removed to D. Utah
VCA INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged 401(k) Excessive Fees
VIACOMCBS INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of December 28 Deadline
VOLKSWAGEN AG: 12,000+ Motorists in Scotland Join Dieselgate Suit
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Transmission Class Action Settlement Gets OK
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Villalobos Suit Transferred to N.D. California
WALMART INC: Perez Appeals Labor Suit Dismissal
WATERFIELD DESIGNS: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WELLA OPERATIONS: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WHEELS ON THE BUS: Roman Sues Over Denial of Overtime Wages
WHITE PLAINS: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WINESTOR LLC: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WOOD'S STATION: Calas Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
YELP INC: Sapan Appeals Class Certification Denial to 9th Cir.
ZOOM VIDEO: Eligible Users Can Now File Compensation Claim
[*] U.S. H.R. 5376 Threatens Class, Collective Action Waivers
*********
AEROTEK INC: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Barreto Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
GEORGINA GALINDO BARRETO, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AEROTEK, INC., a Maryland
Corporation, DEXCOM, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
37-2021-00048783-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Sup. Ct., November 17, 2021)
brings this complaint against the Defendants to recover damages and
other penalties pursuant to the California Labor Code Private
Attorneys' General Act of 2004.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant Aerotek to work for
Dexcom in San Diego, California from on or about May 5, 2020 and
became a direct employee of Dexcom as a manufacturing associate on
or about October 21, 2020 until on or about November 18, 2020.
The Plaintiff asserts these claims:
-- The Defendants did not provide her and other similarly
situated aggrieved employees a lawful meal periods and did not pay
them one hour of wages in lieu thereof;
-- The Defendants failed to pay them all lawful wages for all
hours worked, including "off the clock" work;
-- The Defendants failed to include all non-discretionary
payments in the regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating
overtime;
-- The Defendants failed to timely pay them all earned wages
upon or after termination of their employment with the Defendant;
and
-- The Defendants failed to maintain accurate itemized records
reflecting total hours worked, and thus also failed to provide them
with accurate itemized wage statements reflecting total hours
worked and appropriate rates of pay.
Aerotek, Inc. provides employment staffing services to companies in
the state of California, including Dexcom, Inc., which is a company
that develops, manufactures and distributes continuous glucose
monitoring systems for diabetes management. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Hawkins, Esq.
Isandra Fernandez, Esq.
Kacey E. Cook, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS APLC
9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Tel: (949) 387-7200
Fax: (949) 387-6676
APPLE INC: Judge Trims Class Action Over Intercepted Facetime Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a big chunk
of a proposed class action lawsuit against Apple over a security
flaw that allowed Facetime calls to be accessed by third parties
has been dismissed by a federal judge.
On Nov. 16, Judge Lorna Schofield of New York threw out the
lawsuit's claims for unjust enrichment and fraudulent
misrepresentation while allowing claims under New York General
Business Law to proceed, though they only will apply to New York
residents.
Lawyers at Oved & Oved who filed the suit had not placed any
geographical restrictions on their proposed class, but it looks
like they will only be representing consumers in the Empire State.
Plaintiff Tigran Ohanian claims a "significant security flaw" in
iOS software allowed iMessage correspondence and Facetime calls to
be directed to and accessed by third parties. He also sued
T-Mobile, which had an arbitration clause in its customer
agreement.
The lawsuit failed to specify fraudulent conduct, Schofield ruled.
"The complaint points to a variety of statements by Apple from
approximately 2011 through to 2017," she wrote. "Except for a
single statement on Apple's website in September 2017, the
complaint fails to allege where Apple's statements were made and in
what context (co-plaintiff Reggie Lopez) was exposed to the
statements.
"The complaint also fails to state when Lopez purchased his iPhone
and when he discovered the alleged fraud."
Schofield is letting the lawyers try to amend their complaint.
"Plaintiff may decide not to replead, particularly as the NY GBL
claims survive and he can recover only once for his injury,
regardless of the claim," she wrote. [GN]
AUSTRALIA: Attorney Discusses Splendour Strip Search Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Gregoire, Esq., of Sydney Criminal Lawyers, in an article for
Mondaq, reports that the protocols stipulating when police can
carry out strip searches are set out in a piece of legislation
commonly known as the LEPRA.
Section 31 of this Act requires that when outside of a police
station "the seriousness and urgency of the circumstances" must
warrant a strip search as necessary.
Yet, in early 2019, NSW police deployed screens to Sydney's Central
Station, so that following a sniffer dog indication, officers can
require commuters to strip off behind them. And the seriousness and
urgency of these matters usually results in nothing being found or
a small amount of cannabis.
Redfern Legal Centre has long been calling out NSW police on its
routine misuse of what's supposed to be a measure of last resort.
While the 2019 UNSW strip search report it commissioned, found that
between November 2006 and June 2018 the use of this invasive
measure had increased twentyfold.
And now RLC is taking a different avenue in challenging rising
strip search use, as it announced that it's teamed up with Slater
and Gordon to run a class action on behalf of Splendour in the
Grass patrons who may have been subjected to an illegal strip
search.
State-sanctioned assaults on teens
As the rising use of strip searches by NSW police was increasingly
of concern in the community, state police watchdog the Law
Enforcement Conduct Commission (LECC) launched an investigation
into the matter in October 2018.
This resulted in the 2020 LECC strip search report, which uncovered
a number of suspect searches, including a 15-year-old boy at
2019's Lost City Festival being asked to lift his testicles to show
his "gooch" and a 16-year-old having had an officer rub his hands
over his buttocks at the same event.
Then there was the case of a 16-year-old girl at the 2018 Splendour
in the Grass Festival, who was not only asked to take off her
clothing, but she was ordered to remove her pantyliner so an
officer could look under it, before being asked to squat, so the
officer could look right up underneath her.
Redfern Legal Centre is currently putting a call out to any patrons
who were strip searched at four consecutive Splendour festivals
commencing with the 2016 event, as it believes hundreds of
festivalgoers were likely illegally searched and, therefore, are
warranted just compensation.
Squat and cough remains
A key issue around the way NSW police is conducting its strip
searches is that its search manual permits officers to require a
subject of a search to lift their testicles, part their buttock
cheeks, lift their breasts or squat down. However, none of this
appears in the LEPRA.
In its recently released response to the LECC strip search report
recommendations, the NSW Police Force has stated that these
questionable procedures will continue to be a part of its strip
search practices but officers will be cautioned that they're not to
be used routinely.
Sydney Criminal Lawyers spoke to Redfern Legal Centre police
accountability solicitor Samantha Lee about what the class action
entails, the need for clear amended protocols in the legislation,
and how strip searches were never meant to be an everyday part of
life in the community.
COVID-19 has quietened things down over the last 20 months. So,
considering this lack of movement on the streets, does Sydney still
have a strip search problem?
Yes. It still has a problem. We just need to look at the
legislation to see it still remains problematic.
Under the law, a child as young as 10 can still be strip searched.
And in most situations that we've seen, without a parent or
guardian being contacted.
People can still be forced to undertake a strip search, where they
are asked to squat and cough and lift their testicles.
So, the problem still remains. COVID has put these problems on
hold, but it hasn't eradicated them.
Redfern Legal Centre and Slater and Gordon are launching a class
action focusing on patrons who were strip searched at four
Splendour in the Grass festivals from 2016 onwards.
Samantha, why the focus on Splendour? And what will the case
involve?
It's a very large annual festival. It takes in a range of age
groups. And one thing in particular regarding class actions is the
commonality in cases.
At Splendour, you have certain commonalities around police
behaviour, instructions and briefings. And then you have
commonalities about where the strip searches occurred, who they
occurred to and in what kind of environment.
So, they're the major factors as to why Splendour. Also, we had
some people come forward from Splendour in the Grass, who helped us
to get a bit of analysis of the case.
Another reason for Splendour, is some of the issues were outlined
in the LECC public hearings that took place in regard to strip
searches a few years ago.
So, are you still looking for Splendour in the Grass patrons to
join the action?
We most certainly are. We are calling on anyone that was searched
at Splendour in the Grass from 2016 onwards to come forward and
register for the class action, or at least seek further information
about it.
And for those in the community who have suffered questionable
searches under other circumstances, is it likely there will be
further such cases?
Yes. We're looking to first run this case. But we know that there
are similar factors out there that have occurred at other music
festivals.
So, we're hoping this will be a springboard into potential other
class actions, but first we need to see how this one goes, before
we can go into other territory.
The LECC strip search report called out a number of search measures
that don't appear in the legislation but do in the police search
manual. These include requirements to lift testicles or breasts,
part buttock cheeks and squat down.
It also raised concerns around the habit some officers have of
running their fingertips under the edges of clothing.
NSW police recently responded by confirming these practices in the
manual will continue, with a stipulation that they're not routine,
and further that the running of a finger under a person's waistband
doesn't constitute a strip search.
What are your thoughts on these responses?
There is no doubt that police have made some inroads when it comes
to strip searches. A light has been shone onto this practice, which
has served to move this issue into territory where it is out in the
open.
But until we get some better definitions within the legislation
then it's still open for police to widely interpret a lot of these
definitions.
For example, the wording of what is serious and urgent to conduct a
strip search needs to be defined, particularly to ensure that strip
searches are not conducted for minor drug possession matters.
And until we get some clearer definitions in the legislation, then
it would still be open to police to interpret some of these
practices as widely as possible, which is exactly what they are
doing on the ground.
But I don't want to set aside the importance of police culture and
training. All of these things need to come into play.
The practice of strip searches has been lagging behind for many
years now. There has been a pattern of very bad behaviour
continuing over a long period of time, and that's going to take
time and effort to try and change.
Strip searches can affect anyone, but they're most often applied to
youths and marginalised people. Why should the broader community be
concerned about the normalisation of strip searches?
Strip searches were never meant to be normalised, and they were
never meant to be routine. Strip searches were only meant to be
undertaken in the most exceptional circumstances. Instead, what we
have seen is that they've become everyday police practice.
Why should people be concerned? Because these are horrific,
invasive practices.
We've seen from the coroner's report that they've potentially
contributed to young people doubling up on drugs before entering
festivals and creating dangerous environments for them.
What we should be concerned about as a society is keeping young
people and vulnerable groups safe and not exposed to these
dangerous practices.
And lastly, Samantha, RLC commissioned a 2019 UNSW report into
strip searches, which made a number of recommendations for
improvements. Now, you're challenging the invasive practice in
civil proceedings.
Why take this tactic? And are you hoping for a broader effect
beyond the compensation?
A civil proceeding is a way of seeking compensation for the harm
caused to potentially hundreds of people in the community who have
been strip searched.
But it's also a means to bring awareness to this practice and to
put pressure on NSW police to change it and also put pressure on
politicians to support change to the legislation.
We want this practice to be removed from being routine, and back to
being what its original intent was, which was to only occur in the
most exceptional circumstances. [GN]
BIOMARIN PHARMA: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of Dec. 22 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc.
("BioMarin" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: BMRN) and reminds investors
of the December 22, 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 BioMarin
stock or options between January 13, 2020 and September 3, 2021 and
would like to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi
partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext.
1310). You may also click here for additional information:
www.faruqilaw.com/BMRN.
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, 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)
BMN 307 was less safe than BioMarin had led investors to believe;
(2) BMN 307's safety profile made it likely that the FDA would
place a clinical hold on the Phearless Phase 1/2 study; (3)
accordingly, the Company had overstated BMN 307's clinical and
commercial prospects; and (4) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
On September 5, 2021, BioMarin issued a press release announcing
"that the [FDA] placed a clinical hold on the BMN 307 Phearless
Phase 1/2 study", which "is evaluating BMN 307, an investigational
AAV5-phenylalanine hydroxylase (PAH) gene therapy, in adults with
[PKU]." BioMarin advised investors that "[t]he FDA's clinical hold
was based on interim safety findings from a pre-clinical, non-GLP
pharmacology study."
On this news, BioMarin's stock price fell $7.14 per share, or 8.4%,
to close at $77.81 per share on September 7, 2021, the next trading
day.
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 BioMarin's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. [GN]
BRITTLAN II: Faces Class Action Over Workers' Fingerprint Scans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hayley Flynn, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
McDonald's franchisee has been served with a class action lawsuit,
accusing the company of violating Illinois' biometrics privacy law
for the way in which it requires workers to scan their fingerprints
when punching the clock at work.
Named plaintiff Karla Gray filed suit Oct. 29 in Cook County
Circuit Court against Brittlan II, LLC, which owns and operates
several McDonald's restaurants, alleging the company of violating
the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).
According to the complaint, Gray worked at the Brittlan-owned
McDonald's location at 9560 S. Halsted, Chicago, from April 2020 to
October 2021, when Brittlan allegedly sold the restaurant.
Gray represents a class of well over 50 Brittlan II employees who
allege that Brittlan II failed to obtain written consent before
collecting their fingerprints, did not disclose the length of time
for which that information would be stored, and did not disclose
that the biometric data would be shared with a third party.
They are seeking damages of $1,000-$5,000 per violation, as allowed
under the BIPA law. Individual violations have been defined as each
time a worker scans their fingerprint.
Attorneys Megan Shannon, Ryan Stephan, and James Zouras of Stephan
Zouras, LLP are representing Gray and the class.
Cook County Circuit Court case number 2021CH05526 [GN]
CAMBER ENERGY: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of December 28 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against Camber Energy, Inc. ("Camber
Energy" or the "Company") (NYSE American: CEI) and reminds
investors of the December 28, 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 Camber Energy
stock or options between February 18, 2021 and October 4, 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/CEI.
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, 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)
Camber overstated the financial and business prospects of Viking as
well as the combined company post- Merger; (ii) Camber failed to
apprise investors of, and/or downplayed, the fact that its
acquisition of a controlling interest in Viking would exacerbate
the Company's delinquent financial statements and listing
obligations with the NYSE; (iii) an institutional investor was
diluting Camber's shares at a significant rate following the
Company's July 12, 2021 update regarding the number of its shares
of common stock issued and outstanding; and (iv) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
On May 24, 2021, Viking filed a quarterly report on Form 10-Q with
the SEC, reporting the Company's financial and operating results
for the quarter ended March 31, 2021. That quarterly report
disclosed, among other results, first quarter earnings per share
("EPS") of - $0.13 under generally accepted accounting principles
("GAAP"), compared to GAAP EPS of $1.39 in the same quarter the
year prior, representing an 109.35% decrease year-over-year
("Y/Y"), and first quarter revenue of $10.49 million, compared to
revenue of $11.79 million in the same quarter the year prior,
representing an 11% decrease Y/Y.
Later that day, Camber issued a press release disclosing that, on
May 21, 2021, the NYSE had notified the Company that it was not in
compliance with the NYSE's continued listing standards because of,
inter alia, "issues that have arisen in connection with . . .
finalizing the determination of the fair values of both assets and
liabilities associated with the Company's acquisition of a
controlling interest in Viking . . . in December of 2020[.]"
Following Viking's reported first quarter 2021 results, Camber's
stock price fell $0.02 per share, or 3.17%, to close at $0.61 per
share on May 24, 2021. Camber's stock price continued to decline by
an additional $0.04 per share, or 6.56%, to close at $0.57 per
share the following day as the market continued to digest Viking's
first quarter 2021 results, as well as Camber's non-compliance
notice from the NYSE.
Then, on August 16, 2021, Viking filed a quarterly report on Form
10-Q with the SEC, reporting its financial and operating results
for the quarter ended June 30, 2021. That quarterly report
disclosed, among other results, a net loss of $9.85 million for the
quarter, and that, "[a]s of June 30, 2021, [Viking] has a
stockholders' deficit of $15,054,324 and total long-term debt of
$95,961,611."
On this news, Camber's stock price fell $0.03 per share, or 6.98%,
to close at $0.57 per share on May 25, 2021.
Finally, on October 5, 2021, Kerrisdale Capital ("Kerrisdale")
released a report (the "Kerrisdale Report") alleging, among other
issues revealed in earlier disclosures, that the "market is badly
mistaken about Camber's share count and ignorant of [Camber's]
terrifying capital structure," estimating the Company's "fully
diluted share count is roughly triple the widely reported number."
On this news, Camber's stock price fell $1.56 per share, or 50.49%,
to close at $1.53 per share on October 5, 2021.
The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Camber's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. [GN]
CANADA: Calgary Education Board Faces Sexual Assault Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaylen Small, writing for Global News, reports that the Calgary
Board of Education and a teacher's estate are being sued in a
proposed $40-million class-action lawsuit over alleged sexual
assaults that spanned 17 years.
A statement of claim filed by Guardian Law Group on Nov. 24 alleges
Michael Gregory sexually assaulted and interfered with girls while
he was teaching at John Ware School in Calgary. [GN]
CANADA: More Than 40% Military Sexual Misconduct Claims From Men
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Connolly, writing for GlobalNews.ca, reports that more than
40 per cent of the nearly 19,000 claims submitted by survivors and
victims of military sexual misconduct are from men, says Gen. Wayne
Eyre.
In an interview with The West Block's Mercedes Stephenson, Eyre
said the scope of the claims submitted through that process
demonstrate the fact that the problem is one that everyone in the
Canadian Forces must work to address -- even though there are no
easy answers.
"The scope speaks to the depth of the issue," Eyre said.
"I think it's also important to note that the latest stats I've
seen, 42 per cent are men, and that speaks to this not being just a
woman's issue. It's an issue for all of us to address. It's an
issue of power dynamics as well that speak to an element that we
have to fix."
Eyre was formally appointed as chief of the defence staff on Nov.
25, after Adm. Art McDonald's appointment to the role was
terminated by the government, citing a lack of confidence in him.
The position of chief of the defence staff is one that serves "at
pleasure," meaning the appointee can be removed at any time, for
any reason, by the government.
McDonald stepped aside voluntarily in late February after military
police announced they were opening an investigation into an
allegation of sexual misconduct made against him. McDonald has
denied the allegation and the investigation ended this summer
without charges
Military police cited a lack of evidence, and shortly after,
McDonald launched what became an increasingly public battle to try
to return to the duties of the role, claiming in a letter to senior
military officers that he had been exonerated and the allegation
against him deemed "unsubstantiated."
But the military provost marshal later issued a statement saying
the allegation had not been deemed "unfounded." McDonald quickly
came under heavy criticism for the letter with Eyre calling it
"shocking."
Speaking with reporters on Nov. 25, Defence Minister Anita Anand
echoed that assessment, describing McDonald's letter as "shocking"
and "unacceptable."
Eyre had been acting in McDonald's place since late February, and
was promoted to the rank of general in August in what was widely
viewed as a signal that the government intended to keep him there
permanently.
In the executive order formally appointing Eyre, the government
pointed to McDonald's letter as among the factors weighed in the
decision not to let him return to the job. That letter also stated
that people appointed to such roles have "an obligation to act in a
manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny, an obligation
that is not discharged by simply acting within the law."
Eyre said the military is not currently looking at any
administrative penalties against McDonald in relation to the
allegation of sexual misconduct made against him.
Former Supreme Court of Canada justice Morris Fish warned in June
it is "legally impossible" for the military to criminally charge
someone at the rank of chief of the defence staff.
"What has happened is between Adm. McDonald and the government.
I've deliberately kept myself at arm's length from that process,
and he's indicated that he's releasing from the military so that
will unfold," Eyre said.
McDonald's legal team issued a three-page statement on Nov. 26 in
response to the appointment of Eyre.
In it, lawyer Rory Fowler said no one from the government had
informed McDonald of the decision to appoint Eyre to the role, or
about the announcement of that decision. He said that "the Prime
Minister and Governor in Council have continued to vilify him for
defending his name and reputation against untrue allegations," and
that McDonald has been subjected to "trial by media."
Fowler contested the military provost marshal's statement that the
allegation had not been deemed unfounded, calling it
"disingenuous," and said that McDonald has been "unreasonably
vilified in public."
He also contested comments from the woman at the allegation, who
said there were "several" eyewitnesses that corroborated her story,
including at least one senior Navy officer that Global News was
able to verify.
Fowler said his client had received a copy of the military police
investigation into him roughly one week ago, and that the records
that were disclosed indicated none of the 38 people interviewed as
part of that process corroborated the allegation. However, Fowler
also said the records were "excessively redacted."
Global News reported in August that military police interviewed
dozens of people as part of the probe into the allegation but were
unable to determine an agreed upon set of facts as many of those
interviewed claimed to have been drunk at the time.
The Canadian Forces is in the midst of what experts have described
as an institutional "crisis" over multiple sexual misconduct
allegations levied against senior leaders in the past 10 months.
Eyre said it's vital for the military to address the problem
head-on in order to be able to recruit and retain the people it
will need in a world that he said is "probably more dangerous now
than it has been since the end of the Cold War."
"It's a very dangerous world out there and we are going to see the
Canadian Armed Forces called upon more and more. Canada is going to
need us unlike ever before," Eyre said.
"That's why fixing our culture and underpinning our culture -- that
will underpin our operational effectiveness going into this much
more dangerous world -- is an imperative right now." [GN]
CANADA: Racism Class Action Certification Hearing Set in Sept. 2022
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Day, writing for Global Government Forum, reports that in
recent years and decades, a number of civil services have been
accused of institutional racism. Some countries have since taken
steps to ensure the government workforce is ethnically diverse and
inclusive. Karen Day explores what measures Canada, the US, the UK,
and New Zealand have taken.
On September 21, 2022, a C$2.5bn (US$1.97bn) class-action lawsuit
on behalf of 1,100 black federal workers against the Canadian
government will be brought before a judge for the first time. The
procedural 'certification hearing' will be the next major step in
what is expected to be a long, drawn-out case. The class action,
which has grown from just 12 claimants 10 months ago, alleges that
for the last 51 years black employees across Canada's public
services have been subjected to institutional racism. It claims
that the very measures put in place to alleviate systemic
discrimination in Canada's public services have in fact perpetuated
it, leaving black Canadians concentrated in its lowest ranks. The
Canadian government has acknowledged that "systemic racism is a
problem across the country" and is making urgent reforms. It is
unclear whether it will contest the case.
Canada is not alone. New Zealand, the UK, and the US have, over the
years, all faced allegations of institutional racism within their
civil services. Yet these governments are now rolling out on new
initiatives to root out racism and improve public service diversity
-- acknowledging the fact that this issue is far from resolved. So,
just what are they doing to tackle the problem?
Canada's most senior civil servant, Ian Shugart, clerk of the Privy
Council, launched a call to action on anti-racism a month after the
class-action lawsuit was filed in December 2020. In a message to
all heads of agencies, Shugart said "we have an obligation to our
employees to do better. . . As public servants come forward to
courageously share their lived experiences, the urgency of removing
systemic racism from our institutions becomes more evident".
Shugart gave public service leaders nine areas to address including
appointing more black and indigenous employees to leadership roles.
They were told to personally commit to learning about and
combatting racism and were given until the end of August to report
on their progress. The Privy Council Office says these reports will
be made public in the next few weeks, but it refuses to be drawn on
the class action. "The work of eradicating bias, barriers, and
discrimination, which have taken root over generations, demands an
ongoing, relentless effort," it says.
In July, the Canadian government hastily amended its Public Service
Employment Act, focusing on removing bias in its recruitment and
giving its Public Service Commission authority to audit departments
for discrimination. It has also established a panel to review the
Employment Equity Act, which is one the key issues of the lawsuit.
Currently there is a 'visible minority' category within the Act
that places all minorities in one group. Those behind the lawsuit
say this means the government can choose people from other ethnic
groups when hiring and promoting, exclude black people, and still
remain within the law.
Nicholas Marcus Thompson, one of the original 12 claimants of the
lawsuit, says the Canadian government is "taking some steps" to
address the root cause of the problem. "We have had discussions
about creating a mental health fund to support workers and those
discussions are ongoing," Thompson says. But he adds that the
government is giving mixed messages. "In not giving a clear
direction, it's quite troubling for workers who want to see a
settlement. We could easily resolve the 'certification' and begin
settlement talks," he says.
Significantly, the lawsuit isn't just seeking damages. Black Class
Action, which is co-ordinating the suit, also wants equal
representation of black employees across all levels of the public
service that is identical to the general population at 3.8%, and an
external reporting mechanism so workers can report racism and
harassment. The government has until June 29 next year to file its
response to the case.
Biden moves to tackle 'entrenched racial disparities'
Within the US federal workforce, president Biden has resurrected a
diversity, equality, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) drive that
started with President Obama. Agencies were told to "review the
current state of their diversity" and develop plans that would
remove any potential barriers to diversifying the workforce. It
includes diversity, inclusion and accessibility training, the
elevation of diversity officers, a review of pay inequity and a
reduction in unpaid internships across federal government. Agencies
were expected to complete their detailed DEIA plans by October.
Boosting diversity within the federal government is a key tenet of
the "whole-of-government equity agenda" that, on his first day in
office, Biden declared was needed due to entrenched racial
disparities in public institutions and the convergence of economic,
health and climate crises. In doing so, he acknowledged not only
the importance of rooting out racism in government agencies but of
diversifying the federal government so that those advising on and
implementing policy and public services reflect the citizens and
communities those policies will affect.
Biden has ordered departments to evaluate all their policies and
procedures - from budgeting through to procurement - to expose and
drive out racial bias. He says that closing racial gaps in wages,
access to higher education, and lending opportunities could add an
extra US$5 trillion in GDP over the next five years.
Shalanda Young, acting director of the Office of Management and
Budget is leading the implementation of the agenda. She gave
agencies until August to review their procedures and expects full
action plans to be delivered by January next year. "It is a
difficult realisation that federal agencies have not fully
delivered value to all of their constituents," she said in a report
to the president. She says the government has "never before
undertaken a whole-of-government equity agenda" and concedes that
it will require long-term change management.
Strengthening the Crown-Maori relationship
Across the globe in New Zealand and its government is in the throes
of implementing its Public Services Act 2020. This is the first new
act governing its public services for 30 years and is designed to
set its future "context and expectations", most notably on
diversity. One of the act's five priorities is strengthening the
government's relationship with its Maori community, the first time
this has been "codified". It places a responsibility on its public
service commissioner, currently Peter Hughes - who sits on Global
Government Forum's content advisory board - to ensure that Maori
are adequately represented in the public services. Around 18% of
its chief executives are Maori, and, although the Maori pay gap
stands at 9.3%, it is down from 9.9% in 2019. Hughes says there has
been some progress but "we need to go harder and faster".
In October, Heather Baggott was appointed as a second deputy public
service commissioner to work alongside Hughes. Baggott, previously
the deputy commissioner for leadership, diversity, and inclusion,
is the first Maori to hold the role and helped draw up the
Crown-Maori provisions in the Act. She supported the creation of
the Office for Crown-Maori Relations and the repositioning of the
Ministry for Maori Development. Baggot's role is to co-ordinate the
push for Maori diversity across its public services -- comparable
to that seen in its successful gender equality push. "It's not left
to individual agencies to do their own thing," Baggot told Maori
News. "We are doing it together. All agencies have detailed plans
in place to lift their Maori capabilities. We want to see a real
shift in the public services in a way that's never been done
before."
'Institutionally neglectful'
In the UK, the civil service has been trying to improve its ethnic
diversity and drive out institutional racism since the late 1990s.
Among the initiatives introduced are fast-track apprenticeships,
diversity champions, a civil service leadership academy, and a
diversity dashboard to collate the most accurate employee data. The
latest figures show some success, with the number of its civil
servants from an ethnic minority background now at a record high of
14.3%, compared to 5.3% in 1999. Further change is on the way. The
government is soon to publish a new diversity and inclusion
strategy for its civil service, as part of new reforms. However,
there are fears that this may shift the focus from tackling ethnic
diversity, especially in senior leadership roles. Ethnic
representation dips to its lowest level in the senior civil
service, at 10.6%, with no black or ethnic minority permanent
secretary or director generals in post since 2015.
Victoria Jones, equality officer at the FDA union, which represents
senior civil servants, says the stalled progress when it comes to
higher ethnic representation in leadership roles isn't down to lack
of talent, but cultural barriers and biased recruitment and
promotion practices. She is one of those who fears that the
government is about to shift its focus to improving socio-economic
diversity, in line with its policy on 'levelling up' the north with
the south of England. "We haven't won on protected characteristics;
we haven't solved those issues yet and this can't be at the cost to
those groups," she warns. "When creating policy, it's important we
have people from diverse backgrounds involved. We want to see that
as a priority for the senior civil service."
Sir Suma Chakrabarti, who became the UK's first British Asian
permanent secretary in 2002, says the civil service is no longer
institutionally racist but says it is "institutionally neglectful".
He told Global Government Forum: "The current government needs to
say it matters to them. They will say 'look at the non-white people
we have in the Cabinet and look at our non-white special advisors',
but I don't think they have pushed the civil service on this."
Chakrabarti says political impetus is essential as well as senior
civil servants acting "counter culturally" by taking the lead to
identify and develop the next generation of leaders. "If you don't
have a passion for something, then nothing will happen. Things only
moved because there was a group of us, of outsiders, who were
deeply bothered," he says.
While many of the new initiatives in Canada, the US, New Zealand,
and the UK illustrate a long-term commitment to improving
diversity, they also show that there is a long way to go in solving
the complex and historic issue of institutional racism. Canada's
class-action lawsuit may well push governments to acknowledge past
wrongs and to further revaluate -- and prioritise -- their ethnic
diversity strategies. [GN]
CATCH 22: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Hernandez Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO GABRIEL HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CATCH 22 LINY CORP. d/b/a
REEL and SHAUN MANNING and PATRICK BALDI, as individuals,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-06379(E.D.N.Y., November 17, 2021) is
a collective action complaint brought against the Defendants to
recover damages for their alleged egregious violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a cook from in or
around 2013 until in or around December 2017 and from in or around
March 2021 until in or around July 2021.
The Plaintiff claims that despite working approximately 72 hours or
more per week while employed by the Defendants, the Defendants
denied him his legally earned overtime compensation at the rate of
one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked
in excess of 40 per workweek. The Defendants also failed to pay him
an extra hour at the legally subscribed minimum wage for each day
worked over 10 hours. In addition, the Defendants failed to keep
accurate payroll records, and to post notices of the minimum wage
and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the
location of their employment as required by both the FLSA and NYLL,
says the Plaintiff.
Catch 22 Liny Corp. d/b/a Reel operates as a restaurant. Shaun
Manning is the president and manager. Patrick Baldi is the
Executive Chef. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Tel: (718) 263-9591
CITRIX SYSTEMS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of January 18 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:
To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Citrix Systems, Inc. ("Citrix") (NASDAQ: CTXS)
between January 22, 2020 and October 6, 2021. You are hereby
notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida. To get more information go to:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/citrix-systems-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=21490&wire=5
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.
Citrix Systems, Inc. NEWS - CTXS NEWS
CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: the transition from
on-premise to the cloud product was going smoothly. In addition, in
response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the shift to remote work,
Citrix created a shorter duration, on-premise subscription license
(the "Business Continuity Licenses") that the Company offered at a
discounted rate, and which Defendants claimed would transition to
cloud accounts after the one-year license expired. As a result of
Defendants' misrepresentations, Citrix common stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.
WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in Citrix,
you have until January 18, 2022 to request that the Court appoint
you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Citrix securities between January
22, 2020 and October 6, 2021, you may be entitled to compensation
without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.
PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/citrix-systems-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=21490&wire=5
or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case with Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Levi & Korsinsky have a proven track record
of winning cases worth hundreds of millions of dollars for
shareholders over a 20-year period. We represent and fight for
shareholders who have been wronged by corporations.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The Firm's
Founding Partners, Joseph Levi and Eduard Korsinsky, have been
representing shareholders and institutional clients for almost 20
years and have achieved remarkable results for clients in the U.S.
and internationally. The firm, with more than 80 employees, is
committed to fostering, cultivating and preserving a culture of
diversity, equity and inclusion for employees and those that we
represent. Our attorneys have extensive expertise representing
investors in securities litigation with a track record of
recovering hundreds of millions of dollars in cases. Levi &
Korsinsky was ranked in Institutional Shareholder Services' ("ISS")
SCAS Top 50 Report for 7 years in a row as a top securities
litigation firm in the United States. The SCAS Top 50 Report
identifies the top plaintiffs' securities law firms in the country,
and year after year, ISS has recognized Levi & Korsinsky as a
leading firm in the area of securities class action litigation.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]
CITRIX SYSTEMS: Robbins LLP Reminds of January 18 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP reminds investors that a
class action was filed on behalf of all persons and entities that
purchased Citrix Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: CTXS) securities between
January 22, 2020 and October 6, 2021. Citrix is a software company
that provides users with secure remote access to computer
networks.
Citrix Systems, Inc. (CTXS) Misled Investors Regarding Subscriber
Interest in its Cloud-Based Service
According to the complaint, in 2019, Citrix announced it would be
shifting from a perpetual license model to a subscription license
payment model, as well as transitioning from a software solution
previously provided on-premises to a cloud-based service. During
the class period, the Company claimed that the transition to a
cloud-based product and to a subscription-pricing model was going
smoothly and successfully.
Then, on April 29, 2021, Citrix announced lower than expected
license conversions and that customers were not transitioning to
the long-term cloud contracts as expected. On this news, the stock
price fell 7.6%. However, the Company continued to assure investors
that this was a "very isolated item" and that the "transition to
the cloud is progressing well."
On July 29, 2021, Citrix reported that, despite prior assurances,
the transition to the cloud was not as successful as the Company
had led investors to believe. Citrix also announced a major
restructuring of its sales leadership in order to "enhance [its]
focus on" cloud migration. These changes were "significant and may
cause short-term disruption before yielding tangible results."
Following these disclosures, Citrix's stock dropped from $114.55 to
$99.00 per share, or 13.6%.
Finally, on October 6, 2021, Citrix announced that its president
and chief executive officer had stepped down. On this news, the
Company's stock dropped from $105.96 to $98.32 per share over the
next two days.
If you purchased shares of Citrix Systems, Inc. (CTXS) securities
between January 22, 2020 and October 6, 2021, you have until
January 18, 2022, to ask the court to appoint you lead plaintiff
for the class.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
Contact us to learn more:
Aaron Dumas
(800) 350-6003
adumas@robbinsllp.com
www.robbinsllp.com
About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights
litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been
dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate
governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for
their wrongdoing since 2002. [GN]
COLES COUNTY, IL: Replies to Class Cert. Bid Due Dec. 21
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wolfe, et al., v. Coles
County States Attorneys Office, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-02206
(C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Colin Stirling Bruce entered an order
on motion for extension of time to file response/reply.
The Defendants' replies to Plaintiff's motion to certify class are
now due on Dec. 21, 2021, says Judge Bruce.
The nature of suit states Other Statutes -- Constitutionality of
State Statutes.[CC]
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Settles COVID Tuition Fee Refund Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Moody, writing for Inside Higher Ed, reports that Columbia
University has reached a $12.5 million settlement with students who
sued the school for failing to refund fees when it pivoted to
online classes in the spring of 2020.
As the COVID-19 pandemic spread across the U.S., Columbia -- like
most U.S. colleges and universities -- shifted to remote learning
in an effort to keep infection rates low. A class action complaint
brought against the university in April 2020 sought reimbursement
for both tuition and fees for the spring semester, though the
request to reimburse tuition was dismissed by a judge in February.
According to the preliminary settlement, filed on Nov. 23, $8.56
million will go toward refunding fees paid for student activities,
university health services and the use of Columbia gyms, libraries
and other campus facilities, Reuters reported. The remaining $4
million will be paid out to "avoid the risks of further
litigation," according to Reuters, which also reported that the
preliminary settlement needs judicial approval to become official.
Court documents note that "Columbia has continued to deny all
allegations of wrongdoing" but that "Columbia considers it
desirable to resolve the Action on the terms and conditions stated
herein to avoid further expense, inconvenience, and burden, and
therefore has determined that the Settlement on the terms and
conditions set forth herein is in Columbia's best interests."
"The pandemic has imposed serious challenges on sustaining the
teaching, research, patient care and public service at the core of
Columbia's mission," the university wrote in a statement to Inside
Higher Ed. "Throughout this period, we have been committed to
meeting the needs of our students. The proposed settlement filed
with the court will provide additional support to students who
attended the University during the spring semester of 2020."
According to one litigation tracker, there have been at least 261
lawsuits filed nationwide seeking reimbursement of tuition and fees
prompted by issues related to COVID-19. [GN]
D-MARKET ELEKTRONIK: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Dec. 20 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of D-MARKET Elektronik Hizmetler ve
Ticaret Anonim Sirketi d/b/a Hepsiburada (NASDAQ: HEPS) pursuant
and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus
(collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection
with the Company's July 2021 initial public offering ("IPO" or the
"Offering") of the important December 20, 2021 lead plaintiff
deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Hepsiburada securities pursuant and/or
traceable to the IPO 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 Hepsiburada class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2175.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 December 20, 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, the Registration
Statement was materially false and misleading and omitted to state
that: (1) Hepsiburada suffered a sharp deceleration in operational
and sales growth during second quarter 2021; (2) as a result,
Hepsiburada initiated certain actions to fortify its competitive
position, including investing in electronics and high frequency
categories and discounting certain categories; (3) as a result of
the foregoing, Hepsiburada's revenue and gross merchandise value
had declined during second quarter 2021; and (4) as a result of the
foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Hepsiburada'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 Hepsiburada class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2175.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]
DENSO CORP: Settlements Reached in Price Fixing Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC; Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.; Spector
Roseman & Kodroff, P.C.; and Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios,
LLP ("Settlement Class Counsel") announce that the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
Division ("Court") has approved the following announcement of
proposed class action settlements with the DENSO Defendants
totaling $700,000, and the proposed distribution of the proceeds of
the settlements.
The lawsuits claims that DENSO conspired to suppress and eliminate
competition for Heater Control Panels, Instrument Panel Clusters,
and Wire Harness Products by agreeing to raise, fix, maintain,
and/or stabilize prices, rig bids, and/or allocate markets and
customers for those automotive parts purchased directly from DENSO
and other manufacturers in the United States, in violation of
federal antitrust laws.
The settlement affects those individuals or entities who purchased
Heater Control Panels, Instrument Panel Clusters, and Wire Harness
Products in the United States from January 1, 1998 through March
23, 2017 directly from certain manufacturers. The precise
qualifying dates of purchase and the manufacturers from whom
purchases need to have been made are set out in the Notice sent to
potential class members, which can be found on the website
dedicated to this litigation:
www.AutoPartsAntitrustLitigation.com.
A hearing will be held on February 17, 2022, at 2:00 p.m., before
the Honorable Sean F. Cox, United States District Judge, at the
Theodore Levin United States Courthouse, 231 West Lafayette
Boulevard, Detroit, MI 48226, Courtroom 817 (or such other
courtroom as may be assigned for the hearing, or if the Court
believes that it is appropriate, remotely by telephone or other
electronic means), for the purpose of determining whether to
approve: (1) the proposed settlements with the DENSO Defendants and
(2) the proposed plans of distribution of the settlement funds to
members of the settlement classes.
A Notice of Proposed Settlement (the "Notice") was mailed to
potential Settlement Class members on or about November 18, 2021.
The Notice describes in more detail the litigation and options
available to Settlement Class members with respect to the
settlements. The Notice and other important documents related to
the settlement can be accessed at
www.AutoPartsAntitrustLitigation.com, or by calling 1-877-845-2749
or writing to DPP-DENSO Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, P.O.
Box 5110, Portland, OR 97208-5110. Those who believe they may be a
member of the Settlement Classes, are urged to obtain a copy of the
Notice.
SOURCE: United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division
URL: www.AutoPartsAntitrustLitigation.com [GN]
EARTH TECH: Faces Robinson Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ANTHONY ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EARTH TECH (DE), LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 8:21-cv-02699-CEH-AAS (M.D. Fla., November 17, 2021)
alleges the Defendant of intentional and willful violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a full-time hourly
employee from September 2015.
The Plaintiff claims that he was not compensated for hours worked
and work activities performed at the direction and for the benefit
of the Defendant before arriving at the work sites. Although he
worked in excess of 40 hours per week throughout his employment
with the Defendant, the Defendant denied him of overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his regular
rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week, the
Plaintiff asserts.
The Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages in an amount equal to the overtime award, pre-judgment
interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs and
expenses, and other relief the Court deems just and proper.
Earth Tech (DE), LLC provides construction services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
Christopher D. Gray, Esq.
FLORIN GRAY BOUZAS OWENS, LLC
16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
Lutz, FL 33558
Tel: (727) 220-4000
Fax: (727) 483-7942
E-mail: wflorin@fgbolaw.com
cgray@fgbolaw.com
EXXON MOBIL: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clark Mindock, writing for Law360, reports that Exxon asked a Texas
federal judge to toss a proposed securities class action, arguing
that investors can't sue over forward-looking projections that
ultimately missed the mark when the COVID-19 pandemic rocked global
markets. [GN]
FIAT CHRYSLER: Feb. 17, 2022 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
IN RE STELLANTIS N.V. SECURITIES LITIGATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
19-CV-6770 (EK) (MMH)
Hon. Eric R. Komitee
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT; (II) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND
REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES; AND (III) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS
HEARING
To: All persons and entities who or which purchased or otherwise
acquired common stock of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. ("FCA") or
Stellantis N.V. ("STLA") on a U.S. Exchange or in a transaction in
the United States during the period from February 26, 2016 through
January 27, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Settlement Class").
Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Class as set
forth in detail in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement
dated May 14, 2021 ("Stipulation") and the Notice described below.
YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN
THIS COURT.
Additional information about the settlement is available on the
settlement website, www.PanitzaFiatChryslerSecLitigation.com.
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 Eastern District of New York ("Court"), that the
Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff, Nicholas S. Panitza, on behalf of
himself and all members of the proposed Settlement Class, and
Defendants Stellantis N.V. f/k/a Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V.
("FCA"), Roland Iseli and Alessandro Baldi, as Co-Executors for the
Estate of Sergio Marchionne, Michael Manley and Richard K. Palmer
(collectively, "Defendants") have reached a proposed settlement of
the claims in the above-captioned class action (the "Action").
A hearing will be held before the Honorable Eric R. Komitee, on
February 17, 2022, at 9:30 a.m., in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, 225 Cadman Plaza E.,
Courtroom 6G N, Brooklyn, NY 11201, or as otherwise ordered by the
Court (the "Settlement Hearing") to determine: (i) whether the
proposed Settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in the
Stipulation is fair, reasonable and adequate to the Settlement
Class; (ii) whether, for purposes of the Settlement only, the
Action should be certified as a class action on behalf of the
Settlement Class, Lead Plaintiff should be certified as Class
Representative for the Settlement Class, and Lead Counsel should be
appointed as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class; (iii) whether
the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants,
and the releases specified and described in the Stipulation (and in
the Notices described below) should be entered; (iv) whether the
proposed Plan of Allocation for the proceeds of the Settlement is
fair and reasonable and should be approved; (v) whether the motion
by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of Litigation Expenses, including costs and expenses awarded to
Lead Plaintiff, should be approved; (vi) to consider any Settlement
Class Members' timely objections to the Settlement, Plan of
Allocation, or motion for attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses;
and (vii) to consider any other matters that may properly be
brought before the Court in connection with the Settlement. You do
NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution
from the Settlement Fund.
If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to
share in the Settlement Fund. You may obtain a Claim Form and
review the Internet Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of
Class Action ("Internet Notice") on the website
www.PanitzaFiatChryslerSecLitigation.com or by contacting the
Claims Administrator at:
Panitza Fiat Chrysler Securities Litigation
c/o JND Legal Administration
P.O. Box 91396
Seattle, WA 98111
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form may be
made to Lead Counsel:
Stephanie M. Beige, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP
10 East 40th Street
New York, NY 10016
212-779-1414
fiatinfo@bernlieb.com
If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to be eligible to
receive payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a
Claim Form postmarked (if mailed), or online at
www.PanitzaFiatChryslerSecLitigation.com ("Case Website"), no later
than February 13, 2022. Read the instructions carefully, fill out
the Claim Form in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Claim Form, and sign it in the location indicated. The Case Website
also includes instructions on downloading your transaction data
directly from your brokerage so that you do not have to manually
enter each transaction. 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 releases, judgments or orders
entered by the Court in the Action.
If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself
from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that
it is received no later than January 27, 2022, in accordance with
the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude
yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any releases,
judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will
not be eligible to share in the net 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 expenses, must be filed with the Court and
delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they
are received no later than January 27, 2022, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.
For further questions, visit
www.PanitzaFiatChryslerSecLitigation.com or call toll-free
1-833-916-3600.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, DEFENDANTS OR
THEIR COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. All questions about this
notice, the Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York [GN]
FIELDALE FARMS: Chicken Products Class Action Reached Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Free Stuff Times disclosed that "All persons and entities who
indirectly purchased fresh or frozen raw chicken (defined as whole
birds (with or without giblets), whole cut-up birds purchased
within a package, or "white meat" parts including breasts and wings
(or cuts containing a combination of these), but excluding chicken
that is marketed as halal, kosher, free range, or organic) from
Defendants or alleged co-conspirators for personal consumption,
where the person or entity purchased in California, District of
Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode
Island (after July 15, 2013), South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin from January 1, 2009 (except for
Rhode Island, which is from July 15, 2013), to July 31, 2019." No
proof of purchase is required.
A copy of the Notice is available at:
https://www.overchargedforchicken.com/assets/Docs/Broiler%20Chicken%20Long%20Form%20Notice%209-3-2021.pdf
[GN]
FOUNTAINHEAD COMMERCIAL: Judge Tosses Class Action Over PPP Loans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Katryna Perera, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge dismissed with prejudice a putative class action on
Nov. 24 against nonbank lender Fountainhead Commercial Capital,
which had been accused of prioritizing high-dollar applicants for
federal Paycheck Protection Program loans. [GN]
GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Goldenberg Files Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gebrueder Knauf
Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG. The case is styled as Michael
Goldenberg, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Gebrueder Knauf Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG, Case No.
1:21-cv-24176-RNS (S.D. Fla., Nov. 29, 2021).
The nature if suit is stated as Property Damage Product Liability.
Gebrueder Knauf KG -- https://www.knauf.com/en/ -- manufactures
building materials.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James V. Doyle, Esq.
DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
201 Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 677-3388
Fax: (844) 638-5812
Email: jim.doyle@doylefirm.com
- and -
James Victor Doyle, Jr., Esq.
James Victor Doyle, Sr., Esq.
DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
2100 Southbridge Parkway, Suite 650
Birmingham, AL 35209
Phone: (205) 533-9500
Email: jimmy@doylefirm.com
GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Jarvis Files Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gebrueder Knauf
Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG. The case is styled as Dolores Jarvis,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Gebrueder Knauf Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG, Case No.
1:21-cv-24201-RNS (S.D. Fla., Nov. 29, 2021).
The nature if suit is stated as Property Damage Product Liability.
Gebrueder Knauf KG -- https://www.knauf.com/en/ -- manufactures
building materials.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James V. Doyle, Esq.
DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
201 Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 677-3388
Fax: (844) 638-5812
Email: jim.doyle@doylefirm.com
- and -
James Victor Doyle, Jr., Esq.
James Victor Doyle, Sr., Esq.
DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
2100 Southbridge Parkway, Suite 650
Birmingham, AL 35209
Phone: (205) 533-9500
Email: jimmy@doylefirm.com
GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Karpel Files Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gebrueder Knauf
Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG. The case is styled as Kevin Karpel, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Gebrueder
Knauf Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG, Case No. 1:21-cv-24168-RNS (S.D.
Fla., Nov. 29, 2021).
The nature if suit is stated as Property Damage Product Liability.
Gebrueder Knauf KG -- https://www.knauf.com/en/ -- manufactures
building materials.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James V. Doyle, Esq.
DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
201 Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 677-3388
Fax: (844) 638-5812
Email: jim.doyle@doylefirm.com
- and -
James Victor Doyle, Jr., Esq.
James Victor Doyle, Sr., Esq.
DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
2100 Southbridge Parkway, Suite 650
Birmingham, AL 35209
Phone: (205) 533-9500
Email: jimmy@doylefirm.com
GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Kendall Files Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gebrueder Knauf
Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG. The case is styled as M. Elena
Kendall, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. Gebrueder Knauf Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG, Case No.
1:21-cv-24189-RNS (S.D. Fla., Nov. 29, 2021).
The nature if suit is stated as Property Damage Product Liability.
Gebrueder Knauf KG -- https://www.knauf.com/en/ -- manufactures
building materials.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James V. Doyle, Esq.
DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
201 Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 677-3388
Fax: (844) 638-5812
Email: jim.doyle@doylefirm.com
- and -
James Victor Doyle, Jr., Esq.
James Victor Doyle, Sr., Esq.
DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
2100 Southbridge Parkway, Suite 650
Birmingham, AL 35209
Phone: (205) 533-9500
Email: jimmy@doylefirm.com
GINKGO BIOWORKS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of January 17 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, on Nov. 29 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings, Inc. ("Ginkgo" or
the "Company") (NYSE: DNA) in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Ginkgo securities
between May 11, 2021 and October 5, 2021, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Investors have until January 17, 2021 to apply to
the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
Ginkgo operates a horizontal platform for cell programming,
designed to enable biological production of products such as novel
therapeutics, key food ingredients, and chemicals currently derived
from petroleum. Before the merger with special purpose acquisition
company ("SPAC") Soaring Eagle Acquisition Corp. ("Soaring Eagle"),
the Company was known as Ginkgo Bioworks, Inc.
According to the complaint, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's failure
to derive real revenue from third-party customers left it almost
completely dependent on related parties; (2) most, if not all, of
the Company's revenue came from related parties the Company
created, funded, or controlled through its ownership and board
seats; (3) the Company was misclassifying and underreporting
related party revenue in order to conceal the Company's near
total-dependence on related parties; and (4) many of the Company's
new R&D partners are undisclosed related parties and/or façades.
On October 6, 2021, market researcher Scorpion Capital released a
175-page report alleging that Ginkgo is a "colossal scam,"
describing the Company as a "shell game" whose revenue is highly
dependent on related party transactions. The report alleges that
Gingko is a "Frankenstein mash-up of the worst frauds of the last
20 years" and "one of the most brazen frauds of the last 20 years."
On this news, Ginkgo's shares fell $1.39 per share, or
approximately 12%, to close at $10.59 per share on October 6, 2021,
damaging investors.
On November 15, 2021, the Company acknowledged that shortly after
the Scorpion Capital report, Ginkgo received an inquiry from the
United States Department of Justice relating to the financial
misconduct allegations in the report.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Ginkgo shares and suffered a
loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to
learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Alexandra Raymond by
email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or
by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
GINKGO BIOWORKS: Klein Law Firm Reminds of January 18 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on Nov. 29 disclosed that a class action
complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Ginkgo
Bioworks Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: DNA) alleging that the Company
violated federal securities laws.
Class Period: May 11, 2021 to October 5, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 18, 2022
No obligation or cost to you.
Learn more about your recoverable losses in DNA:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/ginkgo-bioworks-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form?id=21597&from=5
Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings, Inc. NEWS - DNA NEWS
CLASS ACTION CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that Ginkgo
Bioworks Holdings, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's
failure to derive real revenue from third-party customers left it
almost completely dependent on related parties; (2) as a result,
most, if not all, of the Company's revenue came from related
parties the Company created, funded, or controlled through its
ownership and board seats; (3) the Company was misclassifying and
underreporting related party revenue in order to conceal the
Company's near total-dependence on related parties; (4) many of the
Company's new R&D partners are undisclosed related parties and/or
facades; (5) as a result, the Company's valuation was significant
less than Defendants disclosed to investors; and (6) as a result,
Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.
WHAT THIS MEANS TO YOU AS A SHAREHOLDER: If you have suffered a
loss in Ginkgo Bioworks you have until January 18, 2022 to petition
the court for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Ginkgo Bioworks securities during
the relevant period, you may be entitled to compensation without
payment of any out-of-pocket fees.
HOW TO PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: For additional information
about the DNA lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone
at 212-616-4899 or click this link.
ABOUT KLEIN LAW FIRM
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. The
Klein Law Firm is a boutique litigation firm with experience in a
wide range of areas including securities law, corporate finance and
commercial litigation. Since 2011, our experienced attorneys have
achieved superior results for our clients with a personalized
focus. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Class Action Over Android Lockbox Program
-----------------------------------------------------------
Erin Shaak, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that Google has
unlawfully collected Android users' personal data through an
"internal secret program" known as "Android Lockbox" without first
obtaining consent to do so, a proposed class action alleges.
According to the 40-page case, Google has surreptitiously tracked
Android smartphone users' use of third-party apps in order to build
a "wealth of highly personal information about consumers." This
information is then used by Google to pursue the tech giant's
business interests and gain a competitive advantage over the likes
of TikTok, Facebook and Instagram, the lawsuit alleges.
The case claims that although Google purports to obtain consumers'
permission to collect their information during the Android setup
process by informing them that their data will be used to "offer a
more personalized experience," this statement falls short in
sufficiently describing the extent of Google's actual data
collection practices. Per the lawsuit, Android users are unaware of
and have never consented to the defendant's use of the Android
Lockbox program to "spy on Android Smartphone users" by monitoring
and collecting information about their interactions with
third-party apps.
"Without obtaining meaningful consent, Google has chosen to
secretively obtain Android Smartphone users' sensitive personal
data and exploit this information for its own personal benefit,"
the complaint scathes.
The lawsuit centers on a congressional inquiry in which the
Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law of
the Committee on the Judiciary found that Google had used its
Android Lockbox program, described as "a covert effort to track
real-time data on the usage and engagement of third party apps," to
gain competitor insight by tracking which apps were used by Android
users and for how long. For instance, Google can find out when an
Android user is sick by tracking their use of telemedicine apps,
the case explains.
"Google can learn details of a user's sleep schedule, menstrual
cycle, or exercise routine based on when and how often they
interact with an alarm clock app, fertility tracker, or fitness
app," the complaint reads. "Similarly, if a user interacts with a
dating app, Google knows whether the user is single."
According to the case, the Subcommittee found that Google had
obtained "near-perfect market intelligence" that it used to inform
its business decisions, including how to compete with rivals.
The case states that Google's collection of users' personal
information through its tracking of app usage was confirmed in a
July 2020 article published by The Information. According to the
lawsuit, Google insiders informed the publication that Android
users' sensitive personal data had been secretly used by the tech
giant to compete against TikTok by developing a rival video
platform known as "Shorts."
According to the filing, Android users are only "vaguely" informed
during their devices' setup process that Google will collect their
personal data to "offer a more personalized experience." This,
however, is not Google's true purpose in obtaining users' personal
data, the suit argues, claiming Google's use of the information to
obtain a competitive advantage is never actually disclosed to
users.
"This type of vague and ambiguous purported disclosure is
deceptively misleading and insufficient for Plaintiffs and Class
members to understand, let alone consent to what Google is actually
doing—spying on Android Smartphone users," the complaint
contests.
According to the suit, Android users would not have purchased or
would have paid less for their smartphones had they known Google
would secretly collect their personal data for its own business
purposes without their consent. [GN]
HORRY COUNTY, SC: Faces Another Class Action Over Road Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kaitlyn Luna, writing for WBTW, reports that another class-action
lawsuit has been filed against Horry County and some county
officials, claiming the county is illegally collecting road fees
and not offering to refund the money to Horry County citizens.
The lawsuit, filed Nov. 2, claims the road fee collection is
illegal because a similar "road maintenance fee" charged by
Greenville County was ruled unconstitutional by the South Carolina
Supreme Court in June. The lawsuit is against the county, council,
Administrator Steve Gosnell and Treasurer Angie Jones.
Currently, Horry County charges $50 per year per registered vehicle
in the county. After the Supreme Court ruling in Greenville County,
many counties across the state have "suspended these types of
fees," according to the suit. However, Horry County has not.
The lawsuit claims that because the county has not returned any of
the money to the citizens, it is "the epitome of bad government;
taking money illegally from citizens and after the South Carolina
Supreme Court informs them these fees are illegal, the government
actors still refuse to return the ill-gotten fees."
Previously, a similar lawsuit was filed in August, but it was later
dismissed. That lawsuit was also seeking refunds for "all
unlawfully charged road fees." [GN]
INSURANCE AUSTRALIA: Faces Suit Over COVID-19 Business Interruption
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Liam Walsh, writing for The Australian Financial Review, reports
that IAG is the target of a class action lawsuit about botched
pandemic wording for business interruption insurance, marking the
latest COVID-19 headache in the insurance industry.
Law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan said it would target
losses allegedly suffered by IAG shareholders, pointing to an $800
million drop in the insurer's market capitalisation following one
announcement about the policy wording problem and capital raising.
Sydney-based IAG, facing a barrage of other lawsuits, declined to
comment beyond saying it was aware of an announcement of
proceedings.
Insurers were caught out last year when COVID-19 hit because some
business insurance policies referred to exclusions covered by the
Quarantine Act of 1908, which was repealed and replaced in 2015 by
the Biosecurity Act.
The NSW Court of Appeal rejected a legal attempt by insurers to
argue that the mistaken reference to an expired act did not change
the clear intention of the policy to exclude pandemics. The High
Court then refused to grant insurers special leave to appeal.
On Nov. 29, Quinn Emanuel partner Damian Scattini told The
Australian Financial Review that his firm planned to lodge a class
action in the Victorian Supreme Court by this year's end.
$865m provision for potential claims
Sydney-based IAG had in July last year tucked away a $100 million
provision for potential COVID-19 claims, which included hits from
potential business interruption, landlords' and other insurance
classes.
Then in November, after losing the NSW Court of Appeal case about
Quarantine Act wording on business interruption insurance, it
ramped up that provision to $865 million "to reflect the potential
impact" of the judgment. It also raised $750 million in capital.
Some analysts think the latest provision is very conservative.
Quinn Emanuel is alleging that IAG both failed to update the
wording of its policies and then did "not adequately inform the
market about the potential consequences of this blunder".
Mr Scattini argued IAG had for years sold policies with "a useless
exclusion". "When the pandemic hit, instead of admitting its error,
IAG doubled down, misleading the market about its true exposure,"
he said.
Other cases are under way about different clauses in business
insurance, to see if companies can make claims under policies.
Business interruption claims denied
Other class action lawsuits are afoot; IAG is currently facing
action from Slater and Gordon relating to payouts with business
interruption insurance. Fellow Sydney-based insurer QBE was also
hit earlier this year with an Australian Federal Court class action
lawsuit about business interruption insurance, as have underwriters
at Lloyd's of London.
Those claims related to businesses from gyms to cafes and jewellery
merchants which have had COVID-19 related business interruption
claims denied.
Other litigation concerns include the Australian Securities and
Investments Commission suing IAG this year over allegations it
failed to pass on discounts on insurance, and the administrator for
Greensill Bank filing action against the insurer too.
Class action lawyers in April 2019 took action against IAG over
problems with add-on insurance products sold through motor vehicle
and motorcycle dealers, and settled in October 2020 paying gross
proceeds of $138 million.
The costs from that lawsuit, the failure to pass on some discounts
and the error with policy wording were among issues that led to
IAG's board heavily criticising management for "organisational and
risk management failures". [GN]
JAGUAR LAND: Infotainment Class Action Partly Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that Jaguar
infotainment problems caused a class action lawsuit that has now
been partly dismissed, as Jaguar Land Rover owners continue to
claim the infotainment systems are dangerously defective.
The InControl Touch Pro and InControl Touch Pro Duo infotainment
systems allow drivers to control the radio, hands-free calling,
navigation, backup camera and heating and cooling systems.
The only alleged differences between the InControl Touch Pro and
InControl Touch Pro Duo are different screen sizes and different
icons and fonts displayed on the screens.
Included in the infotainment class action lawsuit are these Jaguar
Land Rover models.
2018-2020 Land Rover Range Rover
2018-2020 Land Rover Range Rover Sport
2018-2020 Land Rover Range Rover Velar
2018-2021 Land Rover Range Rover Evoque
2018-2020 Land Rover Discovery
2018-2020 Land Rover Discovery Sport
2018-2020 Jaguar E-Pace
2018-2020 Jaguar F-Pace
2018-2020 Jaguar I-Pace
2018-2020 Jaguar F-Type
2018-2020 Jaguar XE
2018-2020 Jaguar XF
2018-2020 Jaguar XJ
The Jaguar Land Rover class action lawsuit alleges the infotainment
systems won't respond to user commands, won't start and they have
blank display screens.
Alleged audio and video errors cause distracted drivers, and
occupant safety is at risk when the backup cameras, heating and
cooling systems and hands-free calling systems fail or freeze.
Jaguar Land Rover also allegedly has not found a solution to the
problems and either "replaces [the] defective [vehicle] parts with
equally defective parts" or advises vehicle owners to wait for
forthcoming "software updates" to fix the problems.
Motion to Dismiss Infotainment Class Action Lawsuit
Plaintiffs Blake George, Joyce Ferfecki, Miguel Ortiz, and Stuart
Jolly and Laszlo Vas saw multiple claims dismissed in part and
granted in part by Judge William J. Martini.
Jaguar argues breach of warranty claims should be dismissed because
the alleged turbocharger defect, if it exists, is a "design" defect
not covered by warranties.
But Judge Martini ruled the fact the allegations could be construed
as design defects is not enough to defeat these claims at the
motion to dismiss stage of the case.
Four plaintiffs allege they brought their vehicles to dealerships
for service multiple times for InControl infotainment systems
problems which nonetheless allegedly continued after repair
attempts. According to the judge, express warranty claims can
continue for these plaintiffs.
However, the remaining plaintiff doesn't claim he brought his
vehicle to a dealer, causing the judge to dismiss his express
warranty claim.
Next, the judge ruled Jaguar infotainment problems are an alleged
safety risk, which allowed breach of implied warranty of
merchantability claims to continue.
Judge Martini did dismiss unjust enrichment claims against Jaguar
over the alleged infotainment problems because the plaintiffs
didn't purchase their vehicles directly from the automaker.
Jaguar Land Rover Motion to Dismiss: Granted
By the end, the judge granted Jaguar's motion to dismiss these
claims:
-- Breach of express warranty as to plaintiff George only
-- Breach of implied warranty as to plaintiff Vas only
-- Unjust enrichment (All plaintiffs)
-- Breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (All
plaintiffs)
-- Violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA)
The above claims are dismissed without prejudice, except for unjust
enrichment and violation of the MCPA which are dismissed with
prejudice.
Jaguar Land Rover Motion to Dismiss: Denied
However, the judge denied Jaguar's motion to dismiss these claims:
Breach of express warranty as to plaintiffs Ferfecki, Ortiz, Jolly,
and Vas
Breach of implied warranty of merchantability as to plaintiffs
George, Ferfecki, Ortiz, and Jolly
Violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
Violations of state consumer protection laws
The Jaguar Land Rover infotainment system lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey: George, et al.,
v. Jaguar Land Rover North America LLC.
The plaintiff is represented by Bursor & Fisher, P.A., and Barbat
Mansour Suciu & Tomina PLLC. [GN]
LIGHTSPEED COMMERCE: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Jan. 18 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion no later than January 18, 2022 in a securities class action
lawsuit that has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
acquired the securities of Lightspeed Commerce Inc. ("Lightspeed")
(NYSE : LSPD) between September 11, 2020 and September 28, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the New York Eastern District Court and
alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 and §§ 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
If you purchased Lightspeed Commerce Inc. securities, and/or would
like to discuss your legal rights and options, please visit
Lightspeed Commerce Inc.Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit mailto: or
contact Joe Seidman toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
seidman@bernlieb.com.
On or about September 11, 2020, Lightspeed conducted its IPO,
offering 10,896,196 Subordinate Voting Shares to the public at a
price of $ 30.50 per share for anticipated proceeds of
approximately $332,300,000.
According to the complaint, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and failed to disclose that (i) Lightspeed had
misrepresented the strength of its business by, inter alia,
overstating its customer count, gross transaction volume (GTV), and
increase in Average Revenue Per User (ARPU), while concealing the
Company's declining organic growth and business deterioration; (ii)
Lightspeed had overstated the benefits and value of the Company's
various acquisitions; (iii) accordingly, the Company had overstated
its financial position and prospects.
On September 29, 2021, market analyst Spruce Point Capital
Management published a report regarding Lightspeed. Spruce Point
also issued a press release summarizing its findings. The summary
stated, among other things, that [e]vidence shows that Lightspeed
massively inflated its business pre-IPO, overstating its customer
count by 85% and gross transaction volume (GTV) by 10% a payment
volume metric that a former employee described as smoke and
mirrors; that there was [e]vidence of declining organic growth and
business deterioration through Lightspeeds IPO, despite managements
claims that Average Revenue Per User (ARPU) is increasing; and that
the Company's [r]ecent acquisition spree has come at escalating
costs with no clear path to profitability, while management pursues
aggressive revenue reporting practices.
On this news, Lightspeeds stock price fell $13.73 per share, or
12.2%, to close at $98.77 per share on September 29, 2021.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 18, 2022. 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 Lightspeed Commerce Inc. securities, and/or would
like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/lightspeedcommerceinc-lspd-shareholder-lawsuit-class-action-fraud-stock-456/
or contact Joe Seidman toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
seidman@bernlieb.com.
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
Contact Information:
Joe Seidman
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
seidman@bernlieb.com [GN]
LIPPERT COMPONENTS: Appeals Ruling in Sheets Liability Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Lippert Components, Inc. filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled KRISTIE SHEETS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
LIPPERT COMPONENTS, INC., A Delaware Corporation; FOREST RIVER,
INC., an Indiana Corporation; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-01683-KJM-JDP, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California, Sacramento.
According to the complaint, on June 29, 2017, Plaintiff Kristie
Sheets purchased a new 2018 Forest River Surveyor 27 towable
recreational vehicle from DeMartini RV Sales in Grass 28 Valley,
California. At the time of purchase, Sheets and DeMartini RV Sales
signed the Retail Sales Installment Contract containing an
arbitration 2 clause. Approximately two years after purchasing the
vehicle, plaintiff was driving when an odd smell began to emanate
from her car. By the time she arrived at her destination, she
discovered the "shackle1 had broken off the frame." She contacted
both defendants "on three to four occasions to complain" of the
defect and request compensation for her car's lost value. The
Defendants repeatedly denied the existence of the 31 defect and
informed her there was no warranty for her damages, says the suit.
On July 10, 2020, Sheets filed a putative class action in Nevada
County Superior Court against DeMartini RV Sales, Lippert
Components and Forest River alleging violations of the California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the California's Unfair Competition
Law. In addition, Sheets alleged a breach of implied warranty of
merchantability against DeMartini RV Sales only.
On August 21, 2020, Lippert Components removed the action to this
court. Forest River and DeMartini RV Sales joined the removal on
September 1, 2020.
On September 25, 2020, Sheets filed the operative complaint and
voluntarily dismissed all claims and causes of action against
DeMartini RV Sales without prejudice.
On October 9, 2020, the Defendants filed a MOTION to COMPEL
Arbitration or, in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6) and and to Eliminate Nationwide Class.
On October 25, 2021, Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller
entered an order denying Defendants' motion to compel arbitration
and granting the motion to dismiss. The court granted Plaintiff
leave to amend her CLRA and UCL claims, and include her class
allegations in any amendment.
The Defendant seeks a review of this order.
The appellate case is captioned as Lippert Components, Inc., et al.
v. Kristie Sheets, Case No. 21-16973, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 24, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Lippert Components, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire
was due on December 1, 2021;
-- Appellant Lippert Components, Inc. opening brief is due on
January 18, 2022;
-- Appellee Kristie Sheets answering brief is due on February
17, 2022; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Defendant-Appellant LIPPERT COMPONENTS, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, is represented by:
Eric S. Fisher, Esq.
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
3475 Piedmont Road, N.E., Suite 1700
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 264-4045
E-mail: efisher@btlaw.com
- and -
John Robert Maley, Esq.
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
11 S. Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 231-7464
- and -
Joseph Wahl, Esq.
BARNES & THORNBURG, LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (424) 239-3741
Plaintiff-Appellee KRISTIE SHEETS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
KALIELGOLD, PLLC
950 Gilman Street, Suite 200
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
E-mail: sgold@kalielpllc.com
- and -
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
KALIELGOLD, PLLC
1100 15th Street NW 4th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 615-3948
E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
- and -
David Christopher Wright, Esq.
McCUNE & WRIGHT, LLP
2068 Orange Tree Lane
Redlands, CA 92374
Telephone: (909) 557-1250
E-mail: dcw@mccunewright.com
LIPPERT COMPONENTS: Forest Appeals Ruling in Sheets Liability Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant FOREST RIVER, INC. filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled KRISTIE SHEETS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIPPERT
COMPONENTS, INC., A Delaware Corporation; FOREST RIVER, INC., an
Indiana Corporation; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-01683-KJM-JDP, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California, Sacramento.
According to the complaint, on June 29, 2017, Plaintiff Kristie
Sheets purchased a new 2018 Forest River Surveyor 27 towable
recreational vehicle from DeMartini RV Sales in Grass 28 Valley,
California. At the time of purchase, Sheets and DeMartini RV Sales
signed the Retail Sales Installment Contract containing an
arbitration 2 clause. Approximately two years after purchasing the
vehicle, plaintiff was driving when an odd smell began to emanate
from her car. By the time she arrived at her destination, she
discovered the "shackle1 had broken off the frame." She contacted
both defendants "on three to four occasions to complain" of the
defect and request compensation for her car's lost value. The
Defendants repeatedly denied the existence of the defect and
informed her there was no warranty for her damages, says the suit.
On July 10, 2020, Sheets filed a putative class action in Nevada
County Superior Court against DeMartini RV Sales, Lippert
Components and Forest River alleging violations of the California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the California's Unfair Competition
Law. In addition, Sheets alleged a breach of implied warranty of
merchantability against DeMartini RV Sales only.
On August 21, 2020, Lippert Components removed the action to this
court. Forest River and DeMartini RV Sales joined the removal on
September 1, 2020.
On September 25, 2020, Sheets filed the operative complaint and
voluntarily dismissed all claims and causes of action against
DeMartini RV Sales without prejudice.
On October 9, 2020, the Defendants filed a MOTION to COMPEL
Arbitration or, in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6) and and to Eliminate Nationwide Class.
On October 25, 2021, Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller
entered an order denying Defendants' motion to compel arbitration
and granting the motion to dismiss. The court granted Plaintiff
leave to amend her CLRA and UCL claims, and include her class
allegations in any amendment.
The Defendant seeks a review of this order.
The appellate case is captioned as Forest River, Inc., et al. v.
Kristie Sheets, Case No. 21-16974, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 24, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Forest River, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire was due
December 1, 2021;
-- Appellant Forest River, Inc. opening brief is due on January
21, 2022;
-- Appellee Kristie Sheets answering brief is due on February
22, 2022; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Defendant-Appellant FOREST RIVER, INC., an Indiana Corporation, is
represented by:
Lawrence Michael Cirelli, Esq.
Adam W. Hofmann, Esq.
HANSON BRIDGETT, LLP
425 Market Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 777-3200
E-mail: lcirelli@hansonbridgett.com
Plaintiff-Appellee KRISTIE SHEETS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
KALIELGOLD, PLLC
950 Gilman Street, Suite 200
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
E-mail: sgold@kalielpllc.com
- and -
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
KALIELGOLD, PLLC
1100 15th Street NW 4th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 615-3948
E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
- and -
David Christopher Wright, Esq.
McCUNE & WRIGHT, LLP
2068 Orange Tree Lane
Redlands, CA 92374
Telephone: (909) 557-1250
E-mail: dcw@mccunewright.com
LOS ANGELES, CA: Attorneys to Plead Guilty in DWP Kickback Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dakota Smith and Julia Wick, writing for Los Angeles Times, report
that an attorney hired by City Atty. Mike Feuer's office has agreed
to plead guilty in a scheme involving a $2.2-million kickback and
bribes to the top executive at the Los Angeles Department of Water
and Power in exchange for a lucrative contract, prosecutors said
Nov. 29.
Paul Paradis, 58, of Scottsdale, Ariz., agreed to plead guilty to
one count of bribery and is cooperating with the ongoing federal
criminal investigation, prosecutors said.
In a 46-page plea agreement, prosecutors laid out how Paradis took
part in a plan to settle a high-profile lawsuit brought against the
DWP on terms that were favorable to the city and himself.
He simultaneously represented the DWP and a DWP customer who was
the lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit against the city,
prosecutors said. He also went on to receive a $30 million contract
at the utility.
David Scheper, Paradis' attorney, said that "out of respect for the
ongoing investigation we have no comment."
Feuer, who is running for mayor, is likely to face renewed
questions about his oversight of the city attorney's office
following the announcement of the plea agreement.
At the same time, there is likely to be fresh scrutiny of the DWP's
oversight. Both a former general manager and a board member, who
are unnamed in the plea agreement, are accused of scheming to
accept bribes from Paradis that included promises of a
million-dollar salary and a luxury company car.
Paradis was first hired by Feuer's office to represent the city in
litigation stemming from the 2013 billing disaster at the DWP. The
city launched new billing software that overcharged hundreds of
thousands of customers, prompting several lawsuits against the
utility.
As part of the plan, Paradis asked an Ohio attorney he knew to
"play the role of the attorney" representing the lead plaintiff in
the class-action lawsuit, according to the plea agreement.
In reality, that lead plaintiff -- Van Nuys customer Antwon Jones
-- thought that Paradis was his attorney. Months earlier, Jones had
retained Paradis, hoping to sue over his faulty DWP bill, but
Paradis never informed Jones that he was working for the city,
according to court documents.
According to the plea agreement, Paradis told the Ohio attorney
that "defendant Paradis would do all or most of the work in the
case, and that in exchange, defendant Paradis wanted twenty percent
of Ohio Attorney's fees as a kickback."
The Jones vs. City settlement, which Paradis helped craft, gave the
Ohio attorney who represented DWP customers $10.1 million in
attorney fees.
Paradis ultimately collected a $2.175-million kickback from the
Ohio attorney, according to the plea agreement. The money was
transferred through a "shell company" that Paradis created to
"transfer and conceal the illegal kickback payment."
The plea agreement also says that the plan to quickly settle the
lawsuit brought against the city was known inside Feuer's office.
"At least one member of the City Attorney's Office" attended a
meeting where Paradis and another attorney were "directed and
authorized to find outside counsel that would be friendly to the
city and its litigation goals," prosecutors said.
Rob Wilcox, a spokesman for the city attorney's office, told The
Times that "if that allegation is true, that conduct would be
utterly inconsistent with the standards" of Feuer's office.
"I am beyond outraged that anyone would breach their duties to the
public we serve, as this plea agreement reflects," Feuer said. "As
public servants, integrity must be our watchword, our guiding
principle. At the end of the day, that's all we have. We can have
no tolerance for betraying the public trust."
The plea agreement lays out how Paradis managed to use his leverage
at both the city attorney's office and the DWP.
Paradis created a new company called Aventador Utility Solutions
LLC to contract on future work for the agency with "the knowledge
and authorization" of DWP's general manager and others at DWP,
prosecutors said.
Times Investigation: After overcharging fiasco, DWP's lawyer
accused of double-dealing
Paradis met privately with the general manager at a Riverside hotel
on or around Feb. 10, 2017, to discuss "ways that DWP General
Manager could benefit financially from Aventador" and the fact that
they intended for Aventador "to secure a lucrative no-bid contract
with LADWP," according to the plea agreement.
It was decided that the general manager would work to ensure that
the agency's board awarded a contract to Aventador in exchange for
a number of benefits, according to the plea agreement.
The two men agreed that the general manager upon retiring from the
DWP would join Aventador as the company's CEO, receiving an annual
salary of about $1 million and a new Mercedes SL 550 as his company
car, according to the plea agreement.
The DWP's general manager in 2017 was David Wright. Neither Wright
nor his attorney responded to a request for comment on Nov. 29.
Wright was removed from his job after the FBI raided the DWP and
city attorney's office in July 2019.
The raid occurred months after consulting firm
PricewaterhouseCoopers, which was fighting the city in court over
the DWP billing debacle, first raised concerns about Paradis' role
and the DWP contract.
The plea agreement alleges that Paradis was actually "ghostwriting"
most of the periodic reports that a court-appointed independent
monitor was submitting to the Los Angeles Superior Court judge
overseeing the Jones vs. City lawsuit.
Paradis "drafted nearly all" of the independent monitor's reports
with "the knowledge and approval of multiple LADWP officials and
employees," according to the plea agreement. Paradis also treated
the independent monitor to meals, drinks and attendance at sporting
events "on multiple occasions," according to the plea agreement.
On or around early May 2017, Paradis drafted another court report
for the independent monitor, according to the plea agreement. The
primary goal for this ghostwritten report was to provide the
general manager with support for the DWP board's upcoming vote on
awarding Aventador with a $30-million no-bid contract, according to
the plea agreement.
During his presentation to the DWP board immediately before their
vote on June 6, 2017, the general manager cited an independent
monitor report drafted by Paradis, telling the board that the
agency would be unable to meet its obligations under the Jones vs.
City settlement unless it contracted with Aventador, according to
the plea agreement.
The general manager did not disclose his arrangement to lead
Aventador after retiring from the DWP, nor did he disclose the
promised $1-million annual salary and Mercedes to the board,
according to the plea agreement. The board voted unanimously to
award Aventador a three-year, $30-million no-bid contract after the
general manager's presentation.
One member of DWP's board solicited unpaid legal services and
assistance from Paradis ahead of the vote before ultimately
supporting the contract, according to the plea agreement.
That DWP board member began communicating with Paradis about an
unrelated legal matter about one week before the vote, soliciting
information "about the judge handling the matter and various
pleadings and legal documents to use in his lawsuit," according to
the plea agreement.
Times investigation: Before the double-dealing allegations, there
were red flags over $30-million DWP contract
Paradis provided some of the requested information and agreed to
provide additional requested materials in a bid to "gain favor with
LADWP Board Member so he would support the contract," according to
the plea agreement.
According to the plea agreement, that board member encountered
Paradis in the hallway at DWP shortly before he entered the board
meeting room ahead of the vote on June 6, 2017.
The board member expressed appreciation for Paradis' help on the
unrelated legal matter and said words to the effect of, "You take
care of me, I take care of you," according to the plea agreement.
Paradis understood this to mean that the board member would vote in
favor of the $30-million no-bid contract if he continued to provide
the board member with "unpaid legal services and assistance"
according to the plea agreement.
Paradis and his law partner continued to perform legal work for the
board member until early August 2017; collectively they performed
approximately 36 hours of legal work, which Paradis valued at over
$30,000 based on their respective billing rates, according to the
plea agreement. [GN]
MCMC AUTO: Leslie Sues Over Failure to Refund Unearned Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Edward Leslie, on of behalf himself on and all others similarly
situated v. MCMC AUTO LTD. MIKE d/b/a CARLSON MOTOR COMPANY, Case
No. DC-21-16971 (D. Tex., Dallas Cty., Nov. 18, 2021), arises from
the Defendant's practice of collecting and failing to refund
unearned fees from Guaranteed Asset Protection Waivers in breach of
its contracts with consumers.
Under the terms of its contracts with consumers, MCMC is required
to refund to consumers all unearned fees for GAP Waivers when
consumers pay off their automobile finance agreements early. In
breach of that promise, and in contravention of state statute,
MCMC, as a matter of policy, fails to refund consumers of unearned
fees when finance agreements terminate early. As a result of this
practice, MCMC knowingly collects and retains millions of dollars
per year in unearned fees from automobile purchasers.
MCMC's policy and practice of retaining these unearned fees related
to GAP Waivers when the underlying automobile loan is paid off
early constitutes a breach of contract and an unfair business
practice in Violation of state consumer protection law. The
Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class, seeks to end MCMC's
practices and force it to refund unearned GAP fees. The Plaintiff
seeks damages, restitution, and injunctive relief on behalf of the
general public, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased his vehicle and GAP Waiver from a
dealership owned and operated by the Defendant.
MCMC offers financing on vehicle loans and GAP coverage
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: 305-479-2299
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
KALIEL GOLD PLLC
1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 350-4783
Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
sgold@kalielgold.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Phone: 305-975-3320
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
META PLATFORMS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of December 27 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Meta Platforms, Inc. f/k/a
Facebook, Inc. (NASDAQ: FB) ("Facebook") between November 3, 2016
and October 4, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period") of the
important December 27, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline in the
securities class action first filed by the firm.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Facebook 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 Facebook class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2176.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 December 27, 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. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. 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) Facebook misrepresented its
user growth; (2) Facebook knew, or should have known, that
duplicate accounts represented a greater portion of its growth than
stated, and it should have provided more detailed disclosures as to
the implication of duplicate accounts to Facebook's user base and
growth; (3) Facebook did not provide a fair platform for speech,
and regularly protected high profile users via its Cross
Check/XCheck system; (4) despite being aware of their use of
Facebook's platforms, the Company failed to respond meaningfully to
drug cartels, human traffickers, and violent organizations; (5)
Facebook has been working to attract preteens to its platform and
services; and (6) as a result, defendants' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
To join the Facebook class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2176.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]
MITSUI OSK: Appeal Tribunal to Hear Motorists' Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Neville, writing for Independent, reports that motorists who
bought a new car between 2005 and 2015 will find out whether they
should be able to automatically receive a payout from five of the
world's biggest shipping companies in a £150 million legal case.
A three-day hearing at the Competition Appeal Tribunal in London
was set to begin on Monday, Nov. 29, to decide whether a collective
proceedings order (CPO) can be launched on behalf of UK consumers
and businesses, which would see payouts on about 17 million
vehicles.
Mark McLaren, formerly of consumer group Which? will argue that the
class action suit should proceed, which means anyone who bought an
affected car will be automatically entitled to compensation.
The companies are accused of setting up cartels to inflate charges
for shipping during nine years.
If found in breach of competition laws, they could have to pay out
£150 million to thousands of car buyers.
Bosses have already admitted to officials at the European
Commission that the cartels existed, leading to a fine of nearly
400 million euros (GBP340 million), but now they face payouts to
motorists in the UK.
Mark McLaren, who is bringing the group action on behalf of
consumers and businesses, explained: "This hearing is a significant
milestone in our case that will decide whether UK consumers and
businesses affected by the shipping cartels can access justice and
receive compensation.
"I have spent much of my career working in consumer protection and
I strongly believe that compensation should be paid when consumers
are harmed by such deliberate, unlawful conduct."
The five companies are MOL, "K" Line NYK, WWL/EUKOR and CSAV.
If successful, motorists could be due a refund of around £60 per
vehicle leased or bought, and it affects 80% of all new car and van
sales in the UK.
Law firm Scott+Scott UK has been instructed with funding from
Woodsford Litigation Funding, a leading litigation funder.
Investigations and hearings over the cartels have already taken
place in Australia China Japan, the US, Brazil and South Africa,
among others - with fines handed out in excess of 755 million
dollars (£591 million).
Customers affected include those who bought from Ford, Vauxhall,
Volkswagen, Peugeot, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, Toyota, Citroen
and Renault between October 2006 and September 2015. [GN]
NAVY FEDERAL: Morrow Appeals Breach of Contract Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Siobhan Morrow, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled SIOBHAN MORROW and TRACEE LE
FLORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-00722, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia at Alexandria.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 22, 2021, the
lawsuit is a class action against the Defendant for breach of
contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing.
According to the complaint, the Defendant breached its contractual
promises with the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated
accountholders by charging foreign transaction (FT) fees on online
purchases made in the U.S. The Defendant's account documents
indicate that FT Fees will only be assessed when an accountholder
uses his or her debit card in a foreign county. The Plaintiffs and
other accountholders have been injured by these practices, the suit
alleges.
On August 27, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim.
On October 27, 2021, District Judge Liam O'Grady entered an order
granting Defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice.
The Plaintiffs seek a review of the dismissal order.
The appellate case is captioned as Siobhan Morrow v. Navy Federal
Credit Union, Case No. 21-2323, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on November 29, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants SIOBHAN MORROW, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated; and TRACEE LE FLORE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:
Sophia Gold, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
1100 15th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
E-mail: sgold@kalielpllc.com
- and -
Heather Whitaker Goldstein, Esq.
David Matthew Wilkerson, Esq.
VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
11 North Market Street
P. O. Box 7376
Asheville, NC 28802
Telephone: (828) 258-2991
E-mail: hgoldstein@vwlawfirm.com
dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com
- and -
Jae Kook Kim, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH LLP
117 East Colorado Boulevard
Pasadena, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 762-1910
- and -
Jonathan Marc Streisfeld, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA
1 West Las Olas Boulevard
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
E-mail: streisfeld@kolawyers.com
Defendant-Appellee NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION is represented by:
Simona Agnolucci, Esq.
Nicholas Reddick, Esq.
WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP
1 Front Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 858-7400
E-mail: sagnolucci@willkie.com
nreddick@willkie.com
- and -
Michael Julian Gottlieb, Esq.
Meryl Conant Governski, Esq.
Mark Thomas Stancil, Esq.
WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP
1875 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1238
Telephone: (202) 303-1442
E-mail: mgottlieb@willkie.com
mgovernski@willkie.com
mstancil@willkie.com
NET RETAILERS: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Net Retailers, Inc.
The case is styled as Robert Weekes, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Net Retailers, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-10214 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 1, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Net Retailers -- https://netretailers.net/ -- is an eCommerce
company that sells finest quality home furniture and Decor on
sites: LuxeDecor.com, PatioLiving.com and TopModern.com.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
NEW YORK, NY: Issues Emergency Exec. Order 304 Amid Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio on Nov. 29 issued Emergency
Executive Order 304 stating" WHEREAS, on September 2, 2021, the
federal monitor in the Nunez use-of-force class action stated steps
must be taken immediately to address the conditions in the New York
City jails; and
WHEREAS, excessive staff absenteeism among correction officers and
supervising officers has contributed to a rise in unrest and
disorder, and creates a serious risk to the necessary maintenance
and delivery of sanitary conditions; access to basic services
including showers, meals, visitation, religious services,
commissary, and recreation; and prompt processing at intake; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Correction's (DOC's) staffing shortages
are affecting health operations, including the availability of
escorts to bring patients to the clinic and of DOC personnel to
staff the clinics; and
WHEREAS, this Order is given to address the effects of excessive
staff absenteeism and in order to address the conditions at DOC
facilities; and
WHEREAS, on September 15, 2021, I issued Emergency Executive Order
No. 241 and declared a state of emergency to exist within the
correction facilities operated by the DOC, and such declaration
remains in effect;
NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the powers vested in me by the laws of
the State of New York and the City of New York, including but not
limited to the New York Executive Law, the New York City Charter
and the Administrative Code of the City of New York, and the common
law authority to protect the public in the event of an emergency:
Section 1. I hereby direct that subdivisions b and c of section
9-116 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York be
suspended to the extent necessary to allow the Commissioner of
Correction to establish additional or alternative tours for
custodial officers, including 12-hour tours that may commence at
any point during a 24-hour period, to revise platoon classification
to accommodate such alternative tours, and to take any other
measures necessary to address the current staffing shortage.
Sec. 2. This Order shall take effect immediately." [GN]
NISSAN MOTOR: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Side Curtain Airbags
------------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Nissan
class action lawsuit alleges the side curtain airbags and seat belt
pretensioners suddenly deploy without any impacts to the vehicles.
The class action lawsuit includes all consumers who owned or leased
2015-2019 Nissan and Infiniti vehicles from 2015 until the
present.
Utah plaintiff Leroy Martinez says he purchased a 2016 Nissan
Frontier in 2016, but in October 2019 he was driving the truck when
the side curtain airbag suddenly deployed without warning.
The class action lawsuit alleges a defective computer algorithm
causes the "airbag to improperly deploy even though there is no
justifiable risk to driver safety."
The plaintiff says he paid thousands of dollars to replace the
airbags, a cost Nissan allegedly refused to reimburse.
The Nissan class action alleges design defects cause the problems
in all 2015-2019 Nissan and Infiniti vehicles, making driving
dangerous to safety even without crash impacts.
Nissan and Infiniti drivers can become extremely distracted when
the side curtain airbags and seat belt pretensioner igniters deploy
without warning. Drivers can allegedly lose control of their
vehicles, suffering injuries to themselves and others.
The Nissan lawsuit also alleges the deployed airbags and seat belt
pretensioners make driving too dangerous until repairs are
performed at a huge cost. Additionally, deployed side curtain
airbags emit smoke which can choke occupants and block drivers from
seeing properly.
According to the Nissan class action lawsuit, the alleged defects
diminish the values of the vehicles and deprive customers of the
benefits of the values paid.
Nissan further allegedly refuses to warn customers about the
defective seat belt pretensioners and side curtain airbags and
refuses to compensate owners for damages.
The Nissan class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Utah, Central Division: Leroy Martinez,
v. Nissan North America, Inc.
The plaintiff is represented by Steele Adams Hosman, and the Law
Office of Robert Starr. [GN]
NOVAVAX INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of January 11 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Nov. 29 disclosed that
a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed against
Novavax, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland on behalf of those who purchased Novavax common stock
between March 2, 2021 and October 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
All investors who purchased shares of Novavax, Inc. and incurred
losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.
If you have incurred losses in the shares of Novavax, Inc., you
may, no later than January 11, 2022, request that the Court appoint
you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf
Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in
Novavax, Inc.
The filed Complaint alleges that Defendants misrepresented the
Company's progress toward successfully developing its COVID-19
vaccine (NVX-CoV2373), including:
-- overstating the Company's manufacturing capabilities and
downplaying manufacturing issues that would impact the approval
timeline for NVX-CoV2373;
-- concealing that the Company was unlikely to meet its
anticipated EUA regulatory timelines;
-- exaggerating the regulatory and commercial prospects for
NVX-CoV2373.
On August 5, 2021, the Company reported that it expected to file
for NVX-CoV2373's EUA in the fourth quarter of 2021, rather than
the third quarter of 2021. On this news, the Company's stock price
fell by more than 19%.
Then, on October 19, 2021, Politico published an article entitled
"'They rushed the process': Vaccine maker's woes hamper global
inoculation campaign." The Politico article reported that the
Company "faces significant hurdles in proving it can manufacture a
shot that meets regulators' quality standards" with respect to
NVX-CoV2373. The Politico article cited anonymous sources as
stating that the Company's "issues are more concerning than
previously understood" and that the Company could take until the
end of 2022 to resolve its manufacturing issues and win regulatory
authorizations and approvals.
On this news, the Company's stock price fell another 14.7%.
Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at
(800) 575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com, or visit our
website at www.whafh.com.
Contact:
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Patrick Donovan, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com, donovan@whafh.com or classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774
URL: http://whafh.com[GN]
NUIX LTD: Faces Second Shareholder Class Action in Australia
------------------------------------------------------------
Business News Australia reports that data analytics and
intelligence software company Nuix (ASX: NXL) is staring down its
second class action in relation to its spectacular fall from grace
after a December 2020 initial public offering (IPO), as shares
continue to trade at less than half their $5.31 listing price.
After Shine Lawyers launched a class action against the company
alleging disclosure obligation breaches with inadequate revenue
guidance and misleading sales forecasts, Nuix has revealed it has
become aware of a second class action claim filed against it in the
Supreme Court of Victoria on 23 November.
"While the claim has not been served on Nuix and there has not been
any contact from the plaintiff or his lawyers, the second claim has
been commenced by Phi Finney McDonald on behalf of Daniel Joseph
Batchelor and persons who acquired interests in Nuix shares by
subscription in its IPO or in the period between 4 December 2020
and 29 June 2021," Nuix said in a statement to the ASX this
morning.
"The claim relates to information contained in Nuix's Prospectus
and Nuix's disclosure concerning forecast FY21 revenue and alleges
that Nuix contravened provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001
(Cth).
"The claim covers similar subject matter to the claim filed by
Shine Lawyers which was announced on 22 November 2021 and does not
identify the amount of any damages sought."
Nuix adds Batchelor's claim has also been commenced against
Macquarie Capital (Australia) Limited and Macquarie Group Limited
as co-defendants.
"Nuix disputes the allegations and will be defending the claim in
the event it is served," the group says.
Business News Australia has reached out to Phi Finney McDonald for
comment but at the time of writing is yet to receive a response.
The law firm had earlier announced it was investigating whether:
-- the Prospectus contained materially misleading statements or
omissions;
-- Following its IPO, Nuix engaged in misleading or deceptive
conduct, and breached its continuous disclosure obligations;
Nuix's share price was inflated as a result of the alleged
contraventions, and whether shareholders suffered loss and damage
as a result.
Nuix is also the subject of multiple investigations from the
Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) regarding
potential contraventions of the Corporations Act in relation to its
disclosure obligations and prospectus, as well as allegations of
insider trading and dealing with the proceeds of crime.
ASIC is investigating whether former Nuix CFO Stephen Doyle engaged
in insider trading and profited with millions of dollars worth of
gains.
"We are genuinely disturbed by the allegations concerning Mr Doyle
and will fully assist ASIC in getting to the bottom of that
matter," Nuix chair Jeffrey Bleich said in an ASX announcement in
June.
The group also revealed its incoming CEO Jonathan Rubinsztein, who
resigned from Infomedia (ASX: IFM) in October, would take up his
appointment earlier than expected and would now start on 6 December
2021.
The leadership shuffle follows the announcement in June that
current chief executive officer Rod Vawdrey would depart, although
he committed to sticking around while an international search was
conducted and allowing for an orderly leadership transition.
It was confirmed that Vawdrey would cease in the role from early
December as he hands over formally to Rubinsztein.
"The Board would like to thank Rod for his strong leadership over
the last six years. Rod's passion for Nuix and his belief in the
vison of "finding truth in a digital world" has been a significant
factor in the Company's growth, the expansion of its customer base
and the increase in its geographic presence," Bleich said.
"We look forward to Jonathan starting earlier in the role and the
expertise he brings to lead Nuix into its next phase.
"He has a proven record of steering an ASX-listed entity through a
period of transformation and growth as well as a deep understanding
of the opportunities for the Company on the global stage." [GN]
ON24 INC: ClaimsFiler Reminds of January 3, 2022 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:
Eargo, Inc. (EAR)
Class Period: 10/15/2020 - 9/22/2021, or shares issued pursuant to
the October 2020 Initial Public Offering
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 6, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-ear/
ON24, Inc. (ONTF)
Class Period: purchase of shares issued either in or after the
February 2021 Initial Public Offering
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 3, 2022
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nyse-ontf/
Novavax, Inc. (NVAX)
Class Period: 3/2/2021 - 10/19/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 11, 2022
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-nvax/
Lightspeed Commerce, Inc. (LSPD)
Class Period: 9/11/2020 - 9/28/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 18, 2022
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nyse-lspd/
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
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit 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 ClaimsFiler
ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations.
To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit www.claimsfiler.com [GN]
OPPENHEIMER & CO: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Pare, writing for Chattanooga Times Free Press, reports that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against a global investment
firm that formerly employed John J. Woods, the Chattanooga Lookouts
investor accused of operating a Ponzi scheme.
The firm being sued, Oppenheimer & Co., is seeking to have the
action dismissed, saying there's no basis to hold it liable for
Woods' conduct in which he allegedly schemed to collect more than
$110 million from investors.
The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Atlanta by 6694
Dawson Blvd LLC, a Georgia company that said it made a $200,000
investment in Horizon Private Equity III. That's the fund federal
regulators allege held the investments that Woods took from more
than 400 investors.
The suit contended the scheme was "conceived, founded and operated"
by investment advisers in Oppenheimer & Co.'s Atlanta branch
office, 3414 Peachtree Road.
Woods, the Marietta, Georgia, man who was a minority owner in the
Lookouts minor league baseball team and in an array of other
Chattanooga ventures, was an investment adviser at Oppenheimer from
January 2003 through 2016, according to the suit.
In 2008, the suit said, Woods founded the fund and he began
marketing the unapproved security to Oppenheimer's customers and
the investing public.
"Woods made no effort to hide his scheme from Oppenheimer's
management -- going so far as to rent office space for his scheme
next door to Oppenheimer's branch office," said the suit filed by
Atlanta attorney Craig H. Kuglar.
According to the suit, from 2008 through 2016, Oppenheimer's
management actively aided Woods and two relatives, all of whom were
investment advisers in Oppenheimer's Atlanta office, in funneling
investor money into Horizon.
Also, the suit said that in December 2016, having full knowledge
Woods was operating a secret, illegal fund, Oppenheimer took steps
to conceal the Ponzi scheme from regulators and investing public.
The suit said Oppenheimer permitted Woods to quietly resign without
reporting the wrongdoing to regulators and the investing public as
required by law.
For nearly five more years, the suit said, the Ponzi scheme
continued raising money from unsuspecting investors through
Southport Capital, an investment firm headquartered in
Chattanooga.
But Oppenheimer said in its answer to the suit that Horizon has
never been affiliated with the company. Also, 6694 Dawson Blvd LLC
has never been a customer of Oppenheimer, the answer said.
In addition, Woods' employment at Oppenheimer ended in December
2016, years before the plaintiff's investment was made with Woods
in June 2019, according to the answer filed by attorneys Frank M.
Lowrey IV of Atlanta and J. Gordon Cooney Jr. of Philadelphia.
"Why would Oppenheimer partake in a criminal scheme to enrich a
long-gone former employee at the expense of an investor totally
unknown to Oppenheimer? It would not. Each claim fails," the answer
said.
Oppenheimer's attorneys said "there are no factual allegations
showing Oppenheimer participated in any enterprise with Woods or
others with the common purpose of effectuating a Ponzi scheme."
The lawsuit was brought Aug. 31 on behalf of a class composed of
all investors in the fund shortly after federal regulators named
Woods in the alleged scheme the same month.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission charged in a civil
action that Woods used the Ponzi scheme to defraud the investors.
The complaint said the scheme collected more than $110 million from
investors with promises of 6-7% rates of return.
But the federal regulators said the investments "are worth far too
little for there to be any realistic prospect that the Ponzi scheme
will be able to pay back existing investors their principal, let
alone the promised returns."
The SEC charged Woods and Southport Capital investment firm with
six counts of securities fraud.
Woods and Southport Capital have denied allegations of wrongdoing
made by federal regulators.
Woods' attorneys said earlier in court papers that he acted "in
honest and reasonable reliance on the advice and experience of
others, including legal professionals, as to matters within the
area of their expertise and experience."
Southport's attorneys said the company did not violate any
statutes, and it denied any liability related to investors in the
fund used in the alleged Ponzi scheme. [GN]
OWLET INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of January 18 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Owlet, Inc. ("Owlet" or the "Company") (NYSE:
OWLT) in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased
or otherwise acquired Owlet securities between March 13, 2021 and
October 4, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investors have until January 18, 2021 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
On July 15, 2021, Sandbridge combined with Owlet Baby Care Inc., a
company that designs and sells products and services for parents to
proactively monitor the health and wellness of their children, and
the combined company was renamed Owlet (the "Business
Combination").
On October 4, 2021, Owlet revealed that it had received a warning
letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"), which
stated that "the Company's marketing of its Owlet Smart Sock
product . . . renders [it] a medical device requiring premarket
clearance or approval from FDA." Owlet has not obtained such
clearance or approval. Moreover, the FDA "requests the Company
cease commercial distribution of the Smart Sock for uses in
measuring blood oxygen saturation and pulse rate where such metrics
are intended to identify or diagnose desaturation and bradycardia
using an alarm functionality to notify users that measurements are
outside of preset values."
On this news, Owlet's stock price fell $1.29, or 23%, to close at
$4.19 per share on October 4, 2021, on unusually heavy trading
volume. As a result, Sandbridge investors who could have voted
against the Business Combination and redeemed their shares at
$10.00 per share suffered a loss of $5.81 per share.
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 Owlet was reasonably likely to be required to
obtain marketing authorization for the Smart Sock because the FDA
concluded it was a medical device; (2) that, as a result, Owlet was
reasonably likely to cease commercial distribution of the Smart
Sock in the U.S. until it obtained the requisite approval; and (3)
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 Owlet shares and suffered a
loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to
learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Alexandra Raymond by
email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or
by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
PLAYTIKA HOLDING: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of January 24 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Playtika Holding Corp. (NASDAQ: PLTK): (1) pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering conducted
on or about January 15, 2021 (the "IPO" or "Offering"); and/or (2)
between January 15, 2021 and November 2, 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 January 24, 2022.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Playtika securities 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 Playtika class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2218.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 January 24, 2022.
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, the Offering
documents issued in connection with the Company's IPO 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, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company's year-over-year total costs and costs
related to sales & marketing and research & development were on
track to rise significantly by the third quarter of 2021; (2) the
success of the Company's game portfolio was less sustainable than
the Company had represented; (3) the foregoing issues were likely
to negatively impact the Company's revenue and earnings; and (4) as
a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the Playtika class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2218.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]
POINT QUEST: Hutt Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Point Quest, et al.
The case is styled as Annalycia Hutt, Dinnisha Pageguy, and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v.
Point Quest, Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2021-00311367-CU-OE-GDS (Cal.
Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 18, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Point Quest Education -- https://pointquested.com/ -- offers a
200-day program for special education students with challenging
cognitive, behavioral and emotional needs.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
410 Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: 818-265-1020
Fax: 818-265-1021
PRINTFUL INC: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Printful, Inc. The
case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Printful, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-10165 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Printful, Inc. -- https://www.printful.com/ -- design and sell
custom products online with print-on-demand drop shipping.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com
PROSPECT FARMS: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prospect Farms Hemp
Sales, LLC. The case is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Prospect Farms Hemp Sales, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-06617 (E.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 29, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Prospect Farms -- https://prospectfarms.com/ -- is a premium
seed-to-store wellness brand, offering all-natural and organically
grown CBD products for people and pets.[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
PUBLISHERS CLEARING: Green Files Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Publishers Clearing
House, Inc. The case is styled as Thomas Green, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Publishers Clearing
House, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-06683 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 1, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Property Damage.
Publishers Clearing House (PCH) -- https://www.pch.com/ -- is a
direct marketing company that markets merchandise and magazine
subscriptions with sweepstakes and prize-based games.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas Livezey Laughlin, IV, Esq.
SCOTT + SCOTT, Attorneys at Law, LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Phone: (212) 223-6444
Fax: (212) 223-6334
Email: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
PUBLISHERS CLEARING: Kenter Files Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Publishers Clearing
House, Inc. The case is styled as Ivan Kenter, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Publishers Clearing
House, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-06684 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 1, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Property Damage.
Publishers Clearing House (PCH) -- https://www.pch.com/ -- is a
direct marketing company that markets merchandise and magazine
subscriptions with sweepstakes and prize-based games.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas Livezey Laughlin, IV, Esq.
SCOTT + SCOTT, Attorneys at Law, LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Phone: (212) 223-6444
Fax: (212) 223-6334
Email: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
QSUPER LTD: Shine Lawyers File Class Action Over Life Premiums
--------------------------------------------------------------
InsuranceNEWS.com.au reports that plaintiff law firm Shine Lawyers
has filed a class action in the Federal Court on behalf of QSuper's
members, alleging the Brisbane-based fund may have "unfairly
overcharged" them life premiums.
Class Actions Practice Leader Joshua Aylward says the
superannuation fund's conduct resulted in significant financial
loss for up to 140,000 members.
The fund is accused of breaching its obligations under the
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the Superannuation Industry
(Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth) by failing to notify its members of
changes to premiums.
"QSuper changed their life insurance policy on [July 1] 2016 and
failed to adequately notify its members of how to get cheaper
premiums," Mr Aylward said.
"Significantly, most of the fund members impacted are Queensland
Government employees and their spouses, teachers and health
industry workers like doctors and psychiatrists."
Shine Lawyers says white collar workers were charged the same
increased premiums despite not having the same risk-factors present
in their lines of work.
"It's incredibly disappointing that essential workers serving our
community at all hours are those taken advantage of by this super
fund," Mr Aylward said.
A spokesman for QSuper told insuranceNEWS.com.au the fund "has no
comment on a matter [that is] before the courts".
Shine Lawyers says its actions against QSuper follow an earlier
dispute with a fund member who complained to the Australian
Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) that he had overpaid premiums
for death and total and permanent impairment cover he had acquired
through his super fund.
AFCA ruled in August 2019 in favour of the complainant. The dispute
was sparked by the complainant's discovery that he was - and had
been - eligible to pay a lower premium during the period from July
1 2016 and to December 2018 on the basis that he fell within the
fund's new "professional" occupational rating.
QSuper introduced the new occupational rating in July 2016.
The fund appealed unsuccessfully in the Federal Court against the
AFCA ruling on grounds that the dispute-handling body "exercised an
impermissible exercise of judicial power" when it decided a
complainant should be refunded for overpaid life policy premiums.
[GN]
RAY'S HOSPITALITY: Underpays Housekeepers, Sanchez Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHELIA SANCHEZ, Plaintiff v. RAY'S HOSPITALITY LLC and NIEHAL RAY
RAHIM, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-04087-SOH (W.D. Ark., November
17, 2021) brings this complaint as a collective action against the
Defendant for its alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a housekeeping
employee during the year period immediately preceding the filing of
this complaint.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees typically worked 40 or more hours per week for
the Defendants throughout their employment with the Defendants.
However, the Defendants allegedly failed to pay them overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week as its
common de facto policy, plan, and practice.
Ray's Hospitality LLC operates Travelodge and Ramada hotel
facilities in Texarkana, Arkansas owned by Niehal Ray Rahim. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert E. Turner, Esq.
Robert E. Morelli, Esq.
JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT
OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Tel: (901) 754-8001
Fax: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: rturner@jsyc.com
rmorelli@jsyc.com
RJR VAPOR: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RJR Vapor Co., LLC.
The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. RJR Vapor Co., LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-10201 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 1, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
RJRVC -- https://www.rjrvapor.com/ -- combines tobacco expertise
with innovative technology to provide adult tobacco consumers with
enjoyable products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com
ROBERTSON ANSCHUTZ: Ubaldi Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Robertson, Anschutz,
Schneid, Crane & Partners, PLLC, et al. The case is styled as
Andrea Ubaldi, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Robertson, Anschutz, Schneid, Crane & Partners, PLLC,
John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:21-cv-20295-JXN-LDW (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 1,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Robertson, Anschutz, Schneid, Crane & Partners, PLLC --
https://www.raslegalgroup.com/ -- is a full-service law firm
dedicated to meeting the legal and operational needs of the
financial sector since 2010.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
One Grand Central Place
60 East 42nd St., 46th Floor
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (646) 459-7971
Email: jkj@legaljones.com
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Fisher Sues Over Failure to Secure PII
---------------------------------------------------------
Adam Fisher, Ashley Carter, Christina Lopez, Rachel Barnett, Lucia
Flores, Tiffany Cole, Baylee Mestaz, Crystal Harmon, Michelle
Durden, Karen Benoit, Cassie Cowen, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC.; ROBINHOOD
CRYPTO, LLC, ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC; ROBINHOOD SECURTIIES, LLC,
and DOES 1-10, Case No. 4:21-cv-08906-KAW (N.D. Cal., Nov. 17,
2021), is brought against the Defendants for its failure to
properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiffs' and other similarly
situated Robinhood customers' personal information from hackers.
On November 3, 2021, hackers gained access to the personally
identifiable information ("PII") of over 7 million Robinhood
customers ("Data Breach"), including full names, email addresses,
dates of birth, zip codes, and other PII. Thereafter, on November
8, 2021, Robinhood announced the Data Breach. At least since that
date, Robinhood has maintained a blog post on its website titled,
"Robinhood Announces Data Security Incident." The blog post states,
in part, "Late in the evening of November 3, we experienced a data
security incident. An unauthorized third party obtained access to a
limited amount of personal information for a portion of our
customers."
Robinhood customers' PII is currently up for sale on the dark web.
Hackers offer for sale the unencrypted, unredacted, stolen PII to
criminals. Because of Robinhood's Data Breach, customers' PII is
still available on the dark web for criminals to access and abuse.
As a result, Robinhood's customers face a lifetime risk of identity
theft. Clearly, Robinhood failed to safeguard Plaintiffs' and other
customers' PII. The Plaintiffs have suffered injury because of
Robinhood's conduct. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of
all persons whose PII was compromised due to Robinhood's failure
to: (i) adequately protect its users' PII, (ii) warn users of its
inadequate information security practices, and (iii) effectively
monitor its websites and e-commerce platforms for security
vulnerabilities and incidents. Robinhood's conduct amounts to
negligence and violates federal and state statutes, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs are Robinhood customers.
Robinhood is a financial services company that allows customers to
trade securities on a mobile application.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mason Barney, Esq.
Sonal Jain, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
200 Park Avenue
Seventeenth Floor
New York, NY 10166
Phone: 212-532-1091
Facsimile: 646-417-5967
Email: mbarney@sirillp.com
sjain@sirillp.com
- and -
Nicholas Armer, Esq.
700 S Flower Street, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: 212-532-1091
Facsimile: 646-417-5967
Email: narmer@sirillp.com
ROCKET SCIENCE: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Rocket Science
Group LLC. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Rocket Science
Group LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10167 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Rocket Science Group LLC doing business as Mailchimp --
http://www.mailchimp.com/-- engineers and supplies web-based tools
and applications.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com
SEQUOIA BENEFITS: Winsor Appeals ERISA Class Suit Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs RACHAEL WRIGHT WINSOR, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled RACHAEL WRIGHT WINSOR,
et al., Plaintiffs v. SEQUOIA BENEFITS & INSURANCE SERVICES LLC, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00227-JSC, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco.
Plaintiffs Nicole Beichle and Rachael Wright Winsor, individually
and on behalf of the RingCentral, Inc. Welfare Benefits Plan (the
RingCentral Plan), and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons and their employee welfare benefit, bring this action under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, 29
U.S.C. Section 1001, et seq., against Defendants Sequoia Benefits
and Insurance Services LLC and Gregory S. Golub. The Defendants are
fiduciaries of the Plans under a Multiple Employer Welfare
Arrangement established by Defendants called the Tech Benefits
Program. The Defendants have collected more than $100 million from
the Plans in transactions prohibited by ERISA, saddled the Plans
with other excessive costs, and breached their fiduciary duties
under ERISA with respect to the Plans, to the detriment of the
Plans and their participants, asserts the complaint.
The Plaintiffs bring this action to remedy the alleged unlawful
conduct, prevent further mismanagement of the Plans, and obtain
equitable and other relief as provided by ERISA.
On July 30, 2021, the Defendants filed motion to dismiss
Plaintiffs' amended complaint.
On November 1, 2021, Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley
entered an order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss.
The Plaintiffs seek a review of this order.
The appellate case is captioned as Rachael Winsor, et al. v.
Sequoia Benefits & Insurance, et al., Case No. 21-16992, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on
November 29, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants Nicole Beichle and Rachael Wright Winsor Mediation
Questionnaire was due December 6, 2021;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by December 29, 2021;
-- Transcript is due on January 28, 2022;
-- Appellants Nicole Beichle and Rachael Wright Winsor opening
brief is due on March 9, 2022;
-- Appellees Gregory S. Golub and Sequoia Benefits & Insurance
Services, LLC answering brief is due on April 8, 2022; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants RACHAEL WRIGHT WINSOR, individually and on
behalf of the RingCentral, Inc. Welfare Benefits Plan, and on
behalf of similarly situated person; and NICOLE BEICHLE,
individually and on behalf of the RingCentral, Inc. Welfare
Benefits Plan, and on behalf of similarly situated person, are
represented by:
Kai Heinrich Richter, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER LLP
80 S 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
E-mail: krichter@nka.com
- and -
Daniel S. Brome, Esq.
Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 810
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 277-7235
E-mail: helland@nka.com
- and -
Grace Chanin, Esq.
Paul Lukas, Esq.
Brock Specht, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4700 IDS Center
80 S 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3257
E-mail: gchanin@nka.com
lukas@nka.com
bspecht@nka.com
Defendants-Appellees SEQUOIA BENEFITS & INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC and
GREGORY S. GOLUB are represented by:
Jeffrey Bosley, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 276-6500
E-mail: jeffbosley@dwt.com
- and -
Mark C. Nielsen, Esq.
GROOM LAW GROUP, CHTD.
1701 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 857-0620
E-mail: mnielsen@groom.com
SHISEIDO AMERICAS: Powell Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as George R. Powell, individually & on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Shiseido Americas Corporation,
Case No. 2021L000055, was removed from the Circuit Court of
Vermilion County to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of Illinois on Nov. 30, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-02295-CSB-EIL to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Shiseido Americas Corp -- http://corp.shiseido.com/en/americas--
through its subsidiaries manufactures cosmetic and toiletry
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
Amy E Keller, Esq.
James Ulwick, Esq.
Sharon Cruz, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY
10 North Dearborn Street, 6th Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 214-7900
Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
dferri@gelaw.com
- and –
Allison W Parr, Esq.
Glenn E Chappell, Esq.
Hassan Zavareei, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 973-0900
Fax: (202) 973-0950
The Defendant is represented by:
Amanda M Noonan, Esq.
Jeffrey N Rosenthal, Esq.
BLANK ROME LLP
One Logan Square
130 North 18th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 569-5553
Fax: (215) 832-5533
Email: rosenthal-j@blankrome.com
- and –
David J. Oberly, I, Esq.
BLANK ROME LLP
1700 PNC Center
201 East Fifth Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Phone: (513) 362-8711
Fax: (513) 362-8798
Email: doberly@blankrome.com
SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sinclair Broadcast
Group, Inc. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sinclair Broadcast
Group, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-10168 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. -- http://sbgi.net/-- is a publicly
traded American telecommunications conglomerate that is controlled
by the descendants of company founder Julian Sinclair Smith.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com
SNAP INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of January 10 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against Snap, Inc. ("Snap" or the
"Company") (NYSE: SNAP) and reminds investors of the January 10,
2022 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 Snap stock or
options between July 22, 2020 and October 21, 2021 and would like
to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh
Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). You
may also click here for additional information:
www.faruqilaw.com/SNAP.
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, 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)
Apple's privacy changes would have, and were having, a material
impact on the Company's advertising business; (2) Snap overstated
its ability to transition its advertising with Apple's privacy
changes; (3) Snap knew of, but downplayed, the risks of the impact
that Apple's privacy changes had on the Company's advertising
business; (4) Snap overstated its commitment to privacy; and (5) as
a result of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements and
statements to journalists were materially false and/or misleading
at all relevant times.
On October 22, 2021, Snap filed its third quarter 2021 report for
the period ending September 30, 2021 with the SEC on Form 10-Q (the
"3Q21 Report"), disclosing the Company's weaker-than-expected
revenue and weaker-than-expected guidance because of its
advertising business, including due to Apple's privacy changes.
Further, the 3Q21 Report disclosed the risks of heighted
restrictions on the Company's access and use of user data due to
Apple's privacy update materialized.
On this news, Snap's stock price fell $19.97 per share, or 26%, to
close at $55.14 per share on October 22, 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 Snap's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. [GN]
SNAP INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds of January 10 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on Nov. 29 disclosed that a class action
complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Snap Inc.
(NYSE: SNAP) alleging that the Company violated federal securities
laws.
Class Period: July 22, 2020 to October 21, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 10, 2022
No obligation or cost to you.
Learn more about your recoverable losses in SNAP:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/snap-inc-loss-submission-form-2?id=21603&from=5
Snap Inc. NEWS - SNAP NEWS
CLASS ACTION CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that Snap
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) Apple's privacy changes would have,
and were having, a material impact on the Company's advertising
business; (2) Snap overstated its ability to transition its
advertising with Apple's privacy changes; (3) Snap knew of, but
downplayed, the risks of the impact that Apple's privacy changes
had on the Company's advertising business; (4) Snap overstated its
commitment to privacy; and (5) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' public statements and statements to journalists were
materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
WHAT THIS MEANS TO YOU AS A SHAREHOLDER: If you have suffered a
loss in Snap you have until January 10, 2022 to petition the court
for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Snap securities during the
relevant period, you may be entitled to compensation without
payment of any out-of-pocket fees.
HOW TO PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: For additional information
about the SNAP lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone
at 212-616-4899 or click this link.
ABOUT KLEIN LAW FIRM
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. The
Klein Law Firm is a boutique litigation firm with experience in a
wide range of areas including securities law, corporate finance and
commercial litigation. Since 2011, our experienced attorneys have
achieved superior results for our clients with a personalized
focus. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]
SNAP-ON INCORPORATED: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Snap-On Incorporated.
The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Snap-On Incorporated, Case No.
1:21-cv-10160 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Snap-on Incorporated -- http://www.snapon.com/-- is an American
designer, manufacturer and marketer of high-end tools and equipment
for professional use in the transportation industry including the
automotive, heavy duty, equipment, marine, aviation, and railroad
industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com
SOVEREIGN LENDING: Mannacio Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sovereign Lending
Group Incorporated. The case is styled as Eugene Mannacio,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Sovereign Lending Group Incorporated, Case No. 3:21-cv-09193 (N.D.
Cal., Nov. 29, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Sovereign Lending Group, Incorporated --
https://www.slgmortgage.com/ -- is a mortgage lending company based
in Costa Mesa, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Susan S. Brown, Esq.
SUSAN BROWN LEGAL SERVICES
388 Market Street, Suite 1300,
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: 415-71203026
Email: susan@susanbrownlegal.com
ST. JOSEPHS HOSPITAL: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against St. Josephs Hospital,
Yonkers. The case is styled as Yony Sosa, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated v. St. Josephs Hospital,
Yonkers, Case No. 1:21-cv-10233 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 1, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
St. Josephs Hospital, Yonkers -- http://www.saintjosephs.org/-- is
serving Yonkers with inpatient and outpatient care, including
orthopedics, cardiology, geriatrics, diagnostic imaging, and
primary care services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
STONECO LTD: Howard G. Smith Reminds of January 18, 2022 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
January 18, 2022 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
case filed on behalf of investors who purchased StoneCo Ltd.
("StoneCo" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: STNE) securities between
March 11, 2021 and November 16, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
Investors suffering losses on their StoneCo investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
On August 30, 2021, after the market closed, StoneCo announced its
second quarter 2021 financial results in a press release, reporting
an 8.1% year-over-year decrease in revenue "mainly due to
adjustments in credit fair value and significantly lower credit
disbursements." The Company stated that it had "implemented some
prudent actions, like temporarily stopping the disbursement of
credit and increasing coverage for potential future losses, which
impacted [StoneCo's] reported results for the quarter."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.96, to close at
$46.54 per share on August 31, 2021, on unusually heavy trading
volume.
Then, on October 26, 2021, PAX Global Technology Ltd's Florida
offices were raided by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation,
the Department of Homeland Security, and several other agencies as
part of a federal investigation. As a Viceroy Research report on
October 27, 2021 pointed out, Stone states that PAX "is no longer
[its] sole provider of POS services, [but the Company is] still
substantially dependent on it to manufacture and assemble a
substantial amount of [its] POS devices." Moreover, another company
replaced its PAX terminals "because it did not receive satisfactory
answers from PAX regarding its POS devices connecting to websites
not listed in their supplied documentation."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.64, or 7%, to close
at $33.81 per share on October 27, 2021, thereby injuring investors
further.
Then, on November 16, 2021, StoneCo announced that it would "start
retesting our original [credit] product, which is short-term loans,
between the fourth quarter of '21 and the first quarter of '22."
The Company could not provide specific guidance about when credit
volumes would return to levels before StoneCo had halted
origination of credit.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $10.96, or 34%, to
close at $20.70 per share on November 17, 2021, thereby injuring
investors further.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that StoneCo was experiencing difficulties in
implementing its credit product; (2) that StoneCo faced significant
risks via its point-of-sale vendor, PAX Global Technology Ltd.; (3)
that, as a result of the foregoing, 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 or otherwise acquired StoneCo securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than January 18,
2022 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]
STONECO LTD: Robbins LLP Reminds of January 18 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP informs investors that a
class action was filed on behalf of all persons and entities that
purchased StoneCo Ltd. (NASDAQ: STNE) securities between March 11,
2021 and November 16, 2021. The complaint alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. StoneCo is a provider of financial
technology solutions, which allow merchants and other vendors to
conduct electronic commerce across in-store, online, and mobile
channels, primarily in Brazil.
StoneCo Ltd. (STNE) Misled Investors Regarding its Business
Prospects
According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants
made false or misleading statements and failed to disclose to
investors that StoneCo was having trouble implementing its credit
product, and faced significant risks via its point-of-sale vendor,
PAX Global Technology Ltd, both of which would adversely impact its
financial results.
On August 30, 2021, StoneCo announced its second quarter 2021
financial results, reporting an 8.1% year-over-year decrease in
revenue and stating that it had "temporarily stopp[ed] the
disbursement of credit and increas[ed] coverage for potential
future losses, which impacted [StoneCo's] reported results for the
quarter."
On October 26, 2021, the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and
other agencies raided PAX Global's offices. The next day, a Viceroy
Research report pointed out, StoneCo states that PAX Global "is no
longer [its] sole provider of POS services, [but the Company is]
still substantially dependent on it to manufacture and assemble a
substantial amount of [its] POS devices."
Then, on November 16, 2021, StoneCo announced it would "start
retesting our original [credit] product, which is short-term loans,
between the fourth quarter of '21 and the first quarter of '22."
The Company could not provide specific guidance on when credit
volumes would return to levels before StoneCo had halted
origination of credit. On this news, shares of StoneCo fell $10.96,
or 35%, to close at $20.70 per share on November 17, 2021.
If you purchased shares of StoneCo. Ltd. (STNE) securities between
March 11, 2021 and November 16, 2021, you have until January 18,
2022, to ask the court to appoint you lead plaintiff for the
class.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
Contact us to learn more:
Aaron Dumas
5040 Shoreham Place
San Diego, CA 92122
(800) 350-6003
adumas@robbinsllp.com
www.robbinsllp.com [
About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights
litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been
dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate
governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for
their wrongdoing since 2002. To be notified if a class action
against StoneCo. Ltd. settles or to receive free alerts when
corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch
today.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]
STRICOFF FINE ART: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stricoff Fine Art,
Ltd. The case is styled as Yony Sosa, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Stricoff Fine Art, Ltd., Case
No. 1:21-cv-10161 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Stricoff Fine Art -- https://stricoff.com/ -- offers one of the
most unique collections of contemporary realism and abstracts in
the marketplace today.[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
SUNFAR CONTRACTING: Chaves et al. Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, DAGOBERTO CHAVES and EDUAR ALMENDAREZ, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SUNFAR
CONTRACTING CORP. and NELYI REYES, as an individual, Defendants,
Case No. 2:21-cv-06371 (E.D.N.Y., November 17, 2021) arises from
the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.
Plaintiff Chaves was employed by the Defendant from in or around
August 2019 to in or around August 2021 to perform duties as a
demolition worker, supplies deliverer, and other miscellaneous
duties, while Plaintiff Almendarez was employed from in or around
August 2019 to in or around December 2019 and from in or around
August 2020 to November 2020 to perform duties as a demolition
worker, assistant laborer, and other miscellaneous duties.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated employees worked approximately 72 hours or more hours per
week during their employment with the Defendants. However, the
Defendants denied them of their lawfully earned overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. The
Defendants also failed to keep accurate payroll records, and to
post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in
a conspicuous place at the location of their employment as required
by both the FLSA and NYLL, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs bring this complaint as a collective action against
the Defendants seeking to recover compensatory damages and
liquidated damages, as well as attorneys' fees, costs, and all
other legal and equitable remedies that the Court deems
appropriate.
Sunfar Contracting Corp. provides construction services. Nelyi
Reyes owns and operates the Corporate Defendant. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Tel: (718) 263-9591
SWEETHEART GALLERY: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sweetheart Gallery
LLC. The case is styled as Yony Sosa, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Sweetheart Gallery LLC, Case
No. 1:21-cv-10163-LGS (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sweetheart Gallery -- https://www.sweetheartgallery.com/ -- is a
curated collection of outstanding contemporary craft and art by
North American artisans, artists, and designers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
THIRDLOVE INC: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ThirdLove, Inc. The
case is styled as Robert Weekes, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ThirdLove, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-10232 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 1, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
ThirdLove -- https://www.thirdlove.com/ -- is an American lingerie
company founded by Heidi Zak and her husband David Spector in 2013.
The brand is known for marketing body positivity and offering
size-inclusive bras and half-cup sizes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
TRIBUNE PUBLISHING: Settles TCPA Class Action for $1.7MM
--------------------------------------------------------
Jason C. Kravitz, Esq., of Nixon Peabody, disclosed that in case it
was not self-evident, an Illinois federal court eliminated any
doubt that it is a bad idea to use spoof caller IDs to make
newspaper delivery service advertising calls to former subscribers
who had previously placed their numbers on the National Do Not Call
Registry. On November 23, 2021, U.S. District Judge Matthew
Kennelly gave his initial approval of a $1.7 million deal to settle
a class action suit brought against Tribune Publishing Co.
("Tribune") under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").
The settlement class consists of approximately 28,000 people who
were solicited by Tribune's telemarketing vendor, Consumer
Engagement Services LLC ("CES"), between December 11, 2017, and
April 15, 2021, notwithstanding that the call recipients had opted
out of such calls by registering their telephone numbers with the
National Do Not Call Registry.
According to court filings, CES called over 28,000 former
subscribers on Tribune's behalf at least twice in a 12-month period
after the TCPA's 18-month "established business relationship" grace
period had lapsed.
Under the terms of the settlement, Tribune also agreed to modify
its practices to minimize the risk of future violations.
After attorneys' fees and costs are applied, each member of the
class is expected to receive about $30 from the settlement.
Nixon Peabody's Cybersecurity & Privacy Team has extensive
experience counseling clients on TCPA compliance and in defending
against TCPA claims. [GN]
TRIPADVISOR LLC: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tripadvisor LLC. The
case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Tripadvisor LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-10166 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Tripadvisor -- http://www.tripadvisor.com/-- is an American online
travel company that operates a website and mobile app with
user-generated content and a comparison shopping website.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com
UF HEALTH: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Ransomware Attack
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jill McKeon, writing for HealthITSecurity, reports that healthcare
data breaches may result in the exposure of protected health
information (PHI) and personally identifiable information (PII),
and victims are often advised to remain vigilant against suspicious
account activity and consistently monitor their credit reports.
Although data breaches can be a cause for concern for impacted
individuals, it can be difficult to prove financial harm or justify
concern as a reason to seek damages.
Nonetheless, many hospitals face class-action lawsuits after
suffering a ransomware attack, in which former patients may claim
that the hospital or health system should have implemented proper
safeguards to prevent the breach from happening.
UF HEALTH REQUESTS DISMISSAL OF PATIENT LAWSUIT
UF Health Central Florida filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit that
alleged that the health system was negligent and failed to prevent
a May 31 ransomware attack that led to nearly one month of EHR
downtime and impacted over 700,000 individuals, according to
Villages-News.
"Plaintiff did not file the lawsuit because, as a result of the
Ransomware Attack, someone obtained and fraudulently used or even
attempted to use her personal information. Nor did she file the
lawsuit because the Ransomware Attack caused her to incur any
out-of-pocket costs. She filed the lawsuit because she was notified
of the Ransomware Attack; nothing more," the motion explained.
The original suit claimed that the plaintiff, former UF Health
patient Chrystal Homes, suffered "lost time, annoyance,
interference, and inconvenience" because of the cyberattack.
Holmes alleged that UF Health failed to implement known industry
safeguards and exercise reasonable care in protecting patient
protected health information (PHI).
"Under Florida law, notification of a Ransomware Attack does not
allow an individual, like Plaintiff here, to file a lawsuit. More
is required," the motion reasoned.
"For each of her claims -- negligence, breach of contract, and
breach of fiduciary duty -- Plaintiff must allege that she suffered
a cognizable injury caused by the Ransomware Attack. She has not.
For that reason alone, her claims must be dismissed."
ESKENAZI HEALTH FACES LAWSUIT AFTER DATA BREACH IMPACTING 1.5
MILLION
Patient Terri Ruehl Young is seeking class-action status in a
lawsuit against Indiana-based Eskenazi Health, alleging that the
hospital's ransomware attack resulted in fraudulent charges on her
credit card as well as wasted money and time.
Eskenazi Health discovered a cyberattack in August that impacted
more than 1.5 million individuals, making it one of the largest
healthcare data breaches of 2021 to date. The hospital initially
did not know if any patient information was used maliciously, but
alerted patients on October 1 that bad actors had in fact stolen
and posted patient information on the dark web and had access to
the hospital's network since May.
Young alleged that she discovered a $370 fraudulent charge on the
credit card she used to pay her hospital bill and found that
someone had attempted to change her name on an Equifax credit
report, according to the Indianapolis Business Journal.
Young is seeking class-action status, claiming that the breach
resulted in lost money and time for patients who had entrusted the
health system with their personal information.
On November 11, months after the initial attack, Eskenazi began
sending letters via mail to the impacted individuals.
PATIENT DENIED CLASS-ACTION STATUS AGAINST WEST VIRGINIA HEALTH
SYSTEM
Class-action status was lifted in a lawsuit against West Virginia
University Health Systems because the patient, Eugene Roman, lacked
sufficient standing, court documents revealed. Roman filed a
lawsuit due to a 2016 data breach that impacted over 7,000
individuals.
Angela Roberts, a former employee at a West Virginia University
Health Systems-affiliated medical center, admitted to
inappropriately accessing patient data and stealing it. Roberts
would then give the information to her boyfriend, Wayne Roberts,
with the intention to commit identity theft and produce fake Social
Security cards.
In order for a lawsuit to receive class-action status, "at least
one named plaintiff must have standing with respect to each claim
asserted, and the burden of establishing standing is on the
plaintiff(s)," the court documents explained.
"Hospitals argue that the class representatives lack standing
because they have suffered no injury-in-fact from the employee's
legitimate access to their confidential records," the document
continued.
"Hospitals additionally argue that certain prerequisites to class
certification were not met in this case. We address this issue only
as to Mr. Roman and the subclass of 109 individuals he represents
and find that the circuit court failed to provide a thorough
analysis of the typicality prerequisite in light of Mr. Roman's
circumstances and claims."
The court subsequently lifted the case's class-action status while
maintaining that Roberts had committed the crime. [GN]
ULTIMATE SERVICES: Servil Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ultimate Services For
You, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Ike Servil, Maktumma
Teshabaeva, and individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated v. Ultimate Services For You, Inc., Case No.
522700/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., Nov. 30, 2021).
The case type is stated as "E-Filed Other."
Ultimate Services For You, Inc. -- http://www.ultimserv.com/-- is
located in Brooklyn, New York and is part of the Home Health Care
Services Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
VIRGINA & AMBINDER
Phone: (212) 943-9080
The Defendant is represented by:
LITTLER MENDELSON
290 BROADHOLLOW RD
MELVILLE, NY 11747
Phone: (631) 247-4701
UMB BANK: Mississippi Delta Farmers Sue Over Seizure of Harvests
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lee O. Sanderlin, writing for Mississippi Clarion Ledger, reports
that a group of Mississippi Delta farmers is suing Missouri-based
UMB Bank in federal court after the bank seized their fall harvests
as collateral from Express Grain, a Greenwood grain elevator and
biodiesel refinery.
The farmers, in a class action lawsuit, claim UMB Bank knew Express
Grain was teetering on financial collapse and propped the company
up through the fall soybean and corn harvest until it could fill
its silos at the end of September.
Once the silos were full, the bank called the approximately $70
million in loans owed by Express Grain, forcing it to offer up the
harvested grain as collateral, according to the complaint filed
Nov. 8 in U.S. District Court.
The farmers claim they have not been paid for their harvests, and
are suing to recoup their losses. It's typical for farmers not to
be paid until after a grain elevator sells it on their behalf.
Don Barrett, a Lexington attorney representing the farmers, said he
estimates the total figure of outstanding payment to be more than
$100 million.
"They set a trap for these farmers and caught them," Barrett said.
The attorney for UMB Bank did not respond to a request for comment.
Express Grain, through a spokesperson, also declined comment. UMB
Bank has until Dec. 21 to file a response to the farmers' lawsuit.
The farmers cannot sue Express Grain for damages because the
company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in September, according to
court records.
In its bankruptcy filing, Express Grain lists both assets and debts
in between $50 and $100 million.
More:Will Mississippi's Black farmers get a fair shake at medical
marijuana? Some lawmakers unsure.
The farmers claim Express Grain, by direction of UMB Bank, misled
them about the financial footing of the company. The company hired
salesmen to go across the Delta, pitching farmers to bring their
harvests to Express Grain this season, Barrett said.
"It was an intensive marketing effort that the bank had to know
about," he said.
In the spring, Express Grain President John Coleman touted the
company's future and a $3 million facility upgrade in a Greenwood
Commonwealth story where he said business had "grown every year."
Coleman did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
While just three farmers are named as plaintiffs in the class
action complaint, Barrett said he represents at least 65 farmers
who sold their harvest to Express Grain and weren't paid for it.
The missing money is taking an emotional toll on the farmers, some
of whom have told Barrett they'd be ruined if they don't see some
soon.
"Everything they've worked their lives for, this bank is attempting
to take it away from them," he said. "I've had some clients talk
about suicide. I've had several clients who've wept in my office."
The impact of farmers not being paid for a harvest season will be
felt across the Delta, Barrett said.
"All these little Delta communities where people shop, their
employees shop, everybody is going to be affected," he said. "I
don't mean made uncomfortable -- but if this were allowed to stand,
it's going to wreck people's lives and wreck the economy of this
part of Mississippi." [GN]
UNITED STATES: ACLU's Class Action Over CARRP Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Documented reports that in 2008 under President George W. Bush,
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) instituted the
Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program (CARRP) to vet
immigrants that could present "national security concerns" to the
United States and "ensure that immigration benefits are not granted
to individuals and organizations that pose a threat to national
security." The process of flagging and identifying under CARRP is
obscure, and little has been known about the program since its
inception.
According to a report from the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU), CARRP disproportionately targets Muslims and immigrants
from the Arab, Middle Eastern, South Asian and Muslim communities.
An applicant flagged in the CARRP program is effectively
blacklisted from receiving any immigration benefits.
Applicants that are designated as "known or suspected terrorists"
by the FBI may be referred to CARRP at any stage of the screening
and adjudicative process when applying for immigration benefits.
Your help lets us keep reporting on immigrant communities. Support
our work today.
In a 2009 CARRP training manual obtained by the ACLU, USCIS
officers are directed to use three broad categories to indicate a
potential national security risk: "employment, training, or
government affiliation," "Suspicious Activities" and "Family
Members or Close Associate." USCIS officers must follow FBI
direction when deciding to approve, deny, or to hold indefinitely
each case flagged under CARRP.
In a case called Wagafe v. Trump, the ACLU and partners filed a
class action lawsuit in 2017 alleging CARRP is illegal and
unconstitutional, which included the basis for discriminatory
factors such as religion and national origin. The litigation
remains ongoing. [GN]
UNITED STATES: Alvarez Appeals Labor Suit Dismissal to 4th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Richard Alvarez, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Richard Alvarez and Sadiqa
Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Alexander Azar, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-02626, in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland at Baltimore.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on October 9, 2020, the
lawsuit seeks equitable and injunctive relief for denied or delayed
post-deprivation hearings and for being denied the property
interests in their employment without due process in violation of
the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs seeks
reinstatement to the status quo ante, including rescission of the
appealed adverse actions and payment of back pay, inclusive of
interest.
Richard Alvarez and Sadiqa Brown are employees of the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug
Administration.
Alvarez worked as a Program Analyst, GS-0343-14, Office of
Management, Center for Tobacco Products, FDA. On October 28, 2018,
he was demoted to the position of Budget Analyst, GS-560-12,
resulting in a reduction in job duties, grade and compensation.
Brown's last position held with the FDA was as a Human Resources
Specialist, GS-201-11, Office of Talent Solutions, Office of
Operations. She was removed from federal service, effective July
19, 2019, and asserts that her removal was because of
discrimination based on her disability and in retaliation for
complaint filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity office.
On January 11, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction, and motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim.
On September 23, 2021, Judge Catherine C. Blake entered an order
granting Defendant's motion to dismiss the case.
The Plaintiff seeks a review of this ruling in their appellate case
captioned Richard Alvarez v. Alex Azar, II, Case No. 21-2317, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on
November 24, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on January 3, 2022; and
-- Response Brief is due on February 2, 2022.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants RICHARD ALVAREZ and SADIQA BROWN, and all
others similarly situated, are represented by:
Christopher Hugh Bonk, Esq.
Gary M. Gilbert, Esq.
David Norken, Esq.
Kevin Lee Owen, Esq.
GILBERT EMPLOYMENT LAW, PC
1100 Wayne Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: (301) 608-0880
E-mail: cbonk@gelawyer.com
gary@ggilbertlaw.com
dnorken@gelawyer.com
kowen@ggilbertlaw.com
- and -
Joseph M. Sellers, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
1100 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20005-3965
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
E-mail: jsellers@cohenmilstein.com
Defendant-Appellee SECRETARY ALEX M. AZAR, II is represented by:
Jane Elizabeth Andersen, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
36 South Charles Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
Telephone: (301) 344-4422
E-mail: jane.andersen@usdoj.gov
- and -
Joshua Marc Salzman, Esq.
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0000
Telephone: (202) 532-4747
UNITED STATES: Barnes & Thornburg Attorneys Discuss Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tejas Shah, Esq., Sarah J. Hawk, Esq., Michael E. Durham, Esq., and
M. Mercedes Badia-Tavas, Esq., of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, in an
article for The National Law Review, report that on Nov. 10, 2021,
the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) settled a
class-action lawsuit it was facing filed by eligible H-4, E, and
L-2 dependent spouses challenging how the USCIS determined whether
or not such individuals are authorized for employment. This
settlement, along with the agency's subsequent new policy
memorandum, should reduce the likelihood of unpaid leaves of
absence and loss of employment authorization due to bureaucratic
delays.
The policy has created significant and acute hardships for
individuals and employers over the last two years in particular, as
USCIS processing times for these employment authorization documents
(EADs) have ballooned from 90 days to upwards of a year at certain
Service Centers.
At issue was the USCIS's insistence that eligible H-4s, L-2s, and E
dependent spouses, all of whom enjoy eligibility for employment
authorization, must possess an actual work authorization card, or
EAD, to be considered employment authorized. Such an interpretation
has resulted in treating these individuals differently from some
other categories of "nonimmigrants" who are temporarily employment
authorized after an EAD expires and while a renewal is pending. For
example, individuals with pending adjustment of status applications
who apply to renew their employment authorization, students
applying to renew their Optional Practical Training (OPT) based on
the STEM OPT extension, and certain other defined categories of
individuals are eligible to "auto-extend" their employment
authorization for up to 180 days beyond the expiration of their
current employment authorization card so long as they filed a
timely renewal of this request.
By contrast, prior to this settlement, the USCIS has insisted that
eligible H-4 spouses, L-2 spouses, and E spouses need to possess a
valid EAD at all times to be considered employment authorized.
The USCIS's position and these delays have resulted in multiple
class action lawsuits. In the most recent, Shergill, et al. v.
Mayorkas, the plaintiffs reached a settlement, with the USCIS
making the following concessions:
1. L-2s are considered employment-authorized "incident to status,"
which means that such individuals need not apply for or possess an
EAD to be considered work authorized. The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) committed to taking steps within 120 days of the
settlement to update I-94s (proof of lawful status) for such
individuals to reflect such employment authorization, which would
then allow them to satisfy I-9 requirements. In a subsequent policy
memorandum, the DHS also stated that L-2s must possess an actual or
pending EAD renewal to be considered employment authorized until it
completes this I-94 update.
2. L-2s who currently have an expired EAD but also have a pending
EAD renewal are authorized for employment based on the renewal.
Once I-94s are updated to reflect such employment authorization,
L-2s will no longer need EADs.
3. E spouse dependents are considered employment authorized
"incident to status," and will be treated the same as L-2 spouses
with respect to employment authorization. Until I-94 updates are
made, they will also similarly need to rely on a valid EAD or
auto-extended EAD.
4. Unlike L-2 and E spouses, eligible H-4 spouses will still need
to rely on an EAD. However, in circumstances where an H-4 has an
I-94 that is valid beyond the expiration of an existing H-4 EAD and
a pending EAD renewal in the same category that was filed before
expiration of the existing EAD, that H-4 will also benefit from
auto-extension of their employment authorization for up to 180
days.
Notably, the H-4 auto-extension policy has limitations - it will
not benefit individuals who have a pending EAD and H-4 renewal when
the existing EAD expires, as these individuals will not be able to
demonstrate their H-4 statuses remain valid beyond the expiration
of their existing EADs.
The USCIS's delays in processing such H-4 and EAD renewals are
being challenged in a companion class-action lawsuit, Edakunni, et
al., v. Mayorkas. Nevertheless, the outcome of Shergill offers some
relief to employment-authorized H-4 spouses and their employers, as
an individual can also renew H-4 status by scheduling an
appointment at a consulate, potentially allowing these individuals
to re-enter the U.S. on an extended H-4 without accounting for
lengthy USCIS processing timelines.
As a reminder, underlying eligibility for an H-4 EAD is limited to
spouses of H-1B nonimmigrants who are either the principal
beneficiary of an approved I-140 immigrant visa petition, or have
been granted H-1B status under section 106(a) and (b) of the
American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000,
as amended by the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations
Authorization Act. [GN]
UNITED STATES: Summary Judgment in Doe v. ATF Appealed to Fed. Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff John Doe filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in
the lawsuit styled JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official
capacity as President of the United States, MATTHEW WHITAKER, in
his official capacity as Acting Attorney General of the United
States, and THOMAS E. BRANDON, Acting Director, Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-6-SMY, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Illinois.
Following the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting, Congress urged the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives ("ATF") to
re-examine the classification of bump stock devices. In response,
the Department of Justice issued a Final Rule, Bump-Stock-Type
Devices, 83 Fed. Reg. 66,514 (Dec. 26, 2018) ("Final Rule").
Plaintiff John Doe filed the instant putative class action on
behalf of himself and similarly situated persons, claiming the
Final Rule exceeds ATF's statutory authority and violates the
Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") and the Constitution.
Doe asserts the following causes of action in the Complaint: Count
I - 18 U.S.C. 922(o) does not prohibit an initial registration
period/amnesty; Count II - 18 U.S.C. 922(o) is facially
unconstitutional as being in excess of the authority granted to
Congress under the Commerce Clause; Count III - 18 U.S.C. Section
922(o) is unconstitutional as applied to firearms registered in the
National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record as being in
excess of the authority granted to Congress under the Commerce
Clause; Count IV - 18 U.S.C. Section 922(o) is an unconstitutional
direct tax in violation of Article I of the Constitution; Count V -
18 U.S.C. Section 922(o) is a violation of the Due Process Clause;
and Count VI - The Final Rule is a Taking requiring just
compensation.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 11, 2021, Judge
Staci M. Yandle granted the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment
in its entirety. All pending motions were terminated as moot and
the Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment and to close the
case.
The Plaintiff seeks a review of that order as well as the November
7, 2019 order, granting Defendants' motion to stay discovery.
The appellate case is captioned as JOHN DOE, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. JOSEPH
R. BIDEN, JR., in his official capacity as President of the United
States, MERRICK B. GARLAND, in his official capacity as Attorney
General of the United States, MARVIN G. RICHARDSON, Acting
Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 22-1197, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, filed on November 29,
2021.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, is represented by:
Thomas G. Maag, Esq.
MAAG LAW FIRM, LLC
22 W. Lorena Avenue
Wood River, IL 62095
Telephone: (618) 216−5291
Defendants-Appellees JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., in his official capacity
as President of the United States, MERRICK B. GARLAND, in his
official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, MARVIN
G. RICHARDSON, Acting Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives, are represented by:
Bradley Hinshelwood, Esq.
Kyle T. Edwards, Esq.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, DC 20530−0000
Telephone: (202) 514−7823
- and -
Michael F. Knapp, Esq.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Room 12008
1100 L Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: (202) 514−2071
US DEPARMENT OF HOUSING: Center Suit Transferred to D. Conn.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Center For Leadership And Justice, for itself,
Shawanda Breedlove, Trinity Claudio, Cyvonne Cook, Tammy Davis,
Yulissa Espinal, Stephanie Grant, Marina Ilarraza, Ashley Matos,
Mirna Medina, Milagros Ortiz, Maritza Rosario, Netzabilie Torres,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development; Marcia
L. Fudge, in her official capacity as Secretary of the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development; Imagineers,
LLCl Housing Authority of the City of Hartfordl City of Hartford
doing business as: Housing Authority of the City of Hartford,
Defendants; Leumas Residential LLC, Movant, Case No. 3:21-mc-00011,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut on Nov. 30, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-mc-00096-MPS to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for Motion
to Compel.
The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development --
http://www.hud.gov/-- is a Cabinet department in the executive
branch of the U.S. federal government.[BN]
UTAH: Ringgold Suit Removed to D. Utah
--------------------------------------
The case styled as Ariiyana Ringgold, Miles Ramsey, on behalf of
themself and all others similarly situated v. Utah System of Higher
Education, Harris H. Simmons, Case No. 210903725, was removed from
the 3rd District Court, Salt Lake County, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Utah on Nov. 29, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-00702-DAO to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for the Civil
Rights Act.
The Utah System of Higher Education -- https://ushe.edu/ -- is the
public university system of the state of Utah.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Deborah Chandler
Samantha Elaine Hawe
ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
50 W. Broadway, Ste. 600
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Phone: (801) 534-1700
Fax: (801) 364-7697
Email: dchandler@aklawfirm.com
shawe@aklawfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Kyle J. Kaiser
Kevin V. Olsen
UTAH ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE LITIGATION UNIT
160 E 300 S 6TH FL
PO BOX 140856
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-0856
Phone: (801) 366-0100
Email: kkaiser@agutah.gov
kvolsen@agutah.gov
- and -
Meb W. Anderson
UTAH ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
PO BOX 8700
CEDAR CITY, UT 84720
Phone: (435) 865-8056
Email: mebanderson@agutah.gov
- and -
Natalie Nelson
ATTORNEY GENERAL
2450 HAFEN LN
SANTA CLARA, UT 84765
Phone: (801) 372-5248
Email: npretenelson@agutah.gov
VCA INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged 401(k) Excessive Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emile Hallez, writing for Investment News, report that VCA
participants paid annual record-keeping fees of up to $105, while
some comparably sized 401(k)s have fees closer to $38, plaintiffs
claim. [GN]
VIACOMCBS INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of December 28 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against ViacomCBS Inc. ("ViacomCBS"
or the "Company") (NASDAQ: VIAC) and reminds investors of the
December 28, 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 ViacomCBS
stock or options between March 22, 2021 and March 29, 2021 and
would like to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi
partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext.
1310). You may also click here for additional information:
www.faruqilaw.com/VIAC.
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.
According to the Complaint, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley sold a
large amount of ViacomCBS shares during the Class Period while in
possession of material, non-public information about Archegos and
its need to fully liquidate its position in the Company because of
margin call pressure. As a result of these sales, Defendants
Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley avoided billions in losses
combined.
During one week in late March 2021, investment banks Goldman Sachs
and Morgan Stanley traded on inside information by selling large
amounts of VIAC stock based on then publicly undisclosed
information obtained through their relationship with troubled
multi-billion dollar family office Archegos Capital Management.
On this news, shares of ViacomCBS Inc. stock fell over 55% during
the week of March 22, 2021 to March 29, 2021.
The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding ViacomCBS' conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. [GN]
VOLKSWAGEN AG: 12,000+ Motorists in Scotland Join Dieselgate Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Jeffay, writing for The Times, reports that more than 12,000
motorists in Scotland have joined a £50 million class action
against carmakers after the Dieselgate scandal. They are pursuing
the first group proceedings litigation in Scottish legal history
after a change in the law three years ago to formally allow such
class actions.
The case is due at the Court of Session in Edinburgh this month to
establish how it will proceed.
The lawsuit involves 8,000 owners of Volkswagen cars, including VW,
Audi, Seat and Skoda, now joined by 4,000 Mercedes owners after the
authorities in Germany found that the company also installed
software in engines that limited readings during emissions tests.
Motorists claim that without the cheat device the car's performance
drops and they will lose out on resale value. [GN]
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Transmission Class Action Settlement Gets OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Curley, writing for Law360, reports that a California federal
judge will allow to go forward a settlement between drivers and
Volkswagen Group of America Inc. seeking to resolve claims that the
carmaker sold vehicles with faulty transmissions. [GN]
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Villalobos Suit Transferred to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Ricardo Villalobos, Jeremy Adams, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs; JOHN
HAJNY, Anthony Service, Consol Plaintiffs v. Volkswagen Group of
America Inc., SANCTUS, LLC doing business as: Shift Digital,
Defendants; PHV GAYLE E. BLATT, PHV SEAN G. WIEBER, PHV KEVIN P.
SIMPSON, PHV JAMES W. RANDALL, Miscellaneous; Case No.
2:21-cv-13049, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District District of California on Nov. 29, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-09203-JSC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. --
http://www.volkswagengroupofamerica.com/-- markets and distributes
automobiles and auto parts.[BN]
The Plaintiffs and Consol Plaintiffs are represented by:
Karen Nadine Wilson-Robinson, Esq.
WILSON & BROWN, PLLC
629 FIFTH AVENUE
PELHAM, NY 10803
Phone: (646) 498-9816
Fax: (718) 425-0573
Email: karen@wilsonbrownlawyers.com
- and -
Mark C. Rifkin, Esq.
WOLF, HALDENSTEIN, ADLER, FREEMAN & HERZ, LLP
270 MADISON AVENUE
NEW YORK, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 545-4600
Email: rifkin@whafh.com
- and -
Gregory Haroutunian, Esq.
CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A Professional Law Corporation
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
Phone: (916) 777-7777
Fax: (916) 924-1829
Email: gharoutunian@justice4you.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Mark C. Errico, Esq.
SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
382 SPRINGFIELD AVENUE
SUMMIT, NJ 07869
Phone: (973) 848-5668
Fax: (973) 848-5601
Email: mark.errico@squirepb.com
- and -
James S. Richter, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
One Riverfront Plaza, Suite 730
Newark, NJ 07102
Phone: (973) 848-7676
Fax: (973) 848-7650
WALMART INC: Perez Appeals Labor Suit Dismissal
------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Gloria Perez filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled GLORIA PEREZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALMART, INC. and
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00120-HFS,
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri -
Kansas City.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 4, 2021, the
lawsuit is a class action against the Defendants for unjust
enrichment by failing to pay the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated employees for the time Walmart required them to spend on
its behalf to comply with the company's policies and allow the
company to continue to operate during the COVID pandemic.
The Plaintiff worked as a retail associate at the Walmart store in
Marshall, Saline County, Missouri from January 2020 through
November 2020.
On October 25, 2021, District Judge Howard F. Sachs entered an
order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss the case for failure
to state a claim.
The Plaintiff seeks a review of the dismissal order.
The appellate case is captioned as Gloria Perez v. Walmart, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 21-3708, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit, filed on November 24, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appendix is due on January 3, 2022;
-- BRIEF OF APPELLANT Gloria Perez is due on January 3, 2022;
and
-- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues
the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Gloria Perez, individually, and on behalf of a
Class of others similarly situated, is represented by:
Bradford B. Lear, Esq.
Anthony Meyer, Esq.
Todd C. Werts, Esq.
LEAR & WERTS
103 Ripley Street
Columbia, MO 65201
Telephone: (573) 875-1991
E-mail: lear@learwerts.com
meyer@learwerts.com
werts@learwerts.com
Defendants-Appellees Walmart, Inc. and Walmart Associates, Inc. are
represented by:
Gregory William Knopp, Esq.
Jonathan Slowik, Esq.
Laura Vaughn, Esq.
AKIN & GUMP
1999 Avenue of the Stars
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6022
Telephone: (310) 229-1000
E-mail: gknopp@akingump.com
jpslowik@akingump.com
vaughnl@akingump.com
- and -
Nathan J. Oleson, Esq.
AKIN & GUMP
2001 K Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 887-4000
E-mail: noleson@akingump.com
- and -
Ramona Palmer-Eason, Esq.
ARMSTRONG & TEASDALE
2345 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1500
Kansas City, MO 64108-0000
Telephone: (816) 221-3420
E-mail: rpalmereason@atllp.com
- and -
Ida S. Shafaie, Esq.
ARMSTRONG & TEASDALE
7700 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1800
Saint Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 621-5070
E-mail: ishafaie@atllp.com
WATERFIELD DESIGNS: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Waterfield Designs,
Inc. The case is styled as Robert Weekes, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Waterfield Designs,
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-10231 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 1, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
WaterField Designs -- https://www.sfbags.com/ -- is an innovative
San Francisco designer and manufacturer of bags and cases for
tech-savvy consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
WELLA OPERATIONS: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wella Operations US
LLC. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wella Operations US LLC,
Case No. 1:21-cv-10162 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Wella Professionals -- https://www.wellacompany.com/ -- is a
leading professional hair color brand globally.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com
WHEELS ON THE BUS: Roman Sues Over Denial of Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Roman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WHEELS ON THE BUS INCORPORATED (WOTB), JAMES COHN, and
ALVIN CHAMORRO, Case No. 1:21-cv-06377-MKB-SJB (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 18,
2021), is brought against the Defendant as a result of their
unlawful denial of overtime wages in violation the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff and the putative Collective and Classes were affected
by one or more of the Defendants' unlawful policies and practices,
including at times misclassifying Delivery Drivers as "independent
contractors", and regardless of classification, at all times
compensating Delivery Drivers based on flat shift rates rather than
the number of actual hours worked within a workweek. Through these
policies and practices, the Defendants unlawfully denied the
Plaintiff Roman and the putative Collective and Classes overtime
premiums for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, failed to
reimburse or otherwise unlawfully deducted business expenses,
failed to pay the Plaintiffs on a weekly basis, and engaged in
various other recordkeeping practices and notice failures that
violated both federal and state laws, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was a Delivery Driver with WOTB from April 2020
through August 25, 2021.
WOTB provides pre-packaged meal delivery services throughout all of
New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Q. Davis, Esq.
Rachel M. Haskell, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER Q. DAVIS
80 Broad Street, Suite 703
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (646)-430-7930
Fax: (646)-349-2504
WHITE PLAINS: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against White Plains
Kensington, LLC. The case is styled as Yony Sosa, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. White Plains
Kensington, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10236 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 1, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Kensington White Plains --
https://thekensingtonwhiteplains.com/ -- delivers heartfelt
excellence in Assisted Living & Memory Care.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
WINESTOR LLC: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Winestor, LLC. The
case is styled as Robert Weekes, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Winestor, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10224
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 1, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Winestore -- https://winestore-online.com/ -- is a retailer of
wines based in North Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
WOOD'S STATION: Calas Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARIO DANGER CALAS, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WOOD'S STATION, INC., a Florida Corporation,
and FRANCISCO VALVERDE, individually, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-24031-XXXX (S.D. Fla., November 17, 2021) brings this
complaint to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and
other equitable relief against the Defendants pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt manual
laborer as a clerk between approximately November 2018 and
September 2021.
According to the complaint, throughout the Plaintiff's employment
with the Defendants, he and other similarly situated non-exempt gas
station employees regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
But, instead of paying them at one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay for all the hours they worked in excess of 40 per week,
the Defendants paid them based upon regular rates between
approximately $9.00 per hour and $11.00 per hour. The Defendants
also failed to maintain accurate records of all the actual start
times, stop times, number of hours worked each day, and total hours
actually worked each week by the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated non-exempt gas station employees, the suit added.
Wood's Station, Inc. operates a gas station owned by Francisco
Valverde. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Keith M. Stern, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
80 S.W. 8th St., Suite 2000
Miami, FL 33130
Tel: (305) 901-1379
Fax: (561) 288-9031
E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com
YELP INC: Sapan Appeals Class Certification Denial to 9th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jonathan Sapan filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Jonathan Sapan, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Yelp, Inc., Case No.
3:17-cv-03240, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.
The lawsuit seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of using an
artificial and prerecorded voice to deliver a message without prior
express consent of the called party which allegedly violates the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
In March 2018, Mr. Jonathan Sapan and the putative class moved the
Court for an order to certify class.
The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Court's Order dated
November 15, 2021, denying his motion to certify class.
The appellate case is captioned as Jonathan Sapan v. Yelp Inc.,
Case No. 21-80119, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, filed on November 29, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiff-Petitioner JONATHAN SAPAN, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Justin Prato, Esq.
Christopher J. Reichman, Esq.
PRATO & REICHMAN, APC
8555 Aero Drive, Suite 303
San Diego, CA 92123
Telephone: (619) 886-0252
E-mail: chrisr@prato-reichman.com
Defendant-Respondent YELP INC., a Delaware Corporation, is
represented by:
Joshua Briones, Esq.
MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY AND POPEO, PC
2029 Century Park, E Suite 3100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 586-3200
E-mail: jbriones@mintz.com
ZOOM VIDEO: Eligible Users Can Now File Compensation Claim
----------------------------------------------------------
Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai, writing for Vice, reports that as
part of a class action lawsuit for alleged privacy and security
issues, people who used Zoom between 2016 and 2021 can now file a
claim to receive $25 or $15 as compensation.
On Nov. 29, the group that sued Zoom for allegedly sharing user's
information with third parties, not doing enough to prevent
unwanted disruptions -- also known as Zoom bombings -- and falsely
advertised Zoom as end-to-end encrypted when it was not, sent
emails to Zoom users who are eligible for the compensation,
explaining how they can apply to get the money. (I received the
email.)
"If you are a Class Member who paid for a Zoom Meetings App
subscription, between March 30, 2016 and July 30, 2021, you are
eligible to file a claim for $25 or 15% of the money you paid to
Zoom for the core subscription (i.e., not including optional add on
features/support that customers may add to their subscriptions)
during that time, whichever is greater. For example, if you spent
$75 on a Zoom Meetings App subscription during the relevant time
period, 15% of $75 is $11.25. Because $11.25 is less than $25, your
claim will be treated as a claim for $25," the email read.
For regular users, who did not have a paid subscription, the
compensation will be $15.
Users who want the money can file a claim at
ZoomMeetingsClassAction.com or send a paper form by March 5, 2022.
The settlement was reached in part after Motherboard found that the
Zoom app transferred data to Facebook even if the Zoom user did not
have a Facebook account. Zoom removed the relevant code in
response.
In a statement sent via email, a Zoom spokesperson said that "the
privacy and security of our users are top priorities for Zoom, and
we take seriously the trust our users place in us. We are proud of
the advancements we have made to our platform, and look forward to
continuing to innovate with privacy and security at the
forefront."
This story was updated to include the Zoom statement. [GN]
[*] U.S. H.R. 5376 Threatens Class, Collective Action Waivers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mia Farber, Esq., David Golder, Esq., Eric Magnus, Esq., and Lisa
Milam, Esq., of Jackson Lewis P.C., in an article for JDSupra,
report that the U.S. House of Representatives on November 19, 2021,
passed the Build Back Better Act (H.R. 5376), ambitious climate
protection/social spending legislation that now awaits deliberation
in the Senate. Tucked inside the massive bill are numerous
provisions of interest to employers. For example, there is a
provision that effectively may prohibit employers from adopting
class and collective action waivers. By creating significant civil
penalties, the bill calls into question the ongoing viability of
the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 decision inEpic Systems Corp. v.
Lewis, which condoned the use of class and collective action
waivers in employment arbitration agreements pursuant to the
Federal Arbitration Act.
The bar on class waivers is one of several onerous amendments to
the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) set forth in the
legislation. (In a separateblog post, attorneys in the Jackson
Lewis Labor Relations practice group discuss these proposed
amendments more broadly.) If enacted in its current iteration, the
Build Back Better Act would make it an unfair labor practice for a
covered employer to require employees to agree not to engage in
collective or class action, or to join such litigation.
Specifically, the bill states that it would be unlawful for an
employer to
enter into or attempt to enforce any agreement, express or implied,
whereby prior to a dispute to which the agreement applies, an
employee undertakes or promises not to pursue, bring, join,
litigate, or support any kind of joint, class, or collective claim
arising from or relating to the employment of such employee in any
forum that, but for such agreement, is of competent
jurisdiction[.]
The bill also makes it unlawful to "coerce" an employee into
promising not to pursue or join such an action, or to retaliate
against an employee for refusing to make such a promise. (Notably,
the provision would expressly allow such agreements if permitted by
a collective bargaining agreement between the employer and the
employees' union -- if the employees are represented for collective
bargaining by a union.)
A violation of this provision would result in civil penalties under
the NLRA. The bill proposes civil monetary penalties for violations
of the NLRA, which has never had civil penalties before -- as much
as $50,000 per violation ($100,000 for repeat offenses). The size
of these civil monetary penalties could effectively bar the ongoing
use of class and collective action waivers in employment or
arbitration agreements.
Employers increasingly enter into arbitration agreements with
employees and independent contractors, in which the parties opt to
resolve disputes on an individual (rather than class or collective)
basis. Many employers without arbitration programs also have
initiated the use of "stand-alone" class waivers. These strategies
have allowed for the expedient and cost-effective resolution of
claims and have minimized the enormous pressure on employers to
settle questionable claims. The restriction on class and collective
action waivers embodied in the current version of the Build Back
Better Act would upend what has proven to be a critical risk
management tool for employers in the face of an employment class
action wave that shows no sign of slowing -- and as employers
confront novel challenges posed by COVID-19 and the uneasy return
to "normal."
Business groups are understandably concerned about these draconian
amendments. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, for one, has voiced its
strong disapproval. Indeed, the bill's more controversial
provisions were not expected to remain in the final bill voted on
in the House; so far, however, the NLRA amendments have survived
intact. In the Senate, though, the legislation faces an uncertain
future, and may well succumb to procedural hurdles and opposition
from Senate Republicans and moderate Democrats. We will keep a
watchful eye as Senate deliberations unfold, as passage of this
provision, though questionable, would usher in a harsh class action
litigation climate for employers. [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 ***