/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220819.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, August 19, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 160
Headlines
17 EDUCATION: Robbins Geller Reminds of September 19 Deadline
ANZ BANKING: Class Action Can Be Conducted as Opt-Out Claim
AT&T MOBILITY: November 3 Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set
ATLAS AIR: Juan Monteverde Probes Firm Over Proposed Acquisition
AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL: Chairman Responds to Training Camp Class Suit
CARGUARD ADMINISTRATION: Pennsylvania Court Tosses TCPA Class Suit
CARVANA CO: Bragar Eagel Reminds of October 3 Deadline
CARVANA CO: Robbins LLP Reminds of October 3 Deadline
CHANGING HANDS BOOKSTORE: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DELAWARE STATE UNIVERSITY: Sept. 19 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
ENOCHIAN BIOSCIENCES: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 26 Deadline
ENOCHIAN BIOSCIENCES: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Sept. 26 Deadline
EQT CORP: 3d Cir. Vacates Class Certification Order in Laudato Suit
FAT BRANDS: Settles Consolidated Securities Class Action Suit
HS FLOORS: Granted Leave to Serve Amended Answer in Medina Suit
KIROMIC BIOPHARMA: Gainey McKenna Reminds of October 4 Deadline
KIROMIC BIOPHARMA: Holzer & Holzer Reminds of October 4 Deadline
KIROMIC BIOPHARMA: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of Oct. 4 Deadline
KIROMIC BIOPHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of October 4 Deadline
LAURA CHRISTY: Appeals Judgment in Zivkovic FLSA Suit to 2nd Cir.
LEGACY CHRISTIAN: Faces Class Action Over Sexual, Physical Abuse
LG CORP: Class Action Lawsuit Over Defective Refrigerators Settled
LIFESTANCE HEALTH: Robbins Geller Reminds of October 11 Deadline
MAC COSMETICS: Faces Privacy Invasion Class Action in California
MAJOR LEAGUE: Former Minor League Players Seek Class Approval
META PLATFORMS: Sept. 22 Data Tracking Claims Filing Deadline Set
MOLECULAR PARTNERS: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Sept. 12 Deadline
NABORS COMPLETION: Court Enters Recoverable Amounts in Reasner Suit
NABORS COMPLETION: Ordered to Pay LeMasters $131.44K in Damages
NEW YORK, NY: Emergency Executive Order on Jail Conditions Issued
NEW-INDY CONTAINERBOARD: Must Face Foul Odor Class Action Suit
NISSAN NORTH: Sept. 29 Altima Rust Settlement Final Hearing Set
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY: Judge Revives COVID Tuition Class Action
OMM LLC: Deadline to Answer Jackson's Complaint Moved to August 29
OUTSET MEDICAL: Kuznicki Law Reminds of September 6 Deadline
PARSLEY ENERGY: Rusco Appeals Arbitration Bid Rulings in Streety
PING IDENTITY: Juan Monteverde Investigates Proposed Acquisition
PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: $2.9MM in Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Hsu Suit
PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Final Judgment & Order Issued in Hsu Class Suit
PZENA INVESTMENT: Juan Monteverde Investigates Proposed Merger
RING LLC: Bid to Dismiss Wise Suit and Strike Class Claims Denied
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Settles Outage Class Action for $9.9 Million
SAGINAW, MI: Federal Judge Rules Chalking Tires Unconstitutional
STARBUCKS CORP: Faces Suit Over Missing Refreshers' Ingredients
STARKIST CO: Wants Supreme Court to Decertify Tuna Class Action
T-MOBILE US: $350MM Data Breach Settlement Awaits Court Approval
TORONTO-DOMINION BANK: Sept. 21 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
TTE TECHNOLOGY: January 19 Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set
TUSIMPLE HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
TUYA INC: Johnson Fistel Reminds of October 11 Deadline
TUYA INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of October 11 Deadline
TYRO PAYMENTS: October 30 Claim Registration Deadline Set
UNITY SOFTWARE: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of September 5 Deadline
VOYAGER DIGITAL: Faces Fraud Class Action Lawsuit in Florida
WALMART INC: Faces Wage-and-Hour Class Action in New York
WEBER INC: Portnoy Law Firm Announces Securities Class Action
WEBER INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of September 27 Deadline
[*] 101 New U.S. Securities Class Actions Filed in 1st Half of 2022
[*] Cannabis Dispensary Group Settles FCRA Class Action for $60K
[*] Financiers Help Fuel Rise in US-Style Class Actions in UK
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Defends Product Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Faces Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Co. Accrues $33MM for Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Has 203 Individual Cases Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Accrues $227MM for Pending and Future Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Int'l. Paper Co. Records $106MM Future Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Defends 600 Pending Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Tech. Has 420 Open Cases at July 3
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Reports $14.5MM in Accrued Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Defends 925 Active Cases at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Solutions Faces 220 Cases at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.W. Grainger Still Faces Exposure Claims
*********
17 EDUCATION: Robbins Geller Reminds of September 19 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Aug. 9 disclosed that
purchasers or acquirers of 17 Education & Technology Group Inc.
(NASDAQ: YQ) publicly traded securities pursuant and/or traceable
to the registration statement and related prospectus (collectively,
the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with 17
Education & Technology's December 4, 2020 initial public offering
(the "IPO") have until September 19, 2022 to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff in the 17 Education & Technology class action
lawsuit. Captioned Zhang v. 17 Education & Technology Group Inc.,
No. 22-cv-04937 (C.D. Cal.), the 17 Education & Technology class
action lawsuit charges 17 Education & Technology as well as certain
of its top executives, directors, and underwriters with violations
of the Securities Act of 1933.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, please provide your information here:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-17-education-technology-group-inc-class-action-lawsuit-yq.html
You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by
calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: 17 Education & Technology offered tutoring
services related to academic subjects to students from kindergarten
through the last year of senior high school ("K-12 Academic AST
Services") in the People's Republic of China ("PRC"). On December
4, 2020, 17 Education & Technology held its IPO, issuing
approximately 27,400,000 American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") to the
investing public at $10.50 per ADS, pursuant to the Registration
Statement.
PRC authorities have been targeting private education companies and
tutoring companies, especially including those that are
Western-financed, for reform publicly since at least February 2019.
In January 2021, the month after the IPO, Chinese authorities
publicly made clear within the PRC, again, that they would reform
the private tutoring industry in which 17 Education & Technology
operated. In doing so, for example, the Central Commission for
Discipline Inspection, the highest internal enforcement division of
the Chinese Communist Party, and the National Supervision
Commission of the PRC released an article warning about reforms of
abuses by private education companies. In light of the proposed,
discussed, and enacted reforms from and connected to the 2018-2022
plan for modernizing Chinese education, several other Chinese
education technology firms, including VIPKid, Huohua Siwei,
Zuoyebang, and Yuanfudao, reportedly scrapped or postponed plans
for initial public offerings.
The 17 Education & Technology Group class action lawsuit alleges
that the IPO's Registration Statement was false and/or misleading
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) 17 Education & Technology's
K-12 Academic AST Services would end less than a year after the
IPO; and (ii) as part of its ongoing regulatory efforts, Chinese
authorities would imminently curtail and/or end 17 Education &
Technology's core business.
On July 23, 2021, mere months after the IPO, Chinese authorities
formally revealed to the public continued regulations which banned
after-school tutoring companies that teach the school curriculum
from making profits, raising capital, or going public. These
measures formally ended any potential growth in the for-profit
tutoring sector in the PRC.
As of July 13, 2022, the price of 17 Education & Technology ADS has
fallen by approximately 85% from the $10.50 IPO price.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired
17 Education & Technology publicly traded securities pursuant
and/or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in connection
with the IPO to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. A lead
plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial
interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also
typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts
on behalf of all other class members in directing the 17 Education
& Technology class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a
law firm of its choice to litigate the 17 Education & Technology
class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff of the 17 Education & Technology class action lawsuit.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller is one of the world's leading
complex class action firms representing plaintiffs in securities
fraud cases. The Firm is ranked #1 on the 2021 ISS Securities Class
Action Services Top 50 Report for recovering nearly $2 billion for
investors last year alone - more than triple the amount recovered
by any other plaintiffs' firm. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices,
Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the
world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history, including the
largest securities class action recovery ever - $7.2 billion - in
In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for
more information:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html
Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Contacts
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
ANZ BANKING: Class Action Can Be Conducted as Opt-Out Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline So, writing for NZ Lawyer, reports that the High Court
has ruled that the multimillion-dollar class action filed against
ANZ and ASB can be conducted as an opt-out claim.
According to Banking Class Action solicitor Scott Russell, the
decision paves the way for more of the banking customers affected
to take part in the suit, which accuses the banks of not refunding
the interest and fees of over 150,000 customers that were charged
unnecessarily when the banks violated disclosure obligations.
The suit references the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act
2003.
"The approval by the High Court is important because it provides a
high level of certainty that the case will now proceed through the
court system," Russell said in a media release. "For the
hard-working New Zealanders who are entirely dependent on their
bank to act responsibly and in accordance with the law, this means
ANZ and ASB will be held to account for what our claim alleges are
serious and ongoing breaches of our consumer protection laws."
He confirmed that the landmark class action involving claims
company Southern Response set the precedent for the court's ruling
in the ANZ-ASB suit.
"Opt-out actions work for claims such as this one where there are a
lot of consumers who all have the same interest in the legal
action, yet for different reasons, they may not realise or
understand that they are eligible to participate," he explained.
"In addition, for an individual, it is highly unlikely they would
ever be able to afford to take a legal claim against a well-funded
defendant like a bank."
The court also affirmed that it could grant a common fund order,
which Russell said provides "transparency around the terms of
funding, including legal costs and funder commissions."
"The court's approval means ANZ and ASB customers can make an
informed assessment of the claim and it also reduces the potential
for unnecessary challenges by the banks and their insurance
companies to delay the proceedings which only adds time and cost of
the case but doesn't address the merits of the claim," he said.
Russell confirmed that the court has welcomed applications for such
an order once the first stage of proceedings for the class action
is finished. At this point, the bank's liability will have been
made clear, he pointed out. [GN]
AT&T MOBILITY: November 3 Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Avery, writing for CNET, reports that millions of AT&T
customers are eligible for a payment in a class action settlement
stemming from accusations the mobile carrier illegally charged
subscribers undisclosed administrative fees for years. A judge
tentatively approved a $14 million class-action settlement in June
and the site for filing claims is now live.
Plaintiffs in the suit, filed in the US District Court for the
Northern District of California, argue AT&T failed to inform
post-paid wireless customers they were being charged a monthly
$1.99 administrative fee for each line. (Unlike prepaid
subscribers, post-paid customers are billed after the fact based on
their usage.)
In an email to CNET, a spokesperson said AT&T denied the
allegations put forth in the lawsuit, adding that it "clearly and
prominently" discloses all fees. The carrier agreed to the
settlement, the rep added, "to avoid lengthy, expensive
litigation."
Here's what you need to know about the case, including who is
eligible for a payment, how much class members could get and how to
file a claim.
What is AT&T accused of in the class action suit?
AT&T began charging post-paid customers a monthly administrative
fee for each wireless line in May 2013.
In their suit, Vianu v. AT&T Mobility, plaintiffs Ian Vianu,
Elizabeth Blum and Dominic Gutierrez allege the fee is really a way
for AT&T to increase its basic rate "without having to advertise
the higher prices."
The fee has been regularly raised -- it more than doubled in 2018
to $1.99 a month -- even though AT&T financial records allegedly
show the company's administrative costs have actually been
decreasing.
According to the complaint, mention of the fee is intentionally
buried in bill statements "to [make] it likely customers will not
notice it." It's also phrased to suggest that it's akin to a tax or
regulatory fee, the suit reads, "when in fact it is simply a way
for AT&T to advertise and promise lower rates than it actually
charges."
Calling the practice a "bait-and-switch scheme," the plaintiffs
maintain AT&T has "unfairly and improperly extracted hundreds of
millions of dollars in ill-gotten gains from California
consumers."
Their complaint accuses the carrier of violating several California
statutes regarding unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business
practices, as well as "the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing."
Who is eligible for money from the AT&T class action settlement?
AT&T customers in California who were charged administrative fees
on their post-paid wireless service plans between June 20, 2015,
and June 16, 2022, can file claims from the settlement and receive
one-time cash payments.
While all post-paid customers were charged the fees, only
California residents have recourse due to the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act, which protects against "false advertising,
fraud, and other unfair business practices."
It's not clear how many subscribers AT&T has in California, though
it is the third-largest mobile carrier in the US, with more than 80
million post-paid customers across the country.
How much will class members receive from the AT&T settlement?
Class members who successfully file a claim will receive an equal
share of the net settlement. Payments are estimated to be $15 to
$30, covering between six and 11 months of administrative fees.
The payments may ultimately be higher or lower depending on the
number of claimants, as well as attorneys' fees, which will likely
be upward of $3 million.
In any event, the payments won't be a full reimbursement of the
administrative fees: According to AT&T records, the average
customer has paid $180 in fees since 2015, The Verge reported, two
years after the practice began.
How do I file a claim for a cash payment from the AT&T settlement?
If you believe you're eligible for a portion of the settlement, you
can submit a claim on this website or print out a physical form to
mail in.
You'll be asked for your name, mailing and email addresses and AT&T
Wireless phone number or account number. Claims must be submitted
by Oct. 29, 2022.
Some class members received emails or postcards notifying them of
the potential settlement with a Notice ID and Confirmation Code.
If you received a notification, include the ID and code when you
file. If you didn't receive a postcard or email -- or do not know
where it is -- you can still file without them.
If you are eligible for the settlement but want to opt out in order
to retain the right to pursue your own lawsuit, you must email or
mail a request for exclusion by Sept. 29, 2022.
When will class members receive payment from the AT&T settlement?
A California court gave preliminary approval to the $14 million
payout in June. A final approval hearing is scheduled for Nov. 3.
If the court signs off on the deal, payments would be sent out
sometime after that.
Current AT&T subscribers would receive their refund via an
automatic credit to their account, while former customers would
likely get a check or debit card.
Want to find out about more class action settlements? See if you
qualify for payouts from T-Mobile's $350 million data-breach deal,
the $90 million Facebook frictionless sharing case or Roundup weed
killer's $45 million settlement. [GN]
ATLAS AIR: Juan Monteverde Probes Firm Over Proposed Acquisition
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Atlas Air
Worldwide Holdings, Inc. (AAWW), relating to its proposed
acquisition by investors led by Apollo Global Management Inc. Under
the terms of the agreement, AAWW shareholders are expected to
receive $102.50 in cash per share they own. Click here for more
information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/atlas-air-worldwide-holdings-inc.
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
About Monteverde & Associates PC
We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that
has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting
shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top
50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report.
Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is
recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities
Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of
attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by
Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's
recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory
that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the
Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm
successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a
writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States
Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019).
Also, in 2019 we recovered or secured six cash common funds for
shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases.
If you own common stock in AAWW and wish to obtain additional
information and protect your investments free of charge, please
visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via
e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212)
971-1341.
Contact:
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL: Chairman Responds to Training Camp Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Keane, writing for ABC News, reports that Adelaide Crows
chairman John Olsen says the club has not sought legal advice
despite talk of a class action in the wake of Eddie Betts' claims
about a controversial 2018 training camp.
Key points:
Crows chairman John Olsen said a class action would be addressed if
and when it happened
He rejected suggestions there had been a cover-up at the time of
the camp
But he conceded elements of what had occurred were "inexcusable"
Mr Olsen described any such move against the club as
"hypothetical", and also defended the way the club had responded in
the seven days since the publication of Betts' memoir The Boy from
Boomerang Crescent.
The book details Betts' anxiety and anger following the preseason
camp, and prompted former Crow Josh Jenkins to speak out as well.
Adelaide lawyer Greg Griffin said he had begun investigating a
potential class action against the club, on behalf of several
players who attended the camp.
"Any action would be brought in the Supreme Court of Victoria,
which requires a minimum of seven group members to bring and
maintain a class action," he said.
"The number of persons, or players, is well in excess of the number
that we require."
But Mr Olsen, who earlier issued a public apology to Betts and
Jenkins, told ABC Radio Adelaide such a development would be
addressed if and when it arose.
"It is hypothetical, because until it takes place it's not fact,
and if it takes place, we'll address the issue at that time," he
said.
Mr Olsen said he had spoken to all the club's board members, but
issues for discussion did not include the position of board member
Mark Ricciuto who, on his Triple M breakfast show, said "the club
has moved on from" the camp.
"Mark's position at the board was not discussed at the meeting.
That's not on my agenda at the moment," Mr Olsen said.
Mr Olsen joined the club in 2020, two years after the now infamous
camp.
Denials of a 'cover-up'
The former SA premier denied the club had sought to conceal the
controversy at the time, and said player welfare was the current
"priority".
"I think that's a stretch to say there was a cover-up. People were
dealing with a difficult situation," he said.
"A number of individuals indicated to me they had a very positive
experience at the camp.
"[But receiving] confidential information given by a player, and
that being used in front of others at the camp, is inexcusable.
"Those circumstances cannot, and will not, happen again."
Since the publication of Betts' book, Mr Olsen has confined himself
to individual interviews and statements, rather than holding a
media conference -- an approach he defended.
"I have made myself available across the board, to radio, print and
television," he said.
"Shortly after Eddie Betts's book had been released, and his
comments related to chapter 17, [chief executive] Tim Silvers was
immediately available on that on Aug. 10 and immediately
apologised." [GN]
CARGUARD ADMINISTRATION: Pennsylvania Court Tosses TCPA Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Troutman, Esq., in an article for TCPAWorld, reports that
The Troutman Firm has just delivered a MASSIVE signature win (and
for a very deserving client I might add) - and the ruling has major
implications for companies that rely on third-parties to sell their
products.
A federal court in Pennsylvania held on Aug. 8 - at the pleadings
stage - that a Plaintiff lacks standing to sue a service provider
that contractually prohibited sellers to engage in telemarketing,
even where the seller, in fact, sold the provider's services using
illegal phone calls without its knowledge. And that's a really big
deal.
Before we unpackage this, let's have some background. As everyone
that follows TCPAWorld knows I am a huge advocate of standing and
constitutional arguments. This story will help explain why.
In the TCPAWorld, most standing arguments focus on the "concrete
harm" component of Article III. But there are two related - and
equally important - components that complete the standing trifecta:
whether the harm is "fairly traceable" to a defendant's conduct and
whether suit against the defendant will result in redress of the
harm.
In TCPA cases these two standing prongs are often met - hence the
focus on "concrete harm" - but in some instances they will not be.
One such instance - as was the case in a suit called Bacarri v.
CarGuard - is when a seller is specifically instructed not to
engage in the industry-producing conduct at all.
In Bacarri the Defendant was the administrator of vehicle service
contracts. Unlike the many scumbag auto warranty companies out
there - you know the ones - CarGuard is actually a really good
company that seeks to deliver high quality service contracts to
consumers and helps to keep people's cars running. And that's an
important service.
CarGuard is also exceptionally focused on NEVER allowing its name
to be tarnished with claims that robocalls are used to sell its
products. So unlike many other companies, CarGuard specifically
prohibits sellers authorized to sell its products from engaging in
any form of telemarketing. Period. Full stop.
In other words, CarGuard is the ultimate TCPAWorld good guy.
Nonetheless, it was recently caught up in a TCPA class action suit
brought by the Wolf.
The Wolf's theory was that CarGuard should be automatically liable,
in essence, because it accepted the benefit of the illegal calls.
Making matters more difficult, the Wolf alleged that CarGuard
instructed the seller to make telemarketing calls - even though
that just isn't true - and otherwise suggested CarGuard knew the
calls were taking place.
On a motion to dismiss these allegations would normally have to be
accepted as true - even though they were inaccurate. So, in order
to get past the allegations and to the true facts the Troutman Firm
had to get creative. And that's where standing principles come into
play.
Unlike a 12(b)(6) motion that challenges allegations of a
complaint, a 12(b)(1) motion that challenges subject matter
jurisdiction can be made as a factual challenge. And while cases
have properly recognized that merits based defenses cannot be
raised as part of a standing challenge, where the facts show the
injury-causing conduct is not fairly traceable to the Defendant in
the first instance, a court can - indeed must - accept unchallenged
sworn testimony, over the allegations of the complaint, even at the
pleadings stage.
So CarGuard -- armed with a thoughtful declaration from its
CEO - moved to dismiss the case arguing that the conduct of the
marketer cannot be "fairly traced" back to it. After all, CarGuard
did not instruct the marketer to engage in outbound phone calls --
it specifically told it not to make such calls. And it did not
knowingly accept the benefit of the calls -- it had no idea the
calls were placed until after it had already accepted the
contracts. So there was no causal connection between anything
CarGuard did and the harm Plaintiff suffered.
The Wolf opposed arguing that his allegations established enough to
show standing, but the Court disagreed. Recognizing that CarGuard
had neutralized the only allegations related to its involvement in
the challenged conduct the Court dismissed the complaint entirely:
In response to the evidence Carguard presented to break the factual
link between itself and Baccari's harm, Baccari only provides a
lengthy discussion about the law concerning principles of agency,
and restates allegations in the complaint. For example, Baccari
merely re-asserts that A-List was "contractually require[d]" to use
telemarketing practices to reach customers like himself. Because
Baccari has not met his burden to produce evidence responding to
Carguard's factual attack, Carguard's motion for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction will be granted, and the Complaint will be
dismissed without prejudice.
Great, no?
The Bacarri case is important for a couple of reasons.
First, it represents a huge signature win for the new Troutman
Firm. Always great to deliver a really superb, first-in-the-nation
result that has far-reaching impact. Its no surprise, of course,
since the Czar has delivered numerous first-in-the-nation wins at
every firm he's been with. And notably, although we work with GREAT
local counsel - the guys at Fox Rothschild were fantastic in
support - the briefing here was done entirely by the TF team, with
the incredible Baroness doing the majority of the briefing.
So even with a new firm, the wins just keep on coming. (As you'd
expect.)
More broadly, Bacarri demonstrates the limits of liability for
companies that are caught up in TCPA cases merely because their
products were being sold illegally by third parties who were not
authorized to do so. Rather than file a motion to dismiss - which
is very challenging in these cases because the allegations of the
complaint must be accepted as true - or waiting until summary
judgment - which comes only after very expensive discovery takes
place in these cases - a standing challenge can be brought right at
the outset of the case.
And where a company can point to crystal clear evidence that it did
not authorize or permit the calls at issue, there is simply no way
to trace the conduct back to the offerer of the product. So the
Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue the case. And a well-briefed
motion can deliver a stunning and immediate victory.
Keep these critical issues in mind TCPAWorld.
It was a real honor to have had the opportunity to represent
CarGuard in this case. Great company. And it was incredibly fun to
watch the Baroness earn her first major victory working for me.
Here's to many more great wins together TCPAWorld!! [GN]
CARVANA CO: Bragar Eagel Reminds of October 3 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Carvana Co. (NYSE: CVNA) and
Kiromic BioPharma, Inc. (NASDAQ: KRBP). Stockholders have until the
deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff.
Additional information about each case can be found at the link
provided.
Carvana Co. (NYSE: CVNA)
Class Period: May 6, 2020 - June 24, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 3, 2022
On June 24, 2022, Barron's published an article entitled "Carvana
Sought to Disrupt Auto Sales. It Delivered Undriveable Cars,"
detailing, among other things, that: "[i]n its haste to seize
market share from competitors, Carvana was selling cars faster than
it could get them registered to their new owners" and "at one point
forming an ad hoc unit known as the 'undriveable-car task force'";
"[i]n other instances . . . Carvana sold cars before it had title
to the vehicles, an action that is illegal in many states where the
company does business"; and "state regulators across the U.S. have
been subjecting [Carvana] to suspensions or increased oversight
over registration delays and its practice of issuing multiple
temporary license plates from states where it has dealer's
licenses, instead of promptly providing permanent ones." For
example, the article detailed that "Pennsylvania officials
suspended [Carvana's] license to issue temporary permits at its two
vending-machine towers in that state… citing late document
submittals, 'improper issuance and verification of temporary
Pennsylvania plates in other states,' and other violations."
On this news, Carvana's share price fell approximately 21% over the
next two trading days, damaging investors.
The Carvana class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed
to disclose that: (i) Carvana faced serious, ongoing issues with
documentation, registration, and title with many of its vehicles;
(ii) as a result, Carvana was issuing unusually frequent temporary
plates; (iii) thus, Carvana was violating laws and regulations in
many existing markets; (iv) consequently, Carvana risked its
ability to continue business and/or expand its business in existing
markets; (v) as such, Carvana was at an increased risk of
governmental investigation and action; (vi) Carvana was in
discussion with state and local authorities regarding the
above-stated business tactics and issues; and (vii) Carvana was
facing imminent and ongoing regulatory actions including license
suspensions, business cessation, and probation in several states
and counties including in Arizona, Illinois, Pennsylvania,
Michigan, and North Carolina.
For more information on the Carvana class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/CVNA
Kiromic BioPharma, Inc. (NASDAQ: KRBP)
Class Period: June 25, 2021 - August 13, 2021 or pursuant to the
Company's July 2, 2021 IPO
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 4, 2022
The Complaint alleges that the Offering Documents failed to
disclose that the FDA had, prior to the filing of the Registration
Statement and Prospectus, imposed a clinical hold, and in fact,
contained statements indicating that it had not. Given that the
Offering closed on July 2, 2021, more than thirty (30) days after
the Company submitted the IND applications for its two
immunotherapy product candidates, investors were assured that no
clinical hold had been issued and clinical trials would commence.
The Company, however, had received communications from the FDA on
June 16 and 17, 2021, informing it that the FDA was placing the IND
applications for its two candidate products on clinical hold. The
Offering Documents failed to disclose this information, instead
representing that clinical testing was expected to proceed in the
third quarter of 2021. Clinical testing did not proceed in the
third quarter of 2021, nor was it likely given the FDA's imposition
of a clinical hold.
For more information on the Kiromic class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/KRBP
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
CARVANA CO: Robbins LLP Reminds of October 3 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
The Class: Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP reminds
investors that a shareholder filed a class action on behalf of all
persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Carvana
Co. (NYSE: CVNA) securities between May 6, 2020 and June 24, 2022,
for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Carvana,
along with its subsidiaries, is an e-commerce platform for buying
and selling used cars in the United States.
What is this Case About: Carvana Co. (CVNA) Misled Investors in
Connection with its Ability to Deliver Properly Registered Cars
According to the complaint, defendants made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Carvana faced serious,
ongoing issues with documentation, registration, and title with
many of its vehicles; (ii) as a result, Carvana was issuing
unusually frequent temporary plates; (iii) thus, Carvana was
violating laws and regulations in many existing markets; (iv)
consequently, Carvana risked its ability to continue business
and/or expand its business in existing markets; (v) as such,
Carvana was at an increased risk of governmental investigation and
action; (vi) Carvana was in discussions with state and local
authorities regarding the above-stated business tactics and issues;
and (vii) Carvana was facing imminent and ongoing regulatory
actions including license suspensions, business cessation, and
probation in several states and counties including in Arizona,
Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and North Carolina.
On June 24, 2022, Barron's published an article entitled "Carvana
Sought to Disrupt Auto Sales. It Delivered Undriveable Cars[,]"
which detailed several issues with Carvana, including that "[i]n
its haste to seize market share from competitors, Carvana was
selling cars faster than it could get them registered to their new
owners" and "at one point forming an ad hoc unit known as the
'undriveable-car task force.'" The article further stated that
"state regulators across the U.S. have been subjecting the company
to suspensions or increased oversight over registration delays and
its practice of issuing multiple temporary license plates from
states where it has dealer's licenses, instead of promptly
providing permanent ones." On this news, the Company's stock price
fell $6.78, or 21.5%, per share over the next two trading days to
close at $24.74 per share on June 28, 2022.
Next Steps: If you acquired shares of Carvana Co. between May 6,
2020 and June 24, 2022, you have until October 3, 2022, to ask the
court to appoint you lead plaintiff for the class. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members
in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the
case to be eligible for a recovery.
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
Shareholder Information Form
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 Carvana Co. 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.
View source version on
businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220809006133/en/
CONTACT:
Aaron Dumas
Robbins LLP
5040 Shoreham Place
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]
CHANGING HANDS BOOKSTORE: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Changing Hands
Bookstore, Inc. The case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Changing Hands
Bookstore, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06767-JPC (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 9,
2022).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Changing Hands Bookstore -- https://www.changinghands.com/ -- is a
retail company based in Tempe, Arizona.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
DELAWARE STATE UNIVERSITY: Sept. 19 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION PROPOSED REVISED CONSENT DECREE AND HEARING
ATTENTION: ALL CURRENT, PROSPECTIVE, AND FUTURE FEMALE STUDENTS OF
DELAWARE STATE
UNIVERSITY WHO PARTICIPATE, SEEK TO PARTICIPATE OR HAVE BEEN
DETERRED OR PREVENTED FROM
PARTICIPATING IN DELAWARE STATE VARSITY ATHLETICS
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AS IT ADDRESSES A PROPOSED
REVISED CONSENT DECREE IN
A LAWSUIT THAT MAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS
I. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this notice is to inform you of a proposed revised
consent decree (the "Proposed Revised Consent Decree") in a class
action lawsuit brought against Delaware State University ("DSU") on
February 23, 2010 by 15 female student athletes on behalf of a
class of all present and future female students of DSU (including
currently enrolled female students, admitted female students, and
prospective female students) who participate, or have been deterred
or prevented from participating in, or obtaining the benefits of
varsity intercollegiate athletics at DSU. This class action lawsuit
is captioned or otherwise referred to as Foltz, et al. v. Delaware
State University, Civil Action No. 10-149 (VAC) (D. Del.) (the
"Litigation").
The Litigation alleged that DSU violated and was continuing to
violate Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C.
Sections 1681-88 ("Title IX") by: (1) failing to provide equitable
athletic opportunities for its female students ("Participation
Claims"); and (2) failing to provide equitable athletic recruitment
resources to women's varsity athletic teams ("Recruitment Claims").
The Litigation was settled by Consent Decree approved by the
Federal District Court of Delaware on December 20, 2010 ("Original
Consent Decree").
Through the Participation Claims, the plaintiff class sought to
require DSU to comply with Title IX's equal participation
requirements and to prevent DSU from eliminating any women's
varsity athletic teams (including particularly, the women
equestrian team, which, in 2010, DSU had announced publicly that it
intended to eliminate) and bar DSU from cutting any other women's
varsity programs unless and until DSU had achieved compliance with
Title IX's participation requirements. Through the Recruitment
Claims, the plaintiff class sought to ensure that DSU provided
equal recruitment resources to its athletic teams regardless of
gender.
The Parties have negotiated a Revised Consent Decree because DSU
has not achieved compliance with its obligation to meet the
Participation requirements of the Original Consent Decree. DSU
argues that it was unable to do so largely due to increasing
numbers of enrolled female students, among other reasons. The
Revised Consent Decree modifies the goal by substituting a fixed
athletic participation ratio DSU must achieve, defined timeline,
and actions DSU must accomplish in a finite period of time to
achieve compliance.
THIS NOTICE SUMMARIZES THE PROPOSED REVISED CONSENT DECREE
AND ADVISES YOU OF:
The status of the Litigation and the opportunity to file with the
Court an objection to the Proposed Revised Consent Decree and to
appear at the Fairness Hearing addressing the approval of the
Proposed Revised Consent Decree.
II. DEFINITIONS OF THE CLASS
The plaintiff class, which was certified by the Court on July 12,
2010, is defined as: All present and future female students of DSU,
including currently enrolled female students, female students
admitted for the 2010-11 academic year, and prospective female
students who participate, seek to participate, or have been
deterred or prevented from participating in or obtaining the
benefits of intercollegiate athletics sponsored by DSU
(the "Class").
III. REASONS FOR THE REVISED CONSENT DECREE
After hard-fought litigation and extensive negotiations, the
Litigation was initially settled by the Original Consent Decree
approved by this Court on December 20, 2010. The Original Consent
Decree resolved Plaintiffs' Title IX Participation and Recruitment
Claims. To date, however, DSU has not fulfilled its obligation to
provide equal participation opportunities to female students by
providing athletic opportunities to female students within two-and
one-half percentage points of the full-time undergraduate female
enrollment. The Proposed Revised Consent Decree provides specific
actions pursuant to a detailed timetable to achieve full compliance
within a finite time-period and Class Counsel (Terry L. Fromson of
the Women's Law Project, Elizabeth Wilburn Joyce of Pinckney,
Weidinger, Urban & Joyce LLC, and Adam Gersh of Flaster Greenberg
PC) have concluded that the Revised Consent Decree is fair,
reasonable, and in the best interests of the Class. In reaching
this conclusion, Class Counsel have analyzed the benefits of the
Revised Consent Decree, the possible outcome of further litigation,
and the expense and length of continued proceedings necessary to
pursue contempt proceedings against DSU for its non-compliance with
the Original Consent Decree through a contested hearing or trial
and possible appeals. By entering into the Revised Consent Decree,
DSU does not admit any fault or wrongdoing.
IV. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED REVISED CONSENT DECREE
As a benefit to the Class, DSU has agreed to do the following, as
set forth in the Proposed Revised Consent Decree:
-- Increase the ratio of female-to-male student varsity athletic
participants from 55/45 to 60/40 by adding two new women's varsity
teams within five (5) years of approval of this Revised Consent
Decree by adding two new women's teams that satisfy Title IX
criteria for countable sports and for counting participants.
-- If DSU does not achieve a 60/40 ratio of female-to-male athletic
participants by adding two new women's varsity teams by the end of
five (5) years, the Revised Consent Decree will be extended by two
years and new women's team(s) will be added to achieve the target
of 60 percent women athletes;
-- Select the new women's teams with input from the newly
established Gender Equity in Athletics Committee, guidance from
information collected through a survey of student and applicant
athletic interests prepared by an expert consultant and conducted
twice during the term of the Revised Consent Decree, a study of
athletic interests of sports by female high school students from
geographic areas from which DSU draws its students, and any
requests made by students using the new policy for requesting the
addition of new teams on DSU's website;
-- Provide Plaintiffs' counsel with notice of approval of a new
women's athletic team within five (5) days of DSU approval and at
least 30 days before the team's first competitive season, provide
the team's recruiting budget and efforts, identity and biography of
its coach, squad and eligibility lists;
-- Provide various items of participation documentation, including
squad and eligibility lists, competition participation, practice
attendance, end of year academic year ratio of women-to-men varsity
team athletes, including individual team sizes supporting the
ratio, and projected varsity team sizes for the next academic year
for monitoring purposes.
-- Provide equivalent treatment, benefits, and services of existing
and new women's teams as defined by Title IX guidance;
-- Maintain its current and new women's varsity athletic teams so
long as the Revised Consent Decree is in effect.
V. BINDING EFFECT/RELEASES
The Proposed Revised Consent Decree, if finally approved by the
Court, will bind all members of the Class.
As a result, any person who is a member of the Class will be barred
from seeking additional injunctive relief for Title IX athletic
claims raised in the Litigation and resolved by the Revised Consent
Decree during the term of the Revised Consent
Decree.
VI. HEARING ON PROPOSED REVISED CONSENT DECREE
The Court has scheduled a Fairness Hearing for September 19th,
2022, at 9:30 a.m. in the Courtroom of the Honorable Mary Pat
Thynge, Chief Magistrate Judge for the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware, to determine whether the Proposed
Revised Consent Decree is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should
be finally approved.
It is not necessary for you to appear at the hearing. You may,
however, choose to appear at the hearing, either in person or
through an attorney. If you wish to appear at the hearing in person
or through your own attorney, you or your attorney must
notify the Clerk of the Court, John A. Cerino, Office of the Clerk,
844 N. King St., Unit 18, Wilmington, Delaware 19801 and the
following attorneys in writing by September 9th, 2022:
Elizabeth Wilburn Joyce
Pinckney, Weidinger, Urban & Joyce LLC
2 Mill Rd. Suite 204
Wilmington, DE 19806
Kathleen Furey McDonough
Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP
1313 N. Market Street, P.O. Box 951
Wilmington, DE 19899-0951
Requests to be heard at the Fairness Hearing filed by attorneys
should be filed pursuant to the Electronic Case Filing Procedures
for the District of Delaware, which are available online at
http://www.ded.uscourts.gov/CMECF/CMECFMain.htm.
VII. OPT-OUT
You may not "opt out" of the provisions of the Proposed Revised
Consent Decree. You may, however, voice objections to the Revised
Consent Decree as discussed below.
VIII. OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED REVISED CONSENT DECREE
If you believe that the Court for any reason should not finally
approve the Proposed Revised Consent Decree, you may object to it.
You may object through an attorney but need not retain an attorney
to object. If you want to object to the Proposed Revised Consent
Decree, you or your attorney must file an objection in writing
with:
Clerk of the Court
John A. Cerino
Office of the Clerk
844 N. King St., Unit 18
Wilmington, DE 19801
with copies to:
Elizabeth Wilburn Joyce
Pinckney, Weidinger, Urban & Joyce LLC
2 Mill Rd. Suite 204
Wilmington, DE 19806
Kathleen Furey McDonough
Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP
1313 N. Market Street, P.O. Box 951
Wilmington, DE 19899-0951
All objections must be in writing and must be received by the Clerk
of the Court on or before September 9th, 2022. All objections must
state the name and number of the Litigation, which are Foltz, et
al. v. Delaware State University, Civil Action No. 10-149 (VAC).
Objections filed by attorneys should be filed pursuant to the
Electronic Case Filing Procedures for the District of Delaware,
which are available online at
http://www.ded.uscourts.gov/CMECF/CMECFMain.htm.
Only Class members who have filed written objections or their
attorneys shall have the right to present objections orally at the
Fairness Hearing, and they will only have the right to do so if
they expressly seek it in their written objection. Unless otherwise
ordered by the Court, any Class members who do not make their
objections or opposition to the Proposed Revised Consent Decree in
the manner described above shall be deemed to have waived all
objections and opposition to the fairness, reasonableness, and
adequacy of the Proposed Revised Consent Decree and any other
matters pertaining to the Proposed Revised Consent Decree.
IX. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
This Notice is a summary and does not describe all of the details
of the Proposed Revised Consent Decree. The Revised Consent Decree
articulating all terms of the Proposed Revised Consent Decree, and
all other papers filed in the Litigation, are available for
inspection in the offices of the Clerk of the Court, John A.
Cerino, Office of the Clerk, 844 N. King St., Unit 18, Wilmington,
Delaware 19801. The documents may be examined by any Class member
or by counsel during normal court hours.
Further information about and copies of this Notice and the Revised
Consent Decree are available at www.womenslawproject.org . If you
have additional questions, you may also call Class Counsel
Elizabeth Wilburn Joyce at (302) 504-1497.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE JUDGE DIRECTLY ABOUT THE
PROPOSED REVISED CONSENT DECREE OR THIS NOTICE. [GN]
ENOCHIAN BIOSCIENCES: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 26 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Enochian Biosciences, Inc.
(NASDAQ: ENOB), Weber, Inc. (NYSE: WEBR), and Coinbase Global, Inc.
(NASDAQ: COIN). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to
petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional
information about each case can be found at the link provided.
Enochian Biosciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: ENOB)
Class Period: January 17, 2018 - June 27, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 26, 2022
Enochian is a pre-clinical stage biotechnology company that
purportedly researches and develops pharmaceutical and biological
products for the human treatment of human immunodeficiency virus,
hepatitis B virus, influenza and coronavirus infections, and
cancer.
Enochian and its top management have credited Serhat Gumrukcu
("Gumrukcu"), Enochian's co-founder and largest shareholder, as a
"genius" and the "inventor" of the technology and science behind
the Company's product pipeline.
Enochian has multiple consulting and licensing agreements with
G-Tech Bio, LLC, a California limited liability company ("G-Tech"),
and G Health Research Foundation, a not-for-profit entity organized
under the laws of California doing business as Seraph Research
Institute ("SRI"), both of which are controlled by Gumrukcu.
On May 25, 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that
Gumrukcu had been arrested and charged in a murder-for-hire
conspiracy.
On this news, Enochian's stock price fell $2.17 per share, or
36.97%, to close at $3.70 per share on May 25, 2022.
Then, on June 1, 2022, Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg") published
a report on Enochian entitled "Miracle Cures and Murder For Hire:
How A Spoon-Bending Turkish Magician Built A $600 Million
Nasdaq-Listed Scam Based On A Lifetime Of Lies" (the "Hindenburg
Report"). The Hindenburg Report noted that the individual in whose
murder Gumrukcu was implicated, Gregory Davis, "was murdered . . .
just 19 days before Gumrukcu was scheduled to appear in court to
defend himself against felony fraud allegations related to a 2016
deal with Davis" and that "[f]ederal prosecutors argued that the
prospective merger deal that eventually resulted in Enochian going
public served as a key motive for the murder." The Hindenburg
Report also stated that "[u]nbeknownst to investors (but known to
Enochian's senior leadership) Gumrukcu's latest arrest for a murder
conspiracy is simply the most recent in a string of alleged crimes
by Gumrukcu," who "was arrested based on accusations of falsely
posing as a doctor" in his native Turkey in 2012 and "[i]n February
2017, Gumrukcu was arrested by authorities after the State of
California accused him of a slew of white-collar crimes, including
fraud, identity theft, and check kiting - a total of 14 felonies."
The Hindenburg Report further stated that "[w]e have been unable to
find any jurisdiction in which Gumrukcu is licensed as a medical
doctor" and that "Gumrukcu looks to have purchased a fake Russian
medical degree on the black market[.]"
On this news, Enochian's stock price fell $1.495 per share, or
28.42%, to close at $3.765 per share on June 1, 2022.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Gumrukcu was not a licensed doctor and had no
verifiable degrees beyond high school; (ii) accordingly, the
scientific and technological underpinnings of Enochian's product
pipeline, purportedly invented by Gumrukcu, were dubious at best;
(iii) accordingly, the Defendants had significantly overstated the
commercial prospects for the Company's product pipeline; (iv)
Enochian's senior leadership knew Gumrukcu had a criminal history
that included fraud; (v) accordingly, Enochian's reliance on
Gumrukcu, and its consulting and licensing agreements with G-Tech
and SRI, subjected the Company to a heightened risk of
reputational and financial harm, as well as threatened the
integrity of the Company's scientific findings; and (vi) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the Enochian class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/ENOB
Weber, Inc. (NYSE: WEBR)
Class Period: Pursuant to the Company's August 6, 2021 IPO
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 27, 2022
On or about August 6, 2021, Weber completed its IPO, selling
approximately 17,857,143 shares of Class A common stock at a price
of $14.00 per share.
On July 25, 2022, before the market opened, Weber announced its
preliminary third quarter 2022 financial results, including net
sales between $525 million and $530 million. The Company expected
to report a net loss, noting that "[p]rofitability was negatively
impacted by" several factors, including "promotional activity to
enhance retail sell through." Additionally, Weber announced that
Chris Scherzinger "is departing" from his roles as Chief Executive
Officer and director of the Company.
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.21 per share, or
16%, to close at $6.30 per share on July 25, 2022, on unusually
heavy trading volume.
By the commencement of this action, the Company's stock was trading
as low as $6.25 per share, a nearly 55% decline from the $14 per
share IPO price.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that the
Registration Statement 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
Weber was reasonably likely to implement price increases; (2) that,
as a result, consumer demand for Weber's products was reasonably
likely to decrease; (3) that, due to the resulting inventory
buildup, Weber was reasonably likely to run promotions to "enhance
retail sell through"; (4) that the foregoing would adversely impact
Weber's financial results; and (5) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
For more information on the Weber class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/WEBR
Coinbase Global, Inc. (NASDAQ: COIN)
Class Period: April 14, 2021 - July 26, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 3, 2022
Coinbase provides financial infrastructure and technology products
and services for the cryptocurrency economy (or "cryptoeconomy") in
the U.S. and internationally. The Company purportedly offers the
primary financial account in the cryptoeconomy for retailers, a
marketplace with a pool of liquidity for transacting in crypto
assets for institutions, and technology and services that enable
ecosystem partners to build crypto-based applications and securely
accept crypto assets as payment.
On May 10, 2022, in its quarterly report for the first quarter of
2022, released after the markets closed, Coinbase disclosed that:
"[B]ecause custodially held crypto assets may be considered to be
the property of a bankruptcy estate, in the event of a bankruptcy,
the crypto assets we hold in custody on behalf of our customers
could be subject to bankruptcy proceedings and such customers could
be treated as our general unsecured creditors."
Following this disclosure, the price of Coinbase's Class A common
stock fell $19.27 per share, or 26.4%, to close at $53.72 per share
on May 11, 2022.
In a subsequent tweet commenting on the disclosure, Coinbase's
Chief Executive Officer, Defendant Brian Armstrong, stated: "We
should have updated our retail terms sooner, and we didn't
communicate proactively when this risk disclosure was added. My
deepest apologies, and a good learning moment for us as we make
future changes."
On May 12, 2022, Professor Adam J. Levitin, a professor of law, at
Georgetown University Law Center, published a draft of an article
entitled "Not Your Keys, Not Your Coins: Unpriced Credit Risk in
Cryptocurrency," set to appear in the Texas Law Review, which
argues that in the event a cryptocurrency exchange files for
bankruptcy, bankruptcy courts are likely to deem custodial holdings
of cryptocurrencies to be property of the bankrupt exchange, rather
than the property of its customers.
Then, on July 25, 2022, after the markets closed, Bloomberg
reported that Coinbase is facing an SEC probe into whether it
improperly let Americans trade digital assets that should have been
registered as securities.
On this news, the price of Coinbase's Class A common stock fell
$14.14 per share, or 21.08%, to close at $52.93 per share on July
26, 2022.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Coinbase custodially held
crypto assets on behalf of its customers, which assets Coinbase
knew or recklessly disregarded could qualify as the property of a
bankruptcy estate, making those assets potentially subject to
bankruptcy proceedings in which Coinbase's customers would be
treated as the Company's general unsecured creditors; (ii) Coinbase
allowed Americans to trade digital assets that Coinbase knew or
recklessly disregarded should have been registered as securities
with the SEC; (iii) the foregoing conduct subjected the Company to
a heightened risk of regulatory and governmental scrutiny and
enforcement action; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
For more information on the Coinbase class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/COIN
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
ENOCHIAN BIOSCIENCES: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Sept. 26 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 10 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Enochian Biosciences Inc. ("Enochian" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: ENOB) and certain of its officers and
directors. The class action, filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, and docketed under
22-cv-01374, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired
Enochian securities between September 24, 2020 and May 31, 2022,
both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired
Enochian securities during the Class Period, you have until
September 26, 2022 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S.
Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.
Enochian is a pre-clinical stage biotechnology company that
purportedly researches and develops pharmaceutical and biological
products for the human treatment of human immunodeficiency virus,
hepatitis B virus, influenza and coronavirus infections, and
cancer.
Enochian and its top management have credited Serhat Gumrukcu
("Gumrukcu"), Enochian's co-founder and largest shareholder, as a
"genius" and the "inventor" of the technology and science behind
the Company's product pipeline.
Enochian has multiple consulting and licensing agreements with
G-Tech Bio, LLC, a California limited liability company ("G-Tech"),
and G Health Research Foundation, a not-for-profit entity organized
under the laws of California doing business as Seraph Research
Institute ("SRI"), both of which are controlled by Gumrukcu.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Gumrukcu was not a licensed doctor and had no
verifiable degrees beyond high school; (ii) accordingly, the
scientific and technological underpinnings of Enochian's product
pipeline, purportedly invented by Gumrukcu, were dubious at best;
(iii) accordingly, the Defendants had significantly overstated the
commercial prospects for the Company's product pipeline; (iv)
Enochian's senior leadership knew Gumrukcu had a criminal history
that included fraud; (v) accordingly, Enochian's reliance on
Gumrukcu, and its consulting and licensing agreements with G-Tech
and SRI, subjected the Company to a heightened risk of reputational
and financial harm, as well as threatened the integrity of the
Company's scientific findings; and (vi) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
On May 25, 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that
Gumrukcu had been arrested and charged in a murder-for-hire
conspiracy.
On this news, Enochian's stock price fell $2.17 per share, or
36.97%, to close at $3.70 per share on May 25, 2022.
Then, on June 1, 2022, Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg") published
a report on Enochian entitled "Miracle Cures and Murder For Hire:
How A Spoon-Bending Turkish Magician Built A $600 Million
Nasdaq-Listed Scam Based On A Lifetime Of Lies" (the "Hindenburg
Report"). The Hindenburg Report noted that the individual in whose
murder Gumrukcu was implicated, Gregory Davis, "was murdered . . .
just 19 days before Gumrukcu was scheduled to appear in court to
defend himself against felony fraud allegations related to a 2016
deal with Davis" and that "[f]ederal prosecutors argued that the
prospective merger deal that eventually resulted in Enochian going
public served as a key motive for the murder." The Hindenburg
Report also stated that "[u]nbeknownst to investors (but known to
Enochian's senior leadership) Gumrukcu's latest arrest for a murder
conspiracy is simply the most recent in a string of alleged crimes
by Gumrukcu," who "was arrested based on accusations of falsely
posing as a doctor" in his native Turkey in 2012 and "[i]n February
2017, Gumrukcu was arrested by authorities after the State of
California accused him of a slew of white-collar crimes, including
fraud, identity theft, and check kiting – a total of 14
felonies." The Hindenburg Report further stated that "[w]e have
been unable to find any jurisdiction in which Gumrukcu is licensed
as a medical doctor" and that "Gumrukcu looks to have purchased a
fake Russian medical degree on the black market[.]"
On this news, Enochian's stock price fell $1.495 per share, or
28.42%, to close at $3.765 per share on June 1, 2022.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.
Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the
class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class
actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in
the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the
victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomlaw.com
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]
EQT CORP: 3d Cir. Vacates Class Certification Order in Laudato Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DOMENIC LAUDATO, JR. v. EQT CORPORATION; EQUITRANS,
L.P.; EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY; EQT MIDSTREAM PARTNERS L.P.,
Appellants, Case No. 22-1224 (3d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit vacates the District Court's order granting
the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
In February 2021, Laudato sought the District Court's certification
of a class action consisting of all owners of real property within
EQT's various natural gas storage fields who had not yet been
compensated for EQT's use of their property. The District Court
expressed the belief that class treatment was appropriate but noted
that, as proposed, Laudato's class action was "doomed to fail" as
it would "degenerate into a series of mini-trials." The District
Court nevertheless refused "to let the perfect be the enemy of the
good" and proceeded to effectively certify the class.
On Jan. 20, 2022, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(f), the Third Circuit granted the Appellants' petition for leave
to appeal the District Court's Sept. 29, 2021, order granting
Laudato's motion for class certification. At the same time, it
advised the parties that it was considering taking summary action
in accordance with 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6. As required by its internal
operating procedures, the Third Circuit asked the parties whether
such a course of action would be proper. Laudato and EQT agreed
that summary action would be appropriate but, unsurprisingly,
disagreed on the type of summary action the Third Circuit should
take.
The Third Circuit explains that a District Court must engage in "a
rigorous analysis," including "a thorough examination of the
factual and legal allegations," before it can determine that the
requirements of Rule 23 have been satisfied and that a party is
entitled to proceed with a class action. In the case, however, the
District Court concluded Laudato was entitled to proceed with a
class action despite having merely mentioned Rule 23 once. It was
no more than a recitation of the Rule 23(a) prerequisites and is a
far cry from the "rigorous analysis" that long-standing precedent
requires.
Moreover, the requisite rigorous analysis of Rule 23 involves
ensuring both conformance with Rule 23(a) and (b). Before the
District Court, Laudato argued that each of the three paths to
satisfying Rule 23(b) was viable. But the District Court gave no
indication that Rule 23(b) was satisfied, or if so, how. As an
appellate court, the Third Circuit is not in a position to conduct
the Rule 23(a) and (b) analyses in the first instance.
Because the District Court did not conduct a sufficiently rigorous
analysis to determine whether Laudato satisfied Rule 23 and was
thus entitled to class certification, the Third Circuit vacates its
order and remands for further proceedings. If, after conducting
such analysis, the District Court continues to believe that class
certification is appropriate, it may enter a new certification
order that satisfies all of Rule 23's requirements.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 3, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/ybtve8m2 from Leagle.com.
FAT BRANDS: Settles Consolidated Securities Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
FAT (Fresh. Authentic. Tasty.) Brands Inc. (NASDAQ: FAT) (the
"Company") announced on Aug. 10 that it has reached an agreement in
principle to settle the consolidated securities class action
lawsuit captioned In re FAT Brands Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 2:22-cv-01820-MCS-RAO (C.D. Cal.), pending against the Company
and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The
consolidated class action complaint was filed in March 2022, as
described in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 23, 2022. The
agreement to settle the lawsuit was reached following a voluntary
mediation process.
The agreement in principle contemplates a cash payment by the
Company of $2.5 million and issuance of $500,000 in Class A common
stock to settle the claims brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired FAT Brands securities between
December 4, 2017 and February 18, 2022. The parties have agreed to
negotiate in good faith to execute a definitive stipulation of
settlement and related documents to be filed with the court. The
Company anticipates that the stipulation of settlement will provide
a full release of all claims by the settlement class members
against all defendants, including the Company and the named
officers and directors, and will expressly deny any liability,
wrongdoing or responsibility by any of the defendants. The Company
anticipates that, upon final court approval of the settlement, the
litigation will be dismissed with prejudice. Approval by the court,
notice to the putative class, and the satisfaction of customary
conditions to effectiveness may take several months.
While FAT Brands continues to deny liability, it also believes that
eliminating the distraction, expense and risk of continued
litigation is in the best interests of the Company and its
stockholders.
As previously disclosed, given the uncertainties of litigation, the
Company had not been in a position to assess the likelihood of any
potential loss or outcome of the complaint. As a result of the
entry into the agreement in principle, the Company expects that the
above-referenced settlement will be included in its results of
operations and financial condition for the fiscal quarter ending
September 25, 2022.
About FAT (Fresh. Authentic. Tasty.) Brands
FAT Brands Inc. (NASDAQ: FAT) is a leading global franchising
company that strategically acquires, markets, and develops fast
casual, quick-service, casual dining, and polished casual dining
concepts around the world. The Company currently owns 17 restaurant
brands: Round Table Pizza, Fatburger, Marble Slab Creamery, Johnny
Rockets, Fazoli's, Twin Peaks, Great American Cookies, Hot Dog on a
Stick, Buffalo's Cafe & Express, Hurricane Grill & Wings,
Pretzelmaker, Elevation Burger, Native Grill & Wings, Yalla
Mediterranean and Ponderosa and Bonanza Steakhouses, and franchises
and owns over 2,300 units worldwide. For more information on FAT
Brands, please visit www.fatbrands.com. [GN]
HS FLOORS: Granted Leave to Serve Amended Answer in Medina Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CARLOS MEDINA, LUIS LOPEZ, LUIS SORIEL, individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were
employed by HS FLOORS INC and NACHMEN FISCH and any other entities
affiliated with, controlling or controlled, by HS FLOORS INC. and
NACHMEN FISCH individually, Plaintiffs v. HS FLOORS INC., NACHMEN
FISCH, and any other entities affiliated with, controlling, or
controlled by HS FLOORS INC. and NACHMEN FISCH individually,
Defendants, Docket No. Index No. 158220/2020, Motion Seq. No. 003
(N.Y. Sup.), the Supreme Court, New York County, grants in part the
Defendants' motion for leave to serve an amended answer with a
third-party complaint.
In their class action, the Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants
employed the named Plaintiffs and the putative class members to
work at various job sites. They argue that the Defendants failed to
properly pay them or ensure that they received their earned wages.
They insist they were not paid the basic minimum wage or the
applicable overtime pay when eligible.
The Defendants move for leave to amend their answer to add a
third-party complaint to implead X24 Flooring and Sabria Suriel.
They claim that X24 was the entity that actually hired the
Plaintiffs, assigned the work locations, and supervised the
employees that might form the class of Plaintiffs. They argue that
Sabria Suriel is the principal of X24 and should be viewed as a
joint employer of them.
In opposition, the Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants waited
nearly two years into the litigation to seek leave to amend the
answer to implead the proposed third-party defendants. They argue
that the claims alleged by the Defendants (for indemnification and
contribution) can be litigated in a separate trial and so the Court
should deny the motion.
The Supreme Court holds that where the motion to amend was made
less than two years after the filing of the Defendants' initial
answer, the Defendants' delay is not a reason to deny the motion.
However, it declines to issue any stay concerning discovery.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court grants the Defendants' motion to the
extent they sought leave to serve an amended answer and third-party
complaint and denies to the extent they sought a stay of
discovery.
The proposed amended answer and third-party complaint in the
proposed form annexed to the moving papers as NYSCEF Doc. No. 68
will be served, within 30 days after service of a copy of the Order
with notice of entry, upon the new parties in the action by
personal service in accordance with the CPLR and upon the other
parties who have already appeared via NYSCEF.
The Defendants will e-file the proposed amended answer as a
separate document (now it is only an exhibit) on NYSCEF within
seven days.
The action will bear the following caption:
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK:
PART 14
CARLOS MEDINA, LUIS LOPEZ, LUIS SORIEL, individually and on
behalf
of all other persons similarly situated who were employed
by HS
FLOORS INC and NACHMEN FISCH and any other entities
affiliated with,
controlling or controlled, by HS FLOORS INC and NACHMEN
FISCH
individually, Plaintiffs, -against- HS FLOORS INC, NACHMEN
FISCH,
and any other entities affiliated with, controlling, or
controlled
by HS FLOORS INC and NACHMEN FISCH individually,
Defendants. HS
FLOORS INC, NACHMEN FISCH, and any other entities
affiliated with,
controlling, or controlled by HS FLOORS INC and NACHMEN
FISCH
individually, Third-Party Plaintiffs -against- X24
FLOORING, INC.
and SABRIA SURIEL, Third-Party Defendants
The counsel for the Defendants will serve a copy of the Order with
notice of entry upon the County Clerk (60 Centre Street, Room 141B)
and the General Clerk's Office (60 Centre Street, Room 119), who
are directed to mark the court's records to reflect the parties
being added pursuant thereto.
Such service upon the County Clerk and the Clerk of the General
Clerk's Office will be made in accordance with the procedures set
forth in the Protocol on Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for
Electronically Filed Cases.
A conference is already scheduled for Nov. 10, 2022, at 10 a.m.
(directing that the parties e-file a discovery update by Nov. 3,
2022, or the conference would be adjourned).
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 3, 2022 Decision + Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3ey9a674 from Leagle.com.
KIROMIC BIOPHARMA: Gainey McKenna Reminds of October 4 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston filed a class action lawsuit against
Kiromic BioPharma, Inc. ("Kiromic" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: KRBP)
and against certain officers and directors of the Company. The
class action was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired: (1)
Kiromic common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering
Documents (defined below) and/or (2) Kiromic securities between
June 25, 2021 and August 13, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims against Defendants under the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Company's public offering closed on July 2, 2021 (the
"Offering") and was conducted pursuant to a registration statement
filed with the SEC on June 25, 2021 ("Registration Statement") and
a final prospectus dated June 29, 2021 (the "Prospectus," with the
Registration Statement, the "Offering Documents").
The Complaint alleges that the Offering Documents failed to
disclose that the FDA had, prior to the filing of the Registration
Statement and Prospectus, imposed a clinical hold, and in fact,
contained statements indicating that it had not. Given that the
Offering closed on July 2, 2021, more than thirty (30) days after
the Company submitted the IND applications for its two
immunotherapy product candidates, investors were assured that no
clinical hold had been issued and clinical trials would commence.
The Company, however, had received communications from the FDA on
June 16 and 17, 2021, informing it that the FDA was placing the IND
applications for its two candidate products on clinical hold. The
Offering Documents failed to disclose this information, instead
representing that clinical testing was expected to proceed in the
third quarter of 2021. Clinical testing did not proceed in the
third quarter of 2021, nor was it likely given the FDA's imposition
of a clinical hold.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Kiromic
should contact the Firm prior to the October 4, 2022 lead plaintiff
motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class
action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M.
Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or
via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com.
Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]
KIROMIC BIOPHARMA: Holzer & Holzer Reminds of October 4 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer & Holzer, LLC informs investors that a class action lawsuit
was filed against Kiromic BioPharma, Inc. ('Kiromic' or the
'Company') (NASDAQ:KRPB). The lawsuit alleges Kiromic failed to
disclose that the FDA imposed a clinical hold for two of its new
drug candidates prior to the filing of the Registration Statement
and Prospectus, contrary to assurances the Company made to
investors.
If you bought shares of Kiromic between June 25, 2021 and August
13, 2021, and you suffered a significant loss on that investment,
you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey
Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com or Joshua Karr, Esq.
at jkarr@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832
or you may visit the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com to learn
more.
The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the
case is October 4, 2022.
Holzer & Holzer, LLC is an Atlanta, Georgia law firm that dedicates
its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and
investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class
action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000,
Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering
hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by
fraud and other corporate misconduct.More information about the
firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com and upon
request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the
dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey D.
Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content.
CONTACT:
Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
(888) 508-6832 (toll-free)
cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN]
KIROMIC BIOPHARMA: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of Oct. 4 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises Kiromic BioPharma, Inc. ("Kiromic" or
the "Company") investors that a class action filed on behalf of
investors. Kiromic investors that lost money on their investment
are encouraged to contact Lesley Portnoy, Esq.
Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, by
phone 844-767-8529 or email: lesley@portnoylaw.com, to discuss
their legal rights, or click here to join the case via
www.portnoylaw.com. The Portnoy Law Firm can provide a
complimentary case evaluation and discuss investors' options for
pursuing claims to recover their losses.
The Complaint alleges that the Offering Documents failed to
disclose that the FDA had, before the filing of the Registration
Statement and Prospectus, imposed a clinical hold, and in fact,
contained statements indicating that it had not. Given that the
Offering closed on July 2, 2021, more than thirty (30) days after
the Company submitted the IND applications for its two
immunotherapy product candidates, investors were assured that no
clinical hold had been issued and clinical trials would commence.
Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.
The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
against caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner
has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]
KIROMIC BIOPHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of October 4 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Aug. 10
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Kiromic BioPharma, Inc. (NASDAQ:
KRBP): (i) pursuant and/or traceable to the offering documents
issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering
conducted on or about July 2, 2021 (the "IPO"); and/or (ii) between
June 25, 2021 and August 13, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the
Court no later than October 4, 2022.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Kiromic BioPharma 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 Kiromic BioPharma class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=8051 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 4, 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 IPO documents
failed to disclose that the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
had, prior to the filing of the IPO documents, imposed a clinical
hold, and in fact, contained statements indicating that it had not.
Given that the IPO closed on July 2, 2021, more than thirty (30)
days after the Company submitted the Investigational New Drug
("IND") applications for its two immunotherapy product candidates,
investors were assured that no clinical hold had been issued and
clinical trials would commence.
The Company, however, had received communications from the FDA on
June 16 and 17, 2021, informing it that the FDA was placing the IND
applications for its two candidate products on clinical hold. The
IPO documents failed to disclose this information, instead
representing that clinical testing was expected to proceed in the
third quarter of 2021. Clinical testing did not proceed in the
third quarter of 2021, nor was it likely given the FDA's imposition
of a clinical hold. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the Kiromic BioPharma class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=8051 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
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
cases@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
LAURA CHRISTY: Appeals Judgment in Zivkovic FLSA Suit to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Christy LLC, et al., filed an appeal from a court judgment
entered in the lawsuit styled Pavle Zivkovic, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Laura Christy LLC d/b/a
Valbella, Laura Christy Midtown LLC, David Ghatanfard and Genco
Luca, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00553, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
The Plaintiff filed this complaint on January 25, 2017, alleging
that the Defendants failed to pay her for all hours worked and for
overtime work in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
On November 30, 2018, Judge Gregory H. Woods granted the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
On June 22, 2022, the Court ruled that pursuant to the jury's
verdict, judgment will be entered in favor of subclasses and
against Defendants Laura Christy LLC, Laura Christy Midtown LLC,
and David Ghatanfard, jointly and severally, in the amount of
$4,509,868.78, which includes prejudgment interest (the "Class Jury
Award").
Plaintiffs' counsel, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP, will be awarded
$1,503,274.56 as attorneys' fees which will be paid out of the
Class Jury Award. In addition, lead plaintiffs Ricardo Sanchez,
Fernando Marin, and Alejandra C. Rendon will each be awarded $5,000
as service awards, in addition to the individual respective amounts
they are entitled to from this Judgment. These service awards will
also be paid out of the Class Jury Award.
In addition to the sum owed pursuant to Class Jury Award, the Court
also awards class counsel, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP, $561,948.50
in attorneys' fees pursuant to the feeshifting provisions of the
New York Labor Law ("NYLL") as well as $20,200.57 in costs pursuant
to that statute for a total of $582,149.07.
Accordingly, in the aggregate, Judgment will be entered in favor of
the Subclasses and against Defendants Laura Christy LLC, Laura
Christy Midtown LLC, and David Ghatanfard, jointly and severally,
in the amount of $5,092,017.85 which includes prejudgment interest
(the "Class Judgment").
Pursuant to New York Labor Law Section 198(4), any or all of the
$5,092,017.85 Class Judgment amount which is not paid within 90
days of the Judgment will be automatically increased at the rate of
15% of the Judgment.
The Court awarded attorneys' fees pursuant to the fee-shifting
provisions of the New York City Human Rights Law in the amount of
$7,060.00 in favor of Plaintiffs' counsel, Joseph & Kirschenbaum
LLP, and against Defendants Genco Luca, David Ghatanfard, and Laura
Christy Midtown LLC, jointly and severally.
In sum, and for the avoidance of doubt, Judgment was entered
against each Defendant.
The appellate case is captioned as Laura Christy LLC v. Zivkovic,
Case No. 22-1558, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, filed on July 20, 2022.[BN]
Defendants-Appellants Laura Christy LLC, DBA Valbella, et al., are
represented by:
Daniel Stuart Alter, Esq.
ABRAMS FENSTERMAN LLP
81 Main Street
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 607-7010
Plaintiffs-Appellees Pavle Zivkovic, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, et al., are represented by:
Lucas Buzzard, Esq.
JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
32 Broadway
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 688-5640
LEGACY CHRISTIAN: Faces Class Action Over Sexual, Physical Abuse
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zak Vescera, writing for The Star Phoenix, reports that former
students are going to court over what they describe as decades of
sexual abuse and beatings at a private Saskatoon Christian school.
Two students, Coy Nolin and Caitlin Erickson, have filed a class
action lawsuit seeking at least $25 million in damages from what is
now called Legacy Christian Academy and its parent organization,
Mile Two Church, alleging the two organizations perpetrated and
abetted the spanking of students, fondling of minors by church
staff and other graphic abuse.
Erickson said she was physically, sexually and psychologically
abused during her 13 years at the school and church. She named some
of her abusers at a press conference in Saskatoon on Aug. 9 in
front of a crowd of reporters and other survivors.
"The staff tried to physically and psychologically break me.
Despite their best efforts, they were not successful," Erickson
said to an outbreak of applause. "That is why I am able to stand
here today."
The allegations have not been proven or tested in court; nor have
the 21 named defendants -- mostly former church and school teachers
and officials -- filed statements of defence in response to the
claims. More defendants may be added as the legal action
progresses.
Brien Johnson, who is not named as a defendant but is the current
pastor of Mile Two Church, said the community is "deeply troubled"
by allegations from students, which were first reported by CBC. He
said the church would not comment further until it reviewed the
statement of claim.
"We have to trust that the legal system will provide clarity around
who did what to whom, and when, and will ultimately hold those
responsible to account for their actions," Johnson wrote in an
emailed statement.
The suit represents a major step in former students' battle against
Mile Two Church, formerly Saskatoon Christian Centre, a
non-denominational Evangelical church in the Lawson Heights
neighbourhood that former students say had almost complete control
over the social lives of its congregation and students at the
attached K-12 school.
Postmedia has spoken with a dozen students who attended the school
-- formerly Christian Centre Academy -- from its inception in the
mid-1980s until the early 2010s. Most claimed church and school
officials had hit them on the buttocks with large, wooden paddles
as a form of discipline for perceived indiscretions that included
everything from talking back to a teacher to failing to tuck in a
chair.
The Supreme Court declared corporal punishment of students illegal
in 2004; the vast majority of private schools discontinued the
policy long before that.
As a class action, any student who attended the school between the
early 1980s and the present day can sign on to the lawsuit, as can
any minors in the church congregation who suffered or observed the
alleged abuses. Grant Scharfstein, a lawyer for the plaintiffs,
estimates between 700 and 800 students attended the school in that
timeframe.
The suit seeks at least $25 million in damages or, in the
alternative, at least $1 million in damages from each defendant. It
also seeks an injunction that would prevent Mile Two Church from
operating a school for minors, and injunctions that would prevent
any of the defendants from working or serving at a school that
works with minors.
Some former church officials named in the lawsuit are presently
employed by other private Christian schools.
Scharfstein said the next step is to serve defendants and have the
class action certified by the court. After that, he said, the legal
process itself might take as long as a decade, depending on the
responses from defendants.
Cody Nolin, who attended the school along with his siblings, was
one of the first people to sign the class action. He said he is not
fazed by the wait.
"We've been fighting our whole entire life," Nolin said. "We 're
not going to stop fighting now." [GN]
LG CORP: Class Action Lawsuit Over Defective Refrigerators Settled
------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that refrigerators are expensive and
important kitchen appliances that cost thousands of dollars. But
consumers across the country are complaining that refrigerators
often don't work like they're supposed to, and quickly fall into
disrepair.
If you've purchased a defective refrigerator, you may be able to
join a class action lawsuit investigation.
They just don't make things like they used to. That expression is
often used to generally describe modern products compared to
products manufactured in previous decades. The phrase seems
especially relevant for refrigerators. According to hundreds of
complaints across the country, refrigerators break down easily.
Drawers and shelves break. Ice makers stop working. Ice dispensers
leak. They make annoying noises. Coatings start peeling off.
Sometimes the refrigerator door handles can rip off, causing fall
risks to people simply trying to open the door. Sometimes,
refrigerators don't keep food cool enough.
While today's refrigerators come with all sorts of electronic and
digital features, the primary function of refrigerators -- keeping
food cold -- is a necessity. When refrigerators go out, food goes
bad. Thousands of dollars for a new appliance, potential flooding
damage, and hundreds of dollars worth of food are on the line.
Companies have an obligation to build products that match
advertising and marketing claims. Consumers should be able to
expect that a pricey appliance like a refrigerator will work like
it's supposed to. In some cases, companies have paid out
settlements to compensate consumers for defective refrigerators.
Do You Qualify?
Despite their high ticket price tags, refrigerators have been known
to break down far too easily. If you've purchased a refrigerator
that stopped working or was defective, you may have a legal claim.
Defects might include:
Inadequate insulation leading to rusting
Faulty heaters and thermostats
Faulty coils
Other problems
If you experienced these issues with your refrigerator, you may
qualify for a free evaluation of legal standing in a class action
lawsuit.
Fill out the form on this page for more information.
Viral Samsung refrigerator defects
Refrigerator defects have become something of a social media
sensation. On Facebook, more than 100,000 people joined a group to
discuss Samsung refrigerator complaints.
In addition, a handful of TikTok videos went viral showing Samsung
defects. Such videos, some showing water gushing from the
refrigerators, have more than 50 million views on the video
platform. Consumer Reports wrote that more than 600 consumer
complaints were made to the federal safety database from 2019
through 2021. The attention eventually led to a class action
lawsuit against Samsung.
The company issued a statement to Consumer Reports, saying: "The
sudden increase in reports must have a cause completely independent
from the quality of our products. This is clearly shown in the data
you provided (referencing the SaferProducts.gov complaints), which
reflects dozens of models manufactured across an entire decade
simultaneously and inexplicably developing problems starting in
2020."
Other brands hit with refrigerator defect lawsuits
While Samsung has become the social media antagonist for defective
refrigerators, problems have been noted and litigated among other
brands as well.
For example, Electrolux is alleged to have sold refrigerators that
had "repeated breakage of the flimsy shelving and drawers."
Earlier, the same brand announced a recall in the icemaker because
the ice level detector arm could break into pieces, fall into the
ice bucket and pose a choking hazard.
Another brand, LG, paid settlements from $50 to $3,500 to resolve a
settlement that 1.6 million refrigerators, covering 31 models,
might stop cooling because of defects with compressors. Allegedly,
this issue could emerge anywhere from a few months to a few years
into ownership.
In another example, a lawsuit was filed against Whirlpool, claiming
the company sold refrigerators with defective control panels,
leading to ice buildup and leaks. That particular lawsuit followed
a separate Whirlpool action that led to a $21 million settlement
over a defect in a drain tube that caused water leakage.
Join a refrigerator defect lawsuit investigation
Refrigerator brands and manufacturers have a reputation for selling
defective appliances for thousands of dollars.
Defective refrigerator brands may include:
Samsung
LG
Whirlpool
Electrolux
GE
KitchenAid
Bosch
Other
If you have bought a refrigerator with a defect, you may qualify to
join a class action lawsuit against the manufacturer. [GN]
LIFESTANCE HEALTH: Robbins Geller Reminds of October 11 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Aug. 10 disclosed that it has
filed a class action lawsuit seeking to represent purchasers of
LifeStance Health Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: LFST) common stock issued in
connection with LifeStance Health's June 10, 2021 initial public
stock offering (the "IPO"). Captioned Nayani v. LifeStance Health
Group, Inc., No. 22-cv-06833 (S.D.N.Y.) -- the LifeStance Health
class action lawsuit charges LifeStance Health, certain of its top
executives and directors, as well as the IPO's underwriters with
violations of the Securities Act of 1933.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, please provide your information here:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-lifestance-health-group-inc-class-action-lawsuit-lfst.html
You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by
calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead
plaintiff motions for the LifeStance Health class action lawsuit
must be filed with the court no later than October 11, 2022.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: LifeStance Health is one of the nation's largest
providers of virtual and in-person outpatient mental health care.
LifeStance Health benefitted from the state and local lockdown
orders necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic starting in the spring
of 2020. But by December 2020, several COVID-19 vaccines were being
approved and administered, meaning LifeStance Health's access to
clients seeking virtual mental health services would significantly
decline while demand for in-person services would increase.
LifeStance Health conducted its IPO on June 10, 2021, selling 46
million shares at $18.00 per share, raising $828 million in gross
proceeds.
However, as the LifeStance Health class action lawsuit alleges, the
IPO's registration statement failed to disclose the following
material facts: (i) that the number of virtual visits clients were
undertaking utilizing LifeStance Health was decreasing as the
COVID-19 lockdowns were being lifted, thereby flatlining LifeStance
Health's out-patient/virtual revenue growth; (ii) that the
percentage of in-person visits clients were undertaking utilizing
LifeStance Health was increasing as the COVID-19 lockdowns were
being lifted, thereby causing LifeStance Health's operating
expenses to increase substantially; (iii) that LifeStance Health
had lost a large number of physicians due to burn-out and, as a
result, its physician retention rate had fallen significantly below
the 87% highlighted in the IPO's registration statement and
LifeStance Health had been expending additional costs to onboard
new physicians who were less productive than the outgoing
physicians they were replacing; and (iv) as a result, LifeStance
Health's business metrics and financial prospects were not as
strong as the IPO's registration statement represented.
At the time of the LifeStance Health class action lawsuit's filing,
LifeStance Health common stock traded in a range of $4.77-$7.70, a
reduction of upwards of 73% from the price the shares were sold at
in the IPO.
The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud. You can view a copy of the complaint by
clicking here.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased LifeStance
Health common stock issued in connection with the IPO to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff in the LifeStance Health class action
lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest
financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who
is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead
plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing
the LifeStance Health class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice to litigate the LifeStance Health
class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery of the LifeStance Health class action
lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller is one of the world's leading
complex class action firms representing plaintiffs in securities
fraud cases. The Firm is ranked #1 on the 2021 ISS Securities Class
Action Services Top 50 Report for recovering nearly $2 billion for
investors last year alone - more than triple the amount recovered
by any other plaintiffs' firm. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices,
Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the
world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history, including the
largest securities class action recovery ever - $7.2 billion - in
In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for
more information:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html
Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Contacts:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
MAC COSMETICS: Faces Privacy Invasion Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Georgina Caldwell, writing for Global Cosmetic News, reports that
The Estee Lauder Companies-owned Mac Cosmetics is set to face a
class action lawsuit which alleges that the make-up giant has
illegally and secretly monitored and recorded its customers'
movements on its website, according to a report published by Top
Class Actions.
THE DETAILS Plaintiff Sonya Valenzuela, who filed the suit against
the beauty brand, says that her communications were intercepted
while on the website, according to Top Class Actions, without her
consent (either express or implied).
The suit seeks damages, fees, costs and a jury trial.
THE WHY? If proven correct, the accusation would place MAC
Cosmetics in violation of California's Invasion of Privacy Act and
the California Penal Code. [GN]
MAJOR LEAGUE: Former Minor League Players Seek Class Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Steele, writing for Law360, reports that three former minor
league players have asked a Puerto Rico district court to turn
their antitrust suit into a class action representing more than
12,000 other players, making the latest attempt to reverse Major
League Baseball's century old antitrust exemption and dramatically
improve the salaries and working conditions in the minors.[GN]
META PLATFORMS: Sept. 22 Data Tracking Claims Filing Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Avery, writing for CNET, reports that if you had Facebook in
2010, you may be eligible for part of a $90 million payout from a
lawsuit accusing the social media giant of illicitly tracking users
across other websites.
You'll need to act soon, though -- the deadline for filing a claim
is Sept. 22, 2022.
The plaintiffs in the case, Davis v. Facebook, allege the company
was aware it violated privacy, communications and wiretap laws --
and its own contract -- by tracking logged-out users to sites that
had a Facebook "Like" button on them.
The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals determined in 2020 that
Facebook profiting from the sale of users' data constituted a
breach of privacy causing economic harm. When the US Supreme Court
declined to review the case in March 2021, settlement negotiations
began.
In June, a district court in California gave preliminary approval
for a class action settlement that includes the $90 million payout
and a promise by Facebook that it would delete any improperly
collected data.
Read on to find out whether you're eligible for money from
Facebook, plus how much you could receive and when.
For more on class action cases, find out if you qualify for money
from T-Mobile's $350 million data breach case or Apple's $14.8
Million iCloud storage settlement.
What is Facebook accused of in the data-tracking lawsuit?
The plaintiffs allege that Facebook tracked people's activities on
external websites, even when they were signed out of their Facebook
accounts, by installing cookies on users' computers.
In a 2011 suit filed in US District Court in San Jose, California,
they claimed such monitoring violated the Federal Wiretap Act, the
Stored Electronic Communications Act and the Federal Computer Fraud
and Abuse Act, among other statutes.
That year, Facebook disclosed that it personalized content by
placing cookies onto users' computers that remained active even
when they were logged out. The company told CNET at the time that
it quickly removed uniquely identifying data from post-logout
cookies and that it didn't store or use data from cookies for
tracking.
But according to the lawsuit, "This admission came only after an
Australian technology blogger exposed Facebook's practice of
monitoring members who have logged out, although he brought the
problems to the defendant's attention a year ago."
Facebook parent Meta Platforms didn't respond to a request for
comment though, according to the settlement, it "expressly denies
any liability or wrongdoing whatsoever."
Who is eligible to receive money in the Facebook settlement?
US Facebook users who, between April 22, 2010, and Sept. 25, 2011,
visited websites that displayed the Facebook "Like" button are
eligible to be recipients, or "class members," in the case.
When is the deadline to file a claim in the Facebook settlement?
The claims administrator, Angeion, has already emailed eligible
class members. If you received a personalized notice in the mail or
via email, go to the claims site and enter the Notice ID and
Confirmation Code you were provided with.
If you believe you're eligible but weren't contacted, you can also
file a claim on your own -- but the deadline is Sept. 22, 2022.
Individuals who want to reserve the right to file their own lawsuit
have until Sept. 12 to opt out of the settlement. If you do
nothing, you won't get a payment and you'll give up the right to
sue or be part of another lawsuit relating to the case. [GN]
MOLECULAR PARTNERS: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Sept. 12 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 9 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Molecular Partners AG ("Molecular Partners" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: MOLN) and certain of its officers and
directors. The class action, filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, and docketed under
22-cv-05925, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise
acquired: (a) Molecular Partners American Depositary Shares
("ADSs") pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents
(defined below) issued in connection with the Company's initial
public offering conducted on or about June 16, 2021 (the "IPO");
and/or (b) Molecular Partners securities between June 16, 2021 and
April 26, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired
Molecular Partners ADSs pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering
Documents (defined below) issued in connection with the Company's
IPO, and/or Molecular Partners securities during the Class Period,
you have until September 12, 2022 to ask the Court to appoint you
as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be
obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact
Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.
Molecular Partners operates as a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical
company that focuses on the discovery, development, and
commercialization of therapeutic proteins. Leading up to and
following the IPO, the Company repeatedly touted the clinical and
commercial prospects of certain of its product candidates under
development in collaboration with other companies.
Among other product candidates, Molecular Partners is developing
ensovibep as a treatment for COVID-19 in collaboration with
Novartis AG ("Novartis"). One of the Company's most important
development strategies for ensovibep includes securing Emergency
Use Authorization ("EUA") for ensovibep from the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA").
In addition, Molecular Partners is developing MP0310 (AMG 506) for
the treatment of certain types of cancer in collaboration with
Amgen Inc. ("Amgen"). The Company granted Amgen, among other
licenses, the right to progress MP0310's development program into
later stage development, including into combination trials,
following Phase 1 data.
On April 22, 2021, Molecular Partners filed a registration
statement on Form F-1 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") in connection with the IPO, which, after several
amendments, was declared effective by the SEC on June 15, 2021 (the
"Registration Statement").
On June 16, 2021, Molecular Partners filed a prospectus on Form
424B4 with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which incorporated
and formed part of the Registration Statement (collectively, the
"Offering Documents").
Pursuant to the Offering Documents, Molecular Partners conducted
the IPO, issuing 3 million of its ADSs to the public at the IPO
price $21.25 per ADS, for proceeds to the Company of over $59
million, after underwriting discounts and commissions, and before
expenses.
The complaint alleges that the Offering Documents were negligently
prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material
fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance
with the rules and regulations governing their preparation.
Additionally, the complaint alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, the Offering Documents and Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
ensovibep was less effective at treating COVID-19 than Defendants
had led investors to believe; (ii) accordingly, the FDA was
reasonably likely to require an additional Phase 3 study of
ensovibep before granting the drug EUA; (iii) waning global rates
of COVID-19 significantly reduced the Company's chances of securing
EUA for ensovibep; (iv) as a product candidate, MP0310 was less
attractive to Amgen than Defendants had led investors to believe;
(v) accordingly, there was a significant likelihood that Amgen
would return global rights of MP0310 to Molecular Partners; (vi) as
a result of all the foregoing, the clinical and commercial
prospects of ensovibep and MP0310 were overstated; and (vii) as a
result, the Offering Documents and Defendants' public statements
throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or misleading
and failed to state information required to be stated therein.
On November 16, 2021, Molecular Partners disclosed that "a planned
futility analysis of ensovibep in [an] ongoing [Phase 3] clinical
study . . . has not met the thresholds required to continue
enrollment of adults with COVID-19 in the hospitalized setting."
On this news, Molecular Partners' ADS price fell $4.64 per ADS, or
31.37%, to close at $10.15 per ADS on November 16, 2021.
On April 26, 2022, months after applying for EUA from the FDA for
ensovibep, Novartis' Chief Executive Officer, Vas Narasimhan,
disclosed that "given the latest feedback . . . in our discussions
with the [FDA], we would expect the agency to require a Phase 3
study before granting an EUA approval or a general approval" for
ensovibep, and that "we need to make a kind of sober evaluation as
to is it a doable study in light of the waning rates of COVID
around the world[.]"
On this news, Molecular Partners' ADS price fell $2.68 per ADS, or
16.17%, to close at $13.89 per ADS on April 26, 2022.
Then, also on April 26, 2022, during after-market hours, Molecular
Partners "announced that Amgen . . . has informed the Company of
their decision to return global rights of MP0310 to Molecular
Partners following a strategic pipeline review."
On this news, Molecular Partners' ADS price fell $5.19 per ADS, or
37.37%, to close at $8.70 per ADS on April 27, 2022 -- a total
decline of $7.87 per ADS, or 47.5%, over two consecutive trading
days, and 59.06% below the $21.25 per ADS IPO price.
As of the time the complaint was filed, the price of Molecular
Partners' ADSs continued to trade below the $21.25 per ADS IPO
price, damaging investors.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.
Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the
class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class
actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in
the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the
victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomlaw.com
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]
NABORS COMPLETION: Court Enters Recoverable Amounts in Reasner Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MIKE REASNER, Petitioner v. NABORS COMPLETION &
PRODUCTION SERVICES CO., a Delaware corporation, now known as C&J
Well Services, Inc., Respondent, Case No. 2:22-cv-01267-DDP-JPR
(C.D. Cal.), Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California enters an order on the amounts
the Petitioner can recover against NABORS.
On April 2, 2015, two former employees of Respondent NABORS,
Brandyn Ridgeway and Tim Smith, filed a putative class action (CACD
Case No. 2:15-cv-03436-DDP-VBKx) alleging, among other things,
claims under Labor Code Section 1194(a) and 1771 for failure to pay
the minimum prevailing wage and overtime, under Labor Code Section
226(e) for failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements
under Labor Code Section 226(a), and for related interest and
penalties, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.
On June 29, 2015, NABORS brought a motion to compel arbitration of
Ridgeway and Smith's individual claims pursuant to 9 U.SC. Section
2, the Federal Arbitration Act and a written arbitration agreement
that included a class action waiver. On Oct. 13, 2015, the Court
denied NABORS' motion to compel arbitration, finding the
arbitration agreement unenforceable.
NABORS timely appealed the denial of its motion to compel
arbitration.
On Feb. 13, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal issued a
Memorandum which reversed the Court's order denying the motion and
remanded with instructions.
On March 30, 2018, Petitioner Mike Reasner, a putative class member
in the Ridgeway class action, commenced an individual arbitration
at JAMS. Reasner's individual claims were adjudicated by JAMS
Arbitrator Hon. Richard D. Aldrich (Ret.) resulting in a Partial
Final Award issued Dec. 10, 2021 and a Final Arbitration Award
issued Jan. 31, 2022, in favor of Reasner.
On Feb. 24, 2022, Reasner filed the instant Petition to Confirm
Final Arbitration Award, For Further Attorneys' Fees and Costs, and
to Enter Judgment Against Nabors; Nabors appeared, filed an answer
and filed a crossclaim to vacate the Final Award.
On July 29, 2022, the Court granted Reasner's motion and confirmed
the Final JAMS Arbitration Award and denied NABORS' request to
vacate the award.
Mike Reasner will recover against NABORS in the following amounts:
$31,922.07 in unpaid wages, $27,694.97 in statutory interest thru
Dec. 6, 2021, and continuing at $8.75 per day on the unpaid wages
and interest at the rate per annum until all wages and interest
thereon are paid in full, $21,815.70 in waiting time penalties
under California Labor Code Section 203(a), $950 in wage statement
violations under California Labor Code Section 226(e), $212,057.25
in attorneys' fees, and $5,678.75 in costs as awarded by the
Arbitrator; and additional post-arbitration attorneys' fees in the
amount of $9,636.50 and for costs in the amount of $402.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 3, 2022 Judgment is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p82cmmp from Leagle.com.
Richard E. Donahoo -- rdonahoo@donahoo.com -- Sarah L. Kokonas --
skokonas@donahoo.com -- R. Chase Donahoo, DONAHOO & ASSOCIATES,
Tustin, CA.
NABORS COMPLETION: Ordered to Pay LeMasters $131.44K in Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KENNETH LeMASTERS, Petitioner v. NABORS COMPLETION &
PRODUCTION SERVICES CO., a Delaware corporation, now known as C&J
Well Services, Inc., Respondent, Case No. 2:22-cv-01181-DDP-JPR
(C.D. Cal.), Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California enters an order on the amounts
the Petitioner can recover against NABORS, including $131,439.30 in
damages.
On April 2, 2015, two former employees of NABORS, Brandyn Ridgeway
and Tim Smith, filed a putative class action (CACD Case No.
2:15-cv-03436-DDP-VBKx) alleging, among other things, claims under
Labor Code Section 1194(a) and 1771 for failure to pay the minimum
prevailing wage and overtime, under Labor Code Section 226(e) for
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements under Labor
Code Section226(a), and for related interest and penalties, as well
as attorneys' fees and costs.
On June 29, 2015, NABORS brought a motion to compel arbitration of
Ridgeway and Smith's individual claims pursuant to 9 U.SC. Section
2, the Federal Arbitration Act and a written arbitration agreement
that included a class action waiver. On Oct. 13, 2015, the Court
denied NABORS' motion to compel arbitration, finding the
arbitration agreement unenforceable
NABORS timely appealed the denial of its motion to compel
arbitration.
On Feb. 13, 2018 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal issued a
Memorandum which reversed the Court's order denying the motion and
remanded with instructions.
On March 30, 2018, Petitioner Kenneth LeMasters, a putative class
member in the Ridgeway class action, commenced an individual
arbitration at JAMS. LeMasters' individual claims were adjudicated
by JAMS Arbitrator Hon. Jeffrey King (Ret.) resulting in an Interim
Award issued Nov. 22, 2021 and a Final Arbitration Award issued
February 18, 2022, in favor of LeMasters.
On Feb. 22, 2022, LeMasters filed the instant Petition to Confirm
Final Arbitration Award, For Further Attorneys' Fees and Costs, and
to Enter Judgment Against Nabors; Nabors appeared, filed an answer
and filed a crossclaim to vacate the Final Award.
On July 28, 2022, the Court granted LeMasters' motion and confirmed
the Final JAMS Arbitration Award and denied NABORS' request to
vacate the award.
LeMasters will recover against NABORS in the following amounts:
$131,439.30 in damages, including statutory interest thru Nov. 19,
2021, and continuing at $22.97 per day on the unpaid wages and
interest at the rate of 10% per annum until paid, $179,085 in
attorneys' fees, and $2,146.50 in costs as awarded by the
Arbitrator; and, additional post-arbitration attorneys' fees in the
amount of $8,950 and for costs in the amount of $402.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 3, 2022 Judgment is available
at https://tinyurl.com/mbzdb3vt from Leagle.com.
Richard E. Donahoo -- rdonahoo@donahoo.com -- Sarah L. Kokonas --
skokonas@donahoo.com -- R. Chase Donahoo, DONAHOO & ASSOCIATES,
Tustin, CA.
NEW YORK, NY: Emergency Executive Order on Jail Conditions Issued
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Adams, Mayor of New York City, disclosed that 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, on June 14, 2022, the federal court in Nunez approved the
Nunez Action Plan, which "represents a way to move forward with
concrete measures now to address the ongoing crisis at Rikers
Island"; and
WHEREAS, while there has been improvement in excessive staff
absenteeism, the Department of Correction's (DOC's) staffing levels
continue to contribute to a rise in unrest and disorder and create
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, this Order is given to prioritize compliance with the
Nunez Action Plan and to address the effects of DOC's staffing
levels, the conditions at DOC facilities, and health operations;
and
WHEREAS, additional reasons for requiring the measures continued in
this Order are set forth in Emergency Executive Order No. 140; and
WHEREAS, the state of emergency existing within DOC facilities,
first declared in Emergency Executive Order No. 241, dated
September 15, 2021, and extended most recently by Emergency
Executive Order No. 152, dated July 25, 2022, 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 section 1 of Emergency Executive
Order No. 161, dated August 4, 2022, is extended for five (5)
days.
Sec. 2. This Emergency Executive Order shall take effect
immediately and shall remain in effect for five (5) days unless it
is terminated or modified at an earlier date. [GN]
NEW-INDY CONTAINERBOARD: Must Face Foul Odor Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Ablon, writing for WCNC, reports that the company behind a
South Carolina paper mill at the center of foul odor complaints
will still have to face a class-action lawsuit in federal court.
On Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Sherri A. Lydon ruled the suit
lodged against the company behind the New-Indy plant in Catawba can
move forward, while also denying an alternative request from the
company to dismiss the complaint entirely.
The company made a set of motions back in June 2022 asking Lydon to
dismiss the suit in one way or another. New-Indy Containerboard
chiefly said the complaints were not specific enough. The company
also wanted the plaintiff's nuisance claim and negligence, gross
negligence, and willful conduct claim dismissed, something Judge
Lydon denied.
Alternatively, New-Indy Containerboad motioned to strike the class
allegations from the plaintiffs, but Lydon also dismissed that.
However, Lydon did partially grant another request from New-Indy,
dismissing the plaintiffs' negligence per se claim without
prejudice. This does mean the plaintiffs could plead the per se
claim again.
According to Lydon's order, New-Indy Containerboard, the first-tier
parent company of New-Indy Catawba, claimed they had no relevant
specific ties to South Carolina since New-Indy Containerboard is
incorporated in Delaware and based in California. However, Lydon's
ruling noted that both New-Indy Containerboard and New-Indy Catawba
worked jointly as purchasing parties for the mill with New-Indy
Catawba listed as the owner-operator with the South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC). Lydon noted
New-Indy did not offer any evidence or rebuttal to this.
Lydon's order also said the plaintiffs reasonably stated their
claims - with exception to the negligence per se claim - and ruled
those could continue. Additionally, while New-Indy said the
plaintiffs' proposed geographic class of a 20-mile radius around
the plant was too broad, Lydon said the company was unable to prove
it based on orders and reports from both DHEC and the federal
Environmental Protection Agency.
In a statement, attorneys representing the plaintiffs said "We are
pleased with Judge Lydon's decision denying New-Indy
Containerboard's motion to dismiss. As alleged in the complaint,
New-Indy's harmful emissions have continued to produce a foul odor
and cause numerous health issues for the citizens of surrounding
communities. We look forward to continuing the fight to hold
New-Indy accountable and help restore the quality of life for those
affected by the papermill's careless operation."
Complaints about the odors seemingly coming from the paper mill
have dated back to 2020. WCNC Charlotte started keeping track as
more people spoke up as early as March 2021. The complaints have
led to state and federal-level investigations, outrage from South
Carolina lawmakers, local protests, and fines levied against the
company.
WCNC Charlotte has reached out to attorneys representing New-Indy
for a response. [GN]
NISSAN NORTH: Sept. 29 Altima Rust Settlement Final Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Nissan
Altima rust class action lawsuit is heading toward its final
hearing for Missouri Altima and Maxima customers who claim the
floorboard rust is so severe occupants could fall through the
cars.
Although Nissan decided to settle the rust lawsuit, the automaker
denies there are problems with the Altimas and Maximas.
In fact, Nissan argues the class action is bogus because the
original plaintiff who sued drove her Altima for 12 years without
any rust problems.
Judge Brian C. Wimes took note the plaintiff tried to get Nissan to
repair the floorboard rust seven years after the Altima warranty
expired. Then the plaintiff filed the class action when Nissan
refused to pay for the repairs.
The judge also realized the plaintiff drove her Altima from 2003 to
2015 and allegedly never complained about rust problems.
Much of the lawsuit has been dismissed which now leaves the class
action for only the following customers.
"All persons in Missouri who (1) currently own or lease a Class
Vehicle, or (2) who previously owned or leased a Class Vehicle and
paid for repairs to rust in a front floor pan of a Class Vehicle.
Class Vehicles include model years 2002-2006 Nissan Altimas and
model years 2004-2008 Nissan Maximas."
In addition, the Nissan Altima and Maxima cars "must either be
currently registered in Missouri, or previously have been
registered in Missouri at the time the Settlement Class Member paid
to repair corrosion on a front floor pan."
Nissan Altima and Maxima Rust Lawsuit Settlement
Affected Missouri Nissan Altima and Maxima customers may be
eligible for a repair program and a reimbursement plan.
Missouri Nissan dealerships will inspect for front floorboard
corrosion and perform repairs for one year after the effective date
of the lawsuit settlement. Currently a final hearing before the
judge is scheduled for September 29, 2022.
A Nissan Altima or Maxima customer may also receive reimbursement
if he/she paid for repairs of rusted front floorboards.
If a non-Nissan dealer repaired the floorboard rust, reimbursement
is limited to $5,000.
A Nissan Altima or Nissan Maxima customer who cannot provide the
necessary documents to support a full reimbursement claim will be
limited to $300 reimbursement.
The Nissan customer who filed the rusted floorboard class action
lawsuit expects to receive $6,000, and her attorneys expect to
receive nearly $3 million.
The Nissan Altima and Maxima rust class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri: Laura
Frances Hays, v. Nissan North America, Inc, et. al.
The plaintiff is represented by Williams Dirks Dameron LLC, and
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP. [GN]
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY: Judge Revives COVID Tuition Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Silva and Jessy Edwards, writing for Top Class Actions,
report that a class action lawsuit brought against Northwestern
University by students who claimed the school unfairly charged
tuition and fees when it switched to virtual classes as a response
to the coronavirus pandemic has been revived after being dismissed
in 2021.
On Aug. 4, an Illinois federal judge ruled that students could
continue with their claims against Northwestern after initially
dismissing it last September.
In his decision to reject Northwestern's latest motion to dismiss,
Judge Harry D. Leinenweber cited a ruling last month by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that revived a case with
"near-identical claims" against Loyola University Chicago.
He said, when considering the Seventh Circuit's ruling, students
had pointed to alleged statements in university documents and prior
university practice that could show the university had "an implied
contract of in-person services and physical access to the
educational facilities."
Why: The judge ruled the students' evidence was not strong enough
to support their claim that they were owed tuition after classes
went remote due to the coronavirus pandemic.
Who: An Illinois federal judge dismissed a class action lawsuit
filed by Northwestern students against the university.
Where: The class action lawsuit is pending in Illinois federal
court.
An Illinois federal judge dismissed a class action lawsuit brought
against Northwestern University by its students who claimed the
school unfairly charged tuition and fees when it switched to
virtual classes as a response to the coronavirus pandemic.
US District Judge Harry D. Leinenweber ruled that the students'
complaint did not provide evidence supporting their claim that
Northwestern promised in-person instruction in exchange for
tuition. The students submitted admission letters, as well as
Northwestern's website, course catalogue and faculty handbook.
These materials and the language they contain, Leinenweber said,
are not concrete enough to imply a contract.
Second chance in Northwestern COVID tuition lawsuit
However, Leinenweber has given the plaintiffs, Nathaniel Polley,
Nancy Quiroz, Surya Veeravalli, and Daniel Greenwald, 30 days to
file an amended complaint with a viable claim before fully
dismissing the case.
Northwestern is not the only university to face legal action from
students demanding tuition and fee refunds for terms spent remote
learning. Barry University recently agreed to pay $2.4 million to
settle a class action lawsuit alleging it refused to refund
students for tuition and other fees after it closed its campus
during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Students who filed class action lawsuits against the University of
Delaware alleging that the school was unjustly enriched by not
reducing course fees when it switched to online learning during the
pandemic were allowed to move forward under an August ruling by an
appeals court.
The plaintiffs are represented by James A. Francis, John Soumilas,
David A. Searles, Edward Henri Skipton, and Jordan M. Sartell of
Francis Mailman Soumilas PC, et al.
The Northwestern COVID Tuition Class Action Lawsuit is Polley, et
al. v. Northwestern University, Case No. 1:20-cv-04798, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern
Division. [GN]
OMM LLC: Deadline to Answer Jackson's Complaint Moved to August 29
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SYLINIA JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OMM, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 22-CV-4664 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the
Defendant a nunc pro tunc extension of its deadline to answer the
complaint to Aug. 29, 2022.
The Court received the attached document, styled as a motion to
dismiss, signed by Mellina Soheili, Managing Partner of OMM.
Corporate entities (including limited liability companies),
however, may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel.
No counsel has appeared on behalf of the Defendant, and Soheili
does not appear to be a member of the bar of the Court.
Accordingly, Judge Furman takes no further action in response to
the attached document.
As a courtesy, he grants the Defendant a nunc pro tunc extension of
its deadline to answer (which passed on July 26, 2022) to Aug. 29,
2022. If, by that date, it has not responded to the Complaint
through a proper filing by counsel, default judgment may be entered
against it.
Finally, Judge Furman cautiones the Defendant that all filings by
represented parties (which means all its future filings) must be
made electronically via the Court's Electronic Case Filing system,
with only limited exceptions.
As a courtesy, the Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of the
Order to Soheili at the address provided on page four of the
attached document. Future orders of the Court will not be mailed to
the Defendant.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 3, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3xj5ty2w from Leagle.com.
OUTSET MEDICAL: Kuznicki Law Reminds of September 6 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issues this
alert to shareholders of Outset Medical, Inc. ("Outset" or the
"Company") (NasdaqGS: OM), if they purchased the Company's shares
between September 15, 2020 and June 13, 2022, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Shareholders have until September 6, 2022 to file lead
plaintiff applications in the securities class action lawsuit.
Shareholders are encouraged to contact us at
https://kclasslaw.com/cases/securities/nasdaqgs-om/, by calling
toll-free at 1-833-835-1495 or by email (dk@kclasslaw.com).
Kuznicki Law PLLC is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to
responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Kuznicki Law PLLC
Daniel Kuznicki, Esq.
445 Central Avenue, Suite 344
Cedarhurst, NY 11516
Email: dk@kclasslaw.com
Phone: (347) 696-1134
Cell: (347) 690-0692
Fax: (347) 348-0967
https://kclasslaw.com [GN]
PARSLEY ENERGY: Rusco Appeals Arbitration Bid Rulings in Streety
----------------------------------------------------------------
Intervenor Rusco Operating, L.L.C. filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled JIM STREETY, Individually
and For Others Similarly Situated v. PARSLEY ENERGY OPERATIONS,
LLC, Case No. 7:20-cv-00049-DC-RCG, in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Texas, Midland Odessa.
The lawsuit, filed on February 26, 2020, was brought to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for Parsley as a Drilling Superintendent, and
for the last three years the Plaintiff regularly worked more than
40 hours a week. However, the Plaintiff and other workers never
received overtime pay for the hours they worked in excess of 40
hours in a single workweek, notes the complaint. Instead of
receiving overtime as required by the FLSA, the Defendant
classified the Plaintiff and others as independent contractors and
paid these workers a flat amount for each day worked (a day-rate)
without overtime compensation, asserts the complaint.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on February 8, 2021, Hon.
Judge Ronald C. Griffin entered an order denying without prejudice
the plaintiff's motion for Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
conditional certification and notice.
The Court said, "Both the Plaintiff's Motion and Defendant's
Response are premised on the application of the Lusardi two-step
approach to conditional certification. However, on January 12, 2021
in Swales v. KLLM Transport Services, the Fifth Circuit enunciated
its rejection of Lusardi. F.3d, No. 19-60847, 2021 WL 98229 (5th
Cir. Jan. 12, 2021). The conditional certification standard
articulated by the Fifth Circuit in Swales now requires the
district court to:
"[I]dentify, at the outset of the case, what facts and legal
considerations will be material to determining whether a
group of "employees" is "similarly situated." And then it
should authorize preliminary discovery accordingly. The
amount of discovery necessary to make that determination will
vary case by case, but the initial determination must be
made, and as early as possible. In other words, the district
court, not the standards from Lusardi, should dictate the
amount of discovery needed to determine if and when to send
notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs."
Moreover, the Class Action Reporter reported on September 24, 2021,
that the Plaintiff sought authorization from the Court to
immediately send notice to the following class of:
"current and former workers: "Field Superintendents, HSE
Consultants, Wellsite Managers (including Drilling and
Completions), and Mud Engineers working on behalf of
Parsley Energy who were classified as independent contractors
and paid a day-rate with no overtime at any time from January
27, 2018 to the present (the "Putative Class Members")."
On October 15, 2021, Parsley Energy filed motions to compel
arbitration as to RUSCO Plaintiffs, New Tech Opt-In Plaintiff, and
DTC Opt-in Plaintiffs.
On April 20, 2022, Judge Griffin entered a Report and
Recommendations regarding the motions to compel arbitration filed
by Parsley Energy with respect to New Tech Opt-In Plaintiff and DTC
Opt-in Plaintiffs. Judge Griffin held that the motion is granted
in part and denied in part as to DTC Opt-in Plaintiffs.
On May 3, 2022, Judge Griffin entered another Report and
Recommendations granting in part and denying in part the motion to
compel arbitration filed by Parsley Energy with respect RUSCO
Plaintiffs. Judge Griffin also denied RUSCO Operating's motion to
Compel Plaintiff Jim Streety and Certain Opt-In Plaintiffs to
Arbitrate.
On June 17, 2022, Judge David Counts entered an order adopting the
Report and Recommendations entered by Judge Griffin.
On July 18, 2022, RUSCO Operating took an appeal from the ruling
entered by Judge Counts.
The appellate case is captioned as Streety v. Parsley Energy, Case
No. Streety v. Parsley Energy, Case No. 22-50644, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on July 20,
2022.[BN]
Intervenor-Appellant Rusco Operating, L.L.C. is represented by:
Ross Michael MacDonald, Esq.
GIBBS & BRUNS, L.L.P.
1100 Louisiana Street
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 650-8805
Plaintiff-Appellee Jim Streety, individually and for other
similarly situated, is represented by:
Richard J. Burch, Esq.
11 Greenway Plaza
Houston, TX 77046-0000
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
- and -
Andrew Wells Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
PING IDENTITY: Juan Monteverde Investigates Proposed Acquisition
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Ping
Identity Holding Corp. (PING), relating to its proposed acquisition
by Thoma Bravo. Under the terms of the agreement, PING shareholders
are expected to receive $28.50 in cash per share they own. Click
here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/ping-identity-holding-corp. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
About Monteverde & Associates PC
We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that
has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting
shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top
50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report.
Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is
recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities
Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of
attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by
Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's
recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory
that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the
Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm
successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a
writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States
Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019).
Also, in 2019 we recovered or secured six cash common funds for
shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases.
If you own common stock in PING and wish to obtain additional
information and protect your investments free of charge, please
visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via
e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212)
971-1341.
Contact:
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: $2.9MM in Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Hsu Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HSINGCHING HSU, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY, INC.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 8:15-cv-00865-DOC-SHK (C.D. Cal.),
Judge David O. Carter of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Southern Division, grants the Lead
Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.
The matter has come before the Court on April 11, 2022, on the
motion of the Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses. Having considered all papers filed and proceedings
conducted therein, having found the Settlement of the Litigation to
be fair, reasonable and adequate, and otherwise being fully
informed in the premises and good cause appearing therefore, Judge
Carter awards the Lead Counsel attorneys' fees of 25% of the
Settlement Amount, plus expenses in the amount of $2,890,129.74,
together with the interest earned on both amounts for the same time
period and at the same rate as that earned on the Settlement Fund
until paid. He finds that the amount of fees awarded is fair,
reasonable, and appropriate under the "percentage-of-recovery"
method.
The awarded attorneys' fees and expenses and interest earned
thereon, will be paid to the Lead Counsel at the time of the
Effective Date.
Any appeal or any challenge affecting the Court's approval
regarding the Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
expenses will in no way disturb or affect the finality of the
Judgment entered with respect to the Settlement.
Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(4), Judge Carter awards
$64,505 to Lead Plaintiff Norfolk County Council, as Administering
Authority of the Norfolk Pension Fund, for the time it spent
directly related to its representation of the Class.
In the event that the Settlement is terminated or does not become
Final or the Effective Date does not occur in accordance with the
terms of the Stipulation, thw Order will be rendered null and void
to the extent provided in the Stipulation and will be vacated in
accordance with the Stipulation.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 3, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2uxv9rd4 from Leagle.com.
PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Final Judgment & Order Issued in Hsu Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David O. Carter of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Southern Division, enters a Final Judgment
and Order in the case, HSINGCHING HSU, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 8:15-cv-00865-DOC-SHK (C.D.
Cal.).
The matter came before the Court for hearing pursuant to its Order,
dated Dec. 29, 2021, on the application of the Parties for approval
of the Settlement set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Class Action Settlement, dated Dec. 1, 2021.
Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge
Carter approves the Settlement set forth in the Stipulation.
Accordingly, he directs the Parties to consummate the Settlement
pursuant to the Stipulation, as well as the terms and provisions
thereof. The Litigation and all claims contained therein are
dismissed with prejudice as to the Lead Plaintiff and the other
Class Members. He dismisses with prejudice the Litigation and all
Released Claims of the Class as against each and all of the
Released Defendant Parties. The Parties are to bear their own costs
except as otherwise provided in the Stipulation.
Without affecting the finality of the Judgment in any way, the
Court retains continuing jurisdiction over: (a) implementation of
the Settlement and any award or distribution of the Settlement
Fund, including interest earned thereon; (b) disposition of the
Settlement Fund; (c) hearing and determining applications for
attorneys' fees and expenses in the Litigation; and (d) all parties
thereto for the purpose of construing, enforcing and administering
the Settlement.
If the Settlement does not become effective in accordance with the
terms of the Stipulation, or the Effective Date does not occur, or
the Settlement Fund, or any portion thereof, is not paid in
accordance with the Stipulation, then the Judgment will be rendered
null and void to the extent provided by and in accordance with the
Stipulation and will be vacated; and in such event, all orders
entered and releases delivered in connection herewith will be null
and void to the extent provided by and in accordance with the
Stipulation.
The Parties will bear their own costs and expenses except as
otherwise provided in the Stipulation or in the Judgment.
Without further order of the Court, the Parties may agree to
reasonable extensions of time to carry out any of the provisions of
the Stipulation.
Judge Carter directs immediate entry of the Judgment by the Clerk
of the Court. His orders entered during the Litigation relating to
the confidentiality of information will survive the Settlement.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 3, 2022 Final Judgment & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/56sevp63 from Leagle.com.
PZENA INVESTMENT: Juan Monteverde Investigates Proposed Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Pzena
Investment Management, Inc. (PZN), relating to its proposed merger
with Pzena Investment Management, LLC. Under the terms of the
merger, PZN shareholders are expected to receive $9.60
in cash per share they own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/pzena-investment-management-inc.
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
Monteverde & Associates PC Logo
About Monteverde & Associates PC
We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that
has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting
shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top
50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report.
Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is
recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities
Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of
attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by
Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's
recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory
that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the
Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm
successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a
writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States
Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019).
Also, in 2019 we recovered or secured six cash common funds for
shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases.
If you own common stock in PZN and wish to obtain additional
information and protect your investments free of charge, please
visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via
e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or
by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
RING LLC: Bid to Dismiss Wise Suit and Strike Class Claims Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHELLE WISE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RING LLC, Defendant, Case
No. C20-1298-JCC (W.D. Wash.), Judge John C. Coughenour of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle,
denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's first
amended complaint and to strike class allegations.
Ring is a subsidiary of Amazon; it develops and sells video
doorbells and "stick up cams" to homeowners. Ring cameras placed
inside and outside the home can record live HD video and enable
two-way communication between the homeowners and visitors. Users
also have the option to store and save video footage taken by video
doorbells, which record when the doorbell detects motion or when
visitors press the doorbell. In 2018, Ring filed patent application
material for a facial recognition system that would allow law
enforcement and homeowners to upload photos of individuals to be
matched against the faces of people walking by Ring Cameras.
On Oct. 16, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the FAC, alleging violations
of Sections 15(a) and 15(b) of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq. The FAC alleges that Ring
violated the BIPA by collecting, storing, and using the Plaintiff's
and other similarly-situated individuals' biometric identifiers and
biometric information without informed written consent.
The relevant biometric identifiers are face templates. Face
geometries are determined by facial points and counters, creating a
resulting face template which could ostensibly be compared against
other identified face templates to identify an individual. The
Plaintiff asserts that Ring has used video footage collected from
the Ring Cameras to improve its facial recognition technology,
which it stores in an unencrypted format and allows staff around
the world to process. Further, according to her, Ring has created
millions of face templates from Illinois residents whose faces were
captured by Ring Cameras without obtaining the required consent.
The Plaintiff alleges that these actions violate Sections 15(a) and
(b) of the BIPA, and proposes the following putative class, which
expressly excludes any Illinois resident who has purchased a Ring
Camera: All Illinois residents who had their biometric identifiers,
including scans of their facial geometry, collected, captured,
received, or otherwise obtained by Ring from videos or other visual
media captured by a Ring Camera.
Ring moves to dismiss the FAC under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the
Plaintiff fails to state a claim under BIPA because she does not
allege any "biometric data" collected, captured, or possessed by
Ring can be used to identify her. In the alternative, it argues the
class allegations should be stricken.
Ring argues, based on the class of bystanders with no contractual
relationship to Ring, that the alleged face templates are not
biometrics because "a mere scan of hand or face geometry" absent
identifying information such as a name, address, or phone number
tying that geometry to a person "does not implicate the risks the
Illinois Legislature sought to mitigate."
Judge Coughenour finds that the FAC plausibly alleges BIPA
violations. Among other things, the Plaintiff alleges that Ring is
collecting face geometry from photos, processing these images for a
facial recognition database "with the ultimate goal of identifying
people who can be `tagged' as safe or potentially suspicious
visitors." She further alleges that Ring partners with law
enforcement agencies to semi-automatically identify individuals
based on face recognition. These allegations, if true, establish a
means through which certain individuals are readily known to Ring.
On a motion to dismiss, Judge Coughenour cannot determine whether
Ring has the capacity to identify the Plaintiff, or how far it has
endeavored towards realizing the systems and technologies described
by her and in patents. Taking all factual allegations as true, as
the Court must, he holds that the Plaintiff has sufficiently
pleaded to Ring notice of the claims against them.
Ring argues that "at a minimum the Court should strike all class
allegations" in the FAC because the class is unknowable. But, while
some courts have held that Rule 12(f) provides a means of striking
class allegations, they are in the minority within the Ninth
Circuit. And the Defendant provides the Court with an inadequate
rationale to stray from that norm in this instance. Given that some
of the information necessary to support the class, as proposed,
lies solely within the Defendant's control, the Plaintiff should be
afforded the discovery necessary to fully develop her class
allegations.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Coughenour denies the Defendant's
motion.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 3, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/pvcfucn7 from Leagle.com.
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Settles Outage Class Action for $9.9 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that
Robinhood agreed to pay $9.9 million to end claims revolving around
recurrent service outages on its stock-trading app.
Around 150,000 Robinhood users argued they were harmed by a series
of repeated service outages on the app in the midst of a stock
trading rally in March 2020.
The class of Robinhood users claimed the outages likely caused them
to suffer around $20.4 million in losses.
Robinhood says it is happy the matter is resolved and that it has
laboriously invested in its platform in the years since 2020.
The company had previously argued that some of the investors'
claims against it were purely speculative.
Robinhood outage settlement class action overview:
Who: Robinhood has reached a settlement agreement with customers
who sued the investing platform over repeat outages
Why: The plaintiffs said all investors were taken out of the market
for a whole day in 2020 due to a service outage
Where: California federal court
Mobile securities app Robinhood Markets Inc. has reached a
preliminary settlement with customers, stemming from a class action
lawsuit filed after a March 2 outage.
Robinhood and the plaintiffs filed a joint notice of settlement in
principle in a California federal court May 26. The notice didn't
include the specifics of the deal.
The settlement comes after Robinhood customers filed a class action
lawsuit against the company in March 2020, just days after a series
of outages in 2020, including one on March 2, 2020, that took
investors out of the market for most of the day.
Robinhood offers "commission-free" trades in securities using an
internet/cloud-based platform for customers.
In one class action launched against Robinhood soon after the
outage, plaintiff Travis Taaffe alleged that on that day,
Robinhood's trading platform was fully inaccessible and not
available to any of its customers.
The lawsuit argued users were not able to access their accounts on
the Robinhood platform and were also powerless in buying, selling
or trading securities.
Outage happened during record market day
Plaintiffs alleged Robinhood customers were unable to access the
trading platform for all but three minutes of the New York Stock
Exchange trading hours March 2; there additional outages the
following day.
On top of this, the Robinhood class action lawsuit states, on March
2, the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 1,294 points and the
Nasdaq gained 384 points, the biggest-ever point gain in a single
day.
Both the Dow and Nasdaq are used as indicators for stock
performance. Because of the outage, Taaffe and other users were
allegedly unable to participate in this day of growth.
The Robinhood users had been looking to certify a class of nearly 7
million account holders.
Earlier this year, counsel for the users said the main class would
consist of funded account holders who held at least one equity or
option position during the March 2 outage, Law360 reported.
Were you impacted by the outages? Let us know in the comments.
The Robinhood users are represented by Anne Marie Murphy, Mark C.
Molumphy, Noorjahan Rahman, Tyson C. Redenbarger and Julia Peng of
Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP and Matthew B. George, Kathleen A.
Herkenhoff and Laurence D. King of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP.
The Robinhood Outage Class Action Lawsuit is In re: Robinhood
Outage Litigation, Case No. 3:20-cv-01626, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California. [GN]
SAGINAW, MI: Federal Judge Rules Chalking Tires Unconstitutional
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cole Waterman, writing for MLive, reports that a federal judge has
ruled chalking tires to enforce parking regulations is
unconstitutional, five years after the process in Saginaw sparked a
class-action lawsuit. And per the ruling, each member of the
subclass is entitled to restitution from the city government.
The amount they're owed? $1 for each time their tires were chalked
by city employees.
U.S. District Judge Thomas L. Ludington on Monday, Aug. 8, ruled in
favor of plaintiff Alison P. Taylor, writing Saginaw's "practice of
marking vehicle tires with chalk without a warrant or
individualized suspicion of wrongdoing is unconstitutional under
the Fourth Amendment." The amendment protects citizens against
unreasonable searches and seizures.
The judge further ordered Saginaw is to pay nominal damages of $1
to each member of the suit's subclass for each time their tires
were chalked.
"It goes further than any judge has ever gone with this," said
attorney Philip L. Ellison, representing Taylor. "We're very
pleased the judge held it is unconstitutional."
The question becomes, are those who were ticketed after their tires
were chalked entitled to refunds of their tickets? Ludington ruled
they are not.
"As it stands right now, the way the judgment is written, it's for
everyone who had their tire chalked, not necessarily everyone who
was issued a ticket," Ellison said. "Most people who got chalked
never got a ticket."
Ellison said he and fellow attorney Matthew E. Gronda are still
analyzing the judge's ruling to discern how he concluded refunds
are not appropriate. They could appeal the decision, though if they
do so, it would be on the issue of what amount is owed.
Ellison said he expects both sides will get clarification from
Ludington, which could dictate if appeals are filed.
"It's a win for our side, no question about it," Ellison said.
"What I'd equate it to is we won with a one-point difference
between the game when we were expecting to have a big showing.
While we're very pleased with how far we got on this -- which took
two appeals -- we're still trying to figure out what's the right
remedy for those violations."
Ellison believes the ruling will have national ramifications, with
similar lawsuits having sprung up around the country and other
federal appellate courts possibly being influenced by Ludington's
decision.
"This is the first one, and obviously the first one sets the bar
but it doesn't mean the bar is permanently set," he said.
The class-action suit has about 2,000 plaintiffs with more than
5,000 tickets between them, Ellison said.
Taylor first filed her suit in April 2017 naming the City of
Saginaw and parking official Tabitha Hoskins as defendants. In the
suit, Taylor alleged that since 2014, Hoskins issued her 14 parking
tickets -- some for $15, others for $30 -- for exceeding the 2-hour
limit on a parking spot in Old Town Saginaw, near where she
worked.
Hoskins was able to tell that Taylor's vehicles had surpassed the
time limit by marking her tires with chalk, the suit alleged.
In January of this year, Ludington granted class certification to
the suit, appointing Taylor as Class Representative and attorneys
Ellison and Gronda as Class Counsel.
"Parking enforcement officials have used tire chalking as an
enforcement mechanism to quickly but inaccurately determine if a
vehicle has been parked too long," Ellison said. "The federal
lawsuit questioned that such practice violates the Fourth Amendment
because placing chalk on a tire to extract 'information' requires a
search warrant."
This is the third time Ludington has closed the suit, having first
dismissed it in June 2017 after attorney Brett Meyer, representing
Saginaw, argued in a motion that chalking tires does not amount to
a search under the Fourth Amendment and, even if it did, such a
search is reasonable and therefore not a constitutional violation.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed this dismissal in April
2019, ruling chalking of tires violates the Fourth Amendment's
clause banning unreasonable searches and seizures. Three days
later, the judges issued an amended ruling stating they still held
chalking of tires is a search under the Fourth Amendment, though it
does not mean such action violates the amendment.
Ludington again dismissed the suit in June 2020. The appellate
court in August 2021 reinstated the suit again, though it upheld
Ludington's ruling dismissing Hoskins from it, writing she is
entitled to qualified immunity as a city employee.
Despite the lawsuit now having been closed three times, it is
subject to further reconsideration and appeal by either side back
to the appellate court. [GN]
STARBUCKS CORP: Faces Suit Over Missing Refreshers' Ingredients
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abigail Abesamis Demarest, writing for kitchn, reports that you've
probably seen ads for those colorful Starbucks Refreshers that look
like everything you'd want in a cold summer drink, but a recent
lawsuit about the sips may leave a sour taste in your mouth.
Joan Kominis, a Queens, New York resident, has filed a class action
lawsuit claiming that several of the coffee chain's drinks don't
actually contain the ingredients their names suggest.
"Despite their names, and unbeknownst to consumers, the Mango
Dragonfruit and Mango Dragonfruit Lemonade Refreshers contain no
mango, the Pineapple Passionfruit and Pineapple Passionfruit
Lemonade Refreshers contain no passionfruit, and the Strawberry
Acaí and Strawberry Acaí Lemonade Refreshers contain no acaí,"
the lawsuit reads. "Further, all of the products are predominantly
made with water, grape juice concentrate, and sugar."
Both the Mango Dragonfruit and Mango Dragonfruit Lemonade
Refreshers are said to be made with a Mango Dragonfruit Refreshers
Base -- which includes water, sugar, white grape juice concentrate,
natural flavors, citric acid, green coffee flavor, and stevia.
Mango, however, is not explicitly listed as an ingredient, though
it could possibly be one of the "natural flavors."
The ingredients lists for the Pineapple Passionfruit and Pineapple
Passionfruit Lemonade Refreshers on the Starbucks website have
freeze-dried pineapple in the ingredients list, but no mention of
passionfruit. The Pineapple Passionfruit Refreshers base has
similar ingredients to the Mango Dragonfruit one, with water,
sugar, and white grape juice concentrate as the main ingredients.
The Strawberry Acaí and Strawberry Acaí Lemonade Refreshers
ingredient lists tell a similar story; freeze-dried strawberry
pieces in the ingredients list, but no acaí explicitly listed.
Starbucks drinks aren't cheap, and if Kominis's claims are true
it's definitely misleading to name a drink after fruits that aren't
actually in it. According to the brand, however, there's nothing to
worry about. "The allegations in the complaint are inaccurate and
without merit. We look forward to defending ourselves against these
claims," a Starbucks spokesperson told Kitchn via email. The suit
was filed in Manhattan federal court. [GN]
STARKIST CO: Wants Supreme Court to Decertify Tuna Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Leonard, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that StarKist Co.
asked the US Supreme Court to shut down a closely watched lawsuit
over its role in an alleged industrywide scheme to inflate the
price of canned tuna, after two lower courts ruled that tuna buyers
could litigate the antitrust case on a class action basis.
The company urged the justices to review a decision by the full US
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which held in April that
statistical models offered by three groups of tuna purchasers were
capable of showing "in one stroke" if the price-fixing conspiracy
led to widespread overcharges. [GN]
T-MOBILE US: $350MM Data Breach Settlement Awaits Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Avery, writing for CNET, reports that Americans who were
customers of T-Mobile in August 2021 could be owed money in a huge
legal settlement from the mobile carrier. T-Mobile has agreed pay
$350 million to settle a class-action lawsuit related to a massive
data breach that exposed millions of users' personal information.
The settlement also stipulates that T-Mobile invest $150 million in
improving data security.
If given final approval, the deal will be the second-largest data
breach settlement in US history, following Equifax's $700 million
payout in 2019. T-Mobile hasn't acknowledged any wrongdoing, but in
a July 22 statement shared with CNET, the wireless carrier said it
was "pleased to have resolved this consumer class action filing."
"Customers are first in everything we do and protecting their
information is a top priority," T-Mobile added. "Like every
company, we are not immune to these criminal attacks."
Here's what you need to know about the T-Mobile settlement,
including who's eligible for a payout, how much they could get and
when the money might arrive.
What happened in the T-Mobile data breach case?
On Aug. 15, 2021, T-Mobile reported a cyberattack had led to the
theft of millions of people's personal information, including
names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's
license details and other sensitive information, including unique
codes that identified individual phones.
Exactly how many people were hacked and how they were impacted is
unclear: According to court filings, approximately 76.6 million
people had their data exposed, but T-Mobile has claimed only about
850,000 people's names, addresses and PINs were "compromised."
An individual selling the information on the dark web for 6 bitcoin
(approximately $277,000 at the time) told Vice they had data
relating to over 100 million people, all compiled from T-Mobile
servers.
John Binns, a 21-year-old living in Turkey, eventually took
responsibility for the cyberattack, the fifth such attack that has
hit T-Mobile since 2015. "I was panicking because I had access to
something big," Binns told The Wall Street Journal. "Their security
is awful."
The July 24 settlement, filed in the US District Court for the
Western District of Missouri, merges at least 44 class-action suits
that claimed T-Mobile was lax with its cybersecurity and failed to
protect personal information.
Cyberattacks aside, T-Mobile still expects to add 6 million to 6.3
million new customers this year -- making it the industry leader in
subscriber growth over rivals AT&T and Verizon.
How much money could I receive from the settlement?
Class members -- in this case, people who were T-Mobile customers
in August 2021 -- could receive cash payments of $25, Reuters
reported, or $100 for California residents.
It could also be substantially less, depending on how many people
respond. In addition to paying out claims, the $350 million has to
go toward settling legal fees and administrative costs. The
plaintiffs' lawyers may charge up to 30% of the settlement,
according to court filings.
Separately, some people could receive as much as $25,000 to cover
losses they suffered as a direct result of the breach.
T-Mobile is also offering two free years of McAfee's ID Theft
Protection Service to anyone who believes they may have been a
victim.
How do I find out if I qualify for a payment from T-Mobile?
T-Mobile has not released the full details of its payment plan.
Typically class members are notified they are eligible by mail.
(Full disclosure: This reporter was a T-Mobile customer at that
time.)
Read more: How to Protect Your Personal Data After a Security
Breach
Customers are then given 90 days to submit claim forms or request
to opt out of the settlement and reserve the right to pursue their
own separate legal claims, according to court papers.
It could be several months before individuals find out if they will
receive money from the settlement, TechCrunch reported.
When will payments go out?
Qualified class members likely won't see any money until at least
2023.
T-Mobile has 30 days to provide the court with a list of class
members, along with their phone numbers and mailing and email
addresses, "to the extent available."
Once eligible parties are notified, claims can be submitted. Legal
fees are deducted and the remaining money is divvied up among class
members who sent back claims. That could take months.
In addition, the $350 million payout has only received preliminary
approval. It still requires final sign-off from a judge, which
T-Mobile said would come by December at the earliest.
What is T-Mobile doing to protect against future security
breaches?
T-Mobile has "doubled-down" on fighting hackers, the company said
in its July 22 statement, by boosting employee training,
collaborating with industry experts like Mandiant and Accenture on
new protocols and creating a cybersecurity office that reports
directly to the company's chief executive officer, Mike Sievert.
Security journalist Brian Krebs reported in April 2022 that
T-Mobile was a victim of the hacking group Lapsus$.
The hackers accessed employee accounts and attempted to find
T-Mobile accounts associated with the Department of Defense and
FBI, TechCrunch reported. They were thwarted by secondary
authentication checks. [GN]
TORONTO-DOMINION BANK: Sept. 21 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
BRETT HAWKES,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE TORONTO-DOMINION BANK, TD GROUP US HOLDINGS LLC,
TD BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, TD BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
STEPHEN BOYLE, TIM HOCKEY, BRIAN LEVITT, KAREN MAIDMENT, BHARAT
MASRANI, IRENE MILLER, JOSEPH MOGLIA, WILBUR PREZZANO, and THE
CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION,
Defendants.
C.A. No. 2020-0360-PAF
STOCKHOLDER CLASS ACTION, SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR
This notice is for all record holders and beneficial holders of TD
Ameritrade Holding Corporation ("Ameritrade") common stock at any
point during the period from and including November 25, 2019, the
date of the definitive merger agreement between Ameritrade and The
Charles Schwab Corporation, through and including October 6, 2020,
the date the Merger closed (the "Settlement Class").
Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Settlement Class
by definition, as set forth in the full Amended Notice of Pendency
and Proposed Settlement of Stockholder Class Action, Settlement
Hearing, and Right to Appear (the "Amended Notice"), available at
www.AmeritradeMergerLitigation.com. Any capitalized terms used in
this Amended Summary Notice that are not otherwise defined in this
Amended Summary Notice shall have the meanings given to them in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement, and Release
dated March 25, 2022 (the "Stipulation").
PLEASE READ THIS AMENDED SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"), that the
above-captioned stockholder class action (the "Action") is pending
in the Court.
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that (i) plaintiff Brett Hawkes
("Plaintiff"), on behalf of himself and the Settlement Class, and
(ii) defendants (a) The Toronto-Dominion Bank and its affiliates TD
Group US Holdings LLC ("TD Group US"), TD Bank USA, National
Association ("TD Bank USA"), and TD Bank, National Association ("TD
Bank N.A." and together with TD Group US and TD Bank USA, "TD
Bank"); (b) Tim Hockey, Brian Levitt, Karen Maidment, Bharat
Masrani, Irene Miller, Joseph Moglia, Wilbur Prezzano, and Stephen
Boyle (collectively, the "Individual Defendants"); and (c) The
Charles Schwab Corporation ("CSC," and together with TD Bank and
the Individual Defendants, "Defendants") have entered into a
proposed settlement for, among other consideration, $31,500,000
(the "Settlement"). The terms of the Settlement are stated in the
Stipulation entered into between Plaintiff and Defendants dated
March 25, 2022, a copy of which is available at
www.AmeritradeMergerLitigation.com. If approved by the Court, the
Settlement will resolve all claims in the Action.
Upon a request from the Parties, a hearing (the "Settlement
Hearing") was adjourned from the originally scheduled date of July
11, 2022 to the current September 21, 2022 at 11:00 a.m. date,
before The Honorable Paul A. Fioravanti, Jr., Vice Chancellor,
either in person at the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
New Castle County, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North
King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, or by telephone or video
conference (in the discretion of the Court), to, among other
things: (i) determine whether the Action may be permanently
maintained as a non-opt out class action and whether the Settlement
Class should be certified permanently, for purposes of the
Settlement, pursuant to Court of Chancery Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1) and
23(b)(2); (ii) determine whether Plaintiff may be permanently
designated as representative for the Settlement Class and
Plaintiff's Co-Lead Counsel as counsel for the Settlement Class,
and whether Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Co-Lead Counsel have
adequately represented the interests of the Settlement Class in the
Action; (iii) determine whether the proposed Settlement on the
terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair,
reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class, and should be
approved by the Court; (iv) determine whether the Judgment,
substantially in the form attached as Exhibit D to the Stipulation,
should be entered dismissing the Action with prejudice as against
Defendants; (v) determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation
of the Net Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable, and should
therefore be approved; (vi) determine whether the application by
Plaintiff's Co-Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses, including Plaintiff's application for an incentive award,
should be approved; (vii) hear and rule on any objections to the
Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, the application by
Plaintiff's Co-Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses, and/or Plaintiff's application for an incentive award;
and (viii) consider any other matters that may properly be brought
before the Court in connection with the Settlement.
Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes
to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person
or remote appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the
Settlement website, www.AmeritradeMergerLitigation.com.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet
received the Amended Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Amended
Notice by contacting the Settlement Administrator at Ameritrade
Merger Litigation, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O. Box 91212,
Seattle, WA 98111, 1-888-964-2135. A copy of the Amended Notice can
also be downloaded from the Settlement website,
www.AmeritradeMergerLitigation.com.
If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date
occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata
basis to Eligible Closing Date Stockholders in accordance with the
proposed Plan of Allocation stated in the Amended Notice or such
other plan of allocation as is approved by the Court. Pursuant to
the proposed Plan of Allocation, each Eligible Closing Date
Stockholder will be eligible to receive a pro rata payment from the
Net Settlement Fund equal to the product of (i) the number of
shares held by the Eligible Closing Date Stockholder at the time
such shares were converted into the right to receive the Merger
Consideration in connection with the Closing of the Merger and (ii)
the "Per-Share Recovery" for the Settlement, which will be
determined by dividing the total amount of the Net Settlement Fund
by the total number of shares held by all of the Eligible Closing
Date Stockholders at the time such shares were converted into the
right to receive the Merger Consideration in connection with the
Closing of the Merger. As explained in further detail in the
Amended Notice at paragraphs 38-43, pursuant to the Plan of
Allocation, payments from the Net Settlement Fund to Eligible
Closing Date Stockholders will be made in the same manner in which
Eligible Closing Date Stockholders received the Merger
Consideration. Eligible Closing Date Stockholders do not have to
submit a claim form to receive a payment from the Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Plaintiff's Co-Lead Counsel's application for an
award attorneys' fees and expenses, including Plaintiff's
application for an incentive award, must be filed with the Register
in Chancery in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and
delivered to Plaintiff's Co-Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel
such that they are received no later than September 7, 2022, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Amended Notice.
Please do not contact the Court or the Office of the Register in
Chancery regarding this Amended Summary Notice. All questions about
this Amended Summary Notice, the proposed Settlement, or your
eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to
the Settlement Administrator or Plaintiff's Co-Lead Counsel.
Requests for the Amended Notice should be made to the Settlement
Administrator:
Ameritrade Merger Litigationc/o JND Legal AdministrationP.O. Box
91212Seattle, WA
981111-888-964-2135info@AmeritradeMergerLitigation.comwww.AmeritradeMergerLitigation.com
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, should be made to
Plaintiff's Co-Lead Counsel:
Peter B. Andrews
ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
4001 Kennett Pike, Suite 250
Wilmington, Delaware 19807
1-302-504-4957 Ext. 1
pandrews@andrewsspringer.com
Edward Timlin
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
& GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
44th Floor
New York, New York 10020
1-800-380-8496
settlements@blbglaw.com
or
David Tejtel
FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D
Bedford Hills, New York 10507
1-888-529-1108
dtejtel@fotpllc.com
BY ORDER OF THE COURT OFCHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE [GN]
TTE TECHNOLOGY: January 19 Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Purchasers of New TCL Televisions in the State of California from
April 24, 2016 through December 31, 2021, may be Entitled to
Payment from a Class Action Settlement
The following is being released by A.B. Data, Ltd., the
Court-appointed Settlement Administrator for the Class Action
Settlement in Christopher Julian, et al. v. TTE Technology, Inc.
dba TCL North America, Case No. 3:20-CV-02857, U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California
TCLTO ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED TCL TELEVISIONS IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA FROM APRIL 24, 2016, THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2021
Read This Notice Carefully. You Could Receive a Payment of up to
$40 From This Class Action Settlement. This Court-Authorized Notice
describes your rights and gives information about the proposed
settlement. This Notice is only a summary. Details of the
settlement are available at www.HZClassAction.com or by writing to
or calling the Class Action Settlement Administrator at the address
or toll-free number below.
What Is This Case About?
In the lawsuit entitled Christopher Julian, et al. v. TTE
Technology, Inc., Case No. 3:20-CV-02857-EMC, U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, plaintiff Paul Fiskratti
("Plaintiff" or "Class Representative"), on behalf of himself and a
proposed class, alleges that TTE Technology, Inc. dba TCL North
America ("TCL") marketed certain of its LCD televisions as having a
"Hz" rating twice as high as its actual refresh rate. Specifically,
Plaintiff alleges TCL deceptively advertised certain of its
televisions with 60Hz native refresh rate panels as "120Hz CMI,"
"120Hz Clear Motion Index," and/or "120Hz CMI Effective Refresh
Rate." TCL denies that it misled consumers, disputes that it has
done anything wrong, and believes its advertising was truthful and
accurate and asserts that does not mislead consumers regarding Hz
ratings. The lawsuit seeks money damages, as well as attorneys'
fees and costs and a court order requiring TCL to stop the
foregoing advertising practices. The Court has not ruled on the
merits of the claims or TCL's defenses.
Who Is A Class Member?
All persons who purchased, new, one of the TCL Television models
listed on www.HZClassAction.com between April 24, 2016 and December
31, 2021, in the state of California ("Settlement Class Members").
What Are The Terms Of The Settlement?
TCL has agreed to pay $2,900,000 ("Settlement Fund") in full and
complete settlement and release of all claims of Plaintiff and the
Settlement Class Members, as described in the Settlement Agreement.
The funds will be used to pay Settlement Awards to Settlement Class
Members who submit a valid Claim to the Settlement Administrator
via a form on the Settlement Website during the Claim Period, after
attorneys' fees, costs, and other expenses have been deducted. The
Settlement Awards will be set at $15 per valid Claim and subject to
pro rata increase (totaling up to $40) or decrease, depending on
the number of all approved Claims submitted. Class Counsel will ask
the Court to approve an award of up to 25% of the Settlement Fund
for attorneys' fees, totaling $725,000; an award of reasonable
litigation expenses and costs of approximately $148,000; and $2,500
to Plaintiff Fiskratti as Class Representative, all to be paid from
the Settlement Fund. If there are amounts remaining in the
Settlement Fund after payment of all Settlement Awards, that money
will be distributed cy pres to charity.
How Do You Make A Claim?
In order to receive a Settlement Award, you must submit a signed
and completed Claim Form online to the Class Action Settlement
Administrator by no later than October 7, 2022. Claim Forms may
also be submitted to the Class Action Settlement Administrator by
mail if postmarked no later than October 7, 2022. The Claim Form is
available at www.HZClassAction.com.
What Are My Other Options?
If you do not want to be legally bound by the Settlement, you may
opt out of the Settlement by sending a request for exclusion to the
Class Action Settlement Administrator no later than October 7,
2022. If you exclude yourself from the Settlement, you will not
receive any money from the Settlement. If you stay in the
Settlement (i.e., do not exclude yourself from the Settlement), you
may object to the Settlement by writing to the Court explaining why
you do not like the Settlement by no later than October 7, 2022.
You will be bound by the Settlement if your objection is rejected.
If you do nothing (i.e., submit no Claim Form or request for
exclusion), you will not receive any benefits from the Settlement,
but will nevertheless be bound by any judgment approving the
Settlement and will give up any right to sue TCL or related parties
for any known or unknown claims relating to marketing by TCL of the
"Hz" rating of the televisions at issue.
Final Approval Hearing
The Court will hold a hearing in this case to consider whether to
approve the Settlement on January 19, 2023, at 1:30 p.m., U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, 450 Golden
Gate Avenue, Courtroom 5 - 17th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102. The
date of the Final Approval Hearing may change without further
notice to the class. Settlement Class Members should be advised to
check the settlement website or the Court's PACER site to confirm
that the date has not been changed and whether the hearing may be
held virtually due to COVID-19.
THIS NOTICE IS ONLY A SUMMARY. MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE LAWSUIT
AND THE PRECISE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE SETTLEMENT IS AVAILABLE
AT WWW.HZCLASSACTION.COM, OR WRITE OR CALL THE CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATOR AT HZ CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
ADMINISTRATOR, P.O. BOX 173007, MILWAUKEE, WI 53217 OR 877-888-8386
(TOLL-FREE), OR CLASS COUNSEL WHOSE CONTACT INFORMATION CAN BE
FOUND AT HTTPS://CRUEGERDICKINSON.COM OR HTTPS://MILBERG.COM, OR BY
ACCESSING THE COURT DOCKET IN THIS CASE, FOR A FEE, THROUGH THE
COURT'S PUBLIC ACCESS TO COURT ELECTRONIC RECORDS (PACER) SYSTEM AT
HTTPS://ECF.CAND.USCOURTS.GOV, OR BY VISITING THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK OF THE COURT FOR THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, 450 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE, COURTROOM
5 - 17TH FLOOR, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102, BETWEEN 9:00 A.M. AND 4:00
P.M., MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, EXCLUDING COURT HOLIDAYS.
PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT OR THE COURT CLERK'S OFFICE TO
INQUIRE ABOUT THIS SETTLEMENT OR THE CLAIM PROCESS. [GN]
TUSIMPLE HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Aug. 10
announced an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf
of shareholders of TuSimple Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ: TSP) resulting
from allegations that TuSimple may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased TuSimple securities you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=8026 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: In April 2022, TuSimple conducted its initial
public offering (IPO), selling approximately 33.78 million shares
priced at $40.00 per share.
Then on August 1, 2022, before market hours, The Wall Street
Journal published an article entitled "Self-Driving Truck Accident
Draws Attention to Safety at TuSimple: Leading autonomous-truck
developer blames human error, while analysts say it is the
technology; regulators are investigating[.]" The article reported,
among other things, that an April 6, 2022 accident in which one of
TuSimple's autonomously driven trucks "suddenly veered left,
cut[ting] across the I-10 highway in Tucson, Ariz., and slammed
into a concrete barricade … underscores concerns that the
autonomous-trucking company is risking safety on public roads in a
rush to deliver driverless trucks to market, according to
independent analysts and more than a dozen of the company's former
employees." While TuSimple reported that the accident was due to a
person in the cab not properly rebooting the autonomous driving
system before engaging it, "researchers at Carnegie Mellon
University said it was the autonomous-driving system that turned
the wheel and that blaming the entire accident on human error is
misleading." The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has
launched a "safety compliance investigation" into TuSimple.
On this news, TuSimple's stock price fell $0.97 per share, or 9%,
to close at $8.99 per share on August 1, 2022, representing a 77%
decline from its IPO price.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contacts
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
TUYA INC: Johnson Fistel Reminds of October 11 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP on Aug. 10
disclosed that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of
investors of Tuya, Inc. (NYSE: TUYA). The class action is on behalf
of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Tuya in or
traceable to Tuya's March 2021 initial public offering (the "IPO").
The Tuya class action lawsuit charges Tuya, certain of its top
executives and directors, as well as the IPO's underwriters with
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 Investors are hereby
notified that they have until October 11, 2022 to move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff in this action.
What actions may I take at this time? If you suffered a loss and
are interested in learning more about being a lead plaintiff,
please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) by email or phone
at 619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number.
To join this action, you can click or copy and paste the link below
in a browser:
https://www.johnsonfistel.com/investigations/tuya-ipo-fake-review-class-action-lawsuit
There is no cost or obligation to you.
The Tuya class action lawsuit alleges, the IPO's registration
statement documents were materially false and misleading because
they failed to disclose that: (i) a material portion of Tuya's
China-based customers were engaged in the widespread and systematic
manipulation of reviews and product offerings in violation of
Amazon.com's terms of use; (ii) prior to the IPO, a consumer
investigation and data breach had exposed an illicit fake review
scheme being perpetrated by many of Tuya's clients, among others,
which included, among other things, the exposure of 13 million
records of organized fake review scams linked to over 200,000
Amazon account profiles; (iii) as a result, there was a substantial
risk that a material portion of Tuya's significant customers would
be barred from using Amazon.com's platform, negatively impacting
Tuya's business, revenue, earnings, and prospects; and (iv) as
such, the IPO's registration statement's representations regarding
Tuya's historical financial and operational metrics and purported
market opportunities and expected growth did not accurately reflect
the actual business, operations, financial results, and trajectory
of Tuya at the time of the IPO.
A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing the Tuya class-action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class-action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential future
recovery of the Tuya class action lawsuit is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff. For more information regarding the lead
plaintiff process please refer to
https://www.johnsonfistel.com/lead-plaintiff-deadlines.
About Johnson Fistel, LLP:
Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. Johnson Fistel
seeks to recover losses incurred due to violations of federal
securities laws. For more information about the firm and its
attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney
advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Contact:
Johnson Fistel, LLP
Jim Baker, 619-814-4471
Investor Relations
jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN]
TUYA INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of October 11 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Aug. 11 disclosed that it has
filed a class action lawsuit seeking to represent purchasers of
Tuya Inc. (NYSE: TUYA) American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") in or
traceable to Tuya's March 2021 initial public offering (the "IPO").
Captioned Lian v. Tuya Inc., No. 22-cv-06792 (S.D.N.Y.) - the Tuya
class action lawsuit charges Tuya, certain of its top executives
and directors, as well as the IPO's underwriters with violations of
the Securities Act of 1933.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, please provide your information here:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-tuya-inc-class-action-lawsuit-tuya.html
You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by
calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead
plaintiff motions for the Tuya class action lawsuit must be filed
with the court no later than October 11, 2022.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: Based in China, Tuya's proprietary products and
services enable so-called "smart devices," e.g., household items
and appliances connected to the internet, to communicate and
interact with end users and online information and services.
Approximately 20% of Tuya's customers sell products online through
e-commerce marketplaces such as Amazon.com. And to maintain the
integrity of its platform, Amazon.com has long prohibited the
practice of sellers compensating review writers for their reviews
in most instances.
Leading up to the IPO, Tuya claimed to be experiencing phenomenal
growth. But as the Tuya class action lawsuit alleges, the IPO's
registration statement documents were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose that: (i) a material
portion of Tuya's China-based customers were engaged in the
widespread and systematic manipulation of reviews and product
offerings in violation of Amazon.com's terms of use; (ii) prior to
the IPO, a consumer investigation and data breach had exposed an
illicit fake review scheme being perpetrated by many of Tuya's
clients, among others, which included, among other things, the
exposure of 13 million records of organized fake review scams
linked to over 200,000 Amazon account profiles; (iii) as a result,
there was a substantial risk that a material portion of Tuya's
significant customers would be barred from using Amazon.com's
platform, negatively impacting Tuya's business, revenue, earnings,
and prospects; and (iv) as such, the IPO's registration statement's
representations regarding Tuya's historical financial and
operational metrics and purported market opportunities and expected
growth did not accurately reflect the actual business, operations,
financial results, and trajectory of Tuya at the time of the IPO.
By August 2022, the price of Tuya ADSs had dropped below $2 per ADS
- 90% below the price at which Tuya ADSs were sold to the investing
public in the IPO.
The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud. You can view a copy of the complaint by
clicking here.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who Tuya ADSs in or
traceable to the IPO during the Class Period to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff in the Tuya class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff
is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the
relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and
adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of
all other class members in directing the Tuya class action lawsuit.
The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate
the Tuya class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in
any potential future recovery of the Tuya class action lawsuit is
not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller is one of the world's leading
complex class action firms representing plaintiffs in securities
fraud cases. The Firm is ranked #1 on the 2021 ISS Securities Class
Action Services Top 50 Report for recovering nearly $2 billion for
investors last year alone - more than triple the amount recovered
by any other plaintiffs' firm. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices,
Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world
and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history, including the
largest securities class action recovery ever - $7.2 billion - in
In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for
more information:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html
Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Contacts
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
TYRO PAYMENTS: October 30 Claim Registration Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Seamus May, writing for The Shout, reports that on 22 July, the
Federal Court issued a 'claim registration and opt out notice' to
likely 'Group Members' in the Tyro Class Action.
A Class Action lawsuit was first brought by Bannister Law, acting
on behalf of Spozac Pty Limited, in October of last year following
an outage in Tyro's EFTPOS facility in January 2021.
Tyro CEO Robbie Cooke has previously apologised for the outage,
which left thousands of businesses unable to take card payments. In
some cases, this outage lasted weeks. Tyro have put the disruption
down to a fault in the software provided by the terminal
manufacturer, Worldline, in certain models of their POS payment
machines.
The Federal Court's notice outlined three courses of action for
likely Group Members:
Registering and remaining a Group Member.
Doing nothing and remaining a Group Member.
Opting out and ceasing to be a Group Member.
The first option would mean that Group Members will have their
claim considered by the court and would receive a share of any
settlement resulting from the Class Action.
In the second instance, unregistered Group Members would be 'bound
by any judgment or settlement,' however, registered parties will
seek an order 'which, if made, will have the effect of precluding
[unregistered Group Members] from seeking any benefit from that
settlement.' Essentially this means that unregistered Group Members
would not be entitled to any settlement monies, if this order is
granted.
With the third option, any Group Members that opt-out will lose
their right to any compensation from this Class Action - but will
not be bound by its judgment or settlement and are free to take
their own action against Tyro, or participate in Tyro's own
'Remediation Program'.
The Shout approached Tyro for comment regarding this program, with
a spokesperson saying: "Following the terminal connectivity
incident experienced in January 2021, Tyro has conducted a
remediation program whereby all impacted merchants have been
contacted directly by Tyro and given the opportunity to claim any
financial losses caused by the connectivity incident."
The court notice added detail regarding Tyro's remediation.
'Tyro's position is that any Group Member who has entered into a
settlement agreement with Tyro under its Remediation Program or
enters into a settlement agreement is not or will not be entitled
to compensation in the Tyro Class Action or otherwise. Group
Members who have already entered into a settlement agreement with
Tyro may wish to obtain their own legal advice in relation to their
rights.'
The court also noted that Group Members are not individually liable
for the cost of bringing the Class Action, and legal costs would be
distributed by the court in the instance of a successful action.
The notice also outlined the course of action possible Group
Members should take.
'If you are unsure whether or not you are a Group Member, you
should email Bannister Law Class Actions at
tyroclassaction@bl.com.au or call their office line ((02) 8231
6529) or seek your own legal advice without delay. Further
information and a registration form can be found at
www.tyroclassaction.com.au.'
Group Members who intend to remain in the Tyro Class Action must
register their claim before 4pm Sydney time on October 30 2022.
[GN]
UNITY SOFTWARE: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of September 5 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded
companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the
links below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Law
Clerk and Client Relations Manager, Yael Nathanson of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss,
you can 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. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other
class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in
any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Unity Software, Inc. (NYSE: U)
advertisement
Class Period: March 5, 2021 - May 10, 2022
Deadline: September 5, 2022
For more info: www.bgandg.com/unity.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) deficiencies in Unity's product
platform reduced the accuracy of the Company's machine learning
technology; (2) the foregoing was likely to have a material
negative impact on the Company's revenues; (3) accordingly, Unity
had overstated the Company's commercial and/or financial prospects
for 2022; (4) as a result, the Company was likely to have to reduce
its fiscal 2022 guidance; and (5) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
Outset Medical, Inc. (NASDAQ: OM)
Class Period: September 15, 2020 - June 13, 2022
Deadline: September 6, 2022
For more info: www.bgandg.com/om.
The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
misled investors and/or failed to disclose that (1) defendants had
"continuously made improvements and updates to Tablo over time
since its original clearance" that required an additional 510(k)
application; (2) as a result, the Company could not conduct a human
factors study on a cleared device in accordance with FDA protocols;
(3) the Company's inability to conduct the human factors study
subjected the Company to the likelihood of the FDA imposing a
"shipment hold" and marketing suspension, leaving the Company
unable to sell Tablo for home use; and (4) as a result, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.
Molecular Partners AG (NASDAQ: MOLN)
Class Period: (a) Molecular Partners American Depositary Shares
("ADSs") pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents
(defined below) issued in connection with the Company's initial
public offering conducted on or about June 16, 2021 (the "IPO");
and/or (b) Molecular Partners securities between June 16, 2021 and
April 26, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
Deadline: September 12, 2022
For more info: www.bgandg.com/moln.
The complaint alleges that the Offering Documents were negligently
prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material
fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance
with the rules and regulations governing their preparation.
Additionally, the complaint alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, the Offering Documents and Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
ensovibep was less effective at treating COVID-19 than Defendants
had led investors to believe; (2) accordingly, the FDA was
reasonably likely to require an additional Phase 3 study of
ensovibep before granting the drug EUA; (3) waning global rates of
COVID-19 significantly reduced the Company's chances of securing
EUA for ensovibep; (4) as a product candidate, MP0310 was less
attractive to Amgen than Defendants had led investors to believe;
(5) accordingly, there was a significant likelihood that Amgen
would return global rights of MP0310 to Molecular Partners; (6) as
a result of all the foregoing, the clinical and commercial
prospects of ensovibep and MP0310 were overstated; and (7) as a
result, the Offering Documents and Defendants' public statements
throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or misleading
and failed to state information required to be stated therein.
Contact:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Nathanson
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]
VOYAGER DIGITAL: Faces Fraud Class Action Lawsuit in Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
Offshore Alert reports that a Class Action Complaint was filed
alleging fraud involving crypto broker Voyager Digital in Pierce
Robertson, Rachel Gold, Sanford Gold, Rahil Sayed, Christopher
Ehrentraut, Todd Manganiello, Dan Newsom, William Ayer, Anthony
Dorn, Dameco Gates, Marshall Peters, and Edwin Garrison v. Mark
Cuban, Dallas Basketball Limited, d.b.a. Dallas Mavericks, and
Stephen Ehrlich at the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida. [GN]
WALMART INC: Faces Wage-and-Hour Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
Robert Iafolla, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Walmart
Inc. wants a higher court to determine if New York workers can sue
for damages if they were paid less than weekly, an interpretation
of state wage law that employer advocates say has exposed companies
to billions of dollars in potential liability.
Walmart is defending against a class action complaint alleging it
violated New York law by paying certain workers biweekly instead of
at least once per week. The lawsuit could seek hundreds of millions
of dollars in damages, depending on how many of the retailer's
estimated 35,000 New York employees fall under the weekly pay
requirement.
Other large companies also hit with late payment lawsuits include
Costco Wholesale Corp., Walgreen Co., Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., Quest
Diagnostics, and Banana Republic.
US District Judge Thomas McAvoy, a Reagan appointee, is considering
Walmart's request to contest his decision rejecting the company's
motion to dismiss at the US Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit. If granted, Walmart said it would then petition the Second
Circuit to ask New York's highest court to rule on whether workers
can sue for late-payment damages under state wage law.
Walmart's quest for court review—backed by the US Chamber of
Commerce, National Retail Federation, and other business
groups—reflects the high stakes for employers who pay workers in
New York on a biweekly basis.
"All told, the potential monetary liability on this issue could
easily exceed several billion dollars," the business groups said in
a brief.
Workers have filed more than 150 lawsuits alleging violations of
New York's timely payment requirement since an intermediate state
appellate court held in 2019 that individuals have the right to sue
under that provision of state labor law, the groups said.
Game-Changing Vega Decision
Before the Appellate Division First Department's 2019 ruling in
Vega v. CM & Associates Construction Management, the pay frequency
requirement—which has been on the books for more than a
century—was exclusively enforced by the New York Department of
Labor. Fines max out at $3,000.
Vega permitted "manual workers" to obtain liquidated damages equal
to money they received later than on a weekly basis, which would
mean half a year's wages if the employee was paid biweekly. The
numbers can add up, especially in light of New York's six-year
statute of limitations for wage claims.
"These claims can be disastrous for big and small companies alike,"
said Brian Murphy, a Sheppard Mullin attorney who represents
employers.
Each employee who was paid $15 per hour on a biweekly basis could
cost as much as $93,000 in damages, which is a lot of money for
small employers and can create huge bills when businesses have
large New York workforces, said Murphy, co-author of "The Wage &
Hour Manual for New York Employers."
The timely payment requirement is consistent with New York labor
law's overall design to give the most protection to financially
vulnerable workers, who often live paycheck to paycheck, said
Douglas Lipsky, an attorney with Lipsky Lowe LLP who represents
workers.
Getting paid faster helps low-wage workers take care of bills and
other expenses on a timely basis, avoiding late fees and additional
debt, said Sally Abrahamson, a worker-side attorney with Werman
Salas PC.
New York law defines a manual worker as a "mechanic, workingman or
laborer." That includes employees who spend more than 25% of their
time engaged in physical labor, according to the state labor
department's long-standing interpretation of the law.
Companies with 1,000 or more workers can seek an exemption from the
pay frequency mandate, though such waivers can be laborious to get
and don't appear to provide retroactive safeguards against
liability, Murphy said.
Walmart told Bloomberg Law that it obtained permission from the
state in 1993 to pay workers on a semi-monthly basis.
Brian Schaffer of Fitapelli & Schaffer LLP, the attorney for the
worker suing the company, didn't respond to requests for comment.
Second NY Appeals Case
Many pay frequency lawsuits are litigated in federal court. New
York's civil procedure rules bar class action claims that only seek
penalties, which is the basis for relief in the form of liquidated
damages for alleged violations of the timely payment requirement.
The Class Action Fairness Act also can move state law class actions
into federal court if they could be worth more than $5 million.
Federal courts have accepted Vega's view that workers can sue for
liquidated damages. The federal judge who turned aside Walmart's
motion to dismiss in March, for example, reviewed relevant case law
and said he wasn't convinced that New York's highest court would
rule differently.
Companies have argued workers didn't suffer the type of "injury in
fact" necessary for standing to sue just because they were paid
less than weekly, though that argument has yet to gain significant
traction.
Nevertheless, the Second Department in New York's Appellate
Division is considering a case that could upset federal courts'
deferral to Vega and create a split for the state's highest court
to resolve.
A worker has challenged a decision throwing out his untimely
payment lawsuit against Global Aircraft Dispatch Inc. The trial
court held that workers can only sue under New York law for
underpaid or unpaid wages, not for errors related to the frequency
of payments.
The same coalition of business groups that backed Walmart's bid for
appellate review also filed a brief with the Second Department
supporting Global Aircraft Dispatch.
The company's lawyer, Jeffrey Brecher of Jackson Lewis PC, declined
to comment.
The worker's attorney, Abdul Hassan of Abdul Hassan Law Group PLLC,
said Global Aircraft Dispatch's arguments are "emotional and
financial -- not legal in nature." Hassan also represented the
worker in Vega. [GN]
WEBER INC: Portnoy Law Firm Announces Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises Weber Inc. ("Weber" or the "Company")
(NYSE: WEBR) investors that a class action filed on behalf of
investors. Weber investors that lost money on their investment are
encouraged to contact Lesley Portnoy, Esq.
Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, by
phone 844-767-8529 or email: lesley@portnoylaw.com, to discuss
their legal rights, or click here to join the case via
www.portnoylaw.com. The Portnoy Law Firm can provide a
complimentary case evaluation and discuss investors' options for
pursuing claims to recover their losses.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that the
Registration Statement 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
Weber was reasonably likely to implement price increases; (2) that,
as a result, consumer demand for Weber's products was reasonably
likely to decrease; (3) that, due to the resulting inventory
buildup, Weber was reasonably likely to run promotions to "enhance
retail sell through"; (4) that the foregoing would adversely impact
Weber's financial results; and (5) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.
The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
against caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner
has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]
WEBER INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of September 27 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Weber Inc. (NYSE: WEBR) pursuant
and/or traceable to the registration statement and related
prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in
connection with Weber's August 2021 initial public offering (the
"IPO") of the important September 27, 2022.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Weber 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 Weber class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=7923 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 27,
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. Many of these firms do not actually
handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that
refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the
cases. 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 IPO Registration
Statement featured false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) Weber was reasonably likely to implement
price increases; (2) as a result, consumer demand for Weber's
products was reasonably likely to decrease; (3) due to the
resulting inventory buildup, Weber was reasonably likely to run
promotions to "enhance retail sell through"; (4) the foregoing
would adversely impact Weber's financial results; and (5) as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
To join the Weber class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=7923 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
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]
[*] 101 New U.S. Securities Class Actions Filed in 1st Half of 2022
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Janeen McIntosh and Svetlana Starykh of Nera Economic Consulting
report that during the first half of 2022, 101 new federal
securities class action cases were filed. Assuming that the filing
levels observed in the first six months of the year continue,
annual filings for 2022 will be 202, which is in line with the
number of cases filed in 2021 but more than 35% lower than the
number of cases filed in 2020. In addition, if the first six months
of 2022 are indicative of the full-year patterns, we expect to see
fewer merger objections and an increase in Rule 10b-5, Section 11,
and/or Section 12 cases relative to 2021.
New cases continue to be filed most frequently in the Second and
Ninth Circuits, with more than 25 non-merger-objection cases in
each jurisdiction during the first half of 2022. Of the cases filed
in this time frame, over 30% have included an allegation related to
misled future performance, the most common allegation for period.
For the first time in the past five years, more than 25% of the new
cases filed included an allegation related to merger integration
issues, the majority of which are connected to SPAC-related
acquisitions. During the first half of 2022, there were 19
SPAC-related securities class action suits filed, compared to the
27 such cases filed for full year 2021. COVID-19-related class
actions have continued to be filed, with 13 new cases in the first
six months of the year.
There were 114 cases resolved between January and June 2022, of
which approximately half have been settled and half have been
dismissed. If resolutions continue at this pace for the remainder
of the year, 2022 resolutions will be the lowest recorded level
since 2015. This decline is primarily driven by the persistence of
the low level of merger-objection resolutions, which have declined
from more than 125 in 2019 to a projected 22 for 2022.
The median NERA-defined Investor Losses for cases settled during
the first half of 2022 was $1,137 million, the highest recorded
value in the most recent 10 years. This median value is
approximately 55% higher than the 2021 median Investor Losses of
$731 million. The median ratio of settlement amount to Investor
Losses declined modestly in 2022 to 1.7%, down from the 1.8%
observed in 2020 and 2021.
For cases settled in 2022, the median settlement value was $13
million. This is an increase from the median inflation-adjusted
value of $9 million in 2021, but still below the 2018–2020
inflation-adjusted median values of $14–$15 million. [GN]
[*] Cannabis Dispensary Group Settles FCRA Class Action for $60K
----------------------------------------------------------------
Big Business Information Group reports that plaintiffs in the case
argued that they were denied employment due to the employer's
background check process. According to the Plaintiffs, the employer
never provided them with a pre-adverse action notice, a copy of
their consumer report, and their summary of rights under the FCRA.
The class-action suit states that this mistake denied potential
employees their right to review the report and either dispute the
results with the consumer reporting agency (CRA) or provide a
consumer statement.
The employer settled the class-action suit to the amount of
$60,500, spread across approximately 1,000 qualified class
members.
In February, a similar class-action lawsuit was filed against a
large home improvement company, alleging that the company failed to
provide applicants with a copy of their consumer report or a
written summary of their FCRA rights before denying employment.
Employers running background checks should ensure compliance with
the hyper-vigilant pre-adverse requirements of the FCRA, which
include adverse action notices, a copy of the consumer report, and
a summary of the consumer's rights under the FCRA. They must also
provide an adequate period of time - typically a minimum of five
business days - before finalizing the adverse action.
Business Information Group's Consumer Care Portal allows for the
streamlined delivery and tracking of consumer compliance
notifications and complies with FCRA and state-level requirements
for pre-adverse and final adverse action. The portal also provides
tools that allow the consumer to dispute the accuracy of their
report or add a consumer statement as permissible by the FCRA. For
more information on how BIG can help your company comply with FCRA
requirements, please contact your account manager or sales
executive. [GN]
[*] Financiers Help Fuel Rise in US-Style Class Actions in UK
-------------------------------------------------------------
Claims Journal reports that financiers are helping to fuel a rise
in US-style class-action lawsuits in the UK courts, lured by the
promise of big payouts.
The British litigation finance industry -- which pays legal fees
upfront and shares in any eventual payout -- has almost doubled the
size of its UK assets over the past three years, with as much as
GBP2.2 billion ($2.7 billion) filling up balance sheets, according
to data from law firm RPC. That war chest is being used to fund a
growing number of lawsuits that are going after the likes of Apple
Inc., Meta Platforms Inc. and BT Group Plc.
Opt-out class action style lawsuits, where someone impacted doesn't
have to be aware of the case to be included, are being tipped as a
good bet for investors as they offer the prospect of huge payouts
if successful.
"Class actions have the potential for big rewards," Charlotte
Henschen, a lawyer at RPC, said. "Funders like class action type
disputes because there is an opportunity for funders to get in at
the beginning. It's also an attractive group to represent for sheer
reach and volume."
The UK's opt-out class action regime, known as collective
proceedings, finally started to gain traction last year. Not a
single claim was allowed to go ahead in the five years since it
began in 2015, but 2021 saw four claims given the green light.
There are now nine claims certified at the Competition Appeal
Tribunal with many more waiting in the wings.
The system currently only allows claims related to competition law
and this year has seen cases filed over a power cable cartel and
Meta's alleged misuse of personal data.
Recent Cases Filed Funder
Date
Gutmann v Apple Balance Legal Capital
2022
Spottiswoode v Nexans France Burford Capital
2022
Sciallis v Fender Musical Instruments North Wall Capital
2022
Gormsen v Meta Innsworth
2022
Gutmann v Govia Thameslink Railway Woodsford
2021
Home Insurance Consumer Action v BGL Augusta Ventures
2021
Coll v Alphabet Vannin Capital
(Fortress) 2021
Boyle & Vermeer v Govia Thameslink Railway Litigation Capital
Management 2021
Kent v Apple Vannin Capital
(Fortress) 2021
Consumers' Association v Qualcomm Augusta Ventures
2021
Le Patourel v BT Group Harbour Litigation
Funding 2021
Two of the largest cases, a foreign exchange spot trading cartel
and a truck cartel, are now pulling in as much as GBP50 million
($59.1 million) in funding when measured with potential funding for
adverse costs, according to a report by consultancy Brattle.
"If funding didn't exist tomorrow the CAT would be empty and there
would be no cases being pursued there," said Susan Dunn, founder of
Harbour Litigation Funding and the chair of industry body The
Association of Litigation Funders.
But the relationship between the funders and the people who run the
cases hasn't been without tension.
Walter Merricks, the representative of the UK's largest opt-out
class action against Mastercard, ran into difficulty when Burford
Capital Ltd dropped out of funding his case after it was denied
certification by the CAT in 2017. It later found a new investor,
Innsworth, and appealed to both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme
Court -- which it won.
A spokesman for Burford said it did not comment on the
decision-making over its investments.
How much the funders can win for these sorts of claims will vary,
with agreements dependent on the size and budget with rates usually
increasing over time.
"A reasonable assumption is that a funder will charge 30% to 40% of
the proceeds in return for its non-recourse funding, which will be
completely lost if the case is not successful," Harbour's Dunn
said. [GN]
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Defends Product Liability Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------
AMETEK, Inc. (including its subsidiaries) has been named as a
defendant in a number of asbestos-related lawsuits, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Certain of these lawsuits relate to a business
which was acquired by the Company and do not involve products which
were manufactured or sold by the Company. In connection with these
lawsuits, the seller of such business has agreed to indemnify the
Company against these claims (the "Indemnified Claims"). The
Indemnified Claims have been tendered to, and are being defended
by, such seller. The seller has met its obligations, in all
respects, and the Company does not have any reason to believe such
party would fail to fulfill its obligations in the future. To date,
no judgments have been rendered against the Company as a result of
any asbestos-related lawsuit. The Company believes that it has good
and valid defenses to each of these claims and intends to defend
them vigorously."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3QOFccv
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Faces Exposure Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy, Inc., from time to time named, along with
numerous others, are defendants in lawsuits filed by a number of
individuals who claim injury due to exposure to asbestos, and
anticipates that additional claims may be asserted in the future,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Some facilities owned by the Registrants or their predecessors
contain or have contained asbestos insulation and other
asbestos-containing materials. Although their ultimate outcome
cannot be predicted at this time, the Registrants do not expect
these matters, either individually or in the aggregate, to have a
material adverse effect on their financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3PtEcJJ
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Co. Accrues $33MM for Suits at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company, at June 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021, had
approximately 900 and 1,000 lawsuits pending against former parent
company E.I. du Pont Nemours de Nemours (EID) alleging personal
injury from exposure to asbestos, respectively, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "In the Separation, EID assigned its asbestos
docket to Chemours. These cases are pending in state and federal
court in numerous jurisdictions in the U.S. and are individually
set for trial. A small number of cases are pending outside of the
U.S. Most of the actions were brought by contractors who worked at
sites between the 1950s and the 1990s. A small number of cases
involve similar allegations by EID employees or household members
of contractors or EID employees. Finally, certain lawsuits allege
personal injury as a result of exposure to EID products.
"At June 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021, Chemours had an accrual of
$33 million related to these matters."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3A3jr27
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Has 203 Individual Cases Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company, as of June 30, 2022, has reported 203
individual cases pending against the Company in state and federal
courts throughout the United States, as compared to 186 cases as of
March 31, 2022 and 171 cases as of December 31, 2021, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
Colgate-Palmolive states, "The Company has been named as a
defendant in civil actions alleging that certain talcum powder
products that were sold prior to 1996 were contaminated with
asbestos and/or caused mesothelioma and other cancers. Many of
these actions involve a number of co-defendants from a variety of
different industries, including suppliers of asbestos and
manufacturers of products that, unlike the Company's products, were
designed to contain asbestos. During the three months ended June
30, 2022, 22 new cases were filed and five cases were resolved by
voluntary dismissal or settlement. During the six months ended June
30, 2022, 39 cases were filed and seven cases were resolved by
voluntary dismissal or settlement. The values of the settlements in
the quarter and year-to-date period presented were not material,
either individually or in the aggregate, to the Company's results
of operations in either such period.
"A significant portion of the Company's costs incurred in defending
and resolving these claims has been, and the Company believes that
a portion of such costs will continue to be, covered by insurance
policies issued by several primary, excess and umbrella insurance
carriers, subject to deductibles, exclusions, retentions, policy
limits and insurance carrier insolvencies.
"While the Company and its legal counsel believe that these cases
are without merit and intend to challenge them vigorously, there
can be no assurances regarding the ultimate resolution of these
matters."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3Cf7FEA
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Accrues $227MM for Pending and Future Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc., as of June 30, 2022, has reported an accrual
for pending and future asbestos-related claims and related legal
costs of $227 million, including $186 million for unasserted
claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company determines its accrual without limitation to a specific
time period.
It is reasonably possible that the actual loss could be in excess
of the Company's accrual. However, the Company is unable to
estimate the reasonably possible loss in excess of its accrual due
to uncertainty in the following assumptions that underlie the
Company's accrual and the possibility of losses in excess of such
accrual: the amount of damages sought by the claimant (which was
not specified for approximately 82% of the claims outstanding at
the end of 2021), the Company and claimant's willingness to
negotiate a settlement, the terms of settlements of other
defendants with asbestos-related liabilities, the bankruptcy
filings of other defendants (which may result in additional claims
and higher settlements for non-bankrupt defendants), the nature of
pending and future claims (including the seriousness of alleged
disease, whether claimants allege first exposure to asbestos before
or during 1964 and the claimant's ability to demonstrate the
alleged link to Crown Cork), the volatility of the litigation
environment, the defense strategies available to the Company, the
level of future claims, the rate of receipt of claims, the
jurisdiction in which claims are filed, and the effect of state
asbestos legislation (including the validity and applicability of
the Pennsylvania legislation to non-Pennsylvania jurisdictions,
where the substantial majority of the Company's asbestos cases are
filed).
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3QPdUTn
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Corporation has been named as a defendant in lawsuits
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos allegedly
contained in, or accompanying, products made by the Company,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company is a co-defendant with numerous other defendants in
these lawsuits and intends to vigorously defend itself against
these claims. The claims in the Company's current lawsuits are
similar to those made in previous asbestos-related suits that named
the Company as a defendant, which either were dismissed when it was
shown that the Company had not supplied products to the plaintiffs'
places of work or were settled for immaterial amounts. The Company
cannot provide any assurances that any pending or future matters
will be resolved in the same manner as previous lawsuits.
As of June 30, 2022, the Company was subject to the claims noted
above, as well as other potential claims that have arisen in the
ordinary course of business.
Although the outcome of the lawsuits, legal proceedings or
potential claims to which the Company is, or may become, a party to
cannot be determined and an estimate of the reasonably possible
loss or range of loss cannot be made for the majority of the
claims, management does not believe that the outcomes, either
individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse
effect on the Company's results of operations, financial position
or cash flows.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3QMDisY
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Int'l. Paper Co. Records $106MM Future Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Company has been named as a defendant in
various asbestos-related personal injury litigation, in both state
and federal court, primarily in relation to the prior operations of
certain companies previously acquired by the Company, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
International Paper states, "As of June 30, 2022, the Company's
total recorded liability with respect to pending and future
asbestos-related claims was $106 million, net of estimated
insurance recoveries. While it is reasonably possible that the
Company may incur losses in excess of its recorded liability with
respect to asbestos-related matters, we are unable to estimate any
loss or range of loss in excess of such liability, and do not
believe additional material losses are probable."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3K2mts3
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Defends 600 Pending Claims at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Meritor Inc.'s predecessor ArvinMeritor, Inc. ("AM"), along with
many other companies, has been named as a defendant in
approximately 600 pending active asbestos claims in lawsuits that
name AM, together with many other companies, as defendants as of
June 30, 2022 and September 30, 2021, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Liability for these claims was transferred at the time of the
spin-off of the automotive business from Rockwell in 1997.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3C9oqAL
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Tech. Has 420 Open Cases at July 3
------------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Inc., as of July 3, 2022, has reported 420
open asbestos cases, which is an increase in volume from previous
years, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "These claims typically allege various theories
of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict
liability and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive
damages, but do not provide adequate information to assess their
merits, the likelihood that the Company will be found liable, or
the magnitude of such liability, if any. We are unable to state an
amount or range of amounts claimed in any of the lawsuits because
state court pleading practices do not require identifying the
amount of the claimed damage. While the cost to the Company for the
defense of these cases has increased concurrently with the volume,
the majority of these costs, excluding cases against our
subsidiaries AMCOL International Corporation or American Colloid
Company, which we acquired in 2014, are reimbursed by Pfizer Inc.
pursuant to the terms of certain agreements entered into in
connection with the Company's initial public offering in 1992. The
Company is entitled to indemnification, pursuant to agreement, for
liabilities related to sales prior to the initial public offering.
At this time, management anticipates that the amount of the
Company's liability, if any, and the cost of defending such claims,
will not have a material effect on its financial position or
results of operations."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3c59jOo
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Reports $14.5MM in Accrued Liabilities
------------------------------------------------------------------
Olin Corporation and its subsidiaries, are defendants in various
other legal actions (including proceedings based on alleged
exposures to asbestos) incidental to its past and current business
activities, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "As of June 30, 2022, December 31, 2021 and
June 30, 2021, our condensed balance sheets included accrued
liabilities for these other legal actions of $14.5 million, $14.2
million and $12.9 million, respectively. These liabilities do not
include costs associated with legal representation. Based on our
analysis, and considering the inherent uncertainties associated
with litigation, we do not believe that it is reasonably possible
that these other legal actions will materially adversely affect our
financial position, cash flows or results of operations.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3Qw7VDr
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Defends 925 Active Cases at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation, as of June 30, 2022, was a
defendant in approximately 925 active asbestos cases involving
approximately 2,515 plaintiffs, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "The vast majority of these cases involve
multiple defendants. About 1,545, or approximately 61 percent, of
these plaintiff claims are currently pending in a jurisdiction
which permits filings with massive numbers of plaintiffs. At
December 31, 2021, U. S. Steel was a defendant in approximately 915
active asbestos cases involving approximately 2,505 plaintiffs.
Based upon U. S. Steel's experience in such cases, it believes that
the actual number of plaintiffs who ultimately assert claims
against U. S. Steel will likely be a small fraction of the total
number of plaintiffs.
"The amount U. S. Steel accrues for pending asbestos claims is not
material to U. S. Steel's financial condition. However, U. S. Steel
is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related
claims due to a number of uncertainties, including: (1) the rates
at which new claims are filed, (2) the number of and effect of
bankruptcies of other companies traditionally defending asbestos
claims, (3) uncertainties associated with the variations in the
litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, (4)
uncertainties regarding the facts, circumstances and disease
process with each claim and (5) any new legislation enacted to
address asbestos-related claims.
"Further, U. S. Steel does not believe that an accrual for
unasserted claims is required. At any given reporting date, it is
probable that there are unasserted claims that will be filed
against the Company in the future. The Company engages an outside
valuation consultant to assist in assessing its ability to estimate
an accrual for unasserted claims. This assessment is based on the
Company's settlement experience, including recent claims trends.
The analysis focuses on settlements made over the last several
years as these claims are likely to best represent future claim
characteristics. After review by the valuation consultant and U. S.
Steel management, it was determined that the Company could not
estimate an accrual for unasserted claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3c4V640
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Solutions Faces 220 Cases at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------
Univar Solutions Inc., as of June 30, 2022, had approximately 220
asbestos-related cases for which it has the obligation to defend
and indemnify; however, this number tends to fluctuate up and down
over time, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "The claims result primarily from an
indemnification obligation related to Univar Solutions USA Inc.'s
("Univar") 1986 purchase of McKesson Chemical Company from McKesson
Corporation ("McKesson"). Once certain conditions have been met,
Univar will have the ability to pursue insurance coverage, if any,
that may be available under McKesson's historical insurance
coverage to offset the impact of any fees, settlements, or
judgments that Univar is obligated to pay because of its obligation
to defend and indemnify McKesson. Historically, the vast majority
of these asbestos cases have been dismissed without payment or with
a nominal payment. While the Company is unable to predict the
outcome of these matters, it does not believe, based upon currently
available facts, that the ultimate resolution of any of these
matters will have a material effect on its overall financial
position, results of operations, or cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3R8e0G7
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.W. Grainger Still Faces Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
W.W. Grainger, Inc., from time to time, has also been named, along
with numerous other non-affiliated companies, as defendant in
litigation in various states involving asbestos and/or silica,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "These lawsuits typically assert claims of
personal injury arising from alleged exposure to asbestos and/or
silica as a consequence of products manufactured by third parties
purportedly distributed by the Company. While several lawsuits have
been dismissed in the past based on the lack of product
identification, if a specific product distributed by the Company is
identified in any pending or future lawsuits, the Company will seek
to exercise indemnification remedies against the product
manufacturer to the extent available. In addition, the Company
believes that a substantial number of these claims are covered by
insurance. The Company has entered into agreements with its major
insurance carriers relating to the scope, coverage and the costs of
defense, of lawsuits involving claims of exposure to asbestos. The
Company believes it has strong legal and factual defenses and
intends to continue defending itself vigorously in these lawsuits.
"While the Company is unable to predict the outcome of any of these
proceedings and other matters, it believes that their ultimate
resolution will not have, either individually or in the aggregate,
a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial
condition or results of operations."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3zVjYD6
*********
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 2022. 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 ***