/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220826.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, August 26, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 165 Headlines 14 STREET MEDICAL: Calixte Claims Race-Based Bias in the Workplace 3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Harmful to Human Health, Hubbard Claims 3M COMPANY: Boubel Sues Over AFFF Products' Users Exposure to PFAS 3M COMPANY: Crowley Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products 3M COMPANY: Divita Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products 3M COMPANY: Exposed AFFF Products' Users to PFAS, Allen Suit Says 3M COMPANY: Faces Woods Suit Over AFFF Products' Design Defect 3M COMPANY: Hodges Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products 3M COMPANY: Keltner Sues Over Side Effects of Using AFFF Products 3M COMPANY: Lugo Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products 3M COMPANY: Matteson Sues Over Side Effects of Using AFFF Products 3M COMPANY: Pack Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products 3M COMPANY: Straw Sues Over Side Effects of Using AFFF Products 4 GIRON CONSTRUCTION: Faces Dominguez FLSA Suit in E.D.N.Y. 467 STAR DELI: Aurelio Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Deli Workers ADVANCE PUBLICATIONS: Liable to 401(k) Plan Losses, Anderson Says ALBANY RESTAURANT: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Cardona Alleges ALLIANCEONE INCORPORATED: McClenton Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. AMAZON.COM INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept. 6 AMAZON.COM INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept. 6 AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 17 ARC AUTOMOTIVE: Suit Blames Defective Airbag Inflator for Death ATC HEALTHCARE: Boyd Sues Over Race Discrimination, Termination AVENUE J FLOREST: Fails to Properly Pay Employees, Hussain Claims BERRO MANAGEMENT: Faces Galindo Labor Code Suit in California BETTENDORF, IA: Shipley FLSA Suit Removed to S.D. Iowa CARDINAL PIZZA: Debiasi Sues Over Unpaid OT for Delivery Drivers CATHOLIC CHURCH: Cardinal Accused of Sexual Assault in Quebec CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 17 COCA-COLA CO: Sued Over Deceptive Packaging of Topo-Chico COINBASE GLOBAL: Alicandro Sues Over 89% Drop of Common Stock Price COINBASE GLOBAL: Kattula Suit Alleges Illegal Fund Transfers COLUMBUS ALE: Faces Diaspora Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces Fraud Suit Over Financial Mistatements DELAWARE COUNTY, PA: Cavanagh Sues Over Gender-Based Pay Disparity DIZA TACOS STREETERVILLE: Holmes Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Illinois ELEFANTE INC: Foster Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ELIMOR LLC: Escalante Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Delivery Workers ELKTON, MD: To Join Class Action Over PFAS in Drinking Water EQUIFAX INC: Schwartz Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Georgia EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Pena FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California F.D. THOMAS: Cardenas Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. California FIRST INTERNET BANCORP: Hobbs Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Hybrid Vehicles GILEAD SCIENCES: Offers $10.8M to Settle Anticompetitive Class Suit JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Wayne County Claims JUUL LABS: Faces Nicholas Suit Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads KIA CORP: Vehicles Lack Anti-Theft Features, Class Suit Says LA FRANCE: Mucaj Sues Over Maintenance Employees' Unpaid Wages LIFESTANCE HEALTH: Nayani Sues Over 73% Drop of Common Stock Price LYONS MAGNUS: Catalano Sues Over Products' Bacterial Contamination MAKE IT RIGHT: $20.5M Accord Reached in Deteriorated Homes Suit MANHATTAN AVENUE: Fails to Properly Pay Wine Bar Staff, Cuevas Says META PLATFORMS: Offers $90-M to Settle Internet Tracking Class Suit MINISO GROUP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 17 MISSFRESH LIMITED: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept. 12 NEXA MORTGAGE: Umeres PAGA Suit Removed to C.D. California NORTHWESTERN MEMORIAL: Krackenberger Sues Over Public Disclosure NUWEST GROUP: Hamilton Claims Wage-and-Hour Violations in Wash. OLD NAVY: Illegally Wiretaps Website Communications, Licea Says QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Stewart Bid to Seal Denied w/o Prejudice RB HEALTH: Faces Class Suit Over Mislabaled Honey Lemon Lozenges REACH AIR: Court Terminates Kettler Class Cert Bid as Moot RING LLC: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss Wise FAC RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Multiple Suits Over Securities Violations RIVIERA MAYA: Cruz Collective Action Conditionally Certified ROMAN CATHOLIC: Class Suit Alleges Sexual Misconduct by Priest SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: $34M Deal in PFOA Suit Wins Final OK SAVE MART: Faces Baker Suit Over HRA Benefit Misrepresentations SCIBMATT LLC: Underpays Restaurant Servers, Booker Suit Alleges SMART ALABAMA: Facing Suit over Bait-and-Switch Work Visa TEVA CANADA: No Class Status for Suit Alleging Cancer Risk TEVA CANADA: Ontario Ct. Refuses to Certify Risk of Cancer Claims TG THERAPEUTICS: Sept. 16 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bids TRUE STAR: Donica Alleges Unpaid OT for Mobile Home Park Workers UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 17 UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Pomerantz Securities Suit over Misconduct UNITED STATES: Sued Over Contaminated Camp Lejeune Water UNITY SOFTWARE: Sept. 6 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bids US HEALTH: Aguirre Sues Over Retaliation & Wrongful Termination WEBER INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept. 27 WEBER INC: Wolf Haldenstein Announces Securities Class Action ZENDESK INC: Misleads Stockholders to Approve Merger, Fruchter Says Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ballantyne Strong Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNS Sub Has 46 Pending Claims as of June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Burlington Northern Still Defends PI Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: CarParts.com Faces Product Liability Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECONY Faces Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Constellation Has $98MM Estimated Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Holdings Has 30,099 Pending Exposure Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dixie Group Faces Suit Due to Worker's Death ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Reports $488MM Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Group Has $129.7MM Loss Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire & Rubber Faces Numerous PI Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Faces 17,210 Pending PI Actions ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hess Corp. Faces Various Personal Injury Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Still Faces Exposure Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll Rand Has $132.6MM Reserve at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Has $35MM Restricted Cash ASBESTOS UPDATE: Met-Pro Has 256 Cases Pending as of June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Subsidiary Has 1,319 New PI Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Defends 99 Personal Injury Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer & Subsidiaries Faces Personal Injury Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Industries Defends Personal Injury Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Has 541 Outstanding Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Technologies Defends Exposure Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Faces Product Liability Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: SPX Corporation Has 10,396 Pending Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Defends 1,590 Outstanding Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Defends 500 Cases in the U.S. at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Tech Subsidiaries Defends Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vontier Corp. Has $73.8MM Liabilities at July 1 ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Co. Defends 1,925 PI Suits at June 30 ********* 14 STREET MEDICAL: Calixte Claims Race-Based Bias in the Workplace ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTINA CALIXTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 14 STREET MEDICAL, PC and YAN FELDMAN, Defendants, Case No. 522952/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., August 9, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants discriminated against the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees on the basis of their race. The Plaintiff, an African American woman, was forced to endure hostile work environment and was retaliated against by the Defendants for complaining about her pay statements, says the suit. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a clinical manager from March 7, 2022 or March 8, 2022 until April 20, 2022. 14 Street Medical, PC is a medical care provider in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert D. Salaman, Esq. AKIN LAW GROUP PLLC 45 Broadway, Suite 1420 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 825-1400 Facsimile: (212) 825-1440 E-mail: rob@akinlaws.com 3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Harmful to Human Health, Hubbard Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- BOB HUBBARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02619-RMG (D.S.C., August 9, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public entities and civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with kidney cancer, says the suit. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Telephone: (631) 600-0000 Facsimile: (631) 543-5450 - and – Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Boubel Sues Over AFFF Products' Users Exposure to PFAS ------------------------------------------------------------------ GAYLON BOUBEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02625-RMG (D.S.C., August 9, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public entities and civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, the suit alleges. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Telephone: (631) 600-0000 Facsimile: (631) 543-5450 - and – Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Crowley Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- TRENT CROWLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02618-RMG (D.S.C., August 9, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public entities and civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with testicular cancer, says the suit. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Telephone: (631) 600-0000 Facsimile: (631) 543-5450 - and – Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Divita Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID DIVITA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02616-RMG (D.S.C., August 9, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public entities and civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with lymphoma cancer, the suit alleges. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Telephone: (631) 600-0000 Facsimile: (631) 543-5450 - and – Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Exposed AFFF Products' Users to PFAS, Allen Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALFRED ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02656-RMG (D.S.C., August 11, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public entities and civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, the suit alleges. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Telephone: (631) 600-0000 Facsimile: (631) 543-5450 - and – Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Faces Woods Suit Over AFFF Products' Design Defect -------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL WOODS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02621-RMG (D.S.C., August 9, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public entities and civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, the suit alleges. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Telephone: (631) 600-0000 Facsimile: (631) 543-5450 - and – Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Hodges Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products ------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD HODGES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02613-RMG (D.S.C., August 9, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public entities and civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with thyroid cancer, alleges the suit. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Telephone: (631) 600-0000 Facsimile: (631) 543-5450 - and – Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Keltner Sues Over Side Effects of Using AFFF Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRYAN KELTNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02654-RMG (D.S.C., August 10, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public entities and civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with bone cancer, the suit alleges. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Telephone: (631) 600-0000 Facsimile: (631) 543-5450 - and – Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Lugo Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products -------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN LUGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02658-RMG (D.S.C., August 11, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public entities and civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with testicular cancer, the suit alleges. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Telephone: (631) 600-0000 Facsimile: (631) 543-5450 - and – Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Matteson Sues Over Side Effects of Using AFFF Products ------------------------------------------------------------------ FRANCIS MATTESON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02620-RMG (D.S.C., August 9, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public entities and civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, the suit alleges. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Telephone: (631) 600-0000 Facsimile: (631) 543-5450 - and – Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Pack Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products -------------------------------------------------------------- MONTY PACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02657-RMG (D.S.C., August 11, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public entities and civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with testicular cancer, says the suit. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Telephone: (631) 600-0000 Facsimile: (631) 543-5450 - and – Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 3M COMPANY: Straw Sues Over Side Effects of Using AFFF Products --------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES STRAW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02655-RMG (D.S.C., August 11, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public entities and civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with bladder cancer, says the suit. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Telephone: (631) 600-0000 Facsimile: (631) 543-5450 - and – Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 4 GIRON CONSTRUCTION: Faces Dominguez FLSA Suit in E.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------- LEIDIANA DOMINGUEZ and RAUL SOSA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 4 GIRON CONSTRUCTION INC., ROSALINA GUARDADO, and EFRAIN "DOE" A/K/A FRANCISCO "DOE," Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04730 (E.D.N.Y., August 11, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide proper wage notice, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to provide spread-of-hours pay, and failure to pay timely wages. Plaintiffs Dominguez and Sosa were employed by the Defendants as manual workers and laborers from March 2020 until May 2021 and from March 24, 2022 until April 14, 2022, respectively. 4 Giron Construction Inc. is a construction firm based in Brooklyn, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 792-0048 E-mail: Jason@levinepstein.com 467 STAR DELI: Aurelio Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Deli Workers -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE LUIS AURELIO PINZON a.k.a AXEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 467 STAR DELI INC (D/B/A 467 STAR DELI), SULTAN M. ALMUNTASER, and KHALIL A. ALDARWISH a.k.a ZACK, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-06864 (S.D.N.Y., August 11, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide proper wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. Mr. Aurelio was employed as a deli worker, a cashier, and general worker at 467 Star Deli from approximately December 21, 2020 until June 25, 2022. 467 Star Deli Inc. is a company that owns, operates, or controls a grocery store known as 467 Star Deli, located at 467 W. 125 Street, New York New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catalina Sojo, Esq. CSM LEGAL, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: catalina@csmlegal.com ADVANCE PUBLICATIONS: Liable to 401(k) Plan Losses, Anderson Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JERMAINE ANDERSON, individually and as a representative of a class of similarly situated persons, on behalf of the ADVANCE 401(K) PLAN, Plaintiff v. ADVANCE PUBLICATIONS, INC.; THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF ADVANCE PUBLICATIONS, INC.; THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE ADVANCE 401(K) PLAN; and DOES No. 1-20, Whose Names Are Currently Unknown, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-06826 (S.D.N.Y., August 10, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of breach of their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, failure to monitor fiduciaries and co-fiduciary breaches, and liability for knowing breach of trust. According to the complaint, the Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to the Advance 401(k) Plan by selecting, retaining, and/or otherwise ratifying poorly-performing investments instead of offering more prudent alternative investments that were readily available at the time they selected and retained the funds at issue and throughout the Class Period. The Defendants opted to retain the BlackRock target date families (TDFs) instead of choosing a wide range of prudent alternative TDFs offered by competing TDF providers, an imprudent decision that has deprived Plan participants of significant growth in their retirement assets. The Defendants appear to have chased the low fees charged by the BlackRock TDFs without any consideration of their ability to generate return. Had the Defendants carried out their responsibilities in a single-minded manner with an eye focused solely on the interests of the participants, they would have come to this conclusion and acted upon it. The Plan has suffered millions of dollars in losses resulting from the Defendants' fiduciary breaches and remains vulnerable to continuing harm, says the suit. Advance Publications, Inc. is a media company, headquartered in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurie Rubinow, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 225 Broadway, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: lrubinow@millershah.com - and – James E. Miller, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 65 Main Street Chester, CT 06412 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: jemiller@millershah.com - and – James C. Shah, Esq. Alec J. Berin, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: jcshah@millershah.com ajberin@millershah.com - and – Kolin C. Tang, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 19712 MacArthur Blvd. Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: kctang@millershah.com ALBANY RESTAURANT: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Cardona Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- WILFREDO MIRANDA CARDONA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALBANY RESTAURANT, INC., d/b/a PEKING MANDARIN RESTAURANT, PEKING MANDARIN RESTAURANT, and CHIH HUI YU, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04208 (N.D. Ill., August 10, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay appropriate minimum wages and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Chicago Minimum Wage and Paid Sick Leave Ordinance. The Plaintiff worked as a food preparer and cook at the Defendants' restaurant from March, 2017 through July 16, 2022. Albany Restaurant, Inc. is a company that operates the Peking Mandarin Restaurant located on West Lawrence Avenue in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy M. Nolan, Esq. NOLAN LAW OFFICE 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1137 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 322-1100 E-mail: tnolan@nolanwagelaw.com ALLIANCEONE INCORPORATED: McClenton Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JNECIA MONIQUE MCCLENTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALLIANCEONE INCORPORATED and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 37-2022-00017402-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on August 11, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-01180-MMA-BLM to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to permit rest breaks, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay wages timely during employment, failure to pay all wages due upon separation of employment, and unfair business practices. AllianceOne Incorporated is provider of debt collection services and contact center solutions based in Pennsylvania. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: O. Mishell Parreno Taylor, Esq. Kevin Finley, Esq. AKERMAN LLP 601 West Fifth Street, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 688-9500 Facsimile: (213) 627-6342 E-mail: mishell.taylor@akerman.com kevin.finley@akerman.com AMAZON.COM INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept. 6 --------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in Amazon.com, Inc. ("Amazon" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: AMZN) of a class action securities lawsuit. CLASS DEFINITION: The lawsuit seeks to recover losses on behalf of Amazon investors who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud. This lawsuit is on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Amazon common stock between July 30, 2021, and April 28, 2022, inclusive. Follow the link below to get more information and be contacted by a member of our team: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/amazon-com-inc-information-request-form?prid=30931&wire=4 AMZN investors may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made false statements and/or concealed that: 1) defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that the Company's infrastructure and fulfillment network investments substantially outpaced demand; 2) those investments were a massive, self-imposed, undue drain on Amazon's financial condition; 3) contrary to defendants' public statements and undisclosed to investors, defendants had already implemented cutbacks to Amazon's fulfillment capacity by July 2021; and 4) as a result of defendants' misrepresentations and omissions, Amazon's common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the class period. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Amazon during the relevant time frame, you have until September 6, 2022 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. NO COST TO YOU: If you are a class member, you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, the team at Levi & Korsinsky has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. Our firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. [GN] AMAZON.COM INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept. 6 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming September 6, 2022 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Amazon.com, Inc. ("Amazon" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: AMZN) common stock between July 30, 2021 and April 28, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your Amazon investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/amazoncom-inc-1/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On April 28, 2022, Amazon reported a $3.8 billion net quarterly loss. The Company disclosed $6 billion of "incremental costs," including $2 billion due to "overcapacity" in its "fulfillment and transportation network." Amazon also disclosed that it expected the impacts of this to "persist for the next several quarters." On this news, Amazon's stock fell $406.30, or 14%, to close at $2,485.63 per share on April 29, 2022, thereby injuring investors. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) rather than necessary to meet short-term and long-term customer demand, Amazon's rapid expansion resulted in substantial overcapacity that drove massive losses and would substantially deplete the Company's earnings moving forward; (2) Amazon's capacity for growth far outpaced demand and, in response, Defendants made a series of intensifying cutbacks to warehouse and fulfillment capacity; and (3) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Amazon common stock during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than September 6, 2022 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. [GN] AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 17 ------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NYSE American: AMPE) between December 29, 2020 and August 3, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 17, 2022. SO WHAT: If you purchased Ampio Pharmaceuticals securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Ampio Pharmaceuticals class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=8201 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 17, 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, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business operations and prospects. Specifically, defendants: (1) inflated the Company's true ability to successfully file a Biologics License Application (BLA) for Ampio; (2) inflated the results of the AP-013 study of Ampion (the Company's lead product with "unique immunomodulatory action and anti-inflammatory effects" used to treat individuals with inflammatory conditions including, but not limited to, severe osteoarthritis of the knee (OAK)) and the timing of unblinding the data from the AP-013 study; and (3) that, as a result, of the foregoing, defendants' 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 Ampio Pharmaceuticals class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=8201 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.[GN] ARC AUTOMOTIVE: Suit Blames Defective Airbag Inflator for Death --------------------------------------------------------------- Newsome Melton Law provides an update on key developments with respect to alleged defect, the ongoing investigation by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and the pending litigation the firm filed -- along with three other firms -- in May 2022 against ARC Automotive and several airbag suppliers and vehicle manufacturers. That lawsuit claims that certain ARC airbag inflators have an alleged defect which can cause them to rupture and shoot metal shrapnel at drivers and passengers. In August 2022, Marlene Beaudoin was driving four of her children home from a day at the lake in Michigan's Upper Peninsula when they were suddenly struck by another vehicle. Marlene died -- but not simply because of the crash, according to a lawsuit her surviving family members just filed. Instead, the family's legal pleading contends that she was killed because "pieces of the air bag inflator, steering wheel and steering column from Marlene Beaudoin's Chevy Traverse pierced her chest, neck and head." And, notably, "[p]olice reports show that a metal inflator fragment hit her neck in the crash." The Beaudoin family brought the lawsuit against ARC Automotive, the company which produced the airbag inflator, General Motors (the vehicle's manufacturer), and Toyoda Gosei North America Corp. (the company which supplied the airbag to General Motors). As the lawsuit was just filed, the case remains in the early stages. Nationwide Litig. in San Francisco The Beaudoin family wrongful death action is not the first case to be filed over the alleged ARC inflator defect. Newsome Melton and our co-counsel filed a nationwide class action lawsuit against ARC Automotive and several other defendants in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division this past May. The case centers around the same alleged defect at the center of the case brought by the Beaudoin family. The initial complaint named ARC Automotive, Joyson Safety Systems, Toyoda Gosei North America, Audi, Ford, General Motors, and Volkswagen as defendants. The recently-filed amended class action complaint added BMW and Porsche as defendants in the case, and alleges that: All ARC inflators at issue in this action are substantially similar and share a common, uniform defect: the use of ammonium nitrate, a volatile and unstable chemical, as the propellant, combined with other faulty design decisions that compounded the dangers posed by the volatility of the phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN"), including the failure to incorporate pressure relief valves and using friction welding to secure the inflator halves without ensuring all metal flash would be removed (the "Inflator Defect"). It is well known in the airbag industry -- and ARC itself has acknowledged -- that ammonium nitrate is a dangerous propellant chemical that can over-pressurize during airbag deployment, sometimes resulting in violent explosions of the metal inflator canister, which expels shrapnel into the occupant compartment. The complaint further alleges that "[t]here have been at least seven known ruptures of ARC's Defective Inflators in vehicles, including six driver inflators and one passenger inflator." Two of those ruptures resulted in a driver fatality. NHSTA investigation NHTSA has been investigating the alleged ARC inflator defect since July 2015. The investigation documents state that inflators under scrutiny "may rupture during frontal air bag deployment resulting in metal fragments being propelled into the passenger compartment." The agency began the investigation after receiving reports of two incidents, one occurring in 2009 and the other occurring in 2014, in which an ARC inflator allegedly ruptured. According to the Associated Press, NHTSA "has estimated that 51 million such vehicles are on U.S. roads," which accounts for "somewhere between 10% and 20% of all passenger vehicles." The NHTSA investigation remains ongoing at this time, with the agency holding its cards close to its chest. But there have been several recalls since the investigation began -- including one the agency just announced on July 27, 2022 for certain Audi and Volkswagen vehicles, including S3, R8, TT Roadster, TT Coupe, Golf, and E-Golf models produced within certain VIN ranges. While waiting for the results of NTHSA's investigation, it's critical for consumers to be on the lookout for recalls that may include their vehicles. To check whether your vehicle has any open recalls, you can visit www.safercar.gov. Do you have an injury or wrongful death claim? Likewise, consumers must also be vigilant for odd or unexpected circumstances in crashes that result in injuries to themselves or their loved ones. One thing to be on the lookout for is metal fragments or shrapnel that cut or become embedded in a driver or passenger. This is a red flag that the vehicle may have had a defective airbag. Should this occur, the injured individual -- and, potentially, their family -- might have a legal claim for money damages against the inflator and airbag manufacturers, as well as the vehicle manufacturer. Those damages can pay for necessary medical care and treatment, lost wages (past, present, and future), as well as pain and suffering and loss of consortium (i.e., the impact the injuries have had on spouses, and potentially other individuals with a close relationship to the injured person).[GN] ATC HEALTHCARE: Boyd Sues Over Race Discrimination, Termination --------------------------------------------------------------- JOYOUS BOYD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATC HEALTHCARE SERVICES, LLC and HEALTH SCREENING SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01020-NAD (N.D. Ala., August 11, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to protect the Plaintiff and similarly situated African American workers from discriminatory comments and/or actions in the workplace. The Plaintiff was subjected to racial and religious discrimination by her supervisor at Health Screening Solutions (HSS), where she worked to conduct COVID-19 testing. Despite reporting the incident multiple times to HSS and ATC, the management did not take any appropriate actions to stop the discrimination and instead, the management terminated the Plaintiff's employment, says the suit. As a result of the Defendants' actions, the Plaintiff has suffered harm including, but not limited to, loss of employment opportunities, denial of wages, compensation and other benefits and conditions of employment, as well as other monetary damages. ATC Healthcare Services, LLC is a provider of staffing services based in New York. Health Screening Solutions, LLC is a company that specializes in COVID-19 testing & vaccination services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel Fisher, Esq. Sidney M. Jackson, Esq. Nicki L. Lawsen, Esq. WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS, FISHER & GOLDFARB, LLC The Kress Building 301 Nineteenth Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 314-0500 Facsimile: (205) 254-1500 E-mail: sf@wigginschilds.com sjackson@wigginschilds.com nlawsen@wigginschilds.com AVENUE J FLOREST: Fails to Properly Pay Employees, Hussain Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- ADEL HUSSAIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AVENUE J FLOREST LLC and LOUIE CONSTANTINO, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04718 (E.D.N.Y., August 10, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, failure to provide wage notices, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and failure to provide spread-of-hours pay. The Plaintiff was employed as a non-managerial employee at Avenue J. Florist from approximately December 2018 until August 2019. Avenue J Florest LLC is a family-owned floral retail and design studio, with its principal place of business in Brooklyn, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, PC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 792-0046 E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com BERRO MANAGEMENT: Faces Galindo Labor Code Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------- ALICIA GALINDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BERRO MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC. and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV25853 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., August 10, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including unpaid minimum wages, failure to provide wage statements, and unfair competition. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee in California since approximately 2012. Berro Management Company, Inc. is a property management company based in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Kirk Donnelly, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF J. KIRK DONNELLY, APC 2173 Salk Avenue, Suite 250 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 209-5894 E-mail: kdonnelly@jkd-law.com BETTENDORF, IA: Shipley FLSA Suit Removed to S.D. Iowa ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled CORRY SHIPLEY and MARK SCHULTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CITY OF BETTENDORF, IOWA, Case No. LACE135127, was removed from the Iowa District Court for Scott County to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa on August 9, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Iowa assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-00047-RGE-HCA to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. City of Bettendorf is a city in Scott County, Iowa. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jason M. Craig, Esq. AHLERS & COONEY, P.C. 100 Court Avenue, Suite 600 Des Moines, IA 50309-2231 Telephone: (515) 243-7611 Facsimile: (515) 243-2149 E-mail: jcraig@ahlerslaw.com CARDINAL PIZZA: Debiasi Sues Over Unpaid OT for Delivery Drivers ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH DEBIASI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARDINAL PIZZA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-00294-MTT (M.D. Ga., August 10, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Debiasi was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid delivery driver from approximately July of 2020 until December of 2020. Cardinal Pizza, LLC is an owner and operator of Domino's franchises in Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick Wilson, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: patrick@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com - and – Matthew W. Herrington, Esq. DELONG, CALDWELL, BRIDGERS, FITZPATRICK & BENJAMIN 101 Marietta Street, Suite 2650 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 979-3150 E-mail: matthew.herrington@dcbflegal.com CATHOLIC CHURCH: Cardinal Accused of Sexual Assault in Quebec ------------------------------------------------------------- Omair Quadri of the globeandmail.com reports that Marc Ouellet, a prominent Vatican cardinal from Quebec, long considered a top candidate for the papacy, is one of dozens of clergy members facing allegations of sexual assault as part of a class-action lawsuit against his former diocese. Cardinal Ouellet, a former archbishop of Quebec City and a member of Pope Francis's inner circle, is accused of inappropriately massaging and touching a woman's lower back over the course of several public events between August, 2008, and February, 2010. She was an intern at the time, serving as a pastoral agent in the diocese. Her allegations are contained in a statement of claim recently made public as part of the class-action lawsuit. The plaintiffs allege that at least 85 members of the Quebec City diocese committed sexual assaults from the 1940s onward against more than 100 victims, most of whom say they were minors when the attacks took place. The allegations have not been tested in court. More Women Come Forward Virginie Ann of The Canadian Press reports that after Quebec Cardinal Marc Ouellet was accused by a woman of sexual assault in a class-action lawsuit, more women have come forward with similar allegations against members of the province's Catholic Church. At least three women filed formal sexual assault complaints against the archdiocese of Montreal since the allegations against Ouellet were made public, Christine Kirouack, ombudswoman for the city's archdiocese, said in an interview. "It exploded since yesterday," Kirouack said about the introduction in Superior Court of two class-action lawsuits against members of the Catholic Church in Quebec, involving hundreds of alleged victims. It was the media reports about the allegations against the cardinal, however, that led to numerous calls to Kirouack from women. She said the high-profile allegations by an adult woman broke the stereotype commonly associated with church abuse -- that it involves young children, mostly boys. "One of them told me when she saw media reports . . . she recognized herself in it and wanted to denounce it," Kirouack said. "It's encouraging to see it can open the doors to others. We are showing that this is serious." Montreal-based law firm Arsenault Dufresne Wee Avocats filed two introductory applications for class action. The two lawsuits had recently been authorized by a Quebec judge, and one of them included the testimony of a woman identified as "F." She accused the cardinal, once considered a front-runner to become pope, of several incidents of sexual assault between 2008 and 2010, including sliding his hand down her back and touching her buttocks at an event in Quebec City. At the time, the cardinal was the archbishop of Quebec while F., who was 23, was working as a pastoral intern at the Quebec archdiocese. Lawyer Justin Wee said his firm's class actions demonstrate that it's not only young children -- particularly young boys -- who face sexual misconduct by clergy members but also adult women. In the first lawsuit, in which Ouellet is named, 101 alleged victims have accused about 88 priests or diocesan staff of sexual assault. Around 19 women are among the alleged victims, Wee said Wednesday in an interview. "We tend to associate church abuse with children, but it also happens with adults," Wee said. "Recommendations were issued . . . and we need to put in place as much support for children as for adult victims." Universite de Montreal religious studies professor Solange Lefebvre says the fact Ouellet's alleged victim was an adult could open the door to more adults coming forward with allegations against the church. "Whether Ouellet is recognized as guilty or not, this makes it possible to approach more broadly the power in the Catholic Church as it can be exerted on adults," Lefebvre said in an interview Wednesday. Lefebvre said that while sex abuse of children within the Catholic Church is well-documented, the allegations against Ouellet could also create opportunities for prosecutors and police to look for potential victims among young women involved with the church. "All of our attention, and for really good reasons, was on child abuse," Lefebvre said. "But here, the (alleged) victim is an adult and it gives the allegations a new proportion . . . Up until now, the inquiries on allegations of abuse against the Catholic Church were all looking into young children."[GN] CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 17 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman urges Co-Diagnostics, Inc. (NASDAQ:CODX) investors who suffered significant losses to submit your losses now. Class Period: May 12, 2022 - Aug. 11, 2022 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Oct. 17, 2022 Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/CODX Contact An Attorney Now: CODX@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895 Co-Diagnostics, Inc. (NASDAQ:CODX) Securities Fraud Class Action: Throughout the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly touted Co-Diagnostics' Logix Smart COVID-19 Test and, as recently as May 12, 2022, reassured investors about the demand for that product. The complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose that demand for the Test had plummeted throughout the second quarter ended June 30, 2022. As a result, Defendants' positive statements about the demand for the Logix Smart COVID-19 Test lacked a reasonable basis. Investors began to learn the truth, according to the complaint, on Aug. 11, 2022, when Co-Diagnostics announced disastrous financial results for Q2 2022. The company's quarterly revenue plummeted almost 82% from the prior year period to just $5 million. Management primarily blamed the results on lower demand for the Logix Smart COVID-19 Test and admitted they saw weak demand as Q2 2022 progressed. This news sent the price of Co-Diagnostics shares crashing 30% lower on Aug. 12, 2022, wiping out over $66 million of shareholder value. 'We're focused on investors' losses and proving Defendants misled investors about the real demand for Co-Diagnostics' test,' said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation. If you invested in Co-Diagnostics and have significant losses, or have knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Co-Diagnostics should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email CODX@hbsslaw.com. [GN] COCA-COLA CO: Sued Over Deceptive Packaging of Topo-Chico --------------------------------------------------------- Wilson Fay of lawstreetmedia.com reports that a putative class-action complaint was filed against the Coca-Cola Company, alleging violations of state consumer fraud and consumer protection acts over advertising of the company's Topo-Chico Margarita-Hard Seltzers. According to the complaint, which was filed in the Southern District of New York, Coca-Cola manufacturers, distributes, labels, markets and sells a line of alcoholic beverages called Topo-Chico Margarita-Hard Seltzers. The complaint also claims that the product's packaging deceivingly includes a yellow backdrop of an agave plant with the representations "4.5% ALC/VOL" and "Margarita Hard Seltzer." The complaint alleges that the product's packaging causes consumers to expect that the product contains tequila -- given the "Margarita Hard Seltzer" representation, as well as the agave plant, which is the source crop for tequila. The complaint states that margaritas contain tequila, and because the term "hard" in the context of alcohol refers to distilled spirits, that results in consumer expectations that the product contains tequila. But despite those expectations, the complaint states that Topo-Chico Margarita-Hard Seltzers' ingredients do not include tequila. So the plaintiff argues that the product's labeling and advertising are false and misleading, resulting in consumers purchasing a product that is materially less than advertised. Claims include alleged violations of New York's General Business Law, state consumer fraud acts, breach of warranty, fraud and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff seeks class certification monetary, statutory and punitive damages -- along with attorneys fees and costs. The putative class-action plaintiff is represented by Sheehan & Associates, P.C. [GN] COINBASE GLOBAL: Alicandro Sues Over 89% Drop of Common Stock Price ------------------------------------------------------------------- A. MANNY ALICANDRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COINBASE GLOBAL, INC., BRIAN ARMSTRONG, ALESIA J. HAAS, JENNIFER N. JONES, MARC L. ANDREESEN, FREDERICK ERNEST EHRSAM III, KATHRYN HAUN, KELLY KRAMER, GOKUL RAJARAM, FRED WILSON, EMILIE CHOI, SUROJIT CHATTERJEE, AH CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC, PARADIGM FUND LP, RIBBIT MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, TIGER GLOBAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, UNION SQUARE VENTURES, LLC, and VISERION INVESTMENT PTE LTD., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-06816 (S.D.N.Y., August 10, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and for common law fraud. According to the complaint, the Defendants made false and misleading Registration Statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to convince investors to purchase Coinbase Class A Common stock on April 14, 2021. The Defendants failed to disclose that at the time of the offering on April 14, 2021, the Defendants had already acquired, by conversion, option exercise, or otherwise, an additional approximate amount of 12 million shares of the company's class A common stock, increasing their combined holdings of Class A common stock to nearly double the amount which was disclosed in the final amendment to the Registration Statement filed with the SEC on March 23, 2021 and repeated in the prospectus filed on April 14, 2021. The Defendants failed to disclose changes in their equity holdings in the company prior to the offering, which changes were material to investors deciding whether to purchase shares in the offering. Coinbase common stock eventually declined by as much as 89 percent from the $381 opening price of the offering, reaching its all-time low price of $40.83 on May 12, 2022, the suit says. Coinbase Global, Inc. is an American publicly traded company that operates a cryptocurrency exchange platform. AH Capital Management LLC is a venture capital firm located in Silicon Valley, California. Paradigm Fund LP is an investment firm located in San Francisco, California. Ribbit Management Company, LLC is a venture capital firm located in Palo Alto, California. Tiger Global Management, LLC is a venture capital firm located in New York, New York. Union Square Ventures, LLC is a venture capital firm located in New York, New York. Viserion Investment Pte Ltd. is an investment firm based in Singapore. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Samuel, Esq. Andrew D. Beresin, Esq. THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM 1441 Broadway, Suite 6085 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 563-9884 E-mail: michael@thesamuellawfirm.com COINBASE GLOBAL: Kattula Suit Alleges Illegal Fund Transfers ------------------------------------------------------------ Ruholamin Haqshanas of cryptonews.com reports that major crypto exchange Coinbase is facing a new class action suit alleging the company unauthorizedly transfers and freezes funds and locks consumers out of their accounts for extended periods. The complaint claims that users of Coinbase Wallet saw their funds transferred without their permission. George Kattula, the lead plaintiff, alleged that the unauthorized transfer occurred after he received an email from Coinbase asking to change his password. Kattula claimed that close to $6,000 worth of cryptocurrency was withdrawn from his account after he attempted to change his password according to the provided instructions. The funds were then transferred to unknown parties. The complaint alleged that "Coinbase improperly and unreasonably locks out its consumers from accessing their accounts and funds, either for extended periods of time or permanently. Because of the extreme volatility of cryptocurrencies' value with free falls of 40% within 24 hours not unheard of, the inability to access an account to sell, buy, or trade cryptocurrency leads to severe financial loss to account holders." The class action suit also argues that Coinbase failed to timely respond to customer requests for support and help, and that it fails to preserve and safeguard customer assets as it promises. Kattula further alleged that the exchange allowed hackers to steal $1,000 from his bank account. "Although Coinbase reversed the unauthorized transfer of the $1,000, it froze his account and refused to cover all the cryptocurrency that was stolen," he added.[GN] COLUMBUS ALE: Faces Diaspora Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------- DIA DIASPORA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COLUMBUS ALE HOUSE INC., TOV "DOE", and NOEL "DOE," Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04677 (E.D.N.Y., August 9, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay appropriate minimum wages, failure to provide wage notices, failure to comply with wage statement provisions, unlawful tip deductions, and unlawful wage deductions. The Plaintiff was employed as a bartender at The Graham Bar from on or around April 2022 until June 2022. Columbus Ale House Inc. is an owner and operator of a bar and restaurant known as "The Graham Bar," located at 151 Meserole St., Brooklyn, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Mizrahi, Esq. Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 792-0048 E-mail: Jason@levinepstein.com COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces Fraud Suit Over Financial Mistatements -------------------------------------------------------------- bloomberglaw.com reports that a securities class action will proceed against Community Health Systems Inc. based on allegations that the company materially misstated its financial condition in documents and statements provided to investors, a federal court in Tennessee said. CHS is one of the largest publicly traded hospital companies in the US. It owns or leases 155 hospitals in 21 states, with about 26,222 hospital beds. Its patients include Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, insured individuals, and self-pay clients, the US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee said. The company reported a loss of $1.7 billion for 2016, resulting in a steep decline in its stock price that allegedly cost shareholders up to hundreds of thousands of dollars. It has been criticized for its attempts to stem losses by divesting itself of several hospitals that allegedly were among its best performers, the court said. Judge Eli J. Richardson refused to dismiss a securities fraud class action against CHS. The complaint adequately pleaded fraud, alleging that CHS used accounting practices that understated its bad debts and overstated its operating revenue in order to avoid triggering debt defaults, he said. The plaintiffs pleaded with particularity facts demonstrating "red flags," including misstatements in CHS's provision for bad debts and its reporting of its adjusted EBITDA-earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization. The court must treat those allegations as true at this stage of the litigation, it said. The class action complaint also sufficiently pleaded that the statements were made with knowledge of their falsity or misleading character, the court said. Among other allegations, the proposed class said the company's officers signed off on government-required reports that contained known misstatements. The company grew rapidly between 2007 and 2014, mostly as the result of acquiring other health-care companies, according to the court. The acquisitions were financed by debt, and CHS had to adhere to strict financial ration in order to avoid default, it said. CHS allegedly used unreasonable accounting practices to produce financial reports that were unlikely to trigger defaults, the court said. Whether those practices were actually unreasonable is a jury question, it said. Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings PLLC, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Pomerantz LLP, and Howard Smith of Bensalem, Pa., represent the proposed class. Riley & Jacobson PLC represents CHS and the individual defendants. The case is Padilla v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., M.D. Tenn., No. 19-cv-461, 8/17/22. To contact the reporter on this story: Mary Anne Pazanowski in Washington at mpazanowski@bloomberglaw.com To contact the editors responsible for this story: Rob Tricchinelli at rtricchinelli@bloomberglaw.com; Nicholas Datlowe at ndatlowe@bloomberglaw.com [GN] DELAWARE COUNTY, PA: Cavanagh Sues Over Gender-Based Pay Disparity ------------------------------------------------------------------ TONI LEE CAVANAGH, ESQUIRE; DENISE McCRAE, ESQUIRE; and NICHOLENA RUSHTON, ESQUIRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COUNTY OF DELAWARE, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-03174 (E.D. Pa., August 9, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Equal Pay Act and the Pennsylvania Equal Pay Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant discriminated against the Plaintiffs and similarly situated female attorneys employed at Delaware County's Public Defender's Office (PDO) by consistently paying them less money than their male counterparts in the same workplace for substantially equal work. The County of Delaware is one of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's counties. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marc E. Weinstein, Esq. WEINSTEIN LAW FIRM, LLC 500 Office Center Drive, Suite 400 Fort Washington, PA 19034 Telephone: (267) 513-1942 E-mail: marc@meweinsteinlaw.com - and – Vincent J. Pentima, Esq. PENTIMA LAW FIRM, PLLC 507 Jennifer Drive Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (267) 670-2796 E-mail: vjp@pentimalaw.com DIZA TACOS STREETERVILLE: Holmes Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diza Tacos Streeterville, LLC. The case is styled as Dynisha Holmes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Diza Tacos Streeterville, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-03378 (N.D. Ill., June 28, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Diza Tacos Streeterville LLC doing business as Taco Bell Cantina is a fast-food chain serving Mexican-inspired fare such as tacos, quesadillas & nachos in Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Jon Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC 10800 Financial Centre Parkway Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com ELEFANTE INC: Foster Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Elefante Inc., et al. The case is styled as Steve Foster, individually, on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, and on behalf of aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 v. Elefante Inc., Does 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No. CGC22600525 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., July 1, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Elefante Inc. -- https://www.elefanteinc.com/ -- offer white label manufacturing services to brands looking to add a vegan gummy offering to their line of Cannabis-Infused SKUs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste. 101 Pasadena, CA 91103-3069 Phone: (818) 230-7502 Fax: (818) 230-7259 Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com ELIMOR LLC: Escalante Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Delivery Workers ----------------------------------------------------------------- RICARDO ESCALANTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELIMOR LLC (D/B/A BONJOUR CREPES & WINE), ELICOSMAR-1 LLC (D/B/A BONJOUR CREPES & WINE), PARVEZ A. ELIAAS, and FELIX ERNESTO JONES, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-06784 (S.D.N.Y., August 9, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours premium, failure to provide wage notices, failure to comply with wage statement provisions, failure to reimburse business expenses, unlawful tip deductions, unlawful wage deductions, and failure to timely pay wages. Mr. Escalante was employed by the Defendants as a delivery worker at Bonjour Crepes and Wine from approximately August 2018 until April 8, 2022. Elimor LLC is an owner and operator of a French Creperie Restaurant known as Bonjour Crepes & Wine, located at 1585 2nd Avenue, New York, New York. Elicosmar-1 LLC is an owner and operator of a French Creperie Restaurant known as Bonjour Crepes & Wine, located at 1142 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: , Catalina Sojo, Esq. CSM LEGAL, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 ELKTON, MD: To Join Class Action Over PFAS in Drinking Water ------------------------------------------------------------ Matt Hubbard at cecildaily.com reports that the Town of Elkton may be joining a class action lawsuit against manufacturers that use and create per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) after a 2020 report indicated that 27.22 parts per trillion (ppt) of PFAS chemicals are present in the town's drinking water. "These PFAS chemicals are something new to us as well the state," said Elkton Mayor Robert Alt. "We know that it is going to make sense for all of us to get these forever particles out of our water so we are going to do all that we can to accomplish that." PFAS chemicals are a group of over 4,000 man-made substances that have been used since the early 1940's. These chemicals are found in cooking ware, stain and water resistant fabrics and carpeting, cleaning products, paints, food packaging and fire fighting foams. PFAS chemicals are commonly referred to as "forever chemicals" since they are not easily broken down in nature and remain within the human body for long periods of time. "Current peer reviewed scientific studies have shown that exposure to certain levels of PFAS may lead to reproductive effects, increased high blood pressure in pregnant women, developmental effects or delays in children, including low birth weight, accelerated puberty, bone variations, or behavioral changes, increased risk of some cancers, including prostate, kidney, and testicular cancers, reduced ability of the body's immune system to fight infections, including reduced vaccine response, interference with the body's natural hormones, and increased cholesterol levels and/or risk of obesity," said the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Public Relations Representative, Melissa Sullivan. The testing of the four wells that supply Elkton's water was conducted in October of 2020. During this sampling, Well 3 showed a presence of more than 28 ppt of PFAS chemicals. The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) has set a project-specific action level for sampling of PFAS chemicals at 28 ppt. Since Well 3 showed levels above the threshold of 28 ppt, additional tests were conducted in November of 2020. In the first round of sampling, every well except Well 3 showed PFAS chemical levels below the MDE action level of 28 ppt for PFAS. After the second testing in November 2020, Well 3's PFAS levels declined to 27.22 ppt. In 2016, the EPA issued a health advisory level for PFAS chemicals for levels of 70 ppt and above, but the EPA does not currently have enforceable regulations for maximum contamination levels (MCL's) on PFAS chemicals in drinking water. The EPA anticipates finalizing a regulatory plan by the end of 2022 for the chemicals. "PFAS will eventually need to be removed from the water," said Jay Gullo, a town and council attorney who has assisted national law firms in charge of the lawsuit in locating clients for the PFAS class action lawsuit. "So say EPA comes out with a regulation and MDE is the enforcement of that regulation, we are going to towns like Elkton who have these chemicals in their water to assist them in getting ahead of the cleanup cost should the regulation be lower than the town's current levels." MDE has implemented a science based comprehensive plan for understanding PFAS chemicals and areas of Maryland that are impacted by them. The plan has currently completed two phases of sampling. Phase 1 sampled 129 drinking water treatment plants that service roughly 4.3 million Marylanders. Of the 129 locations, 98 of them showed PFAS levels with two of those 98 locations showing levels higher than the EPA health advisory level of 70 ppt. Two more locations showed PFAS levels between 35 ppt and 70 ppt, and 23 locations had levels between 10 ppt and 35 ppt. The highest levels of PFAS chemicals were found in samples of drinking water that serve the City of Westminster, and the Town of Hampstead. "Given that 75% of the samples tested under Phase 1 detected quantifiable levels of PFAS, MDE is continuing monitoring efforts of PFAS in public drinking water treatment systems and has moved on to sample an additional 62 systems in phase II of this effort," said the Deputy Director of the Office of Communications for MDE, Jay Apperson, in his Phase 1 report. In the Phase 2 report, Apperson reported that of the 65 public water systems sampled, none of them showed PFAS levels above the EPA's health advisory level of 70 ppt. Phase 2 did discover two water systems with levels between 35 ppt and 70 ppt, and one location with levels between 28 ppt and 35 ppt. The EPA has found that the use of activated carbon, anion exchange, and high-pressure membranes can remove PFAS chemicals from drinking water. These methods can be installed at water system treatment plants, or through in-home treatment. "Regardless of how we get these chemicals out, it is going to cost money," said Gullo. "Manufacturers knew that these substances would never break down in nature but they still used them which is why this class action lawsuit is targeting them for the mess they made that these towns now have to clean up." Since PFAS chemicals are used in a wide variety of consumer products, it is hard to pinpoint exactly how they are ending up in drinking water. Many residents of Elkton believe that Well 3 is contaminated with PFAS chemicals specifically because of a commercial airline plane crash that occurred in December of 1963 that killed 81 people. Pan Am Flight 214 crashed due to a lightning strike in Elkton near Well 3 while headed to the Philadelphia International Airport. Many speculate that fire-extinguishing foam - a material that is high in PFAS chemicals - was used to put out the fires at the scene. A clear connection between the plane crash, the fire-extinguishing method and the present levels of PFAS chemicals in the water can not be made, according to officials, but it is an interesting speculation and a potential example on how these chemicals are entering drinking water. "It is important for local governments to decide if they want to get involved with this lawsuit," said Gullo. "When certain actors do bad things, this is how you hold them accountable so that is what this lawsuit is planning to do." [GN] EQUIFAX INC: Schwartz Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Georgia ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax, Inc. The case is styled as Anthony Schwartz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Equifax, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03260-LMM-CCB (N.D. Ga., Aug. 15, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Equifax Inc. -- http://www.equifax.com/-- is an American multinational consumer credit reporting agency headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: MaryBeth Vassil Gibson, Esq. N. Nickolas Jackson, Esq. THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C. Building 14, Suite 230 3535 Piedmont Road Atlanta, GA 30305 Phone: (404) 320-9979 ext 202 Fax: (404) 320-9978 Email: mgibson@thefinleyfirm.com njackson@thefinleyfirm.com EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Pena FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jose Pena, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated consumers v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 30-2022-01261828-CU-BT-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 27, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-01222-SSS-ADS to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Experian Information Solutions -- https://www.experian.com/corporate/ -- is a global leader in consumer and business credit reporting and marketing services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Erika Angelos Heath, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS PC 369 Pine Street Suite 410 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (628) 246-1352 Fax: (215) 940-8000 Email: erika@heathlegal.com - and - James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. Lauren K.W. Brennan, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS PC 1600 Market Street Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 735-8600 Fax: (215) 940-8000 Email: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com - and - Stephanie R. Tatar, Esq. TATAR LAW FIRM APC 3500 West Olive Avenue Suite 300 Burbank, CA 91505 Phone: (323) 744-1146 Fax: (323) 967-7775 Email: Stephanie@TheTatarLawFirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Ashley Sarkozi, Esq. JONES DAY 555 South Flower Street 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 92612 Phone: (213) 243-2412 Email: asarkozi@jonesday.com - and - Brianne Jackson Kendall, Esq. Kerry C Fowler, Esq. JONES DAY 3161 Michelson Drive Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612-4408 Phone: (949) 851-3939 Fax: (949) 553-7539 Email: bjackson@jonesday.com kcfowler@jonesday.com F.D. THOMAS: Cardenas Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled FRANCISCO MIGUEL PENA CARDENAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. F.D. THOMAS, INC. and DOES 1 to 50, Case No. 34-2022-00322853-CU-OE-GDS, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on August 10, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 2:22-at-00844 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay all overtime wages, failure to provide rest periods and pay missed rest period premiums, failure to provide meal periods and pay missed meal period premiums, failure to maintain accurate employment records, failure to pay wages timely during employment, failure to pay all wages earned and unpaid at separation, failure to indemnify all necessary business expenditures, failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements, and unfair competition. F.D. Thomas, Inc. is a specialized construction and engineering company based in Oregon. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Kent J. Sprinkle, Esq. Desiree J. Ho, Esq. Candace DesBaillets, Esq. Taylor Wendland, Esq. CDF LABOR LAW LLP 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 740 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (858) 646-0007 E-mail: ksprinkle@cdflaborlaw.com dho@cdflaborlaw.com cdesbaillets@cdflaborlaw.com twendland@cdflaborlaw.com FIRST INTERNET BANCORP: Hobbs Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against First Internet Bancorp. The case is styled as Alexandra Hobbs, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. First Internet Bancorp, Case No. 1:22-cv-06943 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 15, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. First Internet Bank -- https://firstinternetbancorp.com/ -- is a leader among online banks, offering industry leading online banking services with competitive rates and great customer service.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Hybrid Vehicles ----------------------------------------------------------- Chris Chilton at carscoops.com reports that Ford has been accused of botching a fix for hybrids involved in a recent recall over fire concerns in a new class-action lawsuit. The suit was filed in Michigan by a law firm representing some of the 100,000 owners of Ford Escape, Ford Maverick, and Lincoln Corsair hybrids that were recalled when some cars caught fire or suffered melted underwood components. Ford traced the issue on cars equipped with the 2.5-liter four-cylinder hybrid motor to fluid leaking from the engine block or oil pan, which could pool near hot surfaces in the engine bay and exhaust system, potentially causing smoke and fire. Ford has so far received 23 reports of that happening and paused sales of new 2.5-liter hybrid vehicles in July. It also began contacting existing owners on August 8, asking them to return to a dealership for a no-cost repair. The company is advising owners still awaiting the fix to park and shut off the engine "as quickly as possible if they hear unexpected engine noises, notice a reduction in vehicle power, or see smoke." But Hagens Berman, the firm representing the owners, claims Ford's "fix" didn't address the engine and oil pan leaks, and simply effected a workaround repair involving the removal of blinds from the active grille shutter and drilling holes in the belly pan running below the engine. The lawsuit seeks damages and a repair, accusing Ford of warranty violation and violation of state consumer protection laws. "Ford's fix is essentially rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic," said Steve Berman, Hagens Berman co-founder, and managing partner. "While drivers, their families and others on the road attend to the real crisis of a potential vehicle fire due to this manufacturing defect, Ford's solution does nothing to address the issue at hand and will mean an unknowable amount of engine fluids will be spilled onto roads, leaching into groundwater and soil." Ford's lawyers will no doubt vigorously defend the carmaker's response to the fire threat, but it'll need to have its very best guys on the job. Hagens Berman and its attorneys have a solid record of extracting cash from manufacturers, including $255 million from Hyundai and Kia for overstating fuel efficiency, $37.5 million from GM for faulty ignition switches, $1.6 billion from Toyota over instances of unintended acceleration, and playing a part in the $14.7 billion settlement reached with Volkswagen relating to the dieselgate scandal. [GN] GILEAD SCIENCES: Offers $10.8M to Settle Anticompetitive Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- NastLaw LLC and Roberts Law Firm Us, PC announce a proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit (KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., No. 3:20-cv-06961-EMC (N.D. Cal.), coordinated with Staley v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., No. 3:19-cv-02573-EMC (N.D. Cal.)). The lawsuit alleges that BMS and Gilead engaged in a variety of allegedly anticompetitive conduct that caused direct purchasers to pay too much for HIV cART drugs. The settlement resolves the claims against BMS; it does not resolve claims against Gilead. BMS denies any wrongdoing. The Court has not decided who is right. Generally, the proposed Settlement includes persons and entities that purchased Atripla, Complera, Evotaz, Reyataz, Sustiva, Stribild, Truvada, or any of their generic equivalents directly from a brand or generic manufacturer from October 6, 2016 until October 19, 2021. BMS agreed to pay $10.8 million into a Settlement Fund, plus up to an additional $200,000 for one-half of the costs of providing notice of this settlement. BMS also agreed to waive enforcement of a provision in its licensing agreement with Gilead that will remove a barrier to generic competition with Evotaz. If the Court approves the Settlement, Class Counsel will seek reimbursement for litigation expenses up to $2.5 million and payment of a class representative service award in the amount of $10,000. These amounts, if approved, will be paid from the Settlement Fund. Class Counsel is not seeking an award of attorneys' fees in connection with this Settlement. To get paid, you must submit a Claim Form by October 28, 2022, either online at www.HIVcARTDirectPurchaserSettlement.com or by U.S. Mail. See the Claim Form for instructions. If the Court approves the Settlement, claims will be paid after the conclusion of any appeals. If you remain in the Class, you can write to the Court about what, if anything, you do not like about the Settlement, or you can exclude yourself from the Class. The deadline for either option is October 6, 2022. Descriptions about the effects of these options, and instructions on how to exercise them, are available in the detailed notice available at www.HIVcARTDirectPurchaserSettlement.com. The Court scheduled a hearing for November 17, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. PT to consider whether the Settlement and allocations are fair, reasonable, and adequate, as well as any objections. You do not need to attend, but you or your attorney can do so at your own expense. See the detailed notice available at www.HIVcARTDirectPurchaserSettlement.com for the hearing location, where to find out if the date or time changes, and what you must do if you or your attorney wish to speak at the hearing. [GN] JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Wayne County Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- WAYNE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, WAYNE COUNTY, STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-04642 (N.D. Cal., August 11, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of West Virginia Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Wayne County School Board (WCSB) is a school district with its offices located at 212 North Court Street, Wayne, West Virginia. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. Davis S. Vaughn, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com Davis.Vaughn@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Charles R. "Rusty" Webb, Esq. THE WEBB LAW CENTRE, PLLC 716 Lee St. E. Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 344-9322 E-mail: Rusty@RustyWebb.com JUUL LABS: Faces Nicholas Suit Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads ------------------------------------------------------------- NICHOLAS COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, NICHOLAS COUNTY, STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-04631 (N.D. Cal., August 11, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of West Virginia Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, says the suit. Nicholas County Board of Education (NCBOE) is a school district with its offices located at 400 Old Main Drive, Summersville, West Virginia. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. Davis S. Vaughn, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com Davis.Vaughn@BeasleyAllen.com - and – Charles R. "Rusty" Webb, Esq. THE WEBB LAW CENTRE, PLLC 716 Lee St. E. Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 344-9322 E-mail: Rusty@RustyWebb.com KIA CORP: Vehicles Lack Anti-Theft Features, Class Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Maria Durant at abc6onyourside.com reports that it's a Facebook page that first started as a way to help connect Kia and Hyundai theft victims. The page has grown to more than 18 hundred members. Many members want recourse, and now, could get it. "We believe that, unlike most modern cars, specifically Kias/ Hyundais were defectively manufactured. Actually, defectively designed if you want to get specific," Laurence Harrington, a lawyer with Harrington Law Firm in Philadelphia, said. Harrington and attorney Melissa Payne with Payne Law, LLC have filed a class action lawsuit against Kia and Hyundai, representing some of the members of the Facebook group. Their lawsuit alleges a defect in the cars, claiming they don't have immobilizers, making it easier to steal. "Our lawsuit is for Ohio residents. People who are in Ohio who have purchased their vehicles out of state or people who have leased their vehicles and are Ohio residents or Ohio residents that have purchased in the state, that is who we are seeking to protect," Payne said. The cars that qualify for this lawsuit are Kia cars from 2011 onward and Hyundai cars from 2015 to 2022. MORE: Drivers warned after TikTok trend shows how to steal Hyundai and Kia cars Why is it Kia or Hyundai's responsibility to prevent your car from being stolen? "Part of it is with what the industry is doing. The entire industry has implemented these immobilizer devices, this is a cheap way for cars not to be stolen. And when you put a car out into the world for commerce, something that is completely foreseeable, that people will try to steal, this is cheap insurance to prevent that from happening and they decided to save a buck by getting rid of it," Harrington said. And they say you don't have to be a victim of theft to be a part of the lawsuit. "If you do take the measures to protect your vehicle, we are asking that all of the plaintiffs keep a record of that so we can potentially compensate with the resolution of this lawsuit," Payne said. ABC 6/FOX28 did reach out to Hyundai Motor Company for a statement on the lawsuit and did not get a response back from the company. In previous statements, the company has said that its vehicles are not defective, but that thieves have conspired to target them through social media. The company says the cars meet federal safety standards and they say anti-theft features will be standard on new models. For more information on the class action lawsuit visit Payne Law LLC or The Harrington Firm. [GN] LA FRANCE: Mucaj Sues Over Maintenance Employees' Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- BLEDI MUCAJ, GEZIM MUCAJ and DIJANA MUCAJ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LA FRANCE, LLC, SUBBA REDDY and CHITTEMMA REDDY, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04723 (E.D.N.Y., August 10, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including disability discrimination, failure to pay appropriate minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, and failure to reimburse business expenses. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as non-exempt employees to perform building maintenance in New York. La France, LLC is a domestic limited liability company, with a principal place of business located at 12A Commercial Street, Hicksville, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William Brown, Esq. BROWN KWON & LAM LLP 275 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (212) 295-5828 Facsimile: (718) 795-1642 E-mail: wbrown@bkllawyers.com LIFESTANCE HEALTH: Nayani Sues Over 73% Drop of Common Stock Price ------------------------------------------------------------------ NIZAR S. NAYANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIFESTANCE HEALTH GROUP, INC., MICHAEL K. LESTER, J. MICHAEL BRUFF, ROBERT BESSLER, DARREN BLACK, JEFFREY CRISAN, WILLIAM MILLER, JEFFREY RHODES, ERIC SHUEY, KATHERINE WOOD, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, JEFFERIES LLC, TPG CAPITAL BD, LLC, UBS SECURITIES LLC, and WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-06833 (S.D.N.Y., August 10, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Securities Act of 1933. According to the complaint, the Defendants made false and misleading Registration Statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to convince investors to purchase LifeStance's common stock during an initial public offering (IPO) on June 10, 2021. Specifically, the Registration Statement failed to disclose that: (a) the number of virtual visits clients were undertaking utilizing LifeStance was decreasing as the COVID-19 lockdowns were being lifted, thereby flatlining the company's out-patient/virtual revenue growth; (b) the percentage of in-person visits clients were undertaking utilizing LifeStance was increasing as the COVID-19 lockdowns were being lifted, thereby causing the company's operating expenses to increase substantially; (c) LifeStance 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 percent highlighted in the Registration Statement and the company had been expending additional costs to onboard new physicians who were less productive than the outgoing physicians they were replacing; and (d) as a result of the foregoing, LifeStance's business metrics and financial prospects were not as strong as the Registration Statement represented, says the suit. When the truth emerged, LifeStance common stock trades in a range of $4.77 - $7.70, a reduction of upwards of 73 percent from the price the shares were sold at in the IPO, the suit added. LifeStance Health Group, Inc. is a healthcare services provider based in Scottsdale, Arizona. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC is an investment banking firm in New York, New York. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC is an investment banking firm in New York, New York. J.P. Morgan Securities LLC is an investment banking firm in New York, New York. Jefferies LLC is an investment banking firm in New York, New York. TPG Capital BD, LLC is an investment banking firm in New York, New York. UBS Securities LLC is an investment banking firm in New York, New York. William Blair & Company, LLC is an investment banking firm in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Mary K. Blasy, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com mblasy@rgrdlaw.com LYONS MAGNUS: Catalano Sues Over Products' Bacterial Contamination ------------------------------------------------------------------ WAYNE CATALANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LYONS MAGNUS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:22-cv-06867-KMK (S.D.N.Y., August 11, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the New York General Business Law and breach of express warranty. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its nutritional and beverage products. The Defendant specifically lists both the active and inactive ingredients of the products on the labeling but it fails to disclose that the products contain, or are at the risk of containing, Cronobacter sakazakii. Had the Defendant not made the false, misleading, and deceptive representation and omission, the Plaintiff and Class members would not have been willing to pay the same amount for the products they purchased and, consequently, they would not have been willing to purchase the products, says the suit. Lyons Magnus, LLC is a manufacturer of nutritional and beverage products, with its principal place of business in Fresno, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Joseph Lipari, Esq. Daniel Markowitz, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C. 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and – Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. David C. Magagna Jr., Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com dmagagna@lfsblaw.com MAKE IT RIGHT: $20.5M Accord Reached in Deteriorated Homes Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Wdsu.com reports that a settlement has been reached with Brad Pitt and his Make It Right Foundation with over 100 homeowners who bought houses that deteriorated following Hurricane Katrina. A $20.5 million settlement has been reached in the class action lawsuit, according to lead attorney Ron Austin. Austin said the settlement was filed in Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans and awaits judicial approval. The settlement, reached after months of negotiations, will enable the Make It Right homeowners to conduct necessary repairs and live in a safe environment, Austin said. WDSU broke the story on the homes falling apart back in 2018. The case had been caught up in massive litigation ever since. The homes were built after Hurricane Katrina, a push by Pitt to help the heavily flooded Lower Ninth Ward. While the project was praised initially, the homes have deteriorated over time. In 2018, one home was torn down.[GN] MANHATTAN AVENUE: Fails to Properly Pay Wine Bar Staff, Cuevas Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- INGRID CUEVAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MANHATTAN AVENUE COMMUNITY CAFE INC. and WASCAR THEN, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-06845 (S.D.N.Y., August 11, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide proper wage notice, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and failure to provide spread-of-hours pay. The Plaintiff was employed as a general worker at Macc Winebar, located at 51 W. 106th Street, New York, New York from March 2021 until May 2021. Manhattan Avenue Community Cafe Inc. is an owner and operator of a restaurant and wine bar under the name Macc Winebar, located at 51 W. 106th Street, New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 792-0048 E-mail: Jason@levinepstein.com META PLATFORMS: Offers $90-M to Settle Internet Tracking Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- topclassactions.com reports that Facebook, now known as Meta Platforms, agreed to pay $90 million to resolve claims alleging unlawful user tracking on non-Facebook websites. The settlement benefits people who were Facebook users between April 22, 2010, and Sept. 26, 2011, inclusive, and visited non-Facebook websites that displayed the Facebook "Like" button. Facebook is a social media platform used by billions of people around the world. This class action lawsuit against Facebook alleges that it tracked user activity through "Like" buttons on non-Facebook websites. This button allegedly allowed Facebook to use cookies to identify a user on an external website that used the Facebook "Like" plugin. Plaintiffs contend that even if the user didn't interact with this plugin, Facebook was able to track his or her activity across the web. Plaintiffs' complaint in this lawsuit alleges that "[w]hen Facebook's session and tracking cookies link the URLs to specific persons, anonymity disappears." The complaint also asserts that "Facebook can link the web browsing of more than one billion people to their actual identities." The consolidated class action argues that users had their privacy rights violated by such conduct, and the complaint includes claims under the Federal Wiretap Act. Facebook does not admit to wrongdoing and denies that it violated any law but has agreed to pay $90 million to settle the litigation to avoid the costs and risks associated with continuing the case. Under the terms of this settlement, the $90 million settlement fund will be distributed to settlement class members who submit approved claims. Each authorized claimant will be entitled to receive an equal share of the settlement fund. Exact payment amounts will vary depending on the number of authorized settlement class members. The larger the number of authorized settlement class members, the smaller the settlement payments will be, and vice versa. The settlement also requires Facebook to sequester and delete all cookie data as pled in the complaint that was received or associated with settlement class members between April 22, 2010, and Sept. 26, 2011, inclusive, that may be used to identify a specific user. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Sept. 12, 2022. In order to receive a settlement payment, settlement class members must submit a valid claim form by Sept. 22, 2022. The final approval hearing for this settlement is scheduled for Oct. 27, 2022. Who's Eligible Persons who, between April 22, 2010, and Sept. 26, 2011, inclusive, were Facebook users in the United States who visited non-Facebook websites that displayed the Facebook Like button. Potential Award Will depend on the number of authorized claimants. Proof of Purchase No proof of purchase is necessary, but settlement class members should enter all usernames or URLs for Facebook accounts they used between April 22, 2010 and Sept. 26, 2011, if possible. Entering their usernames will increase the chances of the settlement administrator finding their accounts; if the class members cannot remember their usernames, the administrator will try to find their accounts based on the other information provided on the claim forms. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 09/22/2022 Case Name In re: Facebook Internet Tracking Litigation, Case No. 5:12-MD-02314-EJD in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Final Hearing 10/27/2022 Settlement Website FBInternetTrackingSettlement.com Claims Administrator Facebook Internet Tracking Litigation c/o Administrator 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210 Philadelphia, PA 19103 info@FBInternetTrackingSettlement.com 844-665-0905 Class Counsel DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC GRYGIEL LAW LLC SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC Defense Counsel COOLEY LLP [GN] MINISO GROUP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 17 ------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against MINISO Group Holding Limited ("MINISO" or the "Company") (NYSE: MNSO) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired MINISO securities pursuant to the Company's October 15, 2020 IPO (the "Class Period"). Investors have until October 17, 2022 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. MINISO purports to be a fast-growing global value retailer which serves consumers primarily through its large network of MINISO stores. On October 15, 2020, defendants held the IPO, issuing approximately 30.4 million American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") to the investing public at $20.00 per ADS, pursuant to the Registration Statement. On July 26, 2022, market researcher Blue Orca Capital published a report on MINISO which alleged several issues with MINISO, including that "contrary to [MINISO]'s claims, many MINISO stores are secretly owned by [MINISO] executives or insiders closely connected to the chairman" and "[u]ltimately, we believe that there is overwhelming evidence that MINISO misleads the market about its core business." As Blue Orca explained, "[o]ur suspicion is that MINISO realized early in the pre-IPO process that a brick-and-mortar retailer would be far less attractive to investors than an asset-light franchise business, so we think that [MINISO] simply lied about these stores." Blue Orca added that "Chinese corporate filings also indicate, in our view, that the chairman siphoned hundreds of millions from the public company through opaque Caribbean jurisdictions as the middleman in a crooked headquarters deal." Blue Orca further concluded that "[i]ndependent evidence, including archived disclosures on MINISO's Chinese website, reports in Chinese media and interviews with former employees, indicate that MINISO is a brand in serious peril," noting that "MINISO lowered its franchising fee by 63% over the past two years in a desperate effort to attract franchisees." On this news, MINISO's ADS price fell nearly 15%. As of July 27, 2022, MINISO ADSs closed at $5.66 per ADS, representing more than a 70% decline from the $20.00 IPO price. The MINISO class action lawsuit alleges that the IPO's Registration Statement was false and/or misleading and/or failed to disclose that: (i) defendants and other undisclosed related parties owned and controlled a much larger amount of MINISO stores than previously stated; (ii) as a result, MINISO concealed its true costs; (iii) MINISO did not represent its true business model; (iv) defendants, including MINISO and its Chairman, engaged in planned unusual and unclear transactions; (v) as a result of at least one of these transactions, MINISO is at risk of breaching contracts with PRC authorities; and (vi) MINISO would imminently and drastically drop its franchise fees. If you purchased or otherwise acquired MINISO shares and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel & Squire Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] MISSFRESH LIMITED: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept. 12 ------------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (www.ktmc.com) informs investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed against Missfresh Limited ("Missfresh") MF. The action charges Missfresh with violations of the federal securities laws, including omissions and fraudulent misrepresentations relating to the company's business, operations, and prospects. As a result of Missfresh's materially misleading statements and omissions to the public, Missfresh investors have suffered significant losses. CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT YOUR MISSFRESH LOSSES. YOU CAN ALSO CLICK ON THE FOLLOWING LINK OR COPY AND PASTE IN YOUR BROWSER: https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/missfresh-limited?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=missfreshx&mktm=r CANNOT VIEW THIS VIDEO? PLEASE CLICK HERE LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE:SEPTEMBER 12, 2022 CLASS PERIOD: PURSUANT AND/OR TRACEABLE TO MISSFRESH'S JUNE 2021 IPO THROUGH JULY 12, 2022 CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: (484) 270-1453 or at info@ktmc.com Kessler Topaz is one of the world's foremost advocates in protecting the public against corporate fraud and other wrongdoing. Our securities fraud litigators are regularly recognized as leaders in the field individually and our firm is both feared and respected among the defense bar and the insurance bar. We are proud to have recovered billions of dollars for our clients and the classes of shareholders we represent. MISSFRESH'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT In June 2021, Missfresh conducted its initial public offering (IPO), selling 21 million American Depository Shares ("ADSs") at $13.00 per ADS. On April 29, 2022, after trading hours, Missfresh filed a Notification of Late Filing on a Form 12b-25, which announced that Missfresh "will not be able to file its Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021 . . . by the prescribed filing deadline of April 30, 2022." Missfresh explained that "[t]he independent Audit Committee of [Missfresh]'s board of directors, with the assistance of professional advisors, is in the process of conducting an internal review of certain matters, including those relating to transactions between [Missfresh] and certain third-party enterprises." Following this news, Missfresh ADSs fell 13% to close at $0.448 per ADS on May 2, 2022, the next trading day. Then, on May 24, 2022, after trading hours, Missfresh issued a press release entitled "Missfresh Announces Receipt of Nasdaq Notification Regarding Late Filing of Form 20-F" announcing "that it received a notification letter dated May 19, 2022 . . . from the Listing Qualifications Department of The Nasdaq Stock Market Inc. ("Nasdaq"), indicating that [Missfresh] is not in compliance with the requirements for continued listing." Following this news, Missfresh ADSs fell 9% over the next two trading days to close at $0.167 per ADS on May 26, 2022. Finally, on July 1, 2022, Missfresh issued a press release entitled "Missfresh Announces the Substantial Completion of the Audit Committee-Led Independent Internal Review." In the press release, Missfresh disclosed that "certain revenue associated with these reporting periods in 2021 may have been inaccurately recorded in [Missfresh]'s financial statements." As of the date the complaint was filed, Missfresh ADSs closed at $0.389 per ADS, well below Missfresh's IPO price of $13.00 per ADS. WHAT CAN I DO? Missfresh investors may, no later than September 12, 2022 seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLPor other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages Missfresh investors who have suffered significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire more information. WHO CAN BE A LEAD PLAINTIFF? A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys, if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country and around the world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and fiduciaries. The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com. [GN] NEXA MORTGAGE: Umeres PAGA Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled CIRO UMERES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NEXA MORTGAGE, LLC, et al., Case No. 22STCV14981, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on August 10, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-05658 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay wages in violation of the California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. NEXA Mortgage, LLC is a mortgage broker based in Chandler, Arizona. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Arielle Stephenson, Esq. Ari Karen, Esq. MITCHELL SANDLER LLC 1120 20th Street N.W., Suite 725 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 886-5260 E-mail: astephenson@mitchellsandler.com akaren@mitchellsandler.com NORTHWESTERN MEMORIAL: Krackenberger Sues Over Public Disclosure ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL KRACKENBERGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHWESTERN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, META PLATFORMS, INC., FACEBOOK HOLDINGS, LLC, FACEBOOK OPERATIONS, LLC, and INSTAGRAM, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04203 (N.D. Ill., August 10, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, and violations of the Federal Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act. The case arises from the Defendants' use of a computer code called Meta Pixel to unlawfully collect the private medical information of Northwestern Memorial Hospital's patients and to use that data for their own profit. Unbeknownst to the Plaintiff and members of the Class, the Northwestern Memorial Hospital client portal allowed or authorized the presence of Meta Pixel, which is used by the Defendants to collect patient information. As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class members have been harmed by having their private and confidential medical information disseminated for profit, says the suit. Northwestern Memorial Hospital is a not-for-profit corporation, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. Meta Platforms, Inc., is a multinational technology conglomerate, with its principal place of business in Menlo Park, California. Facebook Holdings, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Meta Platforms, Inc., headquartered in Menlo Park, California. Facebook Operations, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Meta Platforms, Inc., headquartered in Menlo Park, California. Instagram, LLC is an operator of a social media platform, headquartered in Menlo Park, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nick Wooten, Esq. NICK WOOTEN, LLC 5125 Burnt Pine Drive Conway, AR 72034 Telephone: (833) 937-6389 E-mail: nick@nickwooten.com NUWEST GROUP: Hamilton Claims Wage-and-Hour Violations in Wash. --------------------------------------------------------------- ANGELA HAMILTON and MATTHEW HOGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NUWEST GROUP HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-01117 (W.D. Wash., August 10, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, fraudulent inducement, fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, failure to pay overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and violations of state wage payment laws, state overtime statutes, the California Labor Code, and the California's Business and Professions Code. Plaintiffs Hamilton and Hogan received an employment offer from the Defendant that included a fixed-term travel assignment in Chico, California and in Bozeman, Montana, respectively. NuWest Group Holdings, LLC is an employment agency, with its principal place of business located at 325 118th Avenue Southeast, Bellevue, Washington. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kim D. Stephens, Esq. Kaleigh N. Boyd, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101-3147 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 Facsimile: (206) 682-2992 E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com kboyd@tousley.com - and – J. Austin Moore, Esq. Alexander T. Ricke, Esq. K. Ross Merrill, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 E-mail: moore@stuevesiegel.com ricke@stuevesiegel.com merrill@stuevesiegel.com OLD NAVY: Illegally Wiretaps Website Communications, Licea Says --------------------------------------------------------------- MIGUEL LICEA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OLD NAVY, LLC and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-01413 (C.D. Cal., August 10, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged illegal wiretapping of all communications on its website, www.oldnavy.gap.com. Unbeknownst to visitors to the website, the Defendant has secretly deployed keystroke monitoring software that it uses to surreptitiously intercept, monitor, and record the communications of all visitors to its website. The Defendant neither informs visitors nor seeks their express or implied consent prior to this wiretapping, says the suit. Old Navy, LLC is an American clothing and accessories retail company, headquartered in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS, APC 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Stewart Bid to Seal Denied w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAMELA STEWART and ZULEKHA ABDUL, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated employees of in the State of California, v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS CLINICAL LABORATORIES, INC. and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:19-cv-02043-RBM-KSC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro entered an order denying without prejudice the plaintiffs' motion to seal. The Court said,"Should Plaintiffs choose to renew their request for a sealing order, the Plaintiffs are cautioned that the Court will adhere strictly to the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, the Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies & Procedures Manual, and Section IV of this Court's Civil Chamber Rules in ruling on the motion to seal." Quest Diagnostics is an American clinical laboratory. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 3, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Cdu8l4 at no extra charge.[CC] RB HEALTH: Faces Class Suit Over Mislabaled Honey Lemon Lozenges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Corrado Rizzi of classaction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges consumers have overpaid for Cepacol Extra-Strength Sore Throat Honey Lemon Lozenges since the product contains neither honey nor lemon. The 16-page complaint out of New York says the purported "#1 Doctor Recommended" brand of throat lozenges is falsely and misleadingly advertised, giving defendant RB Health (US) a leg up in the market at the expense of unsuspecting consumers. Specifically, the case says, the product's principal display panel, which includes without qualification the words "honey lemon" and an image of a honey dipper alongside a lemon wedge, leads reasonable consumers to believe that the lozenges contain honey and lemon, when they in fact contain neither. At most, the Cepacol lozenges are merely honey and lemon flavored, the case stresses. "However, unlike competitor products, nowhere on the front label does Defendant inform consumers that the product is only flavored to taste like honey and lemon," the complaint reads. "As such, consumers cannot reasonably know or expect that the Product does not contain honey or lemon." The belief that the Cepacol extra-strength lozenges contain honey and lemon is an important purchasing consideration for consumers, the filing relays. The suit shares that it is "well known that consumers value honey as a natural therapeutic ingredient," in particular for its ability to help soothe and coat a sore throat. Consumers also value the immunity and infection-fighting properties of lemon, the case adds. According to the lawsuit, the lozenges are mislabeled under FDA regulations given their product label effectively creates the impression that certain inert or inactive ingredients are of greater value than their "true functional role." The case looks to represent all New York residents who bought Cepacol Extra-Strength Sore Throat Honey Lemon Lozenges for personal, family or household consumption and not for resale within the applicable statute of limitations period.[GN] REACH AIR: Court Terminates Kettler Class Cert Bid as Moot ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIELLE KETTLER, et al., v. REACH AIR MEDICAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-03021-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey S. White entered an order regarding joint notice of settlement and terminating motion for class certification. The Court has received the parties' joint notice of settlement. The Court terminates as moot the motion for class certification. However, if the settlement is not consummated, the Plaintiffs shall file a notice that a resolution on the motion will be necessary. The parties need not re-file their briefing, the Court says. Reach Air provides air ambulance services. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 3, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AkXpsM at no extra charge.[CC] RING LLC: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss Wise FAC ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE WISE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RING LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01298-JCC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John C. Coughenour entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's first amended complaint and to strike class allegations. To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." A claim is facially plausible when the "plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." When reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court accepts factual allegations in the complaint as true and draws all reasonable inferences from those facts in favor of the nonmovant,the Court says. 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 23 12(f) provides a means of striking class allegations. And Defendant provides this 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, the Court adds. On October 16, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the FAC, alleging violations of Sections 15(a) and 15(b) of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). 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 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 is a subsidiary of Amazon; it develops and sells video doorbells and "stick up cams." 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. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 3, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Qp58Ma at no extra charge.[CC] RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Multiple Suits Over Securities Violations ------------------------------------------------------------------ Peter Barnwell at goauto.com.au reports that RIVIAN has raised the ire of customers again by making changes to the R1T trim options that have caught reservation holders on a (cranky) Rivian owners forum by surprise. According to breakingnews website, emails circulating among Rivian reservation holders, the availability of dark-stained ash wood in what Rivian calls the Ocean Coast interior is being unilaterally swapped out for a light ash wood. Rivian has reportedly been struggling to source the lighter colour which was holding up deliveries of R1Ts with the Ocean Coast configuration. Rivian seems to acknowledge in communications with reservation holders that some customers may not like the change and is offering to replace the wood with a dash wrapped in light vegan leather. Many customers are furious about the change particularly on top of significant recent price rises. But that's not the only change Rivian made and the second is sure to upset some customers even more. The company is reportedly sending emails to reservation holders, informing them that the entry-level Explore trim they selected is no longer available. Those customers are being given the chance to upgrade to either the higher-spec Adventure trim or cancel their orders. According to breakingnews, forums of Rivian buyers/reservation members are pointing out that they just signed non-refundable contracts to secure the outgoing US Federal tax credit, meaning they're facing the choice to walk away from $US100 ($A144.59) they transferred to Rivian or pay considerably more for their EV. All of this comes with a backdrop of multiple litigations affecting the EV company. In May, New York legal firm Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, notified investors in Rivian Automotive, Inc. of a class action securities lawsuit. The lawsuit seeks to recover losses on behalf of Rivian Automotive Inc. investors who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud. Levi and Korsinsky (L&K) said: "The lawsuit is on behalf of investors that purchased or otherwise acquired Rivian common stock pursuant and/or traceable to Rivian's initial public offering on November 10, 2021 and/or between November 10, 2021, and March 10, 2022." According to L&K documents issued in connection with the initial public offering it contained representations that were materially inaccurate, misleading, and/or incomplete because they failed to disclose, among other things, that the R1T electric pickup truck and R1S electric SUV were under-priced to such a degree that Rivian would have to raise prices shortly after the IPO. Further, these price increases would tarnish Rivian's reputation as a trustworthy and transparent company and would put a significant number of the existing backlog of 55,400 pre-orders, along with future pre-orders, in jeopardy of cancellation. A second New York legal firm, Pomerantz LLP, is also on Rivian's case with class action litigation of a similar nature to L&K. But they go further . . . Pomerantz said: "In connection with the IPO, Rivian offered and sold 175,950,000 shares of its common stock at a price to the public of $US78.00 ($A112.77) per share, which included the exercise in full by the IPO underwriters of their option to purchase an additional 22,950,000 shares of the company's common stock. The gross proceeds to the company from the IPO were $US13.7 billion ($A19.8b), before deducting underwriting discounts and commissions, and estimated offering expenses payable by the company. In the Court Registration Statement, defendants represented, among other things, that Rivian had 55,400 combined pre orders for the R1T and R1S, and that Rivian planned to "produce approximately 1200 R1Ts and 25 R1Ss and deliver approximately 1000 R1Ts and 15 R1Ss" by the end of 2021. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts, about the company's (Rivian's) business and operations. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: a) Rivian would not meet its 2021 production and delivery targets b) Rivian's vehicles were under-priced and as a result the company would need to substantially increase prices c) as a result, defendants' representations about the company's business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis. The truth about Rivian's production capabilities and business prospects began to emerge on December 16, 2021, when Rivian disclosed that it would fall "a few hundred vehicles short of its 2021 production target of 1200 vehicles". "In addition to admitting that production was lagging, Defendant Robert J. Scaringe - the company's Founder, CEO and Chairman - acknowledged that Rivian's vehicles were 'very aggressively priced' and that, against 'the backdrop of inflation' the company was 'looking at their pricing'." On this news, Rivian's stock price fell $US11.17 ($A16.15) per share, or more than 10 per cent, from a close of $US108.87 ($A157.43) per share on December 16, 2021, to close at $97.70 ($A141.28) per share on December 17, 2021. On January 10, 2022, Rivian confirmed that it had only "produced 1015 vehicles by the end of 2021" and that only "920 vehicles were delivered by that date". Additional corrective information surfaced on March 1, 2022, when Rivian announced that it would dramatically increase the starting price of the R1T by about 17 per cent (to approximately $US79,000 ($A114,249.36) from $US67,500 ($A97,618.12), and the R1S by about 20 per cent (to approximately $US84,500 ($A122,204.39) from $US70,000 ($A101,233.12). Notably, these price changes would apply not only to future orders, but also to existing pre orders (many of which had been placed three or more years prior). As of the time the complaint was filed, the price of Rivian common stock continued to trade below the $US78.00 ($A112.79) per share IPO price, damaging investors. [GN] RIVIERA MAYA: Cruz Collective Action Conditionally Certified ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tovar Cruz v. Riviera Maya, Inc., et al., Case No. (), the Hon. Judge Jane M. Beckering entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a collective action and conditionally certifying the collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) defined as: "Current and former employees of Los Amigos Grill, Los Amigos Mexican Restaurant of Kalamazoo, and Riviera Maya who were not paid the required minimum wage and/or time-and-a-half overtime premium for hours worked over 40 hours per week during their employment from May 5, 2019 to present;" The Court further entered an order that: -- conditional certification of the present action shall not prejudice Defendants' right to move for decertification of the collective action, consistent with any deadlines set by this Court; -- the Defendants shall, not later than 7 days from the date of this Order, file a revised Notice of Right to Join Lawsuit and Consent to Join form consistent with this Court's ruling for approval by the Court; -- the Defendants shall provide the Plaintiff with the names, all known phone numbers, all known addresses, and dates of employment for all persons who meet the definition of the prescribed class by August 17, 2022. -- the Plaintiff's counsel may send the Notice of Right to Join Lawsuit, once refiled and approved by this Court, via traditional mail, email, and/or text message, to the potential members who meet the definition of the prescribed class, and shall provide a proof of service of the same to Defendants' counsel by August 31, 2022; -- The Avanti Law Group, PLLC is appointed as interim class counsel; -- the opt-in period shall be 90 days, and the Plaintiffs' counsel shall file any and all Consent to Join forms with the Court by November 29, 2022; and -- the Plaintiff's Motion to toll the statute of limitations is denied in part and granted in part; specifically, the statute of limitations for all opt-in plaintiffs is tolled from May 5, 2022, when Plaintiff filed his motion for conditional certification, until the date of this Order. On July 2, 2021, Mr. Cruz initiated this case pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), against the Defendants. The Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on September 24, 2021. On May 5, 2022, the Plaintiff filed his motion for conditional certification of a collective action, to which Defendants filed a response in opposition, and to which the Plaintiff filed a reply, on leave granted. On June 17, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations, to which Defendants filed a response in opposition. This action arises from alleged violations of the FLSA's minimum wage and overtime provisions. The Plaintiff alleges that he and other "similarly situated" employees were not paid minimum wage for all hours worked and were not paid the mandated overtime premium ("time-and-a-half") for all hours worked in excess of forty hours each week. Riviera Maya is a Mexican restaurant that features authentic Mexican food and a full bar. A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 3, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JQVf7D at no extra charge.[CC] ROMAN CATHOLIC: Class Suit Alleges Sexual Misconduct by Priest -------------------------------------------------------------- Tony Gentil at Reuters reports that a class-action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of more than 100 victims of sexual assault dating back to the 1940s at the hands of members of Quebec's Roman Catholic Archiepiscopal Corporation and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Quebec. In that lawsuit, a woman identified as "F" alleges she was touched against her will by Cardinal Marc Ouellet and forced to perform sex acts on another priest, Father Leopold Manirabarusha. "F" said she met Ouellet during dinner in 2008 while serving as an intern for the Diocese of Quebec, according to the lawsuit. She claimed in the legal filing that later that evening she "feels two hands land on her shoulders and begin to massage her shoulders with force. F looks up to see that it is Cardinal Marc Ouellet who stands behind her and massages her shoulders. Cardinal Marc Ouellet smiles at her and strokes her back before leaving." In the lawsuit, "F" said the incident was intrusive and left her feeling uneasy. In another incident in 2008, "F'" came in contact with Ouellet again, according to the lawsuit. Another priest asked if he knew "F," according to the filing, "to which he replies very loudly that they both know each other very well. Cardinal Marc Ouellet then casually kisses 'F,' even though they had only seen each other once or twice before, and holds her firmly against him while stroking her back with his hands," according to the lawsuit. "F" claimed one of the last times she came in contact with Ouellet was in February 2010. According to the lawsuit, Ouellet told her he could kiss her again because "there is no harm in spoiling yourself a little." "F" said she didn't say anything because she was worried her internship and professional future depended on Ouellet, according to the lawsuit. After attending a training on sexual assault, "F" started having flashbacks of what she said she had experienced with Cardinal Marc Ouellet, according to the lawsuit. She realized that Ouellet's interactions with her constituted touching of a sexual nature without consent and therefore sexual assault, according to the lawsuit, and decided to tell her new partner and a few female friends. One of these friends advised her to talk to the Advisory Committee for Sexual Abuse of Minors and Vulnerable People of the Catholic Church of Quebec about these sexual assaults, according to the lawsuit. Ouellet denied "having made inappropriate gestures on her person" in a statement released by the Vatican press office. "Having become aware of the false accusations made against me by the complainant (F.), I firmly deny having made inappropriate gestures on her person and I consider the interpretation and dissemination of these accusations as sexual assaults defamatory," Ouellet's statement said. "If a civil inquiry were to be opened, I intend to actively participate in it so that the truth is established and my innocence recognized." A statement released by Matteo Bruni, director of the Vatican press office, said a preliminary investigation conducted by Fr. Jacques Servais, S.I., at the Pope's request, concluded "that there are no elements to initiate a trial against Cardinal Ouellet for sexual assault." "Following further pertinent consultations, Pope Francis declares that there are insufficient elements to open a canonical investigation for sexual assault by Cardinal Ouellet against the person F," Bruni said in the statement. The Catholic Archdiocese of Quebec acknowledged the allegations made in the lawsuit against Cardinal Ouellet but said it has no comment. Additionally, in the lawsuit, "F" described sexual assaults by another priest of the Diocese of Quebec, Father Leopold Manirabarusha. "F" alleged she was forced to perform sex acts for Manirabarusha while she was an employee of the diocese, according to the filing. She alleged in the lawsuit that one day Manirabarusha took her to his library and made it clear he expected her to perform oral sex on him. "F" complied with his demands, seeing no other way out. On about 15 different occasions, according to the lawsuit, Manirabarusha sexually assaulted her in various places, including church property and a hotel. The Archdiocese of Quebec confirmed Manirabarusha is still a Catholic priest and said, "but he has been off-duty for a suspension since the beginning of April. So, until the whole affair is settled, he cannot have any pastoral intervention with people." Cardinal Marc Ouellet has been one of the most prominent Vatican cardinals for over a decade. His name was raised during the Conclave of 2013 as a possible Pope, according to CNN reporting from the time. He has headed the powerful Vatican office of Bishops since 2010. The office is responsible for vetting and overseeing Catholic bishops worldwide and works closely with Pope Francis. Cardinal Ouellet typically meets weekly with the Pope to keep him informed of developments in his office, according to published bulletins of the Pope's meetings. In 2019, upon turning 75, Ouellet submitted his resignation to Pope Francis as required by Vatican law, but Francis did not accept it, as CNN has confirmed that Ouellet remains in his position. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, in an email to CNN, said it is unable to confirm if there is a criminal investigation and that investigations are usually confirmed if and when criminal charges are recommended against someone. CNN has reached out to the Quebec City Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions about possible criminal investigations and was told via email it has no public information concerning this case for the moment. SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, which has been providing support for victims of sexual abuse in institutional settings for 30 years, released a statement saying: "We applaud the bravery of all the victims who are involved in this case for coming forward and hope they are able to receive the justice and healing they deserve. We especially recognize that given the prominence of the man who she has accused, the alleged victim of Cardinal Ouellet will no doubt receive intense public scrutiny, and we recognize that for her to have come forward has taken considerable courage." [GN] SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: $34M Deal in PFOA Suit Wins Final OK -------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Therrien at Bennington Banner reports that attorneys representing area residents in a settled class-action suit over PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) contamination are reminding anyone who might have a claim for damages that they must file a required form by Aug. 22. A $34 million settlement with Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics - the last operator of former ChemFab Corp. plants here - was approved by the court in the spring. The settlement provides money for damage to property in the contamination zone and/or for a medical monitoring program for those shown to have elevated levels of PFOA in their blood after having consumed contaminated water. FILING DEADLINE Owners of property in PFOA-affected areas in Bennington, North Bennington and portions of Shaftsbury as of March 14, 2016, are eligible to file a claim. And anyone who ingested PFOA-contaminated water in the affected areas and had results from a blood test (or from tests that will be offered within the first 90 days of the monitoring program, confirming elevated levels of PFOA), are also eligible to file claims. A claim form can be filed through the class-action suit website, www.benningtonvtclassaction.com, or by calling attorney David Silver's Bennington office, at 802-442-6341, for assistance. "If you do not file your claim form on or before Aug. 22, 2022, you will not be eligible to participate in this settlement," the plaintiff attorneys said in a release. Class members may be eligible to receive property damage awards, or to participate in the 15-year medical monitoring program, which will be based at Southwestern Vermont Medical Center, or both. Elevated PFOA levels have been associated through studies with several diseases and conditions, including kidney, testicular and other cancers, ulcerative colitis, thyroid diseases, pregnancy-induced hypertension and high cholesterol. OUTSIDE FIRM The attorneys also noted that some members of the class-action group "have been contacted by LEX Recovery Group, offering to assist you in filing a claim for compensation in the settlement . . . ." According to a notice from Emily Joselson, of Langrock, Sperry & Wool, of Middlebury, one of the suit plaintiff law firms, LEX Recovery Group "is not a law firm - it is a business group from outside Vermont. It is not affiliated in any way with class counsel, the team of attorneys appointed by the Vermont federal court to represent all eligible class members in the [suit]. LEX Recovery Group is not authorized by the court to assist with the filing of claims." LEX Recovery Group is offering to help plaintiff class members file a claim to share in the lawsuit settlement, according to the plaintiff attorneys, and the company would charge 25 percent of the recovery amount received for that assistance. Support our journalism. "However, you do not need the help of LEX Recovery Group to file a claim," according to the plaintiff attorneys' notice. "You can file a claim without paying 25 percent" - by filing online at www.benningtonvtclassaction.com, or by contacting Silver's office. "Class counsel will help you, and will not charge you a portion of your potential recovery," Joselson wrote. Settlement In the settlement in U.S. District Court in Rutland, Saint-Gobain agreed to pay $26.2 million to property owners affected by PFOA, which the state determined had spread from the factory exhaust stacks when ChemFab operated here. The settlement also requires Saint-Gobain to provide up to $6 million for continued medical monitoring for individuals who drank contaminated well water and now have higher than normal levels of PFOA in their blood. The last ChemFab plant, in North Bennington, was closed by Saint-Gobain in 2002, when the operations were moved to New Hampshire. PFOA, which state officials determined had spread over a wide area through the factory exhaust stacks, working its way into groundwater and wells, was associated with the production of Teflon liquid. ChemFab, which was formed in Bennington in 1968, coated fiberglass and other fabrics with the white liquid and dried it at high temperatures. One of the products was used in lightweight sports stadium domes, such as the Pontiac Silverdome in Michigan, built in 1975, and the Carrier Dome in Syracuse, N.Y., which opened in 1980. Plaintiff Class The medical monitoring program was sought by the plaintiff attorneys to monitor for diseases associated through studies of PFOA exposure. Levels of PFOA in the blood are also known to decline slowly over many years. More than 500 people were found to have elevated levels of PFOA during an initial round of testing after the contamination was discovered in local wells, in early 2016, the year the lawsuit was filed. More than 2,300 properties are in the contamination zone of concern identified by the state. Property-related damages sought in the suit included for negative impacts on property values and other losses related to the pollution. Saint-Gobain also previously agreed after negotiations with the state to two consent agreements that provided more than $50 million to extend Bennington and North Bennington water system lines to some 445 properties with wells contaminated with PFOA, and to cover other expenses borne by the state in dealing with the pollution. [GN] SAVE MART: Faces Baker Suit Over HRA Benefit Misrepresentations --------------------------------------------------------------- KATHERINE BAKER, JOSE LUNA, EDGAR POPKE, and DENNY G. WRASKE, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-04645 (N.D. Cal., August 11, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for breaches of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The case arises from the Defendant's false and misleading representations of the Save Mart Select Heath Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA), a benefit program within the Save Mart Select Retiree Health Benefit Plan. The Defendant repeatedly represented to the Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated Class members that the HRA benefit provided by the Plan would be provided to any eligible non-union retiree and their spouse for the life of the retiree. However, these representations were false and misleading because they obscured that the Plan could in fact be eliminated at any time, and that Save Mart did in fact intend to (and did) eliminate the Plan as a cost-saving measure. Save Mart's misrepresentations harmed the Plaintiffs and the Class by causing them to forego these and other benefits of union membership, and to continue working for Save Mart as long as it took to become eligible for benefits under the Plan, in order to secure retiree medical benefits for themselves and their spouses that have now been taken away. Save Mart Supermarkets is a grocery store company, headquartered in Modesto, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anne B. Shaver, Esq. Michelle A. Lamy, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP 275 Battery St. Fl. 29 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: ashaver@lchb.com mlamy@lchb.com - and – James P. Keenley, Esq. Emily A. Bolt, Esq. BOLT KEENLEY KIM LLP 2855 Telegraph Ave., Suite 517 Berkeley, CA 94705 Telephone: (510) 225-0696 Facsimile: (510) 225-1095 E-mail: jkeenley@bkkllp.com ebolt@bkkllp.com SCIBMATT LLC: Underpays Restaurant Servers, Booker Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- ARIEL BOOKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCIBMATT LLC d/b/a COPELANDS OF NEW ORLEANS; and BILL GOUDEY, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-03192-LMM (N.D. Ga., August 11, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages and failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a server from November 2019 until June 2022. Scibmatt LLC is a company that operates a restaurant under the name Copelands of New Orleans, located at 3101 Cobb Parkway, Suite 220, Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Travis Foust, Esq. Dustin L. Crawford, Esq. PARKS, CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C. 75 Fourteenth Street, 26th Floor Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 873-8000 E-mail: tfoust@pcwlawfirm.com dcrawford@pcwlawfirm.com SMART ALABAMA: Facing Suit over Bait-and-Switch Work Visa --------------------------------------------------------- Bob Dane of fairus.org writes that a little-known visa intended for skilled workers is shunting foreign college graduates into blue-collar jobs on U.S. auto assembly lines. With minimal oversight and no effective caps, the TN visa program is being widely abused, along with its workers, according to complaints. Dane says an investigation by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution found Mexican engineers were assigned to heavy manual labor at Georgia factories, working "horrendously long hours at wages that were a fraction" of those paid U.S. workers. "It was a total lie," one engineer said of his TN visa job. "[Staffing agencies] are making the U.S. government believe they are bringing in qualified personnel for a professional job, but it's a lie." The engineer-turned-shop rat was among the Mexican nationals who toiled at parts suppliers for Kia and Hyundai in Georgia. (FAIR recently reported on Hyundai hiring Guatemalan migrants as young as 12 years old at a plant in Alabama.) "It's just flat out illegal. It's fraud. You can't bring in production workers under a TN visa. . . . This is crazy," said Charles Kuck, past president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. Compared to other skilled work visas, such as H-1B or L-1 visas, it's easy to get TN (Trade NAFTA) papers. In fact, they can be issued upon arrival at a port of entry. TN status lasts three years and binds workers to employers, with time extensions available. Eligible professions include engineers, accountants, scientists, lawyers and pharmacists. The U.S. granted 24,904 TN visas in 2021, up more than 50% from the year before. While receiving 98.8% of these permits, Mexican nationals garnered just 0.6% of the more restrictive H-1B visas. In March, a class action lawsuit was filed against SMART Alabama, a Hyundai parts subsidiary, and AGWM United, a staffing agency. The suit asserts that the companies conspired to use TNs to hire professional workers for "underpaid, unskilled positions." Specifically, the firms are accused of violating the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The complaint calls the NAFTA visa "largely unregulated." Citing "poor working conditions, misrepresentation and other abusive practices," the lawsuit says the TN program "lacks oversight, transparency and basic rights protections, unlike other employment visa programs regulated by the Department of Labor." "TN is kind of the Wild West," Daniel Werner, an attorney in the class action, told the Journal-Constitution. "Workers come here and there's just no reporting, no oversight." Which makes TNs the fastest growing work visa program you've never heard of. Dane is the executive director at Federation for American Immigration Reform.[GN] TEVA CANADA: No Class Status for Suit Alleging Cancer Risk ---------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Feore and Ashley L. Paterson of Bennett Jones LLP wrote that in a recent decision in Palmer v Teva Canada Ltd., Justice Perell of the Ontario Superior Court dismissed the plaintiff's motion to certify a class action against manufacturers of the anti-hypertensive drug valsartan. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant's valsartan products were negligently manufactured because they contained carcinogenic impurities. Emphasizing that the plaintiffs had neither pleaded nor provided any basis in fact for actual compensable harm, Justice Perell concluded that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the cause of action, common issues and preferable procedure requirements. The Palmer decision aligns with the recent trend of Canadian courts to refuse to certify class proceedings for want of compensable harm. This decision notably applies the Supreme Court's 2020 decision in Atlantic Lottery Corp Inc. v Babstock and concludes that, just as an increased risk of harm is not legally compensable, mental distress associated with an increased feeling of risk is similarly not a compensable psychiatric injury. More generally, the decision emphasizes the requirement that plaintiffs demonstrate some evidence of compensable harm, and clarifies what is -- and is not -- evidence of general causation. Background In Palmer, the plaintiff sought to certify a class of all persons who had been prescribed the defendants' valsartan products. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants' valsartan products, all of which were made with active ingredients sourced from a single manufacturer in China, contained potentially carcinogenic impurities: specifically, the compounds N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) and N-nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA). The action followed a series of voluntary recalls precipitated by a Health Canada advisory which announced that NDMA had been found in the impugned products. The advisory further noted that NDMA is also found in some foods and drinking water and is not expected to cause harm when ingested at very low levels. Alleging that the defendants wrongly exposed the putative class members to an increased risk of developing cancer, the plaintiffs brought claims in negligence, strict liability, toxic battery and unjust enrichment; as well as under the Competition Act, the Civil Code of Quebec and the consumer protection statutes of various provinces. The plaintiffs sought to recover for psychiatric injury, the cost of past and future medical services and medication purchase costs. The plaintiffs also sought punitive damages. As Justice Perell found "baffling," however, the plaintiff did not seek to recover for bodily harm on behalf of putative class members actually diagnosed with cancer. The Decision On the scientific evidence before him, Justice Perell accepted that the plaintiffs had shown some basis in fact for the proposition that exposure to NDMA and NDEA in the impugned valsartan products "very modestly" increased the risk of being diagnosed with cancer. There was some evidence of a "theoretical underpinning" as to how these compounds might be carcinogens. However, as would prove fatal to the claim, there was no basis in fact for the proposition that NDMA or NDEA actually cause cancer. Further, the plaintiff conceded that the applicable epidemiological literature did not presently show any association between NDMA or NDEA and cancer in humans. Even if it had, Justice Perell held, this would not be sufficient: "[i]t is an axiom of epidemiology that statistical association does not equate to proof of a causative relationship." As indicated above, the plaintiff did not pursue any claims for anyone actually physically injured by manifested cancer; claiming instead for prospective future medical monitoring costs. However, since "valsartan with its contaminants did not cause any immediate harm nor pose an imminent threat of harm" to the putative class members, this head of damages was not recoverable: as Justice Perell concluded, any medical monitoring costs arising from a mere risk of experiencing cancer are not recoverable. Similarly, while there was some basis in fact to conclude that some class members had experienced psychological harm, this "harm" was not compensable. Since it was no more than "present anxiety occasioned by the risk of future physical or psychological harm," it was inherently non-compensable at law, just as the risk of future physical or psychological harm is inherently non-compensable. Refusing to certify the plaintiff's loss-based causes of action for the above reasons, this left only the plaintiff's battery claim, which would not require proof of compensable loss. This claim too, however, was plainly and obviously doomed to fail. Opining that "the Plaintiffs' gambit is to label their claim as a battery when it is genuinely a negligence claim," Justice Perell concluded that it was "plain and obvious" that the defendants did not "willfully or recklessly intend to harm patients"; in part because the valsartan was ingested consensually. Even if the plaintiff's battery claim had properly alleged this, however, Justice Perell would still have refused to certify the claim on the basis of the common issues and preferable procedure criteria because there was no evidence that ingestion caused anything more than de minimis harm. Takeaway According to Justice Perell, the Palmer case exemplifies "the problems that sometimes occurs [sic] when there is a knee-jerk reaction to a recall notice." His conclusion and reasons illustrate that class proceedings with no basis for any actual loss on consumers' part will not become certifiable simply because Health Canada has issued a recall notice. The Palmer case serves as a reminder that putative class plaintiffs cannot circumvent the requirement of actual, non-de minimis harm by alleging present anxiety regarding the risk of future disease, nor future medical monitoring costs related to that risk. Nor can putative class plaintiffs do so by bringing such actions as battery claims: although battery does not require proof of actual loss, engaging the machinery of class proceedings is nonetheless not preferable if there is no more than a de minimis harm.[GN] TEVA CANADA: Ontario Ct. Refuses to Certify Risk of Cancer Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the recent decision of Palmer v Teva Canada Ltd., Justice Perell of the Ontario Superior Court dismissed the plaintiff's motion to certify a class action against manufacturers of the anti-hypertensive drug valsartan. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant's valsartan products were negligently manufactured because they contained carcinogenic impurities. Emphasizing that the plaintiffs had neither pleaded nor provided any basis in fact for actual compensable harm, Justice Perell concluded that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the cause of action, common issues and preferable procedure requirements. The Palmer decision aligns with the recent trend of Canadian courts to refuse to certify class proceedings for want of compensable harm.1 This decision notably applies the Supreme Court's 2020 decision in Atlantic Lottery Corp Inc. v Babstock and concludes that, just as an increased risk of harm is not legally compensable, mental distress associated with an increased feeling of risk is similarly not a compensable psychiatric injury. More generally, the decision emphasizes the requirement that plaintiffs demonstrate some evidence of compensable harm, and clarifies what is-and is not-evidence of general causation. Background In Palmer, the plaintiff sought to certify a class of all persons who had been prescribed the defendants' valsartan products. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants' valsartan products, all of which were made with active ingredients sourced from a single manufacturer in China, contained potentially carcinogenic impurities: specifically, the compounds N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) and N-nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA). The action followed a series of voluntary recalls precipitated by a Health Canada advisory which announced that NDMA had been found in the impugned products. The advisory further noted that NDMA is also found in some foods and drinking water and is not expected to cause harm when ingested at very low levels. Alleging that the defendants wrongly exposed the putative class members to an increased risk of developing cancer, the plaintiffs brought claims in negligence, strict liability, toxic battery and unjust enrichment; as well as under the Competition Act, the Civil Code of Quebec and the consumer protection statutes of various provinces. The plaintiffs sought to recover for psychiatric injury, the cost of past and future medical services and medication purchase costs. The plaintiffs also sought punitive damages. As Justice Perell found "baffling," however, the plaintiff did not seek to recover for bodily harm on behalf of putative class members actually diagnosed with cancer. The Decision On the scientific evidence before him, Justice Perell accepted that the plaintiffs had shown some basis in fact for the proposition that exposure to NDMA and NDEA in the impugned valsartan products "very modestly" increased the risk of being diagnosed with cancer. There was some evidence of a "theoretical underpinning" as to how these compounds might be carcinogens. However, as would prove fatal to the claim, there was no basis in fact for the proposition that NDMA or NDEA actually cause cancer. Further, the plaintiff conceded that the applicable epidemiological literature did not presently show any association between NDMA or NDEA and cancer in humans. Even if it had, Justice Perell held, this would not be sufficient: "[i]t is an axiom of epidemiology that statistical association does not equate to proof of a causative relationship." As indicated above, the plaintiff did not pursue any claims for anyone actually physically injured by manifested cancer; claiming instead for prospective future medical monitoring costs. However, since "valsartan with its contaminants did not cause any immediate harm nor pose an imminent threat of harm" to the putative class members, this head of damages was not recoverable: as Justice Perell concluded, any medical monitoring costs arising from a mere risk of experiencing cancer are not recoverable. Similarly, while there was some basis in fact to conclude that some class members had experienced psychological harm, this "harm" was not compensable. Since it was no more than "present anxiety occasioned by the risk of future physical or psychological harm," it was inherently non-compensable at law, just as the risk of future physical or psychological harm is inherently non-compensable. Refusing to certify the plaintiff's loss-based causes of action for the above reasons, this left only the plaintiff's battery claim, which would not require proof of compensable loss. This claim too, however, was plainly and obviously doomed to fail. Opining that "the Plaintiffs' gambit is to label their claim as a battery when it is genuinely a negligence claim," Justice Perell concluded that it was "plain and obvious" that the defendants did not "willfully or recklessly intend to harm patients"; in part because the valsartan was ingested consensually. Even if the plaintiff's battery claim had properly alleged this, however, Justice Perell would still have refused to certify the claim on the basis of the common issues and preferable procedure criteria because there was no evidence that ingestion caused anything more than de minimis harm. Takeaway According to Justice Perell, the Palmer case exemplifies "the problems that sometimes occurs [sic] when there is a knee-jerk reaction to a recall notice." His conclusion and reasons illustrate that class proceedings with no basis for any actual loss on consumers' part will not become certifiable simply because Health Canada has issued a recall notice. The Palmer case serves as a reminder that putative class plaintiffs cannot circumvent the requirement of actual, non-de minimis harm by alleging present anxiety regarding the risk of future disease, nor future medical monitoring costs related to that risk. Nor can putative class plaintiffs do so by bringing such actions as battery claims: although battery does not require proof of actual loss, engaging the machinery of class proceedings is nonetheless not preferable if there is no more than a de minimis harm. 1 See, for example, Maginnis and Magnaye v FCA Canada et al., 2020 ONSC 5462; MacKinnon v Volkswagen, 2021 ONSC 5941; Setoguchi v Uber B.V., 2021 ABQB 18. [GN] TG THERAPEUTICS: Sept. 16 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bids ---------------------------------------------------------- The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice to shareholders of TG Therapeutics, Inc. Shareholders who purchased shares of TGTX during the class period listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible lead plaintiff appointment. Appointment as lead plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. CONTACT US HERE: https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/tg-therapeutics-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=30891&from=4 CLASS PERIOD: January 15, 2020 to May 31, 2022 ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period, Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) clinical trials revealed significant concerns related to the benefit-risk ratio and overall survival data of the Company's therapeutic product candidates, Ublituximab and Umbralisib; (ii) accordingly, it was unlikely that the Company would be able to obtain approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of the Umbralisib marginal zone lymphoma and follicular lymphoma New Drug Application, the Biologics License Application for Ublituximab in combination with Umbralisib, the supplemental New Drug Application for Ublituximab in combination with Umbralisib, or the Ublituximab relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis Biologics License Application in their current forms; (iii) as a result, the Company had significantly overstated Ublituximab and Umbralisib's clinical and/or commercial prospects; and (iv) therefore, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. DEADLINE: September 16, 2022 Shareholders should not delay in registering for this class action. Register your information here: https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/tg-therapeutics-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=30891&from=4 NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who purchased shares of TGTX during the timeframe listed above, you will be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you with status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case. The deadline to seek to be a lead plaintiff is September 16, 2022. There is no cost or obligation to you to participate in this case. WHY GROSS LAW FIRM? The Gross Law Firm is nationally recognized class action law firm, and our mission is to protect the rights of all investors who have suffered as a result of deceit, fraud, and illegal business practices. The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a company lead to artificial inflation of the company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: The Gross Law Firm 15 West 38th Street, 12th floor New York, NY, 10018 Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com Phone: (646) 453-8903 [GN] TRUE STAR: Donica Alleges Unpaid OT for Mobile Home Park Workers ---------------------------------------------------------------- SARAH DONICA, PAMELA CRAVEN, BRANDON STEPHENS, DAVID SPIRES, and LAVERNE SPIRES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TRUE STAR CAPITAL, LLC, BRANT GREATHOUSE, and CARL MOORE, Defendants, Case No. 7:22-cv-00173 (W.D. Tex., August 9, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to compensate the Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants at any time between 2021 and 2022. True Star Capital, LLC is an owner and operator of mobile home parks in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy., Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 17 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Uber Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: UBER) securities between May 31, 2019 and July 8, 2022, for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Uber connects consumers with providers of ride services, and connects riders and other consumers with restaurants, grocers, and other stores with delivery service providers for meal preparation, grocery, and other delivery services. If you would like more information about Uber Technologies, Inc.'s misconduct, click here. What is this Case About: Uber Technologies, Inc. (UBER) Engaged in Illicit and Illegal Conduct to Fuel the Company's Growth According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Uber had defective disclosure controls and procedures; (ii) Uber concealed and/or downplayed the full scope and severity of its prior misconduct, including, inter alia, the extent to which it secretly lobbied government officials and politicians to bypass legal and regulatory requirements, as well as knowingly risked the safety of Uber drivers, to fuel the Company's global growth; (iii) as a result, Uber's present global footprint and market share is in significant part the byproduct of previously undisclosed, unsustainable, and illegal business practices; (iv) all the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to negatively impact Uber's reputation, as well as subject the Company to a heightened risk of governmental and regulatory scrutiny and enforcement action; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On July 10, 2022, news reports announced the discovery of 124,000 internal Uber records spanning from 2013 - 2017, which were leaked to The Guardian and shared with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and other news outlets. These files revealed, among other things, how Uber secretly met with various government officials and politicians to skirt laws and regulations around the world, as well as risked Uber drivers' safety, to advance the Company's growth, and how all the foregoing conduct was known to, and in fact encouraged by, the Company's top management. On this news, Company's stock price fell $1.15 per share or over 5%, to close at $21.19 per share on July 11, 2022. Next Steps: If you acquired shares of Uber Technologies, Inc. between May 31, 2019 and July 8, 2022, you have until October 17, 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 info: Aaron Dumas (800) 350-6003 adumas@robbinsllp.com About Robbins LLP A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. [GN] UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Pomerantz Securities Suit over Misconduct ------------------------------------------------------------------ Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Uber Technologies, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and docketed under 22-cv-04688, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Uber common stock between May 31, 2019 and July 8, 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 Uber common stock during the Class Period, you have until October 17, 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. Uber develops and operates proprietary technology applications in the United States, Canada, Latin America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and the Asia Pacific. The Company connects consumers with providers of ride services, and connects riders and other consumers with restaurants, grocers, and other stores with delivery service providers for meal preparation, grocery, and other delivery services. Uber has long been plagued by scandal. As the Company's Senior Vice President of Marketing and Public Affairs recently stated: "There has been no shortage of reporting on Uber's mistakes prior to 2017. Thousands of stories have been published, multiple books have been written -- there's even been a TV series." These "mistakes" ranged from allegations of Uber executives knowingly concealing incidents of violence and sexual assault by its drivers, operating illegally in various jurisdictions, and utilizing software to evade authorities and block their access to the Company's databases. Following years of negative publicity, Uber made changes to its top management, purportedly reformed its corporate culture, and touted itself as a new company that had atoned for its prior compliance and cultural issues. However, unbeknownst to investors, the Company and its top management had still not transparently divulged and accounted for the full scope of the Company's prior misconduct. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Uber's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Uber had defective disclosure controls and procedures; (ii) Uber concealed and/or downplayed the full scope and severity of its prior misconduct, including, inter alia, the extent to which it secretly lobbied government officials and politicians to bypass legal and regulatory requirements, as well as knowingly risked the safety of Uber drivers, to fuel the Company's global growth; (iii) as a result, Uber's present global footprint and market share is in significant part the byproduct of previously undisclosed, unsustainable, and illegal business practices; (iv) all the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to negatively impact Uber's reputation, as well as subject the Company to a heightened risk of governmental and regulatory scrutiny and enforcement action; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On July 10, 2022, news reports emerged regarding a cache of 124,000 internal Uber records, dubbed the "Uber Files" by media outlets, spanning from 2013 to 2017, that were leaked to The Guardian and subsequently shared with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and other news outlets. These files revealed, among other things, how Uber secretly met with various government officials and politicians to skirt laws and regulations around the world, as well as risked Uber drivers' safety, to advance the Company's growth, and how all the foregoing conduct was known to, and in fact encouraged by, the Company's top management. On this news, Uber's stock price fell $1.15 per share, or 5.15%, to close at $21.19 per share on July 11, 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. CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP rswilloughby@pomlaw.com 888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN] UNITED STATES: Sued Over Contaminated Camp Lejeune Water -------------------------------------------------------- Irvin Jackson of aboutlawsuits.com reports that a class action lawsuit has been brought against the U.S. government, seeking damages on behalf individuals injured by contaminated Camp Lejeune water, following exposure at the Marine base for at least 30 days between August 1, 1953 and December 31, 1987. The Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune is a 246-square-mile military training facility in Jacksonville, North Carolina. The complaint was filed by Donald Stringfellow in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on August 14, only a few days after President Biden signed a new law that allows veterans, family members and other individuals to pursue claims for cancer, Parkinson's disease and other ailments linked to toxins in the water at Camp Lejeune decades ago. Tens of thousands of Camp Lejeune water lawsuits are expected to be filed over the coming months, pursuing damages and benefits now available under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act of 2022, which opened a two year window for individuals to pursue claims that were previously barred by the North Carolina statute of limitations. Some estimates indicate more than a million Marines and their family members suffered exposure to contaminated Camp Lejeune water between the early 1950s and late 1980s, with some estimates suggesting that toxic chemicals from Camp Lejeune may be responsible for more than 50,000 cases of breast cancer, 28,000 cases of bladder cancer, and 24,000 cases of renal cancer, as well as thousands of cases involve Parkinson's disease, birth defects and other health complications. While most of the cases that will be filed under the new law involve individual injury claims, Stringfellow is pursuing certification of his complaint as a Camp Lejeune class action lawsuit to protect the statutory rights, opportunities and benefits accorded under the new law, by preserving the timeliness of their claims. In addition, the complaint indicates that the class action over Camp Lejeune water contamination will provide the Court with certain procedural and case management tools for "the just, speedy and inexpensive determination" of the claims. The lawsuit seeks to include as class members all individuals who resided, worked or were otherwise exposed to Camp Lejeune water, including unborn children exposed in utero, for at least 30 days between August 1, 1953 and December 31, 1987, who have filed a claim in the administrative process established for cases against the U.S. government, which was denied or not acted on within six months. In addition, class members will be limited to individuals who are not otherwise represented by an individual Camp Lejeune water contamination lawyer, and have not filed their own lawsuit under the Act as of the date class certification is granted. Stringfellow indicates that while he was on base, he was exposed to contaminated water which contained chemicals including trichlorethylene (TCE), perchloroethylene (PCE), vinyl chloride and benzene. As a result of the contaminated Camp Lejeune water, Stringfellow indicates that he was later diagnosed with serious illnesses, which are attributed to these chemicals. In anticipation of this new law, Camp Lejeune toxic water lawyers have been investigating potential claims for months, and gathering evidence about specific injuries that can be linked to chemicals found on the base, including various cancers, lymphoma, Parkinson’s disease, kidney damage, birth defects, fertility problems and other conditions. Some estimates suggest that more than 300,000 Camp Lejeune cancer lawsuits and other injury claims may ultimately be brought by Marine veterans, surviving family members and others exposed to the contaminated water.[GN] UNITY SOFTWARE: Sept. 6 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bids -------------------------------------------------------- The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice to shareholders of Unity Software Inc. Shareholders who purchased shares of U during the class period listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible lead plaintiff appointment. Appointment as lead plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. CONTACT US HERE: https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/unity-software-u-lawsuit-form/?id=30886&from=4 CLASS PERIOD: March 5, 2021 to May 10, 2022 ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period, Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) deficiencies in Unity's product platform reduced the accuracy of the Company's machine learning technology; (ii) the foregoing was likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's revenues; (iii) accordingly, Unity had overstated the Company's commercial and/or financial prospects for 2022; (iv) as a result, the Company was likely to have to reduce its fiscal 2022 guidance; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. DEADLINE: September 6, 2022 Shareholders should not delay in registering for this class action. Register your information here: https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/unity-software-u-lawsuit-form/?id=30886&from=4 NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who purchased shares of U during the timeframe listed above, you will be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you with status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case. The deadline to seek to be a lead plaintiff is September 6, 2022. There is no cost or obligation to you to participate in this case. WHY GROSS LAW FIRM? The Gross Law Firm is nationally recognized class action law firm, and our mission is to protect the rights of all investors who have suffered as a result of deceit, fraud, and illegal business practices. The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a company lead to artificial inflation of the company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: The Gross Law Firm 15 West 38th Street, 12th floor New York, NY, 10018 Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com Phone: (646) 453-8903 [GN] Hagens Berman Announcement Hagens Berman urges Unity Software Inc. (NYSE:U) investors who have suffered significant losses to submit your losses now. Class Period: Mar. 5, 2021-May 10,2022 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Sept. 6, 2022 Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/UL Contact An Attorney Now: U@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895 Unity Software Inc. (NYSE: U) Securities Fraud Class Action: During the Class Period, Defendants claimed that Unity's Audience Pinpointer tool - which was developed last year to enable the company and its customers to navigate ad delivery following Apple's changes to its app advertising policies - delivers strong returns on investment to customers without manual guesswork. The complaint alleges Defendants misrepresented and concealed: (1) deficiencies in Unity's product platform reduced the accuracy of its machine learning technology; (2) the foregoing was likely to have a material negative impact on Unity's revenues; and (3) accordingly, Unity overstated its commercial and financial prospects for 2022. On May 10, 2022, Unity announced its Q1 2022 financial results and reduced its fiscal 2022 guidance. Management blamed the reduction on "fault in our platform that resulted in reduced accuracy for our Audience Pinpointer tool," disclosed "we lost the value of a portion of our data, training data due in part to us ingesting bad data from a large customer," and quantified the ingestion as having a $110 million negative impact on Unity's 2022 revenues. This news sent the price of Unity shares down $17.83, or down 37%, wiping out over $3 billion in shareholder value. "We're focused on investors' losses and proving Defendants misrepresented the functionality of Unity's Audience Pinpointer tool," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation. If you invested in Unity Software and have significant losses, or have knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Unity Software should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email U@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation law firm focusing on corporate accountability through class-action law. The firm is home to a robust securities litigation practice and represents investors as well as whistleblowers, workers, consumers and others in cases achieving real results for those harmed by corporate negligence and fraud. More about the firm and its successes can be found at hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw. Contact: Reed Kathrein, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com [GN] US HEALTH: Aguirre Sues Over Retaliation & Wrongful Termination --------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA AGUIRRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. US HEALTH FAIRS-ORG and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV26014 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., August 11, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for wrongful termination in violation of California's Public, retaliation in violation of California Labor Code, unfair competition, intentional infliction of emotional distress, waiting time penalties. Ms. Aguirre was employed by the Defendants as a lab tech assistant from May 18, 2020 until her termination on May 21, 2020. US Health Fairs-Org is a non-profit organization in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian I. Vogel, Esq. VOGEL LAW, APC 572 E. Green Street, Suite 305 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 796-7470 WEBER INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept. 27 ----------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in Weber Inc. of a class action securities lawsuit. The lawsuit on behalf of Weber investors has been commenced in the the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. This lawsuit is on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Weber Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's August 2021 initial public offering. Follow the link below to get more information and be contacted by a member of our team: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/weber-inc-information-request-form?prid=30990&wire=5 Weber Inc. NEWS - WEBR NEWS CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made false statements and/or concealed 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. WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in Weber during the relevant timeframe, you have until September 27, 2022 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. NO COST TO YOU: If you are a class member, you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees. Discuss your rights with our legal team without cost or obligation. PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission form https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/weber-inc-information-request-form?prid=30990&wire=5 or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, the team at Levi & Korsinsky has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. Our firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. [GN] WEBER INC: Wolf Haldenstein Announces Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of investors of Weber Inc. who purchased or otherwise acquired Weber securities pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus issued in connection with the Company's August 2021 initial public offering. All investors who purchased the shares of Weber Inc. and incurred losses are advised to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain request additional information concerning the action at www.whafh.com. If you have incurred losses in the shares of Weber Inc., you may, no later than September 27, 2022, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in Weber Inc. The filed complaint 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: -- that Weber was reasonably likely to implement price increases; -- that, as a result, consumer demand for Weber's products was reasonably likely to decrease; -- that, due to the resulting inventory buildup, Weber was reasonably likely to run promotions to "enhance retail sell through"; -- that the foregoing would adversely impact Weber's financial results; and -- 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. According to the filed complaint, defendants held the Company's IPO on August 6, 2021, selling almost 18 million shares at $14.00 per share. However, the Registration Statement in support of the IPO was materially false and failed to state that Weber was reasonably likely to implement price increases, which would result in decreased demand for their products. The resulting inventory buildup would then result in Weber running promotions to "enhance retail sell through," which would adversely impact Weber's financial results. On July 25, 2022, 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 "profitability 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. By the commencement of the class 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. Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated litigation. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735 or via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com Contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Patrick Donovan, Esq. Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis Email: gstone@whafh.com donovan@whafh.com or classmember@whafh.com Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774 [GN] ZENDESK INC: Misleads Stockholders to Approve Merger, Fruchter Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- NOAM FRUCHTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZENDESK, INC., MICHAEL FRANDSEN, BRANDON GAYLE, RONALD PASEK, MICHAEL CURTIS, STEVE JOHNSON, MIKKEL SVANE, ARCHANA AGRAWAL, and HILARIE KOPLOW-MCADAMS, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-04610 (N.D. Cal., August 10, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 14a-9. According to the complaint, the Defendants authorized the issuance of a false and misleading Proxy Statement with the SEC by Zendesk to convince stockholders to approve the merger agreement between Zendesk and Hellman & Friedman LLC and Permira Advisers LLC. The Proxy Statement omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (i) Zendesk's financial projections; (ii) the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinions provided by the company's financial advisors Qatalyst Partners LP and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC; and (iii) the negotiations between Zendesk and JANA Partners, who initiated a proxy contest that was ultimately settled with Zendesk. The company's public stockholders will be irreparably harmed because the Proxy Statement's material misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a sufficiently informed voting or appraisal decision on the proposed transaction, says the suit. Zendesk, Inc. is a software company, with its principal executive offices located at 989 Market Street, San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel E. Elkins, Esq. WEISS LAW 611 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 808 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (310) 208-2800 Facsimile: (310) 209-2348 E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com - and – Michael Rogovin, Esq. 476 Hardendorf Ave. NE Atlanta, GA 30307 Telephone: (404) 692-7910 Facsimile: (212) 682-3010 Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ballantyne Strong Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ballantyne Strong, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "A majority of the cases involve product liability claims based principally on allegations of past distribution of commercial lighting products containing wiring that may have contained asbestos. Each case names dozens of corporate defendants in addition to us. In our experience, a large percentage of these types of claims have never been substantiated and have been dismissed by the courts. We have not suffered any adverse verdict in a trial court proceeding related to asbestos claims and intends to continue to defend these lawsuits. During 2021, we recorded a loss contingency reserve of approximately $0.3 million, which represents our estimate of our potential losses related to the settlement of open cases. When appropriate, we may settle certain claims. We do not expect the resolution of these cases to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://bit.ly/3CrTJa8 ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNS Sub Has 46 Pending Claims as of June 30 ------------------------------------------------------------ Steel Partners Holdings L.P.'s majority owned subsidiary, BNS Sub, has been named as a defendant in multiple alleged asbestos-related toxic-tort claims filed over a period beginning in 1994 through June 30, 2022, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "In many cases these claims involved more than 100 defendants. There remained approximately 46 pending asbestos claims as of June 30, 2022. BNS Sub believes it has significant defenses to any liability for toxic-tort claims on the merits. None of these toxic-tort claims has gone to trial and, therefore, there can be no assurance that these defenses will prevail. BNS Sub has insurance policies covering asbestos-related claims for years beginning 1974 through 1988. BNS Sub annually receives retroactive billings or credits from its insurance carriers for any increase or decrease in claims accruals as claims are filed, settled or dismissed, or as estimates of the ultimate settlement costs for the then-existing claims are revised. As of both June 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021, BNS Sub has accrued $1,465 relating to the open and active claims against BNS Sub. This accrual includes the amount of unpaid retroactive billings submitted to the Company by the insurance carriers and also the Company's best estimate of the likely costs for BNS Sub to settle these claims outside the amounts funded by insurance. There can be no assurance that the number of future claims and the related costs of defense, settlements or judgments will be consistent with the experience to-date of existing claims and that BNS Sub will not need to significantly increase its estimated liability for the costs to settle these claims to an amount that could have a material effect on the consolidated financial statements." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://bit.ly/3AIDe8x ASBESTOS UPDATE: Burlington Northern Still Defends PI Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC (BNSF) is party to asbestos claims by employees and non-employees who may have been exposed to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. BNSF's personal injury liability includes the cost of claims for employee work-related injuries, third-party claims, and asbestos claims. BNSF records a liability for asserted and unasserted claims when the expected loss is both probable and reasonably estimable. Because of the uncertainty of the timing of future payments, the liability is undiscounted. Defense and processing costs, which are recorded on an as-reported basis, are not included in the recorded liability. Expense accruals and adjustments are classified as materials and other in the Consolidated Statements of Income. Personal injury claims by BNSF Railway employees are subject to the provisions of the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) rather than state workers' compensation laws. Resolution of these cases under the FELA's fault-based system requires either a finding of fault by a jury or an out of court settlement. Third-party claims include claims by non-employees for compensatory damages and may, from time to time, include requests for punitive damages or treatment of the claim as a class action. BNSF estimates its personal injury liability claims and expense using standard actuarial methodologies based on the covered population, activity levels and trends in frequency, and the costs of covered injuries. The Company monitors actual experience against the forecasted number of claims to be received, the forecasted number of claims closing with payment, and expected claim payments and records adjustments as new events or changes in estimates develop. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://bit.ly/3Kho5xX ASBESTOS UPDATE: CarParts.com Faces Product Liability Suits ----------------------------------------------------------- CarParts.com, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, Automotive Specialty Accessories and Parts, Inc., and its wholly-owned subsidiary Whitney Automotive Group, Inc. ("WAG"), are named defendants in several lawsuits involving claims for damages caused by installation of brakes during the late 1960's and early 1970's that contained asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "WAG marketed certain brakes, but did not manufacture any brakes. WAG maintains liability insurance coverage to protect its and the Company's assets from losses arising from the litigation and coverage is provided on an occurrence rather than a claims made basis, and the Company is not expected to incur significant out-of-pocket costs in connection with this matter that would be material to its consolidated financial statements." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at s://bit.ly/3CvYxeV ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECONY Faces Exposure Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------- Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (CECONY), and many others, are defendants in suits that have been brought in New York State and federal courts, wherein a large number of plaintiffs sought large amounts of compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos at various premises of the Utilities, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The suits that have been resolved, which are many, have been resolved without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts that were not, in the aggregate, material to them. The amounts specified in all the remaining thousands of suits total billions of dollars; however, the Utilities believe that these amounts are greatly exaggerated, based on the disposition of previous claims. At June 30, 2022, Con Edison and CECONY have accrued their estimated aggregate undiscounted potential liabilities for these suits and additional suits that may be brought over the next 15 years as shown in the following table. These estimates were based upon a combination of modeling, historical data analysis and risk factor assessment. Courts have begun, and unless otherwise determined on appeal may continue, to apply different standards for determining liability in asbestos suits than the standard that applied historically. As a result, the Companies currently believe that there is a reasonable possibility of an exposure to loss in excess of the liability accrued for the suits. The Companies are unable to estimate the amount or range of such loss. In addition, certain current and former employees have claimed or are claiming workers' compensation benefits based on alleged disability from exposure to asbestos. CECONY is permitted to defer as regulatory assets (for subsequent recovery through rates) costs incurred for its asbestos lawsuits and workers' compensation claims." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://bit.ly/3AlCJja ASBESTOS UPDATE: Constellation Has $98MM Estimated Liabilities -------------------------------------------------------------- Constellation Energy Corporation, at June 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021, has recorded estimated liabilities of approximately $98 million and $81 million, respectively, in total for asbestos-related bodily injury claims, 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, approximately $22 million of this amount related to 244 open claims presented to us, while the remaining $76 million is for estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through 2055, based on actuarial assumptions and analyses, which are updated on an annual basis. On a quarterly basis, we monitor actual experience against the number of forecasted claims to be received and expected claim payments and evaluate whether adjustments to the estimated liabilities are necessary." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://bit.ly/3CoVWDm ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Holdings Has 30,099 Pending Exposure Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ Crane Holdings, Co., as of June 30, 2022, was a defendant in cases filed in numerous state and federal courts alleging injury or death as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Of the 30,099 pending claims as of June 30, 2022, approximately 18,000 claims were pending in New York of which approximately 16,000 are non-malignancy claims that were filed over 15 years ago and have been inactive under New York court orders. "We have tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts by the jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court. We further have pursued appeals of certain adverse jury verdicts that have resulted in reversals in favor of the defense. We have also tried several other cases resulting in plaintiff verdicts which we paid or settled after unsuccessful appeals. "The gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before insurance recoveries and tax effects) by us for the six months ended June 30, 2022 and 2021 totaled $28.5 million and $21.3 million, respectively. In contrast to the recognition of settlement and defense costs, which reflect the current level of activity in the tort system, cash payments and receipts generally lag the tort system activity by several months or more and may show some fluctuation from period to period. Cash payments of settlement amounts are not made until all releases and other required documentation are received by us, and reimbursements of both settlement amounts and defense costs by insurers may be uneven due to insurer payment practices, transitions from one insurance layer to the next excess layer and the payment terms of certain reimbursement agreements. Our total pre-tax payments for settlement and defense costs, net of funds received from insurers, for the six months ended June 30, 2022 and 2021 totaled $23.5 million and $20.2 million, respectively. "Cumulatively through June 30, 2022, we have resolved (by settlement or dismissal) approximately 145,000 claims. The related settlement cost incurred by us and our insurance carriers is approximately $742 million, for an average settlement cost per resolved claim of approximately $5,100. The average settlement cost per claim resolved during the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019 was $18,800, $13,900, and $15,800, respectively. Because claims are sometimes dismissed in large groups, the average cost per resolved claim, as well as the number of open claims, can fluctuate significantly from period to period. In addition to large group dismissals, the nature of the disease and corresponding settlement amounts for each claim resolved will also drive changes from period to period in the average settlement cost per claim. Accordingly, the average cost per resolved claim is not considered in our periodic review of our estimated asbestos liability. " A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://bit.ly/3KhS4pq ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Curtiss-Wright Corporation has been named in pending lawsuits that allege injury from exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "To date, we have not been found liable or paid any material sum of money in settlement in any asbestos-related case. We believe that the minimal use of asbestos in our past operations and the relatively non-friable condition of asbestos in our products make it unlikely that we will face material liability in any asbestos litigation, whether individually or in the aggregate. We maintain insurance coverage for these potential liabilities and we believe adequate coverage exists to cover any unanticipated asbestos liability." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://bit.ly/3R2y1xy ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dixie Group Faces Suit Due to Worker's Death ------------------------------------------------------------- The Dixie Group, Inc. has been sued, together with approximately 90 other defendants, alleging that indirect exposure to asbestos at a plant in North Carolina contributed to the wrongful death of Mr. Bostian, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In a lawsuit styled: Brenda E. Bostian, individually and as representative of the Estate of Hoyle Steven Bostian, deceased, case number 2021-CP-40-04877 South Carolina Court of Common Please, fifth Judicial Circuit- Richland County (Columbia SC). The complaint alleges that Mr. Hoyle Bostian's father worked at a facility in North Carolina where he was exposed to asbestos and that Mr. Bostian's exposure indirectly caused Mr. Bostian (the decedent) to be exposed to asbestos. The plaintiff's "secondary" exposure allegedly occurred in the 1950s - prior to the Company's 1987 acquisition of China Grove Cotton Mills, the company that owned the facility. No damage amount has been alleged. The Company has denied liability and is vigorously defending the matter. The case is set for trial on August 29, 2022. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://bit.ly/3wsnLqr ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Reports $488MM Reserves -------------------------------------------------------------- Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized asbestos-related reserves of $488 million at June 30, 2022, and $501 million at December 31, 2021, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "These reserves are classified in Other within Other Noncurrent Liabilities and Other within Current Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. These reserves are based upon Duke Energy Carolinas' best estimate for current and future asbestos claims through 2041 and are recorded on an undiscounted basis. In light of the uncertainties inherent in a longer-term forecast, management does not believe they can reasonably estimate the indemnity and medical costs that might be incurred after 2041 related to such potential claims. It is possible Duke Energy Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities in excess of the recorded reserves. "Duke Energy Carolinas has third-party insurance to cover certain losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an aggregate self-insured retention. Receivables for insurance recoveries were $644 million at June 30, 2022, and $644 million at December 31, 2021. These amounts are classified in Other within Other Noncurrent Assets and Receivables within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Any future payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed by the third-party insurance carrier. Duke Energy Carolinas is not aware of any uncertainties regarding the legal sufficiency of insurance claims. Duke Energy Carolinas believes the insurance recovery asset is probable of recovery as the insurance carrier continues to have a strong financial strength rating. "The reserve for credit losses for insurance receivables is $12 million for Duke Energy and Duke Energy Carolinas as of June 30, 2022, and December 31, 2021. The insurance receivable is evaluated based on the risk of default and the historical losses, current conditions and expected conditions around collectability. Management evaluates the risk of default annually based on payment history, credit rating and changes in the risk of default from credit agencies." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://bit.ly/3KgFarS ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Group Has $129.7MM Loss Reserves ------------------------------------------------------------ Everest Re Group, Ltd., with respect to asbestos only, had net asbestos loss reserves of $129.7 million, or 100.2%, of total net A&E reserves at June 30, 2022, all of which was for assumed business, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "A&E exposures represent a separate exposure group for monitoring and evaluating reserve adequacy. The following table summarizes the outstanding loss reserves with respect to A&E reserves on both a gross and net of retrocessions basis for the periods indicated. "Ultimate loss projections for A&E liabilities cannot be accomplished using standard actuarial techniques. We believe that our A&E reserves represent management's best estimate of the ultimate liability; however, there can be no assurance that ultimate loss payments will not exceed such reserves, perhaps by a significant amount. Industry analysts use the "survival ratio" to compare the A&E reserves among companies with such liabilities. The survival ratio is typically calculated by dividing a company's current net reserves by the three year average of annual paid losses. Hence, the survival ratio equals the number of years that it would take to exhaust the current reserves if future loss payments were to continue at historical levels. Using this measurement, our net three year asbestos survival ratio was 3.6 years at June 30, 2022. These metrics can be skewed by individual large settlements occurring in the prior three years and therefore, may not be indicative of the timing of future payments." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://bit.ly/3AFt0FV ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire & Rubber Faces Numerous PI Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company is a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging various asbestos-related personal injuries purported to result from alleged exposure to asbestos in certain products manufactured by us or present in certain of our facilities, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Typically, these lawsuits have been brought against multiple defendants in state and federal courts. To date, we have disposed of approximately 156,200 claims by defending, obtaining the dismissal thereof, or entering into a settlement. The sum of our accrued asbestos-related liability and gross payments to date, including legal costs, by us and our insurers totaled approximately $569 million through June 30, 2022 and $560 million through December 31, 2021. "We have recorded liabilities totaling $407 million and $390 million, including related legal fees expected to be incurred, for potential product liability and other tort claims, including asbestos claims, at June 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021, respectively. Of these amounts, $38 million and $41 million were included in Other Current Liabilities at June 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021, respectively. The amounts recorded were estimated based on an assessment of potential liability using an analysis of available information with respect to pending claims, historical experience and, where available, recent and current trends. Based upon that assessment, at June 30, 2022, we do not believe that estimated reasonably possible losses associated with general and product liability claims in excess of the amounts recorded will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, cash flows or results of operations. However, the amount of our ultimate liability in respect of these matters may differ from these estimates." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://bit.ly/3R3Oxxl ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Faces 17,210 Pending PI Actions ------------------------------------------------------------- Harsco Corporation, at June 30, 2022, has reported approximately 17,210 pending asbestos personal injury actions filed against them, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Of those actions, approximately 16,590 were filed in the New York Supreme Court (New York County), approximately 115 were filed in other New York State Supreme Court Counties and approximately 505 were filed in courts located in other states. "The complaints in most of those actions generally follow a form that contains a standard damages demand of $20 million or $25 million, regardless of the individual plaintiff's alleged medical condition, and without identifying any specific Company product. "At June 30, 2022, approximately 16,550 of the actions filed in New York Supreme Court (New York County) were on the Deferred/Inactive Docket created by the court in December 2002 for all pending and future asbestos actions filed by persons who cannot demonstrate that they have a malignant condition or discernible physical impairment. The remaining approximately 40 cases in New York County are pending on the Active or In Extremis Docket created for plaintiffs who can demonstrate a malignant condition or physical impairment. "The Company has liability insurance coverage under various primary and excess policies that the Company believes will be available, if necessary, to substantially cover any liability that might ultimately be incurred in the asbestos actions referred to above. The costs and expenses of the asbestos actions are being paid by the Company's insurers. In view of the persistence of asbestos litigation in the U.S., the Company expects to continue to receive additional claims in the future. The Company intends to continue its practice of vigorously defending these claims and cases. At June 30, 2022, the Company has obtained dismissal in approximately 28,400 cases by stipulation or summary judgment prior to trial." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://bit.ly/3CtJceH ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hess Corp. Faces Various Personal Injury Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hess Corporation and its subsidiary HONX, Inc., have also been named as defendants in various personal injury claims alleging exposure to asbestos and/or other alleged toxic substances while working at a former refinery (owned and operated by subsidiaries or related entities) located in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "HONX, Inc. has initiated a Chapter 11 § 524G process to resolve these asbestos-related claims. While the ultimate outcome and impact to us cannot be predicted with certainty, we believe that the resolution of these proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://bit.ly/3Ctace8 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Still Faces Exposure Cases -------------------------------------------------------------- Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. (HII) and its predecessors-in-interest are defendants in a longstanding series of cases that have been and continue to be filed in various jurisdictions around the country, wherein former and current employees and various third parties allege exposure to asbestos containing materials while on or associated with HII premises or while working on vessels constructed or repaired by HII, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Huntington Ingalls states, "In some instances, partial or full insurance coverage is available for the Company's liabilities. The costs to resolve cases during the six months ended June 30, 2022 and 2021, were immaterial individually and in the aggregate. The Company's estimate of asbestos-related liabilities is subject to uncertainty because liabilities are influenced by many variables that are inherently difficult to predict. Although the Company believes the ultimate resolution of current cases will not have a material effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, and cash flows, it cannot predict what new or revised claims or litigation might be asserted or what information might come to light and can, therefore, give no assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of asbestos related litigation." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://bit.ly/3pLtP9G ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll Rand Has $132.6MM Reserve at June 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- Ingersoll Rand Inc. has reported a total litigation reserve of $132.6 million and $136.9 million as of June 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021, respectively, with regards to potential liability arising from the its asbestos-related litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Ingersoll Rand states, "Asbestos related defense costs are excluded from the asbestos claims liability and are recorded separately as services are incurred. In the event of unexpected future developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters may be material to the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operation or liquidity. "The Company has entered into a series of agreements with certain of its or its predecessors' legacy insurers and certain potential indemnitors to secure insurance coverage and/or reimbursement for the costs associated with the asbestos and silica-related lawsuits filed against the Company. The Company has an insurance recovery receivable for probable asbestos related recoveries of approximately $143.7 million and $145.1 million as of June 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021. The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related liabilities and insurance recoveries are based on currently available information and assumptions that the Company believes are reasonable based on an evaluation of relevant factors. The actual liabilities or insurance recoveries could be higher or lower than those recorded if actual results vary significantly from the assumptions." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://bit.ly/3wtvyo1 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Has $35MM Restricted Cash ----------------------------------------------------------- Johnson Controls International plc, at June 30, 2022 and September 30, 2021, has held a restricted cash of approximately $35 million and $6 million, respectively, wherein these amounts were related to cash restricted for payment of asbestos liabilities and certain litigation and environmental matters, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company and certain of its subsidiaries, along with numerous other third parties, are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos containing materials. These cases have typically involved product liability claims based primarily on allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial products that either contained asbestos or were used with asbestos containing components. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://bit.ly/3dSCmoS ASBESTOS UPDATE: Met-Pro Has 256 Cases Pending as of June 30 ------------------------------------------------------------ CECO Environmental Corp.'s subsidiary, Met-Pro Technologies LLC ("Met-Pro"), has been named in asbestos-related lawsuits filed against a large number of industrial companies including, in particular, those in the pump and fluid handling industries, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. CECO Environmental state: "Based upon the most recent information available to the Company regarding such claims, there were a total of 256 cases pending against the Company as of June 30, 2022 (with Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia having the largest number of cases), as compared with 223 cases that were pending as of December 31, 2021. During the six-months ended June 30, 2022, 79 new cases were filed against the Company, and the Company was dismissed from 36 cases and settled 10 cases. Most of the pending cases have not advanced beyond the early stages of discovery, although a number of cases are on schedules leading to or scheduled for trial. The Company believes that its insurance coverage is adequate for the cases currently pending against the Company and for the foreseeable future, assuming a continuation of the current volume, nature of cases and settlement amounts. However, the Company has no control over the number and nature of cases that are filed against it, nor as to the financial health of its insurers or their position as to coverage. The Company also presently believes that none of the pending cases will have a material adverse impact upon the Company's results of operations, liquidity or financial condition." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://bit.ly/3KfY5mG ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Subsidiary Has 1,319 New PI Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, MLIC, has received approximately 1,319 and 1,304 new asbestos-related claims, respectively, for the six months ended June 30, 2022 and 2021, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. "MLIC is and has been a defendant in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts. These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages. MLIC has never engaged in the business of manufacturing or selling asbestos-containing products, nor has MLIC issued liability or workers' compensation insurance to companies in the business of manufacturing or selling asbestos-containing products. The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect to certain research, publication and other activities of one or more of MLIC's employees during the period from the 1920s through approximately the 1950s and allege that MLIC learned or should have learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among other things, improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health risks. MLIC believes that it should not have legal liability in these cases. The outcome of most asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be impacted by numerous variables, including differences in legal rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims asserted against MLIC. "MLIC's defenses include that: (i) MLIC owed no duty to the plaintiffs; (ii) plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of MLIC; (iii) MLIC's conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs' injuries; and (iv) plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the dangers of asbestos were known. During the course of the litigation, certain trial courts have granted motions dismissing claims against MLIC, while other trial courts have denied MLIC's motions. There can be no assurance that MLIC will receive favorable decisions on motions in the future. While most cases brought to date have settled, MLIC intends to continue to defend aggressively against claims based on asbestos exposure, including defending claims at trials." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://bit.ly/3TdpaLd ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Defends 99 Personal Injury Cases ----------------------------------------------------------- Park-Ohio Industries, Inc., is a co-defendant in 99 cases asserting claims on behalf of 161 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages. "In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from $25,000 to $75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages sought. To the extent that any specific amount of damages is sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants. "There are four asbestos cases, involving 20 plaintiffs, that plead specified damages against named defendants. In each of the four cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of action. In two cases, the plaintiff has alleged three counts at $3.0 million compensatory and punitive damages each; one count at $3.0 million compensatory and $1.0 million punitive damages; one count at $1.0 million. In the third case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of $20.0 million, for three separate causes of action, and $5.0 million compensatory damages for the fifth cause of action. In the fourth case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of $10.0 million, for ten separate causes of action. "Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-containing product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries. We intend to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe we will continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases. However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation. Despite this uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows for a particular period could be adversely affected by asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, liquidity or results of operations. Among the factors management considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits on the bases mentioned above; (b) many cases have been improperly filed against one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs have been unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our products or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable injury or compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they have incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos; and (e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants and, in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to individual defendants. Additionally, we do not believe that the amounts claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful indicators of our potential exposure because the amounts claimed typically bear no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's injury, if any." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://bit.ly/3R0Qhrd ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer & Subsidiaries Faces Personal Injury Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Pfizer Inc., American Optical and certain of its previously owned subsidiaries, are parties to numerous lawsuits pending in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged personal injury from exposure to products allegedly containing asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials sold by Pfizer and certain of its previously owned subsidiaries, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert owned American Optical Corporation (American Optical), which manufactured and sold respiratory protective devices and asbestos safety clothing. In connection with the sale of American Optical in 1982, Warner-Lambert agreed to indemnify the purchaser for certain liabilities, including certain asbestos-related and other claims. Warner-Lambert was acquired by Pfizer in 2000 and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer. Warner-Lambert is actively engaged in the defense of, and will continue to explore various means of resolving, these claims. "There also are a small number of lawsuits pending in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged exposure to asbestos in facilities owned or formerly owned by Pfizer or its subsidiaries." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://bit.ly/3cjjpv8 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Industries Defends Personal Injury Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Regal Rexnord Corporation's subsidiary, Rexnord Industries, is a defendant in multiple lawsuits pending in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives previously manufactured by The Falk Corporation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://bit.ly/3AHRdez ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Has 541 Outstanding Claims -------------------------------------------------------- Rogers Corporation has 541 asbestos claims outstanding as of June 30, 2022, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "For the six months ended June 30, 2022, 67 claims were dismissed and 10 claims were settled. Settlements totaled approximately $1.5 million for the six months ended June 30, 2022. "We, like many other industrial companies, have been named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in courts across the country by persons alleging personal injury from exposure to products containing asbestos. We have never mined, milled, manufactured or marketed asbestos; rather, we made and provided to industrial users a limited number of products that contained encapsulated asbestos, but we stopped manufacturing these products in the late 1980s. Most of the claims filed against us involve numerous defendants, sometimes as many as several hundred." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://bit.ly/3wtVb8d ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Technologies Defends Exposure Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Roper Technologies, Inc., has been named defendants along with numerous industrial companies in asbestos-related litigation claims in certain U.S. states, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. To date, no significant resources have been required by Roper to respond to asbestos claims. In the first quarter of 2022, Roper completed a transaction in which it transferred the remainder of our exposure for asbestos claims to a third party. In connection with this transaction, Roper incurred a one-time charge of $4.1, which is recorded as a component of "Other (expense) income, net" within the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Earnings for the six months ended June 30, 2022. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://bit.ly/3pGUlB6 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Faces Product Liability Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company has been named as a defendant in a number of cases alleging injuries that the lawsuits claim resulted from exposure to asbestos-containing products, apparently based on the Company's historic use of vermiculite in certain of its products, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Scotts Miracle-Gro states, "In many of these cases, the complaints are not specific about the plaintiffs' contacts with the Company or its products. The cases vary, but complaints in these cases generally seek unspecified monetary damages (actual, compensatory, consequential and punitive) from multiple defendants. The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit and is vigorously defending against them. No accruals have been recorded in the Company's consolidated financial statements as the likelihood of a loss is not probable at this time; and the Company does not believe a reasonably possible loss would be material to, nor does it expect the ultimate resolution of these cases will have a material adverse effect on, the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. There can be no assurance that future developments related to pending claims or claims filed in the future, whether as a result of adverse outcomes or as a result of significant defense costs, will not have a material effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://bit.ly/3pCMpB7 ASBESTOS UPDATE: SPX Corporation Has 10,396 Pending Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- SPX Corporation has recorded 10,396 asbestos-related claims pending for the six months ended July 2, 2022, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Our recorded liabilities related to these matters totaled $632.4 and $658.8 at July 2, 2022 and December 31, 2021, respectively. Of these amounts, $556.7 and $584.3 are included in "Other long-term liabilities" within our condensed consolidated balance sheets at July 2, 2022 and December 31, 2021, respectively, with the remainder included in "Accrued expenses." The liabilities we record for these matters are based on a number of assumptions, including historical claims and payment experience. While we base our assumptions on facts currently known to us, they entail inherently subjective judgments and uncertainties. As a result, our current assumptions for estimating these liabilities may not prove accurate, and we may be required to adjust these liabilities in the future, which could result in charges to earnings. These variances relative to current expectations could have a material impact on our financial position and results of operations. "Our asbestos-related claims are with respect to products that we no longer manufacture or sell and are typical in certain of the industries in which we operate or pertain to legacy businesses we no longer operate. It is not unusual in these cases for fifty or more corporate entities to be named as defendants. We vigorously defend these claims, many of which are dismissed without payment, and the significant majority of costs related to these claims have historically been paid pursuant to our insurance arrangements." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://bit.ly/3CoV5CF ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Defends 1,590 Outstanding Cases --------------------------------------------------------------- Standard Motor Products, Inc., at June 30, 2022, has approximately 1,590 cases outstanding for which it may be responsible for any asbestos-related liabilities, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Since inception in September 2001 through June 30, 2022, the amounts paid for settled claims and awards of asbestos-related damages, including interest, were approximately $63.1 million. We do not have insurance coverage for the indemnity and defense costs associated with the claims we face. "In evaluating our potential asbestos-related liability, we have considered various factors including, among other things, an actuarial study of the asbestos related liabilities performed by an independent actuarial firm, our settlement amounts and whether there are any co-defendants, the jurisdiction in which lawsuits are filed, and the status and results of such claims. As is our accounting policy, we consider the advice of actuarial consultants with experience in assessing asbestos-related liabilities to estimate our potential claim liability; and perform an actuarial evaluation in the third quarter of each year and whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that additional provisions may be necessary. The methodology used to project asbestos-related liabilities and costs in our actuarial study considered: (1) historical data available from publicly available studies; (2) an analysis of our recent claims history to estimate likely filing rates into the future; (3) an analysis of our currently pending claims; (4) an analysis of our settlements and awards of asbestos-related damages to date; and (5) an analysis of closed claims with pay ratios and lag patterns in order to develop average future settlement values. Based on the information contained in the actuarial study and all other available information considered by us, we have concluded that no amount within the range of settlement payments and awards of asbestos-related damages was more likely than any other and, therefore, in assessing our asbestos liability we compare the low end of the range to our recorded liability to determine if an adjustment is required. "In accordance with our policy to perform an annual actuarial evaluation in the third quarter of each year, an actuarial study was performed as of August 31, 2021. The results of the August 31, 2021 study included an estimate of our undiscounted liability for settlement payments and awards of asbestos-related damages, excluding legal costs and any potential recovery from insurance carriers, ranging from $60.9 million to $100.2 million for the period through 2065. The change from the updated prior year study, which was in December of 2020, was a $2.1 million decrease for the low end of the range, and a $1.1 million increase for the high end of the range. The change in the estimated undiscounted liability from the updated prior year study at both the low end and the high end of the range reflects our actual experience, our historical data and certain assumptions with respect to events that may occur in the future. "Based upon the results of the August 31, 2021 actuarial study, in September 2021 we increased our asbestos liability to $60.9 million, the low end of the range, and recorded an incremental pre-tax provision of $5.3 million in earnings (loss) from discontinued operations in the accompanying statement of operations. Future legal costs, which are expensed as incurred and reported in earnings (loss) from discontinued operations in the accompanying statement of operations, are estimated, according to the August 31, 2021 study, to range from $49.4 million to $99.3 million for the period through 2065. Total operating cash outflows related to discontinued operations, which include settlements, awards of asbestos-related damages and legal costs, net of taxes, were $9.5 million and $5.5 million for the six months ended June 30, 2022 and 2021, respectively." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://bit.ly/3dHgU60 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Defends 500 Cases in the U.S. at June 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tenneco Inc. has recorded a current docket of active and inactive cases of approximately 500 cases in the United States and less than 50 in Europe, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Tenneco states, "For many years, the Company has been and continues to be subject to lawsuits initiated by claimants alleging health problems as a result of exposure to asbestos. "With respect to the claims filed in the United States, the substantial majority of the claims are related to alleged exposure to asbestos in the Company's line of Walker(R) exhaust automotive products although a significant number of those claims appear also to involve occupational exposures sustained in industries other than automotive. A small number of claims have been asserted against one of the Company's subsidiaries by railroad workers alleging exposure to asbestos products in railroad cars. The Company believes, based on scientific and other evidence, it is unlikely that U.S. claimants were exposed to asbestos by the Company's former products and that, in any event, they would not be at increased risk of asbestos-related disease based on their work with these products. Further, many of these cases involve numerous defendants. Additionally, in many cases the plaintiffs either do not specify any, or specify the jurisdictional minimum, dollar amount for damages. "With respect to the claims filed in Europe, the substantial majority relate to occupational exposure claims brought by current and former employees of Federal-Mogul facilities in France and amounts paid out were not material. A small number of occupational exposure claims have also been asserted against Federal-Mogul entities in Italy and Spain. "As major asbestos manufacturers and/or users continue to go out of business or file for bankruptcy, the Company may experience an increased number of these claims. The Company vigorously defends itself against these claims as part of its ordinary course of business. In future periods, the Company could be subject to cash costs or charges to earnings if any of these matters are resolved unfavorably to the Company. To date, with respect to claims that have proceeded sufficiently through the judicial process, the Company has regularly achieved favorable resolutions. Accordingly, the Company presently believes that these asbestos-related claims will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's annual consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://bit.ly/3T515Gu ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Tech Subsidiaries Defends Exposure Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Trane Technologies plc's certain wholly-owned subsidiaries and former companies were named as defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in state and federal courts, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "In virtually all of the suits, a large number of other companies have also been named as defendants. The vast majority of those claims were filed against predecessors of Aldrich and Murray and generally allege injury caused by exposure to asbestos contained in certain historical products sold by predecessors of Aldrich or Murray, primarily pumps, boilers and railroad brake shoes. None of the Company's existing or previously-owned businesses were a producer or manufacturer of asbestos. "On June 18, 2020, Aldrich and Murray filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code to resolve equitably and permanently all current and future asbestos related claims in a manner beneficial to claimants and to Aldrich and Murray. As a result of the Chapter 11 filings, all asbestos-related lawsuits against Aldrich and Murray have been stayed due to the imposition of a statutory automatic stay applicable in Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases. In addition, at the request of Aldrich and Murray, the Bankruptcy Court has entered an order temporarily staying all asbestos-related claims against the Trane Companies that relate to claims against Aldrich or Murray (except for asbestos-related claims for which the exclusive remedy is provided under workers' compensation statutes or similar laws). On August 23, 2021, the Bankruptcy Court entered its findings of facts and conclusions of law and order declaring that the automatic stay applies to certain asbestos related claims against the Trane Companies and enjoining such actions. As a result, all asbestos-related lawsuits against Aldrich, Murray and the Trane Companies remain stayed. "The goal of these Chapter 11 filings is to resolve equitably and permanently all current and future asbestos-related claims in a manner beneficial to claimants and to Aldrich and Murray through court approval of a plan of reorganization that would create a trust pursuant to section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, establish claims resolution procedures for all current and future asbestos-related claims against Aldrich and Murray and channel such claims to the trust for resolution in accordance with those procedures. Such a resolution, if achieved, would likely include a channeling injunction to enjoin asbestos claims resolved in the Chapter 11 cases from being filed or pursued against us or our affiliates. "On January 27, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court granted the request to fund the QSF, which was funded on March 2, 2022. At this point in the Chapter 11 cases of Aldrich and Murray, it is not possible to predict whether the Bankruptcy Court will approve the terms of the Plan, what the extent of the asbestos liability will be or how long the Chapter 11 cases will last. The Bankruptcy Court also granted the ACC standing to investigate and pursue certain causes of action including fraudulent conveyance and certain other derivative causes of action. The ACC filed complaints with respect to these and other causes of action on June 18, 2022. Additionally, the Bankruptcy Court denied motions to dismiss a complaint filed by the ACC seeking substantive consolidation. We are vigorously opposing and defending against these claims. The Chapter 11 cases remain pending as of August 3, 2022." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://bit.ly/3AHkruc ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vontier Corp. Has $73.8MM Liabilities at July 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vontier Corporation has recorded gross liabilities associated with known and future expected asbestos claims of $73.8 million and $79.0 million as of July 1, 2022 and December 31, 2021, respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Known and future expected asbestos claims of $15.0 million and $21.5 million are included in Accrued expenses and other current liabilities on the Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheets as of July 1, 2022 and December 31, 2021, respectively. Known and future expected asbestos claims of $58.8 million and $57.5 million are included in Other long-term liabilities on the Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheets as of both July 1, 2022 and December 31, 2021. "We recorded the related projected insurance recoveries of $40.0 million and $45.0 million as of July 1, 2022 and December 31, 2021, respectively. Projected insurance recoveries in the accompanying Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheets as of July 1, 2022 include $9.7 million in Prepaid expenses and other current assets and $30.3 million in Other assets. Projected insurance recoveries in the accompanying Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2021 include $14.8 million in Prepaid expenses and other current assets and $30.2 million in Other assets." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://bit.ly/3pDWCx1 ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Co. Defends 1,925 PI Suits at June 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- WestRock Company, as of June 30, 2022, has been named a defendant in approximately 1,925 asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "To date, the costs resulting from the litigation, including settlement costs, have not been significant. We believe that we have substantial insurance coverage, subject to applicable deductibles and policy limits, with respect to asbestos claims. We also have valid defenses to these asbestos-related personal injury claims and intend to continue to defend them vigorously. Should the volume of litigation grow substantially, it is possible that we could incur significant costs resolving these cases. We do not expect the resolution of pending asbestos litigation and proceedings to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. In any given period or periods, however, it is possible such proceedings or matters could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. At June 30, 2022, we had $17.5 million reserved for these matters." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://bit.ly/3AFTGq3 ********* 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 ***