/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240308.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, March 8, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 50
Headlines
ABLE C&C: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over False Advertising
ALPHABET INC: Insuring Agreements Tackled in Securities Class Suit
ALTRU HEALTH: Fairness Hearing in Suit Settlement Set Aug. 2
AMAZON WEB: Mayhall Wins Bids to Seal & File 1st Amended Complaint
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged iCloud Monopoly
APPLE INC: Supreme Court Approves $144M Deal in iPhone Class Suit
ASPEN DENTAL: Faces Class Action Over Patient Info Breach
ASPEN DENTAL: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
ASURA TECHNOLOGIES: Butler & Liscio Sue Over Information Disclosure
BAIRD & WARNER: Faces Class Suit Over Antitrust Law Violations
BANCO SANTANDER: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
BIOVIE INC: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Suit
BOATS GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Commission Fees
CANADA: Faces Class Action Over COVID-19 Vaccine Misinformation
CARVANA CO: D. Ariz. Dismisses Shareholders Class Action Suit
CHICAGO, IL: Court Denies Class Cert in Impound Practices Suit
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 29
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Securities Fraud
COMMUNITY LOAN: New Jersey Court Refuses to Dismiss Garmon Suit
CONNERSVILLE, IN: Hensley Sues Over Employee Misclassification
CORE CASHLESS: Wins Bid to Dismiss McGowan's 1st Amended Complaint
DELLECKER WILSON: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Idera Claims
DIGIRAD IMAGING: Faces Class Action Suit Over Labor Law Violations
ELEMETAL LLC: Abington Cole + Ellery Investigates Data Breach
FERTILITY CENTER: Faces Class Suit Over Data-Sharing
GATOS SILVER: $21M Deal in Investors Class Suit Gets Prelim OK
GENERAL MILLS: Faces Class Suit Over Pesticide Dangerous Levels
GOLDEN CORRAL: Faces Class Suit Over 2023 Data Breach
GOODYEAR TIRE: Curran and Borland Allege Price Fixing of Tires
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Ads Market Monopoly
HSBC GLOBAL: Court Denies Class Cert Bid in Closet Indexing Suit
INARI MEDICAL: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
J&A CAREGIVERS: Jackson Sues Over Call Recording Disclosure
KAMAN CORP: Monteverde & Associates Investigates Arcline Merger
KIA MOTORS: Vehicle Owners to Begin Receiving Settlement Notices
LANTRONIX INC: Neilsen Sues Over Misleading Statements
LIBERTY REVERSE: Faces Class Suit Over Cal. Labor Laws Violations
LONE WOLF: Grabowski Sues Over Unlawful Biometric Collection
MACKENZIE FINANCIAL: Court Certifies Commissions Class Suit
MARTEN TRANSPORT: Mora Suit Remanded to Santa Clara Superior Court
MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Hulewat Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach
MOL EUROPE: CAT Approves Collective Settlement in Cartel Suit
MORROW COUNTY, OR: Contaminated Well Water, Class Suit Alleges
NEWTON TEACHERS: Faces Second Class Suit Over Strike
NEXTDOOR HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Apr 29
NEXUSCW INC: Holifield Sues Over Unpaid OT, Earned Wages
PACCAR INC: Court Denies G4 Innovations' Bid to Transfer Claims
PALO ALTO: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 26
PANDORA VENTURES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hernandez Suit Says
PDD HOLDINGS: Faces Two Privacy Class Action Suits
PENNSYLVANIA: DOC Faces Class Action Over Solitary Confinement
PHYSICIANS TO WOMEN: Johnson Sues Over Unprotected Private Info
RUST-OLEUM CORP: Komkaran Sues Over Deceptive Product Labeling
SNOWFLAKE INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 29
SNOWFLAKE INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
SOUTHERN GLAZER'S: Settles High Late Fees Class Suit for $5.5M
TALENTLAUNCH: Abington Cole + Ellery Investigates Data Breach
TESLA INC: Black Factory Workers File Race Bias Class Action
TESLA INC: Court Certifies Class Suit Over Race Discrimination
TESLA INC: Employees' Racial Discrimination Suit Can Proceed
TRANSMEDICS GROUP: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
TWEEGS INC: Pullman et al. Allege Labor Law Breaches
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Wage and Hour Class Suit in New Jersey
UNITED STATES: Court Won't Consolidate New Jersey & Sokolich Suits
UNITED STATES: New Jersey Can't Supplement Complaint, Court Rules
UNLIMITED CARRIER: Faces Class Suit Over Wage Law Violations
VENTYX BIOSCIENCES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Apr 30
VENTYX BIOSCIENCES: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
VERRA MOBILITY: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
WAKEFERN FOOD: S.D.N.Y. Narrows Claims in Feldman Consumer Suit
WALMART INC: $45MM Settlement Approval Hearing Set June 12
WARRANTECH CONSUMER: Court Denies Class Cert Bid in Breach Suit
WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Suit Over Fake-Accounts Scandal
WP BEVERAGES: Floeter Sues Over Wage and Hour Law Violations
YEUNG'S TRADING: Chapeta Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
[*] Financialright Trucks to Sue Manufacturers Over Price Fixing
[*] Trends in 2023's Crypto Securities Suit Litigation Discussed
[] 8th Annual Class Action Conference in May, Register Today!
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Cos. Still Faces Product Liability Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Defends Product Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Freeport-McMoRan Defends Numerous PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GATX Corp. Defends Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Has 35,800 Pending Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Int'l. Made $109MM in Asbestos Payments
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Int'l. Paper Has $97MM Liability as of Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l. Has $17.9MM Reserves as of Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Defends Numerous Personal Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Tech Has 574 Exposure Cases as of Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Defends 523 Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Corp. Defends Personal Injury Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair plc Has 590 Pending Claims as of Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Selective Insurance Has $19.1MM A&E Loss Reserves
*********
ABLE C&C: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over False Advertising
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter, writing for classaction.org, reports that a
proposed class action claims that certain MISSHA and A'PIEU
sunscreens are falsely advertised as waterproof, sweatproof and
able to block "all UV rays."
The 53-page class action lawsuit alleges that defendant Able C&C,
in an effort to get a leg up in the billion-dollar sun protection
market, has used "false, deceptive, misleading and unfair"
statements about the nature of the following products:
-- MISSHA All Around Safe Block Waterproof Sun Milk;
-- A'PIEU Pure Block Waterproof Sun Cream;
-- MISSHA All Around Safe Block Essence Sun Milk; and
-- MISSHA All Around Safe Block Soft Finish Sun Milk.
Although the company has advertised MISSHA Waterproof Sun Milk and
A'PIEU Waterproof Sun Cream as products that don't wash off with
water or sweat, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has asserted
that "[t]here's no such thing as waterproof sunscreen," the lawsuit
contends.
As such, companies are expressly prohibited under federal
regulations from claiming that a sunscreen is "waterproof" or
"sweatproof," the filing relays.
Similarly, federal regulations prohibit companies from describing
products as "sunblock" since no sunscreen blocks the sun's
ultraviolet (UV) rays entirely, the complaint explains.
Nevertheless, Able C&C deceptively markets MISSHA Essence Sun Milk
and MISSHA Soft Finish Sun Milk as able to provide "impenetrable UV
protection" that blocks "all UV rays," the suit charges.
"The above-referenced claims were material to reasonable consumers,
who are concerned about the dangers of UV exposure and often seek
out sunscreen products precisely for the purpose of wearing them
outdoors while sweating or in and around water," the case shares.
According to the lawsuit, consumers would not have bought the
MISSHA and A'PIEU sunscreens, or they would have paid less for
them, had they known that none of the products are waterproof,
sweatproof or capable of preventing all UV exposure. As a result,
the filing argues, the defendant has illegally profited from
misrepresentations about the nature and quality of its sunscreens.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who
purchased any of the products listed on this page during the
applicable statute of limitations period. [GN]
ALPHABET INC: Insuring Agreements Tackled in Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shane Dilworth, writing for Business Insurance, reports that the
recent $350 million preliminary settlement of two securities class
actions resulting from a cyber incident involving the Google+
social media platform raises questions as to which insurance
policies might cover such payments, legal experts say.
Companies should review their cyber and directors and officers
liability policies as case law builds around cyber breaches and
regulators increase scrutiny of companies' responses to the
attacks, they say.
The resolution of In re Alphabet Inc. Securities Litigation last
month could trigger coverage provided by D&O and cyber liability
policies, experts say, since the underlying securities class
actions potentially fall under each type of insuring agreement.
"This matter concerns a product that no longer exists, and we are
pleased to have it resolved," a Google spokesperson said in an
email.
The spokesperson said the company regularly identifies and fixes
software issues, discloses information about them and takes the
issues seriously.
Representatives for the plaintiffs did not respond to requests for
comment.
Alphabet, the Mountain View, California-based technology company
that owns Google, was named in two securities class actions after a
2018 Wall Street Journal article revealed the company's knowledge
of a software bug that allowed developers unauthorized access to
some users' data. According to the article, the company knew about
the bug in its now defunct Google+ platform as far back as 2015 but
did not disclose information about the breach to investors or
government regulators.
Shareholders lodged securities class actions against Alphabet and
individual directors and officers in federal courts in New York and
California in October 2018. The cases were later consolidated.
A lower-court judge dismissed the case in February 2020, but the
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco partially
revived the case in June 2021 after finding that some of the
statements in Alphabet's filings were misleading.
The parties began settlement negotiations after the suits were
returned to the trial court. A preliminary settlement agreement was
filed Feb. 5.
The proposed settlement raises questions over insurance coverage
for such cases, according to several legal experts who were not
involved in the dispute.
Peter Halprin, a New York-based insurance recovery partner at
Haynes Boone LLP, said a D&O policy should clearly provide coverage
for settlement of the securities class actions.
"The underlying securities class actions seem to be the very kind
of suits that hit the core of what D&O policies are intended to
cover," he said. "The core of D&O coverage is for securities claims
that seek to hold a corporation and its directors and officers
responsible for fluctuations in market value due to perceived
issues with reporting and disclosures."
The allegations in the underlying class actions concerning the
failure to disclose the software glitch are an important concern
for companies that suffer a breach because the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission has recently increased scrutiny of when and how
a company must inform the public and regulators about data
breaches, hacks and other cyber events, Mr. Halprin said.
"Any publicly traded company that faces the risk of some kind of
securities-related lawsuit needs to pay attention to these
developments," he said. "Insurers are certainly paying attention to
these developments, and the government is closely monitoring
compliance with the SEC's guidance and regulations. So, it's going
to be really important for businesses, brokers, insurers and
everyone in this space to really stay on top of these changes."
Ideally, D&O and cyber policies "would be seamless together,"
however, insurers have started broadening cyber exclusions in D&O
policies, said Meghan C. Moore, a shareholder at Flaster Greenberg
P.C. who represents policyholders.
A cyber policy may cover claims arising from the breach but may not
provide coverage to the individual directors and officers, she
said.
Cyber policies typically have securities law violation exclusions
that would not provide coverage for settlements such as Alphabet's,
said Matthew Bricker, an Austin, Texas-based partner at
TittmannWeix LLP, who represents insurers.
In addition, allegations of intentional conduct in the underlying
securities class actions could give rise to insurance coverage
issues because most policies have intentional acts exclusions, he
said.
Section 533 of California's insurance code provides that an insurer
is not liable for loss caused by a willful act of the insured.
While D&O policies typically cover securities suits, "given the
defendants expressly denied any wrongdoing in the settlement
agreement, coverage would depend on the policy wording," Mr.
Bricker said.
The proposed settlement highlights the importance of having
sufficient coverage for D&O exposures related to disclosing and
reporting data privacy breaches and cyberattacks, said Michael
Savett, a Philadelphia-based partner at Butler Weihmuller Katz
Craig LLP who represents insurers.
Some D&O policies carve out coverage for cyber events, while some
cyber policies do not extend coverage to directors and officers.
"It's imperative for public companies to make sure that their
insurance is going to respond to these types of incidents, whether
it's a D&O policy, a cyber policy, or both," Mr. Savett said.
"From an industry standpoint, it's incumbent upon carriers and
underwriters to get as much information on the company's data
privacy practices and cybersecurity practices before issuing
policies."
Mr. Halprin of Haynes Boone said there is a lesson to be learned
for both insurers and policyholders from the proposed settlement.
"This is a clear wakeup call that it is really important to analyze
D&O exposures, including privacy and cyber-related D&O exposures,
and to work with brokers and insurers to ensure robust coverage,
because the financial implications of these kinds of suits are very
significant," he said. [GN]
ALTRU HEALTH: Fairness Hearing in Suit Settlement Set Aug. 2
------------------------------------------------------------
Sav Kelly, writing for Grand Forks Herald, reports that Later this
year, a fairness hearing will be held to determine whether Altru
Health System will pay $975,000 to create a settlement fund for
those affected by an alleged failure to monitor and select the most
beneficial 401(k) fund expenses and recordkeeping options for its
employees.
A settlement agreement was determined through a class-action
lawsuit filed in the North Dakota district of U.S. District Court
on Sept. 9, 2020. Plaintiffs are Jana R. Rosenkranz, Joan Mondry
and Ramona Driscoll, who sued on behalf of themselves as well as
all others similarly situated, according to court documents.
Altru and its retirement committee are listed as current
defendants. Various "John Does," who represent those involved whose
identities are unknown to the plaintiffs, are also listed as
defendants.
The allegations are that, dating back to September 2014, the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to pursue
lower cost funds for Altru's 401(k) plan. The plaintiffs
additionally allege that the defendants failed to monitor or
control 401(k) recordkeeping expenses.
The defendants are accused of wasting millions of dollars as a
result of these actions.
The defendants allegedly utilized investment funds that were
unnecessarily costly when there were comparable -- or
nearly-identical -- alternatives that were more affordable,
according to the class-action complaint.
The expense ratios for some of the funds in Altru's 401(k) plan in
2018 were 44% and 65% above median expense ratios in the same
category, the complaint said.
As for record-keeping expenses, the plaintiffs allege the 0.115%
fee paid to Alerus from total plan assets each year was excessive.
The complaint says Alerus also collected revenue in addition to the
0.115% fee.
"A plan with 200 participants and $20 million in assets has an
average recordkeeping and administration cost (through direct
compensation) of $12 per participant," the complaint said.
However, in 2014, when Altru had $235 million in assets, and there
were 3,074 participants, each participant paid $118.67, the
complaint said.
In 2018, when there were $329 million in assets and 4,359
participants, each one paid $117.13, the complaint said.
"The plan, with over $300 million in assets and over 4,000
participants, should have had direct recordkeeping costs below the
$5 average, which it clearly did not," the complaint said.
A fairness hearing regarding the settlement has been scheduled for
9 a.m. Aug. 2 at the Quentin N. Burdick U.S. Courthouse, located at
655 First Ave. N. #130 in Fargo.
Attorney fees will be taken from the settlement amount, and cannot
exceed one-third of the total, which would be $324,000.
Reimbursements cannot exceed $50,000. What remains will be
disbursed between eligible recipients. The named plaintiffs --
Rosenkranz, Mondry and Driscoll -- would share in the net
settlement amount, same as the unnamed plaintiffs. They did,
however, request that the court award up to $10,000 to each of them
for their participation in the case.
Written objections from eligible recipients are due by July 3.
The Herald reached out to Altru for comment.
"Altru has agreed to a settlement in connection with a lawsuit,
Rosenkranz v. Altru, alleging a breach of fiduciary duties relating
to recordkeeping and certain investment fees of the Altru Health
System Retirement Savings Plan," Annie Bonzer, director of
marketing and public relations, told the Herald. "Altru denies all
claims in the lawsuit, and believes it at all times acted prudently
and in the best interest of plan participants, and that the
plan’s investments and recordkeeping fees were reasonable and
appropriate. However, to avoid a drawn out lawsuit and a costly
legal battle, Altru decided to settle this matter. This case is one
of many across the country in which retirement plan fees are being
scrutinized as part of class-action lawsuits." [GN]
AMAZON WEB: Mayhall Wins Bids to Seal & File 1st Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled ANN MAYHALL, on behalf of her Minor Child,
D.M., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. AMAZON WEB SERVICES INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-01473-TL-MLP (W.D. Wash.), Magistrate Judge Michelle L.
Peterson of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, grants the Plaintiff's motions to seal and to
file first amended class action complaint.
Before the Court is Plaintiff Ann Mayhall's, appearing on behalf of
her minor child D.M., (1) Motion to Seal; and (2) Motion for Leave
to File First Amended Class Action Complaint. She requests leave to
file an amended complaint to substitute Dominic Mayhall ("D.M.") as
Plaintiff because he has reached the age of majority and due to
recently obtained facts relating to the process for creating a
custom NBA 2K player with a user's face and how data necessary for
that process is obtained, disseminated, and stored by Defendants
Amazon Web Services Inc. and Amazon.com Inc.
The Plaintiff further requests the Court grant leave to file under
seal certain documents and information designated as "confidential"
by the Defendants and non-party Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.
("Take-Two"), the developer of the NBA 2K game series at issue in
this case, that the Plaintiff submitted with her request for leave
to file an amended complaint and in her amended complaint
submission itself.
The Defendants did not file an opposition to either motion.
Instead, the parties filed a "Stipulated Motion re: Plaintiff's
Motion for Leave to Amend and Scheduling Order" ("Stipulated
Motion"). Per the Stipulated Motion, the Defendants agree not to
oppose the Plaintiff's request for leave to file a first amended
complaint, but the parties request that the Court amend the
deadlines for the Plaintiff to amend pleadings and to move for
class certification.
On July 11, 2022, the parties entered a Stipulated Protective Order
for the handling of confidential discovery materials. On Dec. 14,
2023, Take-Two produced a declaration in response to the
Plaintiff's third-party subpoena request in discovery. Take-Two
also produced documents from Take-Two and the Defendants relating
to a prior arbitration proceeding, and the Defendants produced
documents relating to contracts/invoices for its services from 2019
to 2021.
Both the Defendants and Take-Two have designated the declaration,
arbitration documents, and contracts/invoices as confidential.
Counsel for the Defendants and Take-Two claim the confidentiality
designations for the declaration and arbitration documents are
necessary to maintain Take-Two's commercially sensitive information
relating to the development, creation, and operation of its NBA 2K
videogame as well as its proprietary MyPLAYER avatar that its
players can use.
The Defendants' counsel further provides the confidentiality
designations related to the contracts/invoices are likewise
appropriate to maintain their commercially sensitive pricing
information for their services.
The Court has previously found prior arbitration documents
detailing the development and creation of NBA 2K and its MyPLAYER
avatar system should be maintained under seal due to the potential
harm to Take-Two. Likewise, the Defendants may be harmed if
commercially sensitive pricing information for its services
contained in the produced contracts/invoices were revealed.
Accordingly, the Court finds the Defendants have established good
cause to maintain the subject documents under seal.
Next, the Plaintiff seeks leave to file an amended complaint, which
the Defendants stipulated to. But due to an anticipated motion to
dismiss from the Defendants, the parties jointly request the Court
amend the deadline for the Plaintiff to move for class
certification to 75 days after the Defendants' expected motion to
dismiss is resolved.
On this issue, the Court finds the Plaintiff has demonstrated good
cause under Rule 16 to allow for the filing of the amended
complaint based on the significant third-party discovery conducted
since the Plaintiff's last complaint submission relating to the
biometric identifiers and/or biometric information used to create
NBA 2K custom players at issue in this litigation. As to Rule 15,
the Defendants have stipulated to the propriety of the Plaintiff's
amended complaint.
Given the anticipated motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's amended
complaint, the Court adjusts the scheduling deadlines as requested
by the parties.
For these reasons, the Court grants the Plaintiff's Motion to Seal.
The Clerk is directed to maintain: (i) the Plaintiff's Motion for
Leave to File First Amended Class Action Complaint; (ii) the
Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint, attached at Exhibit 1, and
(iii) the Declaration of Kevin P. Green in Support of Plaintiff's
Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint under seal.
Judge Peterson grants as stipulated by the parties the Plaintiff's
Motion for Leave to File First Amended Class Action Complaint. The
Plaintiff was to file the amended complaint under seal, accompanied
by a publicly filed redacted version on Feb. 16, 2024.
The parties' Stipulated Motion is granted. The Court orders that
the current Order Setting Trial Date and Pretrial Schedule be
amended as set forth in this Order. Among other things, the
Schedule sets Jury Trial to begin on April 7, 2025.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 8, 2024, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/2m393yesfrom PacerMonitor.com.
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged iCloud Monopoly
----------------------------------------------------------
Maia Spoto, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Apple Inc. is
"rigging the competitive playing field" for cloud services by
unnecessarily restricting the storage of certain iPhone and iPad
files to its iCloud platform, plaintiffs alleged Friday in a
proposed class action.
Only iCloud, Apple's own cloud platform, can host some data from
Apple's phones and tablets, including application data and device
settings that users need to access when they replace their device,
according to the complaint filed in the US District Court for the
Northern District of California. This arbitrary practice has
"unlawfully 'tied'" Apple's mobile devices and iCloud together, the
complaint says.
As a result, Apple's iCloud dominates the market with an estimated
70% share, according to the complaint.
The iCloud product is among Apple's most profitable, producing
higher margins than its other products because it has been
"undisciplined by competition."
"Apple has marked up its iCloud prices to the point where the
service is generating almost pure profit. Apple's ability to
sustain these prices is a testament to its monopoly power," the
suit said.
The proposed class, with tens of millions of potential members,
would include a nationwide class and a California subclass of users
who bought iCloud plans and were overcharged. Apple didn't
immediately respond to request for comment on Friday.
Cloud storage allows users to store and access data remotely.
Apple does have cloud platform competitors, the complaint said,
pointing to major technology companies such as Alphabet Inc.'s
Google and Microsoft Corp, as well as specialists like Dropbox Inc.
However, juggling multiple cloud accounts with different interfaces
to store non-restricted data, such as photos, is an "unattractive
option" for users, the suit said.
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP represents lead plaintiff Julianna
Felix Gamboa and the proposed class.
The case is Gamboa v. Apple Inc., N.D. Cal., No. 5:24-cv-01270,
3/1/24. [GN]
APPLE INC: Supreme Court Approves $144M Deal in iPhone Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that the British Columbia Supreme Court
has approved a countrywide multimillion-dollar settlement of a
class-action lawsuit against Apple over software updates that
allegedly slowed down older iPhones.
"We're pleased with the results," said K.S. Garcha, a lawyer for
the class. "It was a complex matter."
Garcha said in an interview that the judge in the case approved the
settlement at a hearing.
Class members who make claims on the $14.4-million settlement can
expect to receive between $17.50 and $150 each, depending on how
many people submit a claim for the settlement money, he said.
The agreement covers eligible residents of Canada except those in
Quebec, which Garcha said is about nine million people.
The settlement process took a couple of years, with Apple agreeing
to a "compromise" without admitting any wrongdoing, Garcha said.
Going to trial rather than settling could've taken "a long period
of time," he said.
"The court may not approve some of the claims that you're making,
there's an issue with regards to how the damages were quantified,
there are potential appeals, he said.
The company "vigorously defended the thing up until the settlement
negotiations," Garcha added.
He said the class-action lawsuit involved novel legal theories
about the company putting software on devices without the owners'
consent.
People who owned iPhone models covered by the settlement have six
months to make a claim, and the online process requires a person's
name, address and iPhone serial number.
People also have to declare under oath that they downloaded or
installed certain software updates on a variety of iPhone 6 and 7
models before Dec. 21, 2017.
They would have also had to have "experienced diminished
performance on that device after the relevant iOS version was
installed or downloaded."
The settlement agreement with Apple will see the company pay out
between $11,137,500 and $14,427,500 depending on how many claims
are made and approved.
The claims website for the "Canadian iPhone Power Management Class
Action," says Quebec residents are excluded from the settlement
because there's a separate, ongoing case before the courts in that
province.
The B.C. lawsuit was originally filed in 2018, and Apple settled a
similar case in the United States involving so-called throttling of
iPhone 6 and 7 models, and Garcha said American class members ended
up with US$92 payouts.
At a hearing in Vancouver in late January, Apple's lawyer Jill
Yates told the court the company has never admitted wrongdoing.
"Apple, throughout, has taken a position that it has done nothing
wrong here," she said. "These claims are novel and they are not
ones where Apple agrees that anything was wrongfully done."
The company did not immediately respond to an emailed request for
comment about the settlement approval. [GN]
ASPEN DENTAL: Faces Class Action Over Patient Info Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Mike Vilensky of Bloomberg Law reports that a woman alleging her
personal information was stolen in a cyberattack on a dental
practice management chain filed a proposed class-action lawsuit
against the company, saying it failed to exercise reasonable care
in safeguarding patient data.
Caitlin McDaniel sued Aspen Dental Management Inc. in the US
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the latest in
a growing spate of lawsuits over health data breaches.
"Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a significantly increased
and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft,
misappropriation of health insurance benefits, intrusion of their
health privacy and similar forms of criminal mischief."[GN]
ASPEN DENTAL: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a
class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the WellNow/Aspen
Dental data breach.
As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals
who received a notice stating they were impacted.
TAG Urgent Care Support Services, whose brands include Aspen Dental
and WellNow Urgent Care, has reported a data breach affecting more
than 515,000 people.
According to notices sent to affected individuals, Aspen and
WellNow were impacted by a ransomware attack on April 25, 2023.
Following a review of files removed as a result of the security
incident, the companies found in mid-December that certain
individuals' personal information may have been subject to
unauthorized access.
Notices are now being sent to those affected by the data breach,
including both adult patients and the parents/guardians of minor
urgent care patients. The letters point out that some individuals
may have visited an urgent care clinic operating as Physicians
Immediate Care, which is part of WellNow.
Data exposed in the breach includes full names, addresses, Social
Security numbers, driver's license numbers, government-issued ID
numbers, dates of birth and medical information.
If your information was exposed in the breach, attorneys want to
hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to
recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with
the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more.
A successful case could also force WellNow/Aspen Dental to ensure
it takes proper steps to protect the information it was entrusted
with. [GN]
ASURA TECHNOLOGIES: Butler & Liscio Sue Over Information Disclosure
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDI BUTLER and THERESE LISCIO, individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ASURA TECHNOLOGIES USA,
INC. and PARKING REVENUE RECOVERY SERVICES INC., Defendants, Case
No. 1:24-CV-00529 (D. Colo., February 23, 2024) alleges that the
Defendants violated the Drivers Privacy Protection Act by
unlawfully obtaining, using, and disclosing the personal
information from State Departments of Motor Vehicles to issue
collection notices.
In direct violation of the DPPA, the Defendants use the vehicle
images that are captured in the monitored parking areas to obtain,
use, and disclose personal information, including the private name
and address information, of vehicle owners. Plaintiffs Butler and
Liscio did not provide Defendants with express consents to obtain,
use, and disclose their personal information, the suit asserts.
Headquartered in Aurora, CO, Parking Revenue Recovery Services is a
parking compliance company that provides services to more than 400
parking locations and issues more than 40,000 parking notices per
month. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
KAMBERLAW LLC
201 Milwaukee Street, Suite 200
Denver, CO 80206
Telephone: (212) 920-3072
Facsimile: (212) 202-6364
E-mail: skamber@kamberlaw.com
- and -
Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
WOODROW PELUSO
3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80210
Telephone: (720) 213-0675
E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
- and -
Naomi. B. Spector, Esq.
KAMBERLAW LLP
1501 San Elijo Hills Road South Suite 104-212
San Marcos, CA 92078
Telephone: (310) 400-1053
E-mail: nspector@kamberlaw.com
BAIRD & WARNER: Faces Class Suit Over Antitrust Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul T. Geske, writing for Cook County Record, reports that Baird &
Warner has become one of the latest realty brokerages targeted by a
class action lawsuit accusing them of allegedly wrongly using their
control over access to the MLS to force home sellers to pay home
buyers agents, allegedly in violation of the law.
The lawsuit is one of many such actions leveling similar
accusations, which are pending against real estate brokers and
agencies, as well as the National Association of Realtors. Only
Baird & Warner is named as a defendant in the new lawsuit.
The new lawsuit was filed Feb. 22 in Cook County Circuit Court by
named plaintiffs Mary Maslanka and David Freifeld, identified as
Illinois residents who bought and sold houses in the Chicago area
using a Baird & Warner agent.
They are represented by attorneys Evan Meyers, Paul T. Geske and
Brendan Duffner, of McGuire Law P.C., of Chicago.
The plaintiffs are seeking to expand the action to include
potentially tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of
other people who bought or sold property in Illinois since December
1996.
The lawsuit alleges that Baird & Warner, along with its
co-conspirators who are members of the National Association of
Realtors (NAR), have adopted practices that keep real estate broker
commissions artificially high. This results in both homebuyers and
home sellers bearing thousands of dollars in additional costs when
buying or selling a property.
The MLS is essentially a database that serves as a marketplace for
available properties. The plaintiffs argue that membership in an
MLS is essential for brokers to effectively market and sell
properties, as it provides the most up-to-date, accurate, and
comprehensive compilation of area's home listings.
The plaintiffs accuse Baird & Warner of violating Illinois' state
antitrust law and its consumer fraud law.
The plaintiffs are asking the court to order Baird & Warner to pay
three times the plaintiffs' actual damages, plus other damages and
attorney fees. [GN]
BANCO SANTANDER: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Banco Santander, S.A. (NYSE: SAN) resulting from
allegations that Santander may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Santander securities you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=22671 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On February 5, 2024, the Financial Times
published an article entitled "Iran used Lloyds and Santander
accounts to evade sanctions." This article stated, in part that
"Santander UK provided accounts to British front companies secretly
owned by a sanctioned Iranian petrochemicals company based near
Buckingham Palace, according to documents seen by the Financial
Times."
On this news, Santander's American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") fell
$0.24 per ADS, or 5.7%, to close at $3.94 per ADS on February 5,
2024.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
BIOVIE INC: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------
If you suffered a loss on your BioVie Inc. (NASDAQ:BIVI) investment
and want to learn about a potential recovery under the federal
securities laws, follow the link below for more information:
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/biovie-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=68846&wire=1
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212) 363-7500 to speak to our team
of experienced shareholder advocates.
THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against
BioVie Inc. that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who were
adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between August 5,
2021 and November 29, 2023.
CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
false statements and/or concealed that: (1) BioVie was not
conducting proper oversight of its Phase 3 clinical trial; (2) the
COVID-19 pandemic significantly and negatively impacted the
Company's ability to adequately conduct proper oversight of the
Phase 3 clinical trial; (3) due to lack of proper oversight and
reliance on contract research organizations, the data from
defendants' Phase 3 clinical trial faced a greater risk of being
unreliable and that the majority of patients would have to be
excluded from the clinical trial; (4) as a result of the
significant exclusions from the trial results, the Phase 3 clinical
trial would fail to meet its primary endpoints; and (5) statements
about BioVie's business, operations, prospects, and compliance with
current good clinical practices were materially false and/or
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in BioVie stock during the
relevant time frame - even if you still hold your shares - go to
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/biovie-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=68846&wire=1
to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or
obligation to participate.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP
has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities
litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars
for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning
high-stakes cases. The 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. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
https://zlk.com/ [GN]
BOATS GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Commission Fees
--------------------------------------------------
Mike Scarcella of Reuters reports that taking a page from ongoing
multibillion-dollar court battles facing the U.S. real estate
industry, a new lawsuit claims the world's largest yacht brokers'
association and others are bilking boat sellers by charging
inflated sales commissions.
The proposed class action lawsuit from Wyoming's Ya Mon Expeditions
LLC was filed on February 29, 2024 in Florida federal court against
the Miami-based International Yacht Brokers Association and other
industry players, including Boats Group LLC, operator of Boat
Trader, Yacht World and Boats.com.
The plaintiff, a boat seller, claims the defendants are violating
antitrust law by coercing sellers to pay a commission of 10% of a
vessel's sale price that is split between the agents for both sides
in a yacht sale.
Sellers must agree to the commission in order to show a yacht on a
listing service, according to the lawsuit.
International Yacht Brokers Association and defendants including
United Yacht Sales and Yacht Brokers Association of America did not
immediately respond to requests for comment.
Boats Group owner, investment firm Permira Advisers, which was also
named as a defendant, declined to comment.
The plaintiff's lawyers in a statement on March 1, 2024 said "these
outdated, anti-competitive practices have no justification."
The lawsuit drew a parallel to the listing services through which
most homes are sold in the United States. "Buyer broker"
commissions required from home sellers to have their properties
listed are at the heart of a wave of recent antitrust cases
claiming real estate brokerages are overcharging consumers.
A U.S. jury in October awarded a class of Missouri-area home
sellers nearly $1.8 billion in damages in one of the cases.
Brokerages and the industry trade group National Association of
Realtors denied wrongdoing and are fighting the verdict.
Yacht buyers increasingly use online tools to search for yachts for
sale, curtailing the role of sales agents, the Ya Mon Expeditions'
lawsuit said.
"Despite this diminishing role for buyer-brokers, the standard
percentage of their commission has remained constant," the
complaint said.
The company that filed the suit said it sold a custom 58-foot yacht
— "Click Bait" — in North Carolina last year for $1 million.
The listing agreement, according to the lawsuit, included a
non-negotiable 10% commission.
The lawsuit seeks more than $5 million in individual damages and
will seek class-action status for an estimated thousands of
plaintiffs.
The case is Ya Mon Expeditions LLC v. International Yacht Brokers
Association et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of
Florida, No. 1:24-cv-20805.
For plaintiff: Ricardo Martinez-Cid and Lea Bucciero of Podhurst
Orseck, and Kevin Neal and William King of Gallagher & Kennedy
For defendants: No appearances yet [GN]
CANADA: Faces Class Action Over COVID-19 Vaccine Misinformation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hal Roberts, writing for BridgeCityNews, reports that a class
action lawsuit has been launched against both the federal and
provincial governments alleging misinformation and negligence about
the risks and dangers of the COVID-19 vaccines.
The lawsuit has been filed by Rath and Company on behalf of
Albertans they say were harmed by the vaccines. One of the lawyers
of the class action is Eva Chipiuk from Edmonton. She says this is
a this a follow up from the original lawsuit that was launched on
behalf of Carrie Sakamoto who says she received injuries due to the
vaccine. [GN]
CARVANA CO: D. Ariz. Dismisses Shareholders Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Miller of Bloomberg Law reports that Carvana Co., its top
executives, and underwriters won a US judge's dismissal of a
shareholder lawsuit alleging that the e-commerce car dealer
downplayed issues with its growth strategy.
Shareholders in the online used car retailer alleged that the
company failed to disclose the mounting costs and complexities of
operations, but the proposed class action didn't adequately show
which disclosures were misleading, according to the order filed on
February 29, 2024 in US District Court for the District of
Arizona.
Carvana touted its status as a high-quality buyer that closely
assesses used vehicles, overstating the sustainability of its
growth model. [GN]
CHICAGO, IL: Court Denies Class Cert in Impound Practices Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports a federal
judge has refused, for now, to allow people whose cars were
impounded by the city of Chicago to continue their class action
against the city over its vehicle impound practices.
In April 2019, attorneys with the Washington, D.C.-based civil
rights legal organization Institute for Justice and attorney Robert
Pavich, of Chicago, filed a class action complaint in Cook County
Circuit Court, asserting the city's vehicle impound program is
unconstitutional and violates the rights of those caught up in it.
On Feb. 13, Judge Lindsay Jenkins filed an opinion denying class
certification, agreeing with the city the plaintiffs lack the
standing to seek a court order and injunction.
"The City of Chicago impounds tens of thousands of cars each year,
holding them until owners pay a compilation of fines and fees, both
before and after the entry of final judgment," the lawsuit says.
"Owners find themselves in a labyrinthine impound system that is
plagued by serious procedural flaws. Even innocent owners get
caught up in this system, facing hefty fines and fees when someone
else used their car to commit a crime without the car owner's
knowledge."
Whereas the city argued the plaintiffs failed to show a "real and
immediate threat" their cars might be impounded as a result of use
in illegal activity, Jenkins wrote the obstacle is showing a risk
their cars might be impounded for any reason in a manner that sets
them apart from any other vehicle owner.
"The Court does not doubt that plaintiffs face a risk of
impoundment today, perhaps the same level of risk they faced before
the city seized their cars, but that does not confer standing,"
Jenkins wrote. "Adolph Lyons faced a risk of being stopped for a
traffic violation and placed in a chokehold before Oct. 6, 1976,
and he continued to face such a risk afterward, but the Supreme
Court held that he lacked standing to seek an injunction."
Jenkins noted the allegation of tens of thousands of annual
impoundments, but said that figure needs to be held in the context
of the number of vehicles in the city, and furthermore said
"standing requires a 'real and immediate threat of future injury,'
not a "conjectural or hypothetical' one. Given the evidence in the
record, the court can do no more than speculate about the risk that
plaintiffs' cars might be impounded in the future."
One named plaintiff, Lewrance Gant, said he got letters from the
city in January 2023 threatening a second impoundment and further
penalties. But Jenkins agreed with the city's position that
evidence alone doesn't support the argument an entire certified
class of litigants faces a similar risk. Past harms, Jenkins wrote,
could be addressed with retrospective damages, but absent threat of
future injury, it would be improper to certify a class to pursue an
injunction.
However, Jenkins said, the plaintiffs might have another path to
certification. She granted leave for them to do so, but first
explained plaintiff Spencer Byrd is not a suitable class
representative because his claims stem from a 2016 impoundment and
thus are time-barred. Similarly affected are the state law claims
of plaintiff Allie Nelson.
Jenkins rejected the city's arguments the challenge to the validity
of its ordinance is improperly brought on a class basis. Even
though she earlier read a complaint as challenging only how the
city applies its ordinance, "the court reconsiders that ruling in
light of subsequent developments" she wrote, adding "plaintiffs may
attempt to certify a class on both their as-applied and facial due
process challenges to the ordinance."
She further said the city failed to show the nature of plaintiffs'
proportionate penalties claim doesn't allow for certification on
the basis of commonality. The questions are to the legality of the
city ordinance, Jenkins said, "irrespective of individual
circumstances." She further noted the specifics of how individual
vehicles were seized are irrelevant to arguments that every
impoundment violated either state law or federal due process
protections.
Jenkins said a future motion for certification also should explain
why lawyers from the Pavich Law Group deserves to be appointed
class counsel along with the Institute for Justice, and stressed
she isn't deciding whether certification is viable under a
different legal approach, only hoping "to avoid rehashing the same
points if plaintiffs move for class certification again and to give
the parties the opportunity to sharpen their arguments in future
briefing. It remains plaintiffs' burden to show, based on record
evidence, that they meet each Rule 23 requirement."
The Institute for Justice did not respond to a request for comment.
[GN]
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 29
------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on March 2
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of securities of The Children's Place, Inc. (NASDAQ:
PLCE) between March 16, 2023 and February 8, 2024, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already
been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move
the Court no later than April 29, 2024.
SO WHAT: If you purchased The Children's Place 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 Children's Place class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=22843 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 April 29, 2024. 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 made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) The Children's Place was engaged in aggressive promotions; (2)
as a result, The Children's Place's inventory values were
overstated; (3) the foregoing was reasonably likely to have an
adverse impact on fiscal 2023 financial results; and (4) as a
result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about The
Children's Place'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 Children's Place class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=22843 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Securities Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against The Children's Place, Inc. ("The Children's Place" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: PLCE). Such investors are advised to contact
Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980, (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.
The class action concerns whether The Children's Place and certain
of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud
or other unlawful business practices.
You have until April 29, 2024, to ask the Court to appoint you as
Lead Plaintiff for the class if you are a shareholder who purchased
or otherwise acquired The Children's Place securities during the
Class Period. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com.
On February 9, 2024, before the market opened, The Children's Place
announced its preliminary fourth quarter fiscal year 2023 financial
results. Therein, the Company revealed that it now expected fourth
quarter net sales between $454 million and $456 million, falling
short of previously issued guidance. The Company also disclosed
that it expected to incur an adjusted operating loss in the fourth
quarter in range of (9.0%) to (8.0%) of net sales, which reflected
the impact of "lower than expected merchandise margins resulting
from more aggressive promotions in an effort to maximize sales,
higher than anticipated split shipments to meet customer e-commerce
demand, and increased inventory valuation adjustment."
On this news, The Children's Place's share price fell $7.25, or
37%, to close at $12.51 per share on February 9, 2024
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, 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
billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members.
See www.pomlaw.com.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
Danielle Peyton
Pomerantz LLP
600 3rd Ave
New York, NY 10016
Email: dpeyton@pomlaw.com
Phone: 646-581-9980 ext. 7980 [GN]
COMMUNITY LOAN: New Jersey Court Refuses to Dismiss Garmon Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Esther Salas of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey denies the Defendants' joint motion to dismiss the
lawsuit styled MILAGROS GARMON, Plaintiff v. COMMUNITY LOAN
SERVICING, LLC; NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC d/b/a RIGHTPATH SERVICING,
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-05974-ES-JBC (D.N.J.).
Plaintiff Milagros Garmon initiated this putative class action
against Defendants Community Loan Servicing, LLC, and Nationstar
Mortgage LLC, doing business as RightPath Servicing, alleging
violations of Sections 1692e and 1692f of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq.
Before the Court is the Defendants' joint motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
On Nov. 17, 2017, the Plaintiff purchased property at 520 Purce
St., in Hillside, New Jersey. To complete the purchase, the
Plaintiff executed a promissory note payable to MLB Residential
Lending, LLC, in the amount of $166,920, which was subject to a
5.25% fixed interest rate and secured by a mortgage in the
property.
On April 1, 2019, the Plaintiff defaulted on the mortgage. In
October 2019, the mortgage was assigned to Lakeview Loan Servicing,
LLC. On Oct. 11, 2019, Lakeview filed a foreclosure lawsuit in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Union County, to
collect the mortgage debt.
On Feb. 3, 2022, Lakeview filed a motion for entry of final
judgment in the foreclosure suit, and on March 7, 2022, final
judgment of foreclosure was entered against the Plaintiff in the
amount of $215,488.16.
The Plaintiff alleges that Lakeview retained third party loan
servicers to collect the mortgage debt on its behalf. She says
Lakeview first hired Defendant Community Loan sometime prior to
February 2022. Then, in or around June 2022, Defendant Nationstar
took over the servicing of the mortgage from Defendant Community
Loan.
The Plaintiff alleges that following the entry of the final
judgment of foreclosure in March 2022, Defendants Community Loan
and Nationstar continued sending her correspondence in connection
with the collection of a debt. Similarly, she alleges that
Defendant Nationstar sent her letters in June, July, and August
2022, attempting to collect on the defaulted mortgage. Under
"Account Information," the Nationstar Letters also listed an
interest rate of 5.25%.
On Oct. 11, 2022, the Plaintiff filed her putative class action
Complaint alleging that the Community Loan and Nationstar Letters
violate sections 1692e and 1692f of the FDCPA. Specifically, she
alleges that the Letters contain false, deceptive, and/or
misleading representations of the sum of money owed on the loan, in
violation of section 1692e because they identify the original
interest rate on the mortgage--5.25%--instead of the statutory
interest rate for a judgment--2.25%--even though the Letters were
sent after final entry of the foreclosure judgment.
For the same reason, the Plaintiff alleges that the Letters are an
unconscionable and/or unfair attempt to collect an amount of money
not expressly authorized by the loan agreement or otherwise
permitted by law in violation of section 1692f. She brings three
counts including (i) for violations of the FDCPA generally against
her as an individual (Count One), (ii) for violations of section
1692e of the FDCPA individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated (Count Two), and (iii) for violations of section 1692f of
the FDCPA individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
(Count Three).
On Dec. 2, 2022, the Defendants filed their joint motion to dismiss
the Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6).
The parties' dispute centers on the third and fourth elements--(i)
whether the Community Loan and Nationstar Letters constituted
attempts to collect a "debt" and (ii) whether the Letters violate
sections 1692e and 1692f of the FDCPA.
Judge Salas finds that the Letters constitute attempts to collect a
"debt" pursuant to the FDCPA. The Court finds that the Community
Loan Letters are attempts to collect on the mortgage debt--going so
far as to provide a way for the debtor to make a payment.
In moving to dismiss the Plaintiff's allegations, the Defendants
argue that they could not have violated FDCPA section 1692e or
1692f because they were required to send monthly mortgage
statements to the Plaintiff pursuant to Regulation Z, and those
statements had to include the current interest rate in effect for
the mortgage. The Court disagrees.
To start, Judge Salas says it is clear that, pursuant to the New
Jersey merger doctrine, the Plaintiff's mortgage merged with the
final judgment of foreclosure and ceased to exist at that point.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the possibility of reinstatement
does not alter the well-settled rule in New Jersey that a mortgage
and its terms are extinguished upon entry of a final judgment of
foreclosure.
The Defendants additionally argue that they cannot be held liable
for continuing to issue mortgage statements with the original
interest rate for the loan because they were required to do so
pursuant to Regulation Z. The Court is not convinced. Regulation Z
provides that a servicer of a transaction will provide the
consumer, for each billing cycle, a periodic statement meeting the
requirements of paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of the section.
Accordingly, regardless of whether the Defendants had continuing
obligations to send periodic mortgage statements, Judge Salas
points out that those statements had to comply with the FDCPA by
portraying accurate information, including an accurate interest
rate, taking into consideration that the mortgage had merged with
the final judgment of foreclosure.
Judge Salas also finds that the Plaintiff has adequately alleged
that the Community Loan and Nationstar Letters did not comply with
the FDCPA. Because the Plaintiff has adequately alleged that the
Letters are subject to one or more interpretations, at least one of
which is false, her FDCPA claim pursuant to section 1692e can
proceed as pled, Judge Salas holds. Similarly, because the
Plaintiff has adequately alleged that the Letters constituted
attempts to collect an amount not permitted by law, her FDCPA claim
pursuant to section 1692f can proceed as pled.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the Community Loan and Nationstar
Letters constitute debt collection attempts pursuant to the FDCPA.
And the Court finds that the Plaintiff has adequately alleged that
the Letters violated FDCPA sections 1692e and 1692f. For these
reasons, the Defendants' motion is denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Feb. 8, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yk8pfvwy from PacerMonitor.com.
CONNERSVILLE, IN: Hensley Sues Over Employee Misclassification
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSH HENSLEY, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF CONNERSVILLE and its FAYETTE COUNTY
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (EMS), Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-00348-TWP-KMB (S.D. Ind., February 23, 2024) arises from
Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant improperly classified
Hensley and other similarly situated Fayette County EMS employees
as employees who are exempt from the overtime requirements of the
FLSA. As a result, the City of Connersville and its Fayette County
EMS failed to pay them and EMTs at a rate of not less than one and
one-half times their regular rates of pay for hours that they
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
City of Connersville is a political subdivision of the State of
Indiana. It has operated the Fayette County EMS/First Aid Unit,
which is an agency of the City of Connersville and sole provider of
911/emergency medical services for the City of Connersville and
Fayette County, Indiana. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert A. Hicks, Esq.
MACEY SWANSON HICKS & SAUER
429 N. Pennsylvania Street, Suite 204
Indianapolis, IN 46204-1800
Telephone: (317) 637-2345
Facsimile: (317) 637-2369
E-mail: rhicks@maceylaw.com
- and -
Daniel Bowman, Esq.
BOWMAN & VLINK, LLC
911 E. 86th Street, Suite 201-M
Indianapolis, IN 46240
Telephone: (317) 912-3220
E-mail: dbowman@fdgtlaborlaw.com
CORE CASHLESS: Wins Bid to Dismiss McGowan's 1st Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled KELLEY MCGOWAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. CORE CASHLESS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00524-MJH-KT (W.D. Pa.), Judge Marilyn
J. Horan of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh:
(1) adopts Magistrate Judge Lisa Lenihan's Report and
Recommendation as the Opinion of the Court;
(2) grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss First Amended
Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure;
(3) denies as moot the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss First
Amended Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6); and
(4) directs the Clerk of Court to mark the case closed.
The case had been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Lisa
Lenihan for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrate
Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1), and Rule 72 of the Local
Rules for Magistrate Judges. The matter has since been referred to
Magistrate Judge Kezia O.L. Taylor following the retirement of
Magistrate Judge Lenihan. Judge Lenihan authored the instant Report
and Recommendation prior to her retirement.
On Oct. 17, 2023, Magistrate Judge Lenihan issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
First Amended Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) be granted and
that the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss First Amended
Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) be denied as moot.
Plaintiff Kelley McGowan brought this class action against
Defendant CORE Cashless, LLC, for its failure to properly secure
and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally
identifiable information ("PII") stored within CORE's information
network.
Ms. McGowan is a consumer of one of CORE's clients, Waldameer Park,
Inc., which operates an amusement park in Erie, Pennsylvania. She
made a payment through Waldameer's online payment portal which was
powered, maintained, and operated by CORE, and in so doing,
provided CORE with her PII and financial information.
On July 28, 2022, the Secret Service notified CORE that it had
identified card numbers for sale on the Dark Web whose common
purchase point was CORE. Thereafter, CORE conducted an internal
investigation and ultimately determined that, on or around Jan. 29,
2022, a data breach of its clients occurred. The web payment
portals of approximately 45 of CORE's clients were affected by the
Data Breach, including at least two Pennsylvania companies.
CORE directed the Plaintiff and the Class Members to take various
mitigation steps, such as monitoring their accounts and reporting
any suspicious activity or misuse of their personal information.
Following the notice from CORE of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff
alleges she spent time dealing with the consequences of the Data
Breach, which included and continues to include time spent: (1)
verifying the legitimacy and impact of the Data Breach, (2)
exploring credit monitoring and identity theft insurance options,
(3) self-monitoring her accounts with heightened scrutiny, and (4)
seeking legal counsel regarding her options for remedying and/or
mitigating the effects of the Data Breach.
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff contends that she
suffered actual injury in the form of damages to and diminution in
the value of her PII. In addition, she claims to have experienced
increased anxiety, a loss of privacy, and a substantially increased
risk of identity theft and fraud. She alleges common law claims for
negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and
unjust enrichment.
CORE moved to dismiss Ms. McGowan's Amended Complaint, pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), for lack of standing, and Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Magistrate Lenihan
recommended dismissing Ms. McGowan's Amended Complaint for lack for
standing and denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion as moot.
In response to the Report and Recommendation, Ms. McGowan raised
three objections: 1. Her allegations establish a concrete
injury-in-fact under Article III and Third Circuit precedent for
standing; 2. Judge Lenihan's Report does not recognize the
Plaintiff's sufficient allegation of "concrete" injuries and
damages; and 3. Judge Lenihan's Report does not recognize the
Plaintiff's sufficient claim for injunctive relief.
In its Motion to Dismiss, CORE only challenged Ms. Gowan's
establishment of "injury-in-fact."
Judge Lenihan concluded Ms. McGowan had not alleged the type of
sophisticated intent to demonstrate that the data breach was
intentional. Following de novo review, the Court concurs with Judge
Lenihan's well-reasoned Report and Recommendation that Ms. McGowan
had not sufficiently alleged that the data breach was intentional
as defined under Reilly v. Ceridian Corp., 664 F.3d 38 (3d Cir.
2011). The Court finds no error in Judge Lenihan's determination.
Following de novo review, the Court concurs with Judge Lenihan's
well-reasoned Report and Recommendation that Ms. McGowan had not
sufficiently alleged (i) a specific "misuse" of her information
following the alleged data breach, and (ii) disclosure of personal
information that would place her in a substantial risk of identity
theft or fraud. The Court finds no error in Judge Lenihan's
determination. Accordingly, the Court agrees with the determination
that Ms. McGowan's alleged injury is "imminent."
Ms. McGowan next objects that Judge Lenihan did not appropriately
recognize her allegations of "concrete" injuries and damages.
Following de novo review, the Court concurs with Judge Lenihan's
well-reasoned Report and Recommendation that Ms. McGowan had not
sufficiently alleged a concrete injury based upon the absence of
plausible allegations of a substantial risk of future harm. The
Court finds no error in Judge Lenihan's determination.
Finally, Ms. Gowan objects that Judge Lenihan improperly dismissed
her claim for injunctive relief based up upon a lack of allegation
of substantial future harm. Because Judge Lenihan found that Ms.
McGowan could not demonstrate that she had met the concrete injury
requirement necessary for standing, she likewise concluded that the
Plaintiff lacked standing to pursue injunctive relief.
Following de novo review, the Court concurs with Judge Lenihan's
well-reasoned Report and Recommendation that Ms. McGowan had not
sufficiently alleged standing that would have warranted injunctive
relief. The Court finds no error in Judge Lenihan's determination.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Feb. 8, 2024, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/mmn3dvtyfrom PacerMonitor.com.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 8, 2024, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/mrtf5re6from PacerMonitor.com.
DELLECKER WILSON: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Idera Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
TEJU IDERA, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v.
DELLECKER, WILSON, KING, McKENNA, RUFFIER & SOS, LLP, Defendant,
Case No. 6:24-cv-00384 (M.D. Fla., February 23, 2024) seeks to
recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Idera was employed by the Defendant as a litigation
paralegal from around May 2, 2022, until on or around October 6,
2023. On average, Plaintiff worked over 55 hours per week. However,
Defendant did not pay her overtime for hours she worked more than
40 hours per week, says the suit.
Dellecker, Wilson, King, McKenna, Ruffier & Sos, LLP is a law firm
based in Orlando, FL.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 482-1475
E-mail: martin@legalopinionusa.com
DIGIRAD IMAGING: Faces Class Action Suit Over Labor Law Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
Marty Stempniak, writing for Radiology Business, reports that a
technologist is accusing an imaging provider of violating state
labor laws and she is seeking others to join the complaint.
Plaintiff attorneys claim Digirad Imaging Solutions failed to pay
minimum wages or overtime, along with shirking laws requiring
regular meal and rest periods. Dea Logsdon and her representatives
also allege that the Suwanee, Georgia-headquartered firm failed to
reimburse required expenses and provide itemized wage statements,
among other charges.
"[Digirad's] practices were unlawful and unfair in that these
practices violate public policy, were immoral, unethical,
oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to employees,
and were without valid justification . . . ," attorneys wrote in
the complaint, filed last month in San Diego County Superior
Court.
Logsdon -- a nuclear medicine technologist with Digirad since 2019,
who was still employed there at the time of the filing -- and her
attorneys are seeking class action status and damages under $5
million. They're also asking a judge to bar the company from
engaging in "similar unlawful conduct" and want the firm forced to
give up its "ill-gotten gains" from allegedly underpaying
employees.
Digirad did not immediately respond to a Radiology Business request
for comment Monday. The company offers a range of mobile and
on-site imaging solutions for physicians and healthcare systems,
including staffing, equipment, accreditation assistance and a cloud
based PACS, according to its website. Digirad specializes in mobile
nuclear cardiology, interim nuclear equipment, and fixed-site heart
imaging, among other things.
Employment law firm Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP
issued an announcement about the lawsuit on Feb. 29. [GN]
ELEMETAL LLC: Abington Cole + Ellery Investigates Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abington Cole + Ellery is investigating the recently announced
Elemetal data breach.
On August 26, 2023, Elemetal detected unusual activities within its
computer network. In response to this discovery, the company
immediately deactivated its systems to protect the network's
security and to facilitate system restoration. Concurrently,
Elemetal initiated a thorough investigation to understand the
extent and details of the incident. The findings revealed that from
August 22, 2023, to September 1, 2023, an unauthorized entity had
infiltrated Elemetal's systems, potentially accessing or obtaining
data stored within.
In the aftermath of this security breach, Elemetal undertook a
detailed examination of the potentially compromised data to
identify the specific information and individuals affected. This
evaluation was completed by February 9, 2024, indicating that
personal data might have been implicated in the breach. Elemetal
acted swiftly to secure and recover its systems, evaluate its
network's security posture, and conduct a comprehensive analysis of
the incident. The company also informed law enforcement and alerted
relevant regulatory bodies, in line with regulatory obligations.
As part of its dedication to safeguarding information, Elemetal is
reassessing its security policies, processes, and tools. This
initiative aims to strengthen its defense mechanisms and mitigate
the risk of similar incidents occurring in the future.
As a result of the data breach, Elemetal is offering 24 months of
free credit monitoring and/or identity theft protection services to
affected individuals.
Approximately 13,600 individuals were affected by the Elemetal data
breach.
Breached data may include, but is not necessarily limited to:
names, Social Security numbers, financial account data, and
government ID data.
Additional information about the Elemetal data breach may be found
here: Elemetal Data Breach Notification.
Headquartered in Addison, Texas, Elemetal positions itself as a
leading player in the precious metals industry within the United
States, boasting an extensive network of over 45 locations
nationwide. The company prides itself on offering a broad range of
services, including wholesale bullion trading with a diverse
selection, secure transactions, and efficient fulfillment
processes.
Elemetal is recognized for its expertise in the refining of various
precious metals such as gold, silver, platinum, and palladium,
catering to a wide array of clients including jewelers, hospitals,
and dental labs. Their commitment to rapid service and customer
satisfaction is highlighted by their promise of quick processing
times and payments, aiming to provide an unmatched level of
convenience and reliability to their clients.
The Elemetal Website may have additional information about or
provide periodic updates regarding the data breach.
For more information about steps you can take to possibly reduce
the chances harm arising from a data breach, please review the
following article: What are some steps you can take if you've been
the victim of a data breach?
If you believe you are a victim of the Elemetal data breach, and
would like to participate in a class action lawsuit regarding this
data breach, please submit your information via the form on this
webpage. This website is not associated with nor authorized by
Elemetal or any affiliated companies. [GN]
FERTILITY CENTER: Faces Class Suit Over Data-Sharing
----------------------------------------------------
Tonya Riley of Bloomberg Law reports that a Las Vegas fertility
clinic faces a putative class action for allegedly sharing
patients' personal information with Meta Platforms Inc. using
online tracking technology without telling them.
The Fertility Center of Las Vegas installed Meta's Pixel on its
website, and the code used to track users' actions on the site
transmitted patient data to the social media giant without their
knowledge, according to the complaint filed on February 29, 2024 in
the US District Court for the District of Nevada. The behavior
violates the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which
prohibits the intentional interception of the contents of digital
communications, it alleged. [GN]
GATOS SILVER: $21M Deal in Investors Class Suit Gets Prelim OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Vilensky of Bloomberg Law reports that Gatos Silver Inc. and
investors who sued the public company persuaded a federal judge to
preliminarily approve a proposed $21 million class action
settlement, bringing the litigation closer to an end.
The lead plaintiffs estimate 30,000 people who acquired Gatos stock
between 2020 and 2022 could join the class. Members will receive
pro rata shares of the settlement fund based on their losses in
transactions of Gatos securities.
"[I]t is evident that the parties believe that the settlement
agreement is fair and reasonable," Judge Philip A. Brimmer, of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. [GN]
GENERAL MILLS: Faces Class Suit Over Pesticide Dangerous Levels
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett of Top Class Actions reports that General Mills Inc.
manufactured, marketed and distributed Cheerios-branded cereal
containing dangerous levels of the chemical pesticide chlormequat
chloride, a new class action lawsuit alleges.
Plaintiffs Katrina and Benjamin Necaise filed the class action
lawsuit, claiming independent lab testing revealed Cheerios, Honey
Nut Cheerios, Frosted Cheerios and Oat Crunch Oats N' Honey
Cheerios contain dangerous levels of chlormequat chloride.
Exposure to chlormequat chloride can cause adverse health effects,
including reduced fertility, harmed fetuses, delayed puberty and
impaired reproductive functions, the class action alleges.
"All flavors of the products are sold for similar prices, are
packaged in similar packaging, are manufactured using the same base
formulation and contain unhealthy and unsafe levels of
chlormequat," the class action argues.
The plaintiffs want to represent a class of California consumers
who have purchased any of the aforementioned Cheerios products in
the state within the last four years.
The class action lawsuit argues General Mills neither lists
chlormequat in the ingredient section for the Cheerios-branded
cereals nor warns consumers about the inclusion or potential
inclusion of the pesticide in them.
"Consumers, including plaintiffs, would not have purchased the
products had their labels accurately disclosed the presence of
chlormequat in Cheerios," the class action states.
The plaintiffs claim General Mills is guilty of unjust enrichment,
breach of an implied warranty and violations of California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
The plaintiffs demand a jury trial and request declaratory and
injunctive relief along with an award of actual, special, exemplary
and punitive damages for themselves and all class members.
A consumer filed a similar class action lawsuit against Quaker Oats
earlier this month over claims the company sold oat-based products
containing high levels of chlormequat.
The plaintiffs are represented by Charles C. Weller of Charles C.
Weller APC.
The Cheerios pesticide class action lawsuit is Necaise, et al. v.
General Mills Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00367, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California. [GN]
GOLDEN CORRAL: Faces Class Suit Over 2023 Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
Ryan Golden of HR Dive reports that Dive Brief follows that Golden
Corral failed to properly secure and safeguard employees'
personally identifiable information in the wake of a 2023 data
breach, an employee alleged in a class-action lawsuit.
According to the complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of North Carolina, Golden Corral discovered
the breach by cybercriminals in August 2023. The restaurant chain
allegedly waited "roughly six months" after the discovery to notify
persons, including the plaintiff, whose information had potentially
been compromised.
The suit asks for a jury trial as well as injunctive and other
equitable relief including requiring Golden Corral to delete and
purge affected employees' personally identifiable information
unless the company can provide justification for its retention and
use. Golden Corral did not immediately respond to a request for
comment.
Dive Insight:
If recent years have made anything clear to HR, it's that employer
databases are prime targets for cybercrime.
More than 180,000 people were affected by the Golden Corral breach,
according to a public notification published by the Office of the
Maine Attorney General. The same notice found that the information
compromised in the breach included names and other personal
identifiers in combination with Social Security numbers.
According to the class-action suit, Golden Corral offered affected
persons a two-year subscription to an identity theft monitoring and
protection program offered by credit reporting firm Experian.
However, the plaintiff alleged that this offer "is inadequate when
the victims will likely face many years of identity theft."
HR data security presents a challenge for employers in part because
it may flow through several vendors and third parties for
operational purposes, sources previously told HR Dive. Cyber
criminals also may leverage HR-related concerns in order to
perpetrate phishing attacks, which ask victims to click on
suspicious links or comply with fraudulent requests. Security
training firm KnowBe4 found in a 2023 report that about half of
email subject lines clicked during phishing tests contained
HR-related messaging.
One of the worst breaches in recent cybersecurity history involved
HR vendor UKG. The 2021 attack, which affected the company's Kronos
Private Cloud timekeeping and payroll services, knocked out
critical HR functions for weeks and led to millions of dollars in
payouts for lost wages, benefits and other compensation.
Training is key for organizations as they prepare employees for
potential attacks, but experts in the industry also have called for
the creation of comprehensive plans that can be activated in the
event of a breach. Elements of such plans may include notification
protocols, identification of any compromised information and
communications strategies to keep employees notified. [GN]
GOODYEAR TIRE: Curran and Borland Allege Price Fixing of Tires
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL CURRAN and TIMOTHY BORLAND, individually and behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Company; Compagnie Generale des Etablissements Michelin SCA;
Michelin North America Inc.; Bridgestone Corporation; Bridgestone
Americas, Inc.; Continental Aktiengesellschaft; Continental Tire
the Americas, LLC; Nokian Tyres plc; Nokian Tyres North America,
Inc.; Nokian Tyres Inc.; Nokian Tyres U.S. Operation LLC; Pirelli &
C. S.p.A; Pirelli Tire LLC; Hankook Tire & Technology Co., Ltd.;
Hankook Tire America Corp.; Yokohama Rubber Co., Ltd.; Yokohama
Tire Corporation; Toyo Tire Corporation; Toyo Tire U.S.A. Corp.;
Kumho Tire Co.; Kumho Tire U.S.A.; Sumitomo Rubber Industries,
Ltd.; Sumitomo Rubber North America, Inc.; GITI Tire Global Trading
Pte. Ltd.; and Giti Tire (USA) Ltd., Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-01419 (S.D.N.Y., February 23, 2024) arises from a
conspiracy among the largest tire manufacturers of new replacement
tires for passenger cars, vans, trucks, and buses (Class tires) to
unlawfully fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize the prices Class
tires sold in the United States.
The Plaintiffs assert claims for violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act in connection with the Defendants' unlawful
agreement to fix the prices of Class tires. Such conduct is
evidenced by the unprecedented and frequent parallel price increase
announcements and public signaling, say the Plaintiffs.
Headquartered in Akron, OH, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company is one
of the tire companies and has a significant presence both in the
U.S. and globally. It manufactures and sells tires under the brands
including but not limited to Goodyear, Cooper, Dunlop, Kelly,
Debica, Sava, Fulda, Mastercraft, and Roadmaster. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
65 Main Street
Chester, CT 06412
Telephone: (866) 540-5505
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: lrubinow@millershah.com
- and -
Anna K. D’Agostino, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
225 Broadway, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (866) 540-5505
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: akdagostino@millershah.com
- and -
Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
Bobby Pouya, Esq.
Michael H. Pearson, Esq.
Eric J. Mont, Esq.
PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP
15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone: (818) 788-8300
Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
E-mail: dwarshaw@pwfirm.com
bpouya@pwfirm.com
mpearson@pwfirm.com
emont@pwfirm.com
- and -
Jill Manning, Esq.
PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP
555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1205
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 433-9000
Facsimile: (415) 433-9008
E-mail: jmanning@pwfirm.com
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Ads Market Monopoly
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Price, writing for PCMag, reports that a judge has ruled that
Google must face a proposed class-action lawsuit that alleges it
monopolizes the ad exchange market.
US District Judge Kevin Castel was tasked with reviewing a number
of cases against Google and made the ruling Friday. While he
allowed the proposed class-action to move forward, he also
dismissed some other antitrust claims against Google focused on
ad-buying tools that are used by large advertisers, Reuters
reports.
In a written decision, he said that the advertisers "have not
plausibly alleged antitrust standing in the markets for ad-buying
tools used by large advertisers, but they plausibly allege
antitrust standing as to injuries they purportedly suffered from
anti-competitive practices in the ad-exchange market and the market
for small advertisers' buying tools."
The judge will also allow a separate case from publisher Gannett
over ad transaction fees.
Late last year, Google was reportedly considering replacing some of
the human staff in its ad department with artificial intelligence.
In May, Google also launched "a new era of AI-powered ads" as a way
to enhance the advertiser's experiences with the company, which
included the ability to create AI-designed assets for customers and
ad campaigns designed specifically for the advertiser. [GN]
HSBC GLOBAL: Court Denies Class Cert Bid in Closet Indexing Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Langton, writing for Investment Executive, reports that a
proposed class action against a fund manager and dealer over
alleged closet indexing has, once again, been rejected by a court
in British Columbia, which found that the proposed claim doesn't
set out a clear theory.
The Supreme Court of B.C. dismissed a third attempt to certify a
class action lawsuit against fund manager HSBC Global Asset
Management (Canada) Ltd. and fund dealer HSBC Investment Funds
(Canada) Inc. alleging that investors paid fees for active
management in certain funds yet the funds' portfolios merely
tracked a benchmark index, and, as a result, the funds
underperformed after fees.
"[Investors] suffered significant loss as a result of the closet
indexing strategy and the excess management fees," the proposed
plaintiffs alleged.
However, the court found that the purported claim based on the use
of a closet indexing strategy "is not properly pleaded and is not
capable of supporting the plaintiff's application for
certification."
The court rejected the claim that there was a substantial link
between the funds' performance and the performance of their
benchmark.
"The existence of the benchmark does not create a linkage. It does
not affect or change the performance of the equity fund," the court
said.
"A linkage may exist where the portfolio manager buys, holds or
disposes of securities, based on the benchmark's composition. In
doing so, intent would be required," it said. Yet, this would
amount to a claim of fraud, which is specifically disavowed in the
plaintiff's filings, the court said.
As a result, it found that the claim is "confounding and confusing"
and cannot support a class action.
"In sum, the defendants are entitled to know the case they must
meet, which the [plaintiffs' latest claim] does not provide," the
court said, dismissing the application to have the case certified
as a class action.
A proposed class action against a fund manager and dealer over
alleged closet indexing has, once again, been rejected by a court
in British Columbia, which found that the proposed claim doesn't
set out a clear theory.
The Supreme Court of B.C. dismissed a third attempt to certify a
class action lawsuit against fund manager HSBC Global Asset
Management (Canada) Ltd. and fund dealer HSBC Investment Funds
(Canada) Inc. alleging that investors paid fees for active
management in certain funds yet the funds' portfolios merely
tracked a benchmark index, and, as a result, the funds
underperformed after fees.
"[Investors] suffered significant loss as a result of the closet
indexing strategy and the excess management fees," the proposed
plaintiffs alleged.
However, the court found that the purported claim based on the use
of a closet indexing strategy "is not properly pleaded and is not
capable of supporting the plaintiff's application for
certification."
The court rejected the claim that there was a substantial link
between the funds' performance and the performance of their
benchmark.
"The existence of the benchmark does not create a linkage. It does
not affect or change the performance of the equity fund," the court
said.
"A linkage may exist where the portfolio manager buys, holds or
disposes of securities, based on the benchmark's composition. In
doing so, intent would be required," it said. Yet, this would
amount to a claim of fraud, which is specifically disavowed in the
plaintiff's filings, the court said.
As a result, it found that the claim is "confounding and confusing"
and cannot support a class action.
"In sum, the defendants are entitled to know the case they must
meet, which the [plaintiffs' latest claim] does not provide," the
court said, dismissing the application to have the case certified
as a class action. [GN]
INARI MEDICAL: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on March 1
announced an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf
of shareholders of Inari Medical, Inc. (NASDAQ: NARI) resulting
from allegations that Inari Medical may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Inari Medical securities you may be
entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees
or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm
is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=22855 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On February 28, 2024, after market hours, Inari
Medical filed an Annual Report on Form 10-K with the SEC announcing
"[i]n December 2023, we received a civil investigative demand
("CID") from the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, in
connection with an investigation under the federal Anti-Kickback
Statute and Civil False Claims Act (the "Investigation"). The CID
requests information and documents primarily relating to meals and
consulting service payments provided to health care professionals
("HCPs"). We are cooperating with the Investigation. We are unable
to express a view at this time regarding the likely duration, or
ultimate outcome, of the Investigation or estimate the possibility
of, or amount or range of, any possible financial impact. Depending
on the outcome of the Investigation, there may be a material impact
on our business, results of operations, or financial condition."
On this news, Inari Medical's stock fell $12.14 per share, or
20.8%, to close at $46.12 on February 29, 2024.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
J&A CAREGIVERS: Jackson Sues Over Call Recording Disclosure
-----------------------------------------------------------
DEBORAH JACKSON, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown, Plaintiff v. J & A CAREGIVERS,
LLC, d/b/a SENIOR HELPERS OF CHICAGO, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-01511 (N.D. Ill., February 23, 2024) accuses the Defendant
of violating the Illinois Eavesdropping Act and the Electronic
Communication Privacy Act.
The Plaintiff began working for Defendant as a caregiver in April
of 2014. Her last day of work was December 17, 2021 when she was
discharged from her employment. In the course and scope of her
employment, Plaintiff was required to call J&A's central phone
system. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, these calls were knowingly
surreptitiously recorded by Defendant. Allegedly, there was no
automated disclosure that calls were or may be recorded and
Plaintiff was provided with no disclosure that calls were recorded,
says the Plaintiff.
J&A Caregivers is an Illinois limited liability company that
provides in-home senior care. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew Fletcher, Esq.
THE GARFINKEL GROUP, LLC
701 N. Milwaukee Ave.
Chicago, IL 60642
Telephone: (312) 736-7991
E-mail: matthew@garfinkelgroup.com
KAMAN CORP: Monteverde & Associates Investigates Arcline Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm") has
recovered money for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm
in the 2018-2022 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We
are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and
are now investigating:
Kaman Corp. (NYSE: KAMN), relating to its proposed sale to Arcline
Investment Management, L.P. Under the terms of the agreement, KAMN
shareholders are expected to receive $46.00 in cash per share they
own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/kaman-corp. It is free and there
is no cost or obligation to you.
Juniper Networks, Inc. (NYSE: JNPR), relating to its proposed sale
to Hewlett Packard. Under the terms of the agreement, JNPR
shareholders are expected to receive $40.00 in cash per share they
own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/juniper-networks-inc. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
Inhibrx, Inc. (Nasdaq: INBX), relating to its proposed sale to
Sanofi. Under the terms of the agreement, INBX shareholders are
expected to receive $30.00 in cash and 0.25 shares of the newly
combined company per share they own. Shareholders may also receive
a plus one CVR worth up to $5.00 in cash contingent upon certain
milestones. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/inhibrx-inc. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
Axonics, Inc. (Nasdaq: AXNX), relating to its proposed sale to
Boston Scientific Corp. Under the terms of the agreement, AXNX
shareholders will receive $71.00 in cash per share they own. Click
here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/axonics-inc. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask:
Do you recover money for shareholders?
Do you litigate and go to Court?
Do you even go to the office and wear a suit?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and
we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a
national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or
wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit
our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
KIA MOTORS: Vehicle Owners to Begin Receiving Settlement Notices
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Clark, writing for WTVO, reports that Kia and Hyundai owners
will begin receiving notices this week to file claims in a $145
million class action settlement.
The car makers settled a lawsuit that alleged they failed to
install engine immobilizers in some models.
Nationwide, teen "Kia Boyz" thieves have been stealing cars and
taking them to perform dangerous stunts, light them on fire, or
commit other crimes and boast about it on social media.
Hyundai and Kia models from 2011 to 2022 have a manufacturing
defect that makes them easy for criminals to steal using only a
cellphone and a USB cord. The thieves remove parts near the
steering wheel to access the starter system.
New 2022 Kia and Hyundai models have an engine immobilizer to help
prevent thefts.
The settlement covers 9 million vehicles made between 2011 and
2022.
Under the terms of the settlement and in addition to the cash
payment, a free software update will be provided that prevents a
vehicle from starting without a key being present. Also, the
companies will offer reimbursement of up to $50 for the purchase of
an anti-theft device.
To see if your vehicle is eligible for the settlement, click here
for Kia owners and here for Hyundai owners and input your VIN.
Claims can be submitted until January 11th, 2025. [GN]
LANTRONIX INC: Neilsen Sues Over Misleading Statements
------------------------------------------------------
DAVID NEILSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LANTRONIX, INC., PAUL PICKLE, and JEREMY
WHITAKER, Defendants, Case No. 8:24-cv-00385 (C.D. Cal., February
23, 2024) seeks 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 and
Rule 10b-5.
This federal securities class action is brought by Plaintiff on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Lantronix
securities between May 11, 2023 and February 8, 2024, both dates
inclusive. Throughout the class period, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that, among
other things, Lantronix overstated demand and/or its visibility
into demand for its Internet of Things (IoT) products and that
Lantronix's customers were reducing elevated levels of inventory of
IoT products. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages, the suit asserts.
Headquartered in Irvine, CA, Lantronix is a global industrial and
enterprise IoT provider of solutions that purportedly target high
growth applications in specific verticals such as smart grids,
intelligent transportation, smart cities, and artificial
intelligence data centers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 405-7190
E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
LIBERTY REVERSE: Faces Class Suit Over Cal. Labor Laws Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Clow, writing for HousingWire, reports that Liberty Reverse
Mortgage, a top 10 reverse mortgage lender owned by Ocwen Financial
Corp. and its subsidiary PHH Mortgage Corp., allegedly violated
California labor laws by failing to provide employees with rest
breaks, meal breaks and appropriate compensation for off-the-clock
and overtime work, according to a newly filed class-action
lawsuit.
The suit, filed by former Liberty employee Michaela LaNere in
Sacramento County Superior Court, seeks to recoup lost wages and
other associated damages as detailed in a court complaint, which
was reviewed by RMD.
If approval for a class is granted, attorneys seek to "temporarily,
preliminarily and permanently [enjoin and restrain Liberty] from
engaging in similar unlawful conduct," and to require the company
to "pay all overtime wages and all sums unlawfully withheld from
compensation."
Attorneys for the proposed class also seek restitution for the
company's "ill-gotten gains" resulting from its alleged violations,
as well as compensatory damages that include pay for overtime
worked.
This includes compensation for meal and rest periods that were
allegedly unfulfilled, as well as expenses incurred by the class
for their job duties and any legal fees that may arise from the
case.
The plaintiff and proposed class are represented by attorneys at
Zakay Law Group APLC and JCL Law Firm APC, according to a press
release announcing the lawsuit. Representatives for the law firms
could not be immediately reached for comment.
A representative of PHH Mortgage told RMD that the lender is
currently weighing its next steps in response to the complaint.
"We are aware of the complaint and reviewing the matter," the PHH
spokesperson said. "Regarding the allegations made in the
complaint, we take pride in how we treat our employees, and we do
so fairly and within the requirements of the law."
Liberty/PHH parent company Ocwen posted a $64 million loss in 2023
but forecasts a generally positive trajectory for its reverse
mortgage origination and servicing businesses, according to a
recent earnings report.
As more forward mortgage participants seem to be entering the
reverse space of late, Ocwen CEO Glen Messina said during the
earnings call that the company is supporting several forward
correspondent clients in joining the reverse mortgage business.
"Because we participate in all segments of the reverse industry
from an originations perspective -- so direct-to-consumer,
wholesale and correspondent -- we would expect to benefit the most
in our correspondent channel by seeing a growth in forward
originators moving into the reverse product space," he said. [GN]
LONE WOLF: Grabowski Sues Over Unlawful Biometric Collection
------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN GRABOWSKI, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. LONE WOLF SOFTWARE, INC. d/b/a INCEPTION
TECHNOLOGIES, a California corporation, Defendant, and NAGLE
ADVISORS, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company; ARCHER
ADVISORS, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company; and PAYLOCITY
CORPORATION, an Illinois corporation, Case No. 2024LA000248 (Ill.
Cir., 18th Judicial, DuPage Cty., February 23, 2024) seeks to
obtain redress for all persons injured by the Defendant's alleged
conduct in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
Act.
Despite collecting or capturing Plaintiff's biometrics, Defendant
failed to provide any written disclosures describing Defendant's
purpose for using Plaintiff's biometrics, or the length of term of
such use, and failed to obtain Plaintiff's informed written consent
to use his biometrics, all in violation of BIPA, says the suit.
Headquartered in Glendale, AZ, Lone Wolf Software is a leading
provider of cloud-based time and attendance workforce management
solutions. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy P. Kingsbury, Esq.
Joseph Dunklin, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 893-7002
E-mail: tkingsbury@mcgpc.com
jdunklin@mcgpc.com
MACKENZIE FINANCIAL: Court Certifies Commissions Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
finance.yahoo.com reports that the Superior Court of Justice of
Ontario has certified a class action which permits a defined group
of investors (the "Class") to pursue claims against Mackenzie
Financial Corporation and Mackenzie Financial Capital Corporation
("Defendants"). It is alleged that the Defendants paid excessive,
inflated, and/or unearned trailing commissions to Discount Brokers
out of the assets of the Mackenzie Mutual Fund trusts. The class
action claims monetary damages on behalf of the Class. The
allegations made in the class action have not been proven and are
contested by the Defendants.
If you wish to participate in the class action, DO NOTHING.
If you do not wish to participate in the class action, be bound by
or receive any benefits from it, you must opt out by sending the
opt-out form to RicePoint Administration Inc. by June 2, 2024.
To obtain a copy of the opt-out form or for other important
information regarding the class action:
Visit
https://www.siskinds.com/class-action/mutual-fund-trailing-commissions/
Call toll-free 1-800-461-6166 ext. 1615 (North America)
Call 226-636-1615 (Outside North America) [GN]
MARTEN TRANSPORT: Mora Suit Remanded to Santa Clara Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California remands the lawsuit captioned HECTOR MORA,
Plaintiff v. MARTEN TRANSPORT, LTD., Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-06004-JD (N.D. Cal.), to the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Santa Clara.
Plaintiff Hector Mora, on behalf of himself and a putative class of
current and former truck drivers employed by Defendant Marten
Transport, Ltd. (Marten), sued Marten on a variety of wage and hour
claims under California state law. The complaint was originally
filed in the Santa Clara Superior Court, and was removed by Marten
under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(d).
Mr. Mora says that the case should be remanded because Marten has
not plausibly established the $5 million amount in controversy
required for CAFA jurisdiction. Because Marten used unreasonable
and unsupported assumptions to estimate the amount in controversy,
it has not met its burden of demonstrating that $5 million or more
is in play, and the case is remanded to the Superior Court.
To start, Judge Donato says Mora's repeated contention that the
removing party must submit summary-judgment-type evidence relevant
to the amount in controversy at the time of removal is not well
taken. The law has been well established for some time now that a
defendant's notice of removal need include only a plausible
allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the
jurisdictional threshold, and does not need evidentiary
submissions.
Even so, Judge Donato opines that now that Mora has made a factual
attack on the Defendant's removal allegations, Marten bears the
burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the
amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. In this situation, the
Plaintiff is not required to proffer his own evidence on the actual
amount in controversy, and may instead rely, as Mora has done here,
on a reasoned argument as to why any assumptions on which the
Defendant's numbers are based are not supported by evidence.
Marten has made Mora's job considerably easier by offering next to
nothing in the way of evidence, Judge Donato notes. A declaration
by Susan Deetz, the Director of Human Resources for Marten
Transport, offers only these facts: (1) between Oct. 19, 2019, to
the filing of Marten's notice of removal on Nov. 20, 2023, there
are at least 1,398 truck drivers, who drove for Marten in
California; (2) 471 of those drivers were Marten's current drivers;
(3) 927 drivers were Marten's former drivers; and (4) during the
relevant time period, truck drivers, who drove for Marten in
California, were paid on a weekly basis.
That is the sum total of Marten's ostensible evidence that the
amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. On that anemic record,
Judge Donato says, Marten proposes a variety of alternative
calculations in its attempt to meet the $5 million amount. These
calculations are based, respectively, on minimum wage penalties,
untimely wages during employment penalties, untimely wages at
separation penalties, wage statement claim penalties, recordkeeping
claim penalties, and attorneys' fees.
Judge Donato opines that much of this is of scant value because the
calculations are based purely on assumptions about the number of
weeks worked by class members, without any factual support
whatsoever. Critically, Marten did not offer any evidence that
might validate or make reasonable its assumption that each of the
471 "current" drivers worked 50 weekly pay periods for the entire
3-year time period at issue.
Here, Marten has plucked out of thin air its assumption that all
471 drivers worked for 50 weeks a year for 3 years. Judge Donato
points out that this is an inadequate showing to meet Marten's
burden of establishing CAFA removal jurisdiction. Most of Marten's
remaining calculations suffer from the same defect.
The one calculation that does not rely on this unsupported workweek
assumption is Marten's calculation for untimely wages at separation
penalties, Judge Donato notes. For those penalties, Marten has
offered a calculation, assuming that each former driver had some
unpaid wages at the time of separation.
Of the various calculations Marten has offered, Judge Donato opines
that this is the only one that comes close to being based on a
chain of reasoning that includes assumptions based on reasonable
grounds, but at a total of $3,337,200, it is not sufficient. Even
assuming that a 25% attorney's fees award could be added to that
amount, which Marten has not specifically argued, the amount would
still be only $4,171,500.
In sum, Judge Donato says Marten has come up short after a full and
fair opportunity to present evidence and arguments for removal
under CAFA. It has failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the
evidence that this case puts $5 million or more into play.
Judge Donato holds that the case was improperly removed under CAFA.
Accordingly, the lawsuit is remanded to the Superior
Court of California for the County of Santa Clara.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 8, 2024, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/yue4ncrsfrom PacerMonitor.com.
MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Hulewat Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Hulewat, on behalf of herself individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Medical Management
Resource Group, L.L.C. d/b/a American Vision Partners, Defendant,
Case No. 2:24-cv-00377-MTM (D. Ariz., February 23, 2024) arises out
of the recent cyberattack and data breach resulting from
Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and industry standard
data security practices.
On or about February 15, 2024, Defendant began sending Plaintiff
and other victims of the data breach an untitled letter regarding
the cyberattack. The notice letter revealed that on or about
November 14, 2023, an unauthorized party obtained patients'
personal information, including name, contact information, date of
birth, and certain medical information.
Headquartered in Maricopa County, Arizona, Medical Management
Resource Group is limited liability company that provides
administrative services to ophthalmology practices. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cristina Perez Hesano, Esq.
PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
7508 N. 59th Avenue
Glendale, AZ 85301
Telephone: (602) 730-7100
Facsimile: (623) 235-6173
E-mail: cperez@perezlawgroup.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
MOL EUROPE: CAT Approves Collective Settlement in Cartel Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has approved a
first-of-its-kind collective settlement under the collective
proceedings regime. The settlement is part of an opt-out claim made
by class representative Mark McLaren about the deep-sea carriage of
new motor vehicles. It follows a 2018 European Commission decision
that the defendants had infringed competition law and manipulated
market prices. The approved settlement is between McLaren and one
of the 12 defendants to the claim, Compania Sudamericana de Vapores
(CSAV).
Case name and reference Mark McLaren Class Representative Ltd v MOL
(Europe Africa) Ltd and Ors, 1339/7/7/20, 6 December 2023
Court: UK Competition Appeal Tribunal
Parties Mark McLaren, Compania Sudamericana de Vapores
Cause of action Anticompetitive cartel conduct
Case background
McLaren and CSAV had agreed that the latter was responsible for
1.7% of the value of commerce that was subject to anticompetitive
behaviour. The settlement amount was £1.2 million in damages and
£380,000 in costs.
McLaren estimated that millions of consumers were entitled to the
damages. Accordingly, the tribunal agreed that the sum did not have
to be distributed to class members just yet.
Before approving the settlement, the CAT considered the following
issues.
Was the settlement sum within a reasonable range?
Was the split between damages and costs proper?
Should the other defendants be prevented from making contribution
claims against CSAV?
Would undistributed sums revert back to CSAV?
Under Section 49A of the Competition Act 1998 and Rule 94 of the
CAT Rules 2015, the tribunal will only approve a settlement if it
is just and reasonable. The rules require the CAT to take various
factors into account to determine this, including:
the amount and terms of the settlement;
the likelihood of obtaining a judgment for an amount that
significantly exceeds the settlement; and
the likely duration and cost of proceeding to trial.
The tribunal refused to be drawn into a detailed consideration of
the settlement amount or to conduct a mini trial - it held that the
settlement amount was within the normal range, given the
uncertainties of litigation. The CAT deferred to the fact that the
parties, independent counsel and McLaren's economics expert had all
concluded that the settlement was reasonable.
The tribunal maintained that proceeding to trial would be a costly
and lengthy process. It considered that removing CSAV from
proceedings would benefit all parties - "[t]he fewer parties you
have, the less costs, the less complexity, and the shorter
hearings".
The CAT was also satisfied that £280,000 for McLaren's cost of
proceedings and an additional £100,000 for the cost of the
settlement application was reasonable in the context of the £1.2
million damages sum.
McLaren and CSAV also sought a barring order, which would make
their agreement binding on the other defendants.
The tribunal's approach was characterised by a desire to facilitate
the settlement agreed between the parties. This appears to be based
on a policy objective to ensure that collective proceedings are
settleable. The rationale behind this is clear: collective actions
can be legally, procedurally and logistically complex, which is a
great burden on the tribunal as well as the parties.
Agreement to settle
The parties agreed that CSAV was responsible for 1.7% of the market
share affected by the shipping cartel. As a natural result of the
settlement, McLaren agreed not to pursue the other defendants for
that 1.7% of the market.
McLaren also asked the CAT to prevent other defendants from arguing
that CSAV had a greater market share than 1.7% and that they should
pay less to McLaren as a result. Likewise, CSAV asked the tribunal
to prevent the other defendants from seeking to claim against it
for the difference.
The applicants argued that the tribunal has the power to make such
an order under Section 2(2) of the Civil Liability (Contribution)
Act 1978, which provides that "the court shall have power in any
[proceedings for contribution under Section 1] to exempt any person
from liability to make contributions".
However, there was a dispute about whether this could apply here,
since the other defendants had not yet issued a contribution claim
against CSAV. The CAT avoided deciding on this matter. Instead, it
recognised that the question was a difficult one and urged the
parties to reach an agreement to avoid the matter going to the
Court of Appeal. The CAT appears to have been concerned that an
appeal about a small part of the litigation may cause delay to the
rest.
Risks and challenges
Ultimately, McLaren agreed to risk CSAV having a larger market
share than 1.7%, by forgoing any damages that could be obtained by
the other defendants if they could prove this to be the case. In
turn, the other defendants agreed not to claim against CSAV.
The judgment did not address the CAT's power to make the originally
sought orders. While the economics in this instance meant that it
could be resolved with the consent of the parties, this will not
always be the case.
If the defendants cannot obtain barring orders, this will be a
significant hurdle for class representatives to overcome in any
attempts to settle. Further, it is difficult to see how such an
order could be fair to defendants that are not party to a
settlement agreement, unless the class representative agrees to
take the risk as McLaren did in this case.
In the absence of a settlement, there is currently no express
provision in the collective proceedings regime that allows
settlement sums to revert to defendants. If a claim goes to trial
and a defendant is ordered to pay damages, unclaimed sums will be
paid to the designated charity - this is currently the Access to
Justice Foundation.
By contrast, Rule 94(9)(g) states that the CAT should take account
of provisions in a settlement that reverts unclaimed balances to
defendants.
The problem with undistributed sums
McLaren and CSAV agreed that any undistributed sums would revert to
CSAV, which would have priority over any other settling defendants.
Accordingly, if the other defendants settled as well, CSAV would be
entitled to be repaid its whole £1.2 million (if at least that
amount remained undistributed).
The CAT held that the terms of the settlement agreement were
reasonable, although this appears to have been because those terms
are expressly subject to the tribunal approving them when it orders
any distribution. Thus far, the CAT has refused to decide whether
it would order the reversion, delaying the decision until there is
a distribution plan.
The tribunal's reluctance to approve the reversion is
understandable. The statutory purpose of the collective proceedings
regime is to provide effective access to justice for claimants.
That purpose cannot be achieved if class members are denied a fair
opportunity to make their claims before the sums revert to CSAV. As
the tribunal said, there is no distribution plan and there has been
no decision about how damages will be allocated or assessed. This
is bound to make it difficult for the CAT to give class members a
fair opportunity to claim.
However, until the treatment of undistributed damages is clarified,
CSAV will be uncertain about how its settlement will work
economically. If the reversion mechanism is upheld - and the
claimants win at trial - it seems very likely that CSAV will get
all or at least a substantial portion of its damages back. If other
defendants also settle, then the amount CSAV receives will largely
depend on whether its reversion is given priority over the other
defendants' reversions.
This is a landmark decision - but further clarity is needed
To price settlement offers, defendants will need clarity about the
approach that the CAT will take to undistributed sums.
Whether reversion mechanisms are upheld is likely to completely
change the economics of settlements. If the tribunal encourages
parties to settle, as indicated by its approach to assessing the
reasonableness of the deal, it should seek to give clarity to
defendants so that they can price their offers appropriately.
Ensuring that class members have a fair opportunity to claim for
distributions is also an entirely valid objective. The need for the
CAT to monitor and regulate the distribution process is made
particularly stark because, after damages have been awarded,
litigation funders' economic interests will no longer align with
the class's economic interests.
However, these are issues that can be resolved by the class
representative, its solicitors, and by the tribunal ensuring that
communications with class members and the distribution plan are
sufficiently robust. It does not justify a lack of transparency
about how much settlements will cost defendants. [GN]
MORROW COUNTY, OR: Contaminated Well Water, Class Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pat Dooris of KGW reports that for years, residents of Morrow and
Umatilla counties have dealt with groundwater contamination. It's a
problem that the state of Oregon has known about for three decades
— but progress toward a meaningful fix has been slow, to say the
least.
Instead of waiting any longer for the state to step in, residents
of the Lower Umatilla Basin have now decided to lawyer up; filing a
class action lawsuit against the Port of Morrow, large commercial
farms and a confined animal feeding operation.
The Lower Umatilla Basin is located about 160 miles east of
Portland, covering 562 square miles in northern Umatilla and Morrow
counties near the Columbia River. The aquifer beneath the ground is
contaminated with nitrates, which seep from the soil and down into
the underground water supply that many residential wells tap into.
Nitrates in the region have been linked to commercial farms
spreading fertilizer and food producers spreading nitrate-laden
wastewater on farm fields, as well as large animal feeding
operations.
As many as 4,500 private wells access the aquifer, which residents
use for drinking water, cooking and bathing. While there's nothing
visibly wrong with the Lower Umatilla Basin's water, it's loaded
with nitrates. The federal government's "maximum contaminant level"
for nitrates is 10 parts per million in any public water system.
Some residents in the basin say their wells have tested between 25
and 37 parts per million.
The lawsuit alleges that the defendants have over-applied
fertilizer and nitrogen-rich industrial wastewater to fields in the
region, causing the nitrates to seep down into the aquifer. It
alleges, the Port of Morrow has been violating permits from the
Oregon Department of Environmental Qualify both repeatedly and
intentionally.
According to the suit, the port violated its wastewater permit at
least 395 times between November 1, 2023 and the first
week-and-a-half of January 2024. That covers a span of 71 days,
which means violations allegedly occurred an average of five times
a day or more.
This week, The Story's Pat Dooris spoke with the lawyer
representing the eastern Oregonians who filed this lawsuit. Steve
Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro said he's not surprised that
the state of Oregon has done little to curb the problem.
"There's some very powerful agri-businesses and the port, they make
a ton of money off dumping this polluted water, and they have a lot
of clout. So no, I wasn't surprised," Berman said. "I think it's
gone on so long because a lot of the victims are low-income
minorities who can't afford to hire lawyers, don't have a voice in
politics. As I said earlier on March 2, 2024, if this was happening
to a wealthy suburb of Portland, it would have been stopped years
ago."
The plaintiffs hope to force the Port of Morrow and other
businesses to change the way they do things and ensure that
nitrates aren't getting into the water supply, whether that's
through a filtering process or something else. And if that isn't
feasible, the complaint wants those companies to pay for a medical
monitoring program and test the people who are being exposed to
that contaminated water.
"The one thing that keep in mind here is you have Port of Morrow
and Lamb Weston that have violated their discharge permits over and
over again, and recently the Port of Morrow said, 'So what, we're
going to keep doing it,'" Berman said. "So, not only do you have
pollution, but you have people knowing that they're polluting this
groundwater and they say they're going to do it anyway. That's
outrageous behavior."
While the Port of Morrow did not want to talk to KGW during the
"Tainted Waters" series, they and other producers have said in
other venues that reducing nitrates would be prohibitively
expensive for the industry. Berman finds that laughable.
"You don't have the right, because you want to make money, to harm
other people and their property," Berman said. "That's just basic
American law. So if that's their answer, bring it on. Look forward
to seeing them in court."
KGW reached out to the Port of Morrow for comment on the lawsuit.
They had the following to say on February 29, 2024:
"While the Port hasn't officially been served with the complaint,
we take any actions like this seriously, but reserve the right to
respond until after we've had a chance to review the filing."
The Port of Morrow did contact KGW recently to point out that they
are not the primary entity responsible for groundwater
contamination in the region. Data from the Oregon DEQ suggests that
irrigated agriculture is responsible for nearly 70% of the
nitrates. Confined animal feed lots are responsible for just over
12%, while "food processing land application" (which the port is
considered) was responsible for less than 5% of nitrates, according
to that data.
"It's worth noting that industrial wastewater reuse is an accepted
environmental strategy in Oregon because it avoids wasting a water
resource and putting further pressure on limited water sources in
our region," the Port of Morrow said.
Oregon has fined the Port of Morrow more than $2 million for
wastewater permit violations thus far. Port officials have said
they're working on a $500 million project to reduce the nitrates in
their wastewater before sending it out to farmers. That's set to be
completed in 2025, and the port claims that the water will then
meet or exceed DEQ standards. [GN]
NEWTON TEACHERS: Faces Second Class Suit Over Strike
----------------------------------------------------
Genevieve Morrison of The Heights reports that three Newton parents
have filed a second class-action lawsuit against the Newton
Teachers Association (NTA) for its strike that closed the city's
public schools for 11 days.
"The case is pressing full speed ahead," said Daniel Suhr, a lawyer
representing the parents.
The parents filed the suit on Feb. 20, after a Middlesex Superior
Court judge had ruled that the first class-action filing was "moot"
since the state's case against the union was closed.
Lital Asher-Dotan, Dan Eshet, Dmitriy Sokolovskiy, and Barbara
Cipriani are listed as parties in the case, but Cipriani withdrew
on February 27, 2024.
Now, the remaining three plaintiffs are seeking damages from the
NTA for its strike, as well as from the Massachusetts Teachers
Association (MTA), and the National Education Association (NEA) for
aiding the Newton union in the work stoppage.
Teachers' strikes are illegal in Massachusetts.
"NTA did not undertake this action alone, but did so with the
active assistance of other unions that chose to subsidize and
support its illegal behavior," the filing reads.
Parents claimed that the strike violated their children's state
rights to public education.
"These tortious acts created real damage: learning loss for the
students, emotional distress for the students and parents, and
out-of-pocket costs for parents like tutors, camps, day care,
babysitters, burned vacation and sick days, and missed work
shifts," the filing reads.
The plaintiffs argue that the fines that the NTA is paying to the
state and the district don't account for the damage done to
families.
"The students and families of Newton deserve to be made whole for
the real losses they experienced from the NTA's knowing choice to
intentionally, blatantly break the law," the filing reads.
The NTA is required to pay $275,000 to the Newton Public Schools as
compensatory damages, and $350,000 in coercive fines to the state,
per a Feb. 20 ruling.
The benefits of the new teachers' contract will compensate students
for the damage the strike caused, according to Newton North High
School teacher Denise Cremin.
"What they deserve is to have an education every day where teachers
come in and we can do our jobs the way we're supposed to do our
jobs, because we have the resources that we need and the support
that we need and students have the support that they need," Cremin
said.
The case against the NTA represents a hostility toward
public-sector unions, according to Cremin.
"It definitely feels like a bigger, more national agenda rather
than just, you know, Newton parents that are upset about the
strike," Cremin said.
Suhr, who is from Wisconsin, and a Boston attorney Ilya Feoktistov
represent the three parents.
Suhr is listed as the senior legal fellow at the National
Opportunity Project, a non-profit that has pushed against critical
race theory and diversity-based hiring practices in schools, but
Suhr said recently that he no longer works for the organization.
"The National Opportunity Project is a national, nonprofit
government watchdog organization committed to protecting Americans'
rights and holding the government accountable at all levels," its
website reads. [GN]
NEXTDOOR HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Apr 29
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on March 1
disclosed that purchasers of Nextdoor Holdings, Inc. f/k/a Khosla
Ventures Acquisition Co. II (NYSE: KIND) publicly traded Class A
common stock between July 6, 2021 and November 8, 2022, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"), have until April 29, 2024 to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff of the Nextdoor class action lawsuit.
Captioned Adamo v. Nextdoor Holdings, Inc., No. 24-cv-01213 (N.D.
Cal.), the Nextdoor class action lawsuit charges Nextdoor, certain
of Nextdoor's current and former top executive officers, Khosla
Ventures LLC, and Khosla Ventures SPAC Sponsor II LLC with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Nextdoor class action lawsuit, please provide your
information here:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-nextdoor-holdings-inc-f-k-a-khosla-ventures-acquisition-co-ii-class-action-lawsuit-kind.html
You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez or Jennifer N. Caringal
of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at
info@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Nextdoor class
action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than April 29,
2024.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: Nextdoor operates a hyperlocal online social
networking platform that connects neighbors, public agencies, and
businesses via the internet. Nextdoor was created through the
November 5, 2021 merger of a privately held company called
Nextdoor, Inc. and a publicly traded special purpose acquisition
company (SPAC or blank-check company), then called Khosla Ventures
Acquisition Co. II ("KV Acquisition Co."), with KV Acquisition Co.
serving as the surviving entity and changing its name to Nextdoor
Holdings, Inc. after the merger.
The Nextdoor class action lawsuit alleges that defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Nextdoor's financial results
prior to the merger had been temporarily inflated by the ephemeral
effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, which had pulled forward demand
for Nextdoor's platform and cannibalized future advertising revenue
growth; (ii) rather than being sustained, such growth trends had
already begun reversing at the start of the Class Period; (iii)
Nextdoor's total addressable market was materially smaller than the
312 million households represented to investors; and (iv) by the
start of the Class Period, Nextdoor's most important market -- the
U.S. market -- was already substantially saturated, impairing
Nextdoor's ability to monetize users and increase its average
revenue per weekly active user ("ARPU") or U.S. weekly active users
("WAUs").
On March 1, 2022, Nextdoor reported that the revenue growth rate in
the fourth quarter had declined sequentially by 18% to 48%
year-over-year growth, down from the 66% growth rate in the most
recent quarter reported to investors. In addition, Nextdoor
reported quarterly ARPU of $1.65, revealing that the ARPU growth
rate in the quarter had declined substantially by 26% to just 12%
year-over-year growth from 38% growth in the third quarter, which
indicated that Nextdoor's ability to monetize its platform was
faltering. On this news, the price of Nextdoor Class A common stock
declined approximately 14%.
Then, on May 10, 2022, Nextdoor revealed that its global WAUs
growth had increased just 1% sequentially (from 32% year-over-year
growth in the fourth quarter of 2021 to 33% year-over-year growth
in the first quarter of 2022) and that U.S. WAUs had actually
suffered a sequential decline of approximately one hundred thousand
users. On this news, the price of Nextdoor Class A common stock
fell approximately 8%.
Thereafter, on August 9, 2022, Nextdoor revealed that its platform
continued to materially decline, reporting that revenue growth
slowed to just 19% year-over-year during the quarter and that
Nextdoor's U.S. WAUs had declined for the second quarter in a row
to 29.2 million. On this news, the price of Nextdoor Class A common
stock fell approximately 25%.
Finally, on November 8, 2022, Nextdoor reported that its revenues
during the quarter declined sequentially by $1 million to $54
million, representing just 2% year-over-year growth, and that
Nextdoor's quarterly ARPU growth was increasingly negative,
contracting by 12% compared to the prior year quarter. On this
news, the price of Nextdoor Class A common stock fell approximately
11%, further damaging investors.
The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud. You can view a copy of the complaint by
clicking here.
Robbins Geller has launched a dedicated SPAC Task Force to protect
investors in blank check companies and seek redress for corporate
malfeasance. Comprised of experienced litigators, investigators,
and forensic accountants, the SPAC Task Force is dedicated to
rooting out and prosecuting fraud on behalf of injured SPAC
investors. The rise in blank check financing poses unique risks to
investors. Robbins Geller's SPAC Task Force represents the vanguard
of ensuring integrity, honesty, and justice in this rapidly
developing investment arena.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Nextdoor
publicly traded Class A common stock during the Class Period to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Nextdoor class action
lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest
financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who
is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead
plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing
the Nextdoor class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a
law firm of its choice to litigate the Nextdoor class action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery of the Nextdoor class action lawsuit is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller is one of the world's leading
complex class action firms representing plaintiffs in securities
fraud cases. The Firm is ranked #1 on the most recent ISS
Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report for recovering more
than $1.75 billion for investors in 2022 -- the third year in a row
Robbins Geller tops the list. And in those three years alone,
Robbins Geller recovered nearly $5.3 billion for investors, more
than double the amount recovered by any other plaintiffs' firm.
With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the
largest plaintiffs' firms in the world and the Firm's attorneys
have obtained many of the largest securities class action
recoveries in history, including the largest securities class
action recovery ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp. Sec.
Litig. Please visit the following page for more information:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html
Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Contact:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
J.C. Sanchez, Jennifer N. Caringal
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101
800-449-4900
info@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
NEXUSCW INC: Holifield Sues Over Unpaid OT, Earned Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA HOLIFIELD, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. NEXUSCW, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00353-RBM-MMP (S.D. Cal., February 23, 2024) asserts claims
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage
and Hour Law, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law arising from the
Defendant's failure to pay proper overtime wages and earned wages
to Plaintiff and the Class members.
NexusCW employed Plaintiff Holifield as one of its hourly
recruiters in New Jersey from approximately January 9, 2023 until
June 2, 2023. Holifield and the other hourly recruiters regularly
worked more than 40 hours a week due to the nature of the
recruiting industry. However, NexusCW did not pay Holifield and its
other hourly recruiters for all their hours worked, says the suit.
Based in San Diego, CA, NexusCW is a staffing agency that manages
contingent workers, including recruiting, payrolling, and HR
partnership. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William M. Hogg, Esq.
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
whogg@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
PACCAR INC: Court Denies G4 Innovations' Bid to Transfer Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned G4 INNOVATIONS LLC, et al., Plaintiffs v.
PACCAR, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-02271-HLT-ADM (D. Kan.),
Judge Holly L. Teeter of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Kansas denies the Plaintiff's motion to transfer claims.
The matter is a class action brought by purchasers of trucks
equipped with an engine manufactured by Defendant Paccar, Inc. The
Plaintiffs are eight entities, who purchased trucks requiring
repairs due to what they say are faulty fuel injectors in the
engines. Some Plaintiffs bought and repaired the trucks in Kansas,
but most did not.
The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which argues in part that
the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the Defendant as to the
claims by non-Kansas parties. The Plaintiffs then filed a motion to
transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1631 and 28 U.S.C. Section 1404.
The Plaintiffs seek to transfer some claims under each statute to
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, where the Defendant's business is based.
The Court denies the motion to transfer. The piecemeal transfer
proposed by the Plaintiffs is not permitted under the statutes or
caselaw and their request for severance is neither supported nor in
the interest of judicial efficiency. However, the Court will defer
ruling on the motion to dismiss for at least 14 days to permit the
Plaintiffs to decide whether they will dismiss this case and refile
it in Washington or proceed with the litigation in this district.
Judge Teeter notes that this case is being litigated with a degree
of gamesmanship by both sides. The Plaintiffs expanded the claims
and number of parties when amending the complaint. This prompted
the motion to dismiss, which in part argued a lack of personal
jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs now concede personal jurisdiction is
lacking over the newly added claims and seek to rectify the problem
through transfer.
But the transfer approach the Plaintiffs suggest is not tenable as
explained in this order, Judge Teeter says. And although the
Defendant agrees this case could be appropriately litigated in
Washington, it contends dismissal and refiling is the only way to
accomplish this outcome.
Despite this stalemate, the Court notes that the seemingly
inevitable dismissal of the claims over which the Court lacks
personal jurisdiction would appear to streamline a renewed transfer
request under Section 1404 for whatever claims remain, meaning this
case may end up--albeit in pieces, with potentially fewer claims,
and with choice-of-law headaches--in Washington or result in
litigation in two forums with different timelines and potentially
different outcomes.
Judge Teeter points out that this seems like an unnecessarily
expensive strategy that presents risks for everyone and results in
an outcome no one wants. Nevertheless, the Court must take up this
issue as it is presented despite inefficiencies.
The Plaintiffs are eight companies: G4 Innovations LLC; Little
Diesel Transportation ("Little Diesel"); Zeke and Lizzie, LLC;
Vision AG, LLC; G&R Motor Freight LTD; Thilges Bros. LLC; L Z S
Ceremonial Trails Inc.; and R&J Dirtworks, Inc. They are current
and former owners or lessees of tractor-trailer and vocational
trucks that the Defendant manufactured and equipped with MX-13
engines beginning in model year 2021.
The Plaintiffs allege the fuel injector system in the MX-13 engine
is defective because it clogs without warning, and that the
Defendant knew or should have known of this defect.
G4 initially filed this case as a nationwide class action for
breach of express warranty. The Defendant moved to dismiss G4's
original complaint for lack of standing, failure to state a claim,
and because the proposed class could not meet the commonality,
predominance, manageability, or superiority requirements of Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Plaintiffs responded by filing an amended complaint. The
amended complaint added the other parties listed here. Per the
amended complaint, G4 and Vision Ag bought and repaired trucks in
Kansas. Little Diesel bought a truck in Missouri and had repairs
done in Kansas and Missouri. Zeke bought in Nebraska and had
repairs done in Kansas. The remaining four Plaintiffs bought and
repaired outside of Kansas.
The amended complaint includes six counts, including nationwide
class claims and various state subclass claims. The Plaintiffs have
since abandoned two of the claims. Of the remaining claims, Count 1
is for violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act on
behalf of a nationwide class. Count 2 is for breach of express
warranty on behalf of a nationwide class, or alternatively, on
behalf of each state subclass. Count 5 is for breach of the implied
warranty of merchantability on behalf of each state subclass. And
Count 6 is for fraudulent omission on behalf of each state
subclass.
The Defendant has moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The
Defendant argues that all counts fail to state a claim and that
this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over it as to certain
claims. The Plaintiffs concede that personal jurisdiction does not
exist as to the claims by G&R, Thilges, L Z S, and Dirtworks
because those claims do not arise from the Defendant's connection
to Kansas. The Plaintiffs also concede that personal jurisdiction
over the Defendant is "arguably" lacking as to the claims by Zeke
and Little Diesel because those trucks were purchased outside of
Kansas, even though some repairs were done in Kansas.
The Plaintiffs also presume that the Court will follow its prior
ruling that a nationwide class action is not permissible where
general jurisdiction over a defendant is lacking, which would
prevent G4 or Vision Ag from maintaining a nationwide class action
in this district.
In lieu of dismissal, the Plaintiffs request that the Court
transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1404 and 1631 and
have filed a separate motion to transfer.
The motion to transfer states that the Plaintiffs seek to litigate
this dispute in a single forum, and because personal jurisdiction
does not exist over certain of their claims, the Court cannot serve
as that single forum. The Plaintiffs request that the Court
transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1631 the claims over which
the Court does not possess personal jurisdiction and transfer
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) the remaining claims so this
dispute can be adjudicated in a single forum.
The Defendant does not dispute that this case could be adjudicated
in Washington. But it argues the Plaintiffs have not met the
standard for transfer, that the transfer method they have proposed
would be unworkable, and that they should instead dismiss this case
and refile it in Washington. The Defendant also argues that the
Court should decide its motion to dismiss before deciding the
motion to transfer.
The parties dispute whether the various factors weigh in favor of
or against transfer. But those factors are ultimately not
dispositive of the Plaintiffs' motion, Judge Teeter opines. The
Plaintiffs wish to have this case transferred to Washington. But
the mechanism they propose is a piecemeal transfer of some claims
under Section 1631 and others under Section 1404(a).
The problem with the Plaintiffs' proposal is that both statutes
discuss transfer of a "civil action," Judge Teeter notes. Courts
have held that these statues only allow for transfer of an entire
case, not individual claims. The Plaintiffs have not cited any
authority that would permit the Court to do what they are
requesting here, namely piecemeal transfer of claims under separate
transfer statutes, even if it ultimately results in transfer of all
claims. Nor have they identified any statute that would allow for
transfer of the entire case, given the current posture of the
claims, Judge Teeter points out.
In their reply, the Plaintiffs seem to acknowledge that
transferring less than the entire action under Section 1404(a)
and/or Section 1631 could be done only if the claims are severed
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. The Court, therefore,
considers whether severance is appropriate here.
Judge Teeter finds that severance is not appropriate here. First,
the Plaintiffs only request severance in passing, offering little
to no analysis other than to state that severance is appropriate
here because it is in the interest of justice and the claims arise
from separate events or transactions. This conclusory statement
does not justify the relatively drastic decision to split this case
in two.
Second, the Plaintiffs' request to sever is not substantively
persuasive. Third, severance would not serve the ends the
Plaintiffs seek and would complicate rather than simplify this
litigation. Further, as Defendant notes, severing the claims and
transferring them pursuant to different statutes could potentially
create a choice-of-law headache for the Western District of
Washington.
Under these circumstances, Judge Teeter holds that severance is not
appropriate. The Plaintiffs' motion to transfer is, therefore,
denied because the Court cannot rely on multiple statutes to
effectuate a piecemeal transfer of this case.
Neither party seems to dispute that this case could be--and perhaps
should be--in the Western District of Washington, where the
Defendant is at home, Judge Teeter says. But the parties dispute
how that should be achieved. The Plaintiffs seek to transfer the
entire case through a piecemeal transfer of the claims. Although
the Court is sympathetic to the Plaintiffs' desire to take this
case to a more proper forum where the matter can be uniformly
litigated, the statutes they rely on don't permit piecemeal
transfer and the standard for severance has not been met.
The Plaintiffs also argue that the transfer issue should be decided
before any ruling on the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Court
agrees at this point in the litigation that any dispositive issues
should be decided by the court in which this case ultimately
lands.
The Defendant thinks Plaintiffs should dismiss this case in its
entirety and refile it in Washington. The Plaintiffs do contend
that some or all of the claims will be refiled in Washington if the
motion to transfer is denied. But whether and to what extent they
do so is left up to them.
Accordingly, the Court denies the Plaintiffs' motion to transfer
for the reasons stated here. But the Court will defer ruling on the
pending motion to dismiss for at least 14 days. In that time,
should the Plaintiffs decide they would prefer to uniformly
litigate this entire matter in the Western District of Washington,
they may file an appropriate Rule 41 dismissal of this action so
that the case can be refiled in that court.
To the extent this case remains pending in the District of Kansas
after 14 days, the Court will take up the motion to dismiss and
proceed with this litigation with whatever claims survive that
motion. However, the Court reiterates its caution in Footnote 1,
and encourages the parties to consider all options with a mind to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1.
The Court, therefore, orders that the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1631 and 28 U.S.C. Section
1404 is denied. The Court will defer ruling on the Defendant's
motion to dismiss for 14 days as explained.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Feb. 8,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/cekuj7ka from
PacerMonitor.com.
PALO ALTO: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 26
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (www.ktmc.com)
informs investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California against Palo Alto Networks, Inc. ("Palo Alto")
(NASDAQ: PANW). The action charges Palo Alto 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 Palo Alto's materially misleading
statements and omissions to the public, Palo Alto's investors have
suffered significant losses.
CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT YOUR PALO ALTO LOSSES. YOU CAN ALSO CLICK ON
THE FOLLOWING LINK OR COPY AND PASTE IN YOUR BROWSER:
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/palo-alto-networks-inc?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=panw&mktm=r
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: APRIL 26, 2024
CLASS PERIOD: AUGUST 18, 2023 THROUGH FEBRUARY 20, 2024
CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS:
Jonathan Naji, Esq. at (484) 270-1453 or via email 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 as well as the firm itself which is continuously
awarded for the successful results we've achieved. We are proud to
have recovered billions of dollars for our clients and the classes
of shareholders we represent.
In addition to representing investors in cases where the fraud has
been revealed, Kessler Topaz also represents whistleblowers -
persons who expose wrongdoing to those in positions of authority or
to the public- in cases brought under federal and state qui tam
statutes, and through financial fraud whistleblower programs, such
as those run by the SEC, CFTC and IRS. If you have information
about fraud against government programs (such as Medicare), or
violations of federal securities, commodities, tax or anti-foreign
bribery laws, contact Kessler Topaz at (866) 369-7779 or at
wbinfo@ktmc.com or go to https://www.ktmc-whistleblower.com.
DEFENDANTS' ALLEGED MISCONDUCT
The Class Period begins on August 18, 2023, when Palo Alto held an
earnings call about its reported financial results for its fiscal
Q4 2023. On the call, Defendants touted the company's
platformization initiative, claiming that it was "continuing to
drive large deal momentum." Throughout the Class Period, Defendants
continued to claim that the company's consolidation and
platformization initiatives were significantly driving increased
market share.
Then, on February 20, 2024, during after-market hours, the truth
was revealed when Palo Alto announced its financial results for Q2
2024 and drastically lowered its third quarter and full-year
billings and revenue guidance. On an earnings call that same day,
Defendants attributed the revised guidance "to a consequence of us
driving a shift in our strategy in wanting to accelerate both our
platformization and consolidation and activating our AI leadership"
as well as due to a deal with the federal government that didn't
close as expected.
Following this news, Palo Alto's stock fell $104.12 per share, or
more than 25%, from a close of $366.09 on February 20, 2024, to
close at $261.97 on February 21, 2024.
WHAT CAN I DO?
Palo Alto investors may, no later than April 26, 2024, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages Palo Alto investors who have
suffered significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire
more information. The class action complaint against Palo Alto,
Schlaegel v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., et al., Case No.
24-cv-01156, is filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR THE CASE
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.
CONTACT:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
(484) 270-1453
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
info@ktmc.com [GN]
PANDORA VENTURES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hernandez Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
VANESSA HERNANDEZ, an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PANDORA VENTURES, LLC, a Maryland
limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 24STCV04554 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
February 23, 2024) alleges violations of the California Labor Code
and the California Business and Professions Code.
Plaintiff Vanessa Hernandez worked for Defendants as a non-exempt
employee from approximately August of 2023 through approximately
February of 2024. Throughout their employment with the Defendants,
Plaintiff and Class members, at times, never received proper
overtime and minimum wages. Among other things, they were also
deprived of full, timely and uninterrupted meal periods for days
they worked more than five hours in a work day and for days they
worked in excess of ten hours in a work day, says the Plaintiff.
Pandora Ventures LLC is a supplier of precious metal jewelry. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq.
Talia R. Edri, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 438-5555
Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com
jeff@tomorrowlaw.com
talia@tomorrowlaw.com
PDD HOLDINGS: Faces Two Privacy Class Action Suits
--------------------------------------------------
Tessa Bentulan, writing for WNYT, reports that a warning for the
millions of people who use the online shopping app Temu, as the
company is facing two class action lawsuits.
The lawsuits allege Temu failed to protect customers' personal and
financial information.
We spoke to TJ Sayers with the Center for Internet Security who
says that Temu was once temporarily taken off United States app
stores because of privacy violations.
The class action lawsuits, one of them out of New York City, says
Temu takes everything from your phone and cuts corners when it
comes to beefing up its cyber security to save money.
In a statement from Temu, the company said:
"We categorically deny the allegations in both lawsuits and intend
to vigorously defend ourselves against these meritless lawsuits.
The complaints are essentially taken from a short-seller report by
Grizzly Research, which has stated clearly that its reports are not
based on statements of fact.
"At Temu, safeguarding privacy and maintaining transparency in our
data practices are core values. We collect information with a clear
and singular purpose: to provide and continually enhance our
products and services for our users. Our practices are in line with
industry practices and clearly disclosed in our Privacy Policy.
"When disclosing data collection practices, we adhere to the
principle of maximum disclosure. If there's a possibility that data
will be collected in any given scenario, we disclose it. This is in
line with the requirements for developers set by application
marketplaces like Apple's App Store and Google Play Store. However,
when it comes to the actual collection and use of data, we follow
the principle of minimality, meaning we only collect and use data
necessary for specific, justified scenarios.
Even though the Grizzly Research report was completely groundless,
we recognize the need to communicate our data practices and
security protocols to users in an open and transparent manner, and
have taken steps to improve the communication.
Temu has added a permissions section in the Temu app and website to
clearly elaborate on what permissions they require to ensure data
minimization and transparency.
In November, Temu partnered with San Francisco-based cybersecurity
agency HackerOne to offer a bug bounty program. Temu joins the
likes of Amazon, Google, Tesla and Facebook in using HackerOne's
platform to connect and reward ethical hackers for successfully
discovering and reporting security vulnerabilities. We have also
rolled out two-factor authentication (2FA) in November as an
additional layer of security protection.
In February, Temu received the Mobile Application Security
Assessment (MASA) certification from Berlin-founded DEKRA, the
world's largest independent provider of testing, inspection, and
certification services. DEKRA is one of six labs authorized by
Google to conduct the MASA test, which involves testing an app for
vulnerabilities, assessing data protection mechanisms, and ensuring
compliance with best practices in mobile application security.
Temu considers privacy and security to be core functions of our
platform. Earning and keeping the trust of our users is our top
priority, so we hold ourselves to the highest privacy and security
standards. We are committed to collaborating with various
stakeholders to identify and address vulnerabilities, increasing
the transparency of security testing, and ensuring the safety of
our businesses and customers. Users can rest assured that shopping
on Temu is safe." [GN]
PENNSYLVANIA: DOC Faces Class Action Over Solitary Confinement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hayden Thompson, writing for WTAJ, reports that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in Pennsylvania that looks to end the
"unlawful use" of solitary confinement in the Pa. Department of
Corrections (DOC).
The federal lawsuit, filed on March 3, was brought against the DOC
and alleged that all prisons hold incarcerated individuals in
long-term, often indefinite, solitary confinement. The solitary
confinement units are classified as Security Level 5 units (SL5)
units and include, but are not limited to, the Intensive Management
Unit (IMU) and the Restricted Housing Unit (RHU).
According to the lawsuit, individuals incarcerated in solitary
confinement in the DOC are locked in "extremely small cells for as
many as 21 to 24 hours every day" and "denied necessary social,
environmental and occupational simulation."
Individuals with mental health diagnoses are disproportionately
placed in solitary confinement, while individuals with mental
illness being 37% of the DOC population and are 50% of the solitary
confinement population, according to the lawsuit.
When individuals are in prolonged isolation, especially those with
mental illness, sleeplessness, hopelessness, paranoia, consuming
foreign objects, eating and covering themselves in feces, head
banging, self-harm injury and suicide attempts are exacerbated.
The lawsuit continues to read that there is only about 5% of the
DOC’s population is in solitary confinement at any given time,
approximately 40% of suicide attempts in the DOC occur on solitary
confinement units.
"It is by now a scientific fact that solitary confinement creates
and worsens a predictable constellation of adverse psychological
symptoms including but not limited to uncontrollable anxiety,
impaired impulse control, depression and suicidality, cognitive
impairments, memory loss and auditory and visual hallucinations,"
the lawsuit reads.
According to the lawsuit, human brains are designed for social
interaction, which means that social isolation "results in
neurological changes to the brain, quickly degrading brain
function."
The National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC) states
that people with mental illness, juveniles and pregnant women
should never be in isolation. The NCCHC also stated that prolonged
solitary, longer than 15 consecutive days, confinement is "cruel,
inhumane and degrading treatment and harmful to an individual’s
health."
The DOC stated in the lawsuit that it recognizes that, "the
potential for suicide is greater if the individual is subjected to
pressures such as but not limited to . . . placement in RHU and any
movement to and from Level 5 Housing Unit."
There are six counts in the causes of actions, two violations of
the Eighth Amendment, a violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, a violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 and two violations of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The lawsuit has been requested to be brought before a jury. The
lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. [GN]
PHYSICIANS TO WOMEN: Johnson Sues Over Unprotected Private Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
LATOYA JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHYSICIANS TO WOMEN, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 7:24-cv-00144-EKD (W.D. Va., February 23, 2024)
arises from Defendant's failure to safeguard the personal
identifiable information and protected health information of its
patients, which resulted in unauthorized access to its information
systems on or around April 4, 2023 and the compromised and
unauthorized disclosure of that private information.
The Plaintiff brings causes of action against Defendant for
negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach
of implied contract, seeking an award of monetary damages and
injunctive and declaratory relief, resulting from Defendant's
alleged failure to adequately protect their highly sensitive
private information.
Headquartered in Roanoke, VA, Physicians to Women, Inc. is a
Virginia corporation specializing in obstetric and gynecologic care
in since 1940. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lee A. Floyd, Esq.
Sarah G. Sauble, Esq.
BREIT BINIAZAN, PC
2100 E. Cary Street, Suite 310
Richmond, VA 23223
Telephone: (804) 351-9040
(757) 670-3939
E-mail: Lee@bbtrial.com
Sarah@bbtrial.com
- and -
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
RUST-OLEUM CORP: Komkaran Sues Over Deceptive Product Labeling
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW KOMKARAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RUST-OLEUM CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-01554 (N.D. Ill., February 24, 2024) alleges that the
Defendant's marketing, labeling, and sale of Watco Tung Oil
products mislead reasonable consumers.
By labeling these products with the Tung Oil Representation, the
Defendant creates consumer deception and confusion. As reasonable
consumer, Plaintiff purchased the products believing that they are
primarily Tung Oil. However, these products contain only small
amounts of Tung Oil. Specifically, Tung Oil is less than 20% of the
total weight of the products.
Accordingly, Plaintiff now brings this action to stop Defendant's
misrepresentation and recover the monies he paid for the products
as a result of the misrepresentation, as well as statutory damages
and the other relief.
Based in Vernon Hills, IL, Rust-Oleum Corporation manufactures and
sells protective paints and coatings for home and industrial use.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ben Travis, Esq.
BEN TRAVIS LAW, APC
4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: (619) 353-7966
E-mail: ben@bentravislaw.com
- and -
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
Sue J. Nam, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
E-mail: snam@reesellp.com
mreese@reesellp.com
- and -
Charles D. Moore, Esq.
REESE LLP
121 N. Washington Ave., 4th Floor
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
E-mail: cmoore@reesellp.com
SNOWFLAKE INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 29
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, on March 1 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Snowflake Inc. ("Snowflake" or the
"Company") (NYSE: SNOW) in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Snowflake Class A
common stock between September 16, 2020 and March 2, 2022, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until April
29, 2024 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in
the lawsuit.
Snowflake is a cloud data platform that enables its enterprise
customers to consolidate data into a single source to build
data-driven applications and share data.
The Snowflake class action lawsuit alleges that defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Snowflake had systematically
oversold capacity to customers which created a misleading
appearance of the demand for Snowflake's products and services;
(ii) Snowflake had provided significant discounts to its customers
prior to its initial public offering ("IPO") that temporarily
boosted sales but would not be sustainable after the IPO and/or
necessitate platform efficiency adjustments that negatively
impacted client consumption and Snowflake's revenue and profit
margins; (iii) as a result, Snowflake's customers were poised to
roll over a material amount of unused credits (and thereby
cannibalize future sales) at the end of their contracts' terms or
to refuse to renew their contracts at prior consumption levels or
at all; and (iv) consequently, Snowflake's product revenue and
remaining performance obligations had been artificially inflated
leading up to and during the Class Period.
On March 2, 2022, Snowflake revealed that its product revenue
growth rate for fiscal 2023 was projected to be slashed to a range
of 65% to 67%, far below the triple-digit growth and purportedly
ongoing favorable business trends highlighted by defendants during
the Class Period. On a related earnings call also held on March 2,
2022, Snowflake CFO, defendant Michael P. Scarpelli, further
revealed that Snowflake customers were consuming at a reduced rate,
which he blamed on "platform enhancements . . . which lowered
credit consumption." On this news, the price of Snowflake Class A
common stock fell nearly 28% over several trading sessions,
damaging investors.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Snowflake 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 Marion
Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212)
355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or
obligation to you.
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
SNOWFLAKE INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers of
Snowflake Inc. (NYSE: SNOW) Class A common stock between September
16, 2020 and March 2, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"), have
until April 29, 2024 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the
Snowflake class action lawsuit. Captioned Flannery v. Snowflake
Inc., No. 24-cv-01234 (N.D. Cal.), the Snowflake class action
lawsuit charges Snowflake and certain of its top executive officers
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Snowflake class action lawsuit, please provide
your information here:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-snowflake-inc-class-action-lawsuit-snow.html
You can also contact attorneys J.C. Sanchez or Jennifer N. Caringal
of Robbins Geller by calling 800-449-4900 or via e-mail at
info@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Snowflake class
action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than April 29,
2024.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: Snowflake is a cloud data platform that enables
its enterprise customers to consolidate data into a single source
to build data-driven applications and share data.
The Snowflake class action lawsuit alleges that defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) Snowflake had systematically oversold capacity to
customers which created a misleading appearance of the demand for
Snowflake's products and services;
(ii) Snowflake had provided significant discounts to its
customers prior to its initial public offering ("IPO") that
temporarily boosted sales but would not be sustainable after the
IPO and/or necessitate platform efficiency adjustments that
negatively impacted client consumption and Snowflake's revenue and
profit margins;
(iii) as a result, Snowflake's customers were poised to roll
over a material amount of unused credits (and thereby cannibalize
future sales) at the end of their contracts' terms or to refuse to
renew their contracts at prior consumption levels or at all; and
(iv) consequently, Snowflake's product revenue and remaining
performance obligations had been artificially inflated leading up
to and during the Class Period.
On March 2, 2022, Snowflake revealed that its product revenue
growth rate for fiscal 2023 was projected to be slashed to a range
of 65% to 67%, far below the triple-digit growth and purportedly
ongoing favorable business trends highlighted by defendants during
the Class Period. On a related earnings call also held on March 2,
2022, Snowflake CFO, defendant Michael P. Scarpelli, further
revealed that Snowflake customers were consuming at a reduced rate,
which he blamed on "platform enhancements . . . which lowered
credit consumption." On this news, the price of Snowflake Class A
common stock fell nearly 28% over several trading sessions,
damaging investors.
The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud. You can view a copy of the complaint by
clicking here.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Snowflake
Class A common stock during the Class Period to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff in the Snowflake class action lawsuit. A lead
plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial
interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also
typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts
on behalf of all other class members in directing the Snowflake
class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of
its choice to litigate the Snowflake class action lawsuit. An
investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the
Snowflake class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as
lead plaintiff.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller is one of the world's leading
complex class action firms representing plaintiffs in securities
fraud cases. The Firm is ranked #1 on the most recent ISS
Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report for recovering more
than $1.75 billion for investors in 2022 -- the third year in a row
Robbins Geller tops the list. And in those three years alone,
Robbins Geller recovered nearly $5.3 billion for investors, more
than double the amount recovered by any other plaintiffs' firm.
With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the
largest plaintiffs' firms in the world and the Firm's attorneys
have obtained many of the largest securities class action
recoveries in history, including the largest securities class
action recovery ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp. Sec.
Litig. [GN]
SOUTHERN GLAZER'S: Settles High Late Fees Class Suit for $5.5M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dan J. O'Connor, writing for the-sun.com, reports that a major wine
distributor is doling out $5.5 million as part of a major class
action settlement.
Southern Glazer's Wine & Spirits settled a lawsuit with restaurant
owners who were allegedly charged illegally high late fees.
California liquor laws place a limit on distributors' late fees for
restaurants that take too long to pay for alcohol purchases.
The class action alleged that late fees from Southern were too
high.
Southern "strongly denies" violating any laws, according to the
settlement website, but has agreed to a payout.
At least $189,500 will be available for the 73,276 class members
impacted in the Golden State.
The company will also write off $49.6 million in pending late
fees.
Payments will come in the mail.
WHO QUALIFIES
To be one of those thousands of class members, you must be a
California customer.
You must also have had this customer relationship within a certain
time window.
Those who were customers of the distributor between June 13, 2010,
and June 30, 2023, qualify automatically, the settlement said.
You do not need to file a claim in order to receive a payment.
If you qualify and do not exclude yourself from the settlement, you
waive your right to sue Southern on this issue.
You will then receive payment for any late fees charged over the
legal maximum of 1%.
The minimum payout will be $10.
Anyone who overpaid less than that amount will be sent a $10
check.
You could have excluded yourself from the settlement, maintaining
your right to pursue further legal action, but the deadline for
exclusion passed on March 1.
Anyone with questions should contact the settlement administrator:
Southern Wine Settlement Administrator
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Info@SouthernClassAction.com
(844) 514-6116 [GN]
TALENTLAUNCH: Abington Cole + Ellery Investigates Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abington Cole + Ellery is investigating the recently announced
TalentLaunch data breach.
Around the end of May 2023, TalentLaunch discovered a security
breach within its network, leading to the potential exposure of
data held by the company. Following the discovery, the organization
immediately implemented measures to reinforce its network's
security and prevent further damage. To aid in the response,
TalentLaunch enlisted the help of cybersecurity experts
specializing in such breaches to conduct a thorough investigation.
The investigative team found indications that an unauthorized party
might have accessed or extracted data.
After a detailed examination of the affected data, which lasted
several months, TalentLaunch concluded on February 2, 2024, that
the compromised data included personal and protected health
information of some individuals. As a consequence of this security
incident, TalentLaunch has enhanced its network security and
adopted additional protective measures as advised by external
cybersecurity specialists.
As a result of the data breach, TalentLaunch is offering free
credit monitoring and/or identity theft protection services to
affected individuals.
Approximately 119,200 individuals were affected by the TalentLaunch
data breach.
Breached data may include, but is not necessarily limited to:
identifiable personal and/or protected health data.
Additional information about the TalentLaunch data breach may be
found here: TalentLaunch Data Breach Notification.
Headquartered in Independence, Ohio, TalentLaunch operates as a
network connecting a range of staffing and recruitment agencies
across the United States, each operating independently but sharing
a unified vision. TalentLaunch distinguishes itself through a
commitment to innovation and a culture that values creativity,
problem-solving, and strategic partnerships with clients.
TalentLaunch's portfolio includes firms that specialize in various
sectors, such as healthcare, manufacturing, finance, creative
services, and engineering, among others. This diversity allows the
network to address a wide range of talent needs across different
industries. To support its network, TalentLaunch provides a
comprehensive suite of services, including IT, marketing, finance,
legal, and risk management, all aimed at enhancing the client and
talent experience. These services are tailored to empower agencies
within the network to surpass their growth objectives while
focusing on their core competencies.
The TalentLaunch Website may have additional information about or
provide periodic updates regarding the data breach.
For more information about steps you can take to possibly reduce
the chances harm arising from a data breach, please review the
following article: What are some steps you can take if you've been
the victim of a data breach?
If you believe you are a victim of the TalentLaunch data breach,
and would like to participate in a class action lawsuit regarding
this data breach, please submit your information via the form on
this webpage. This website is not associated with nor authorized by
TalentLaunch or any affiliated companies. [GN]
TESLA INC: Black Factory Workers File Race Bias Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wiessner, writing for Yahoo!Finance, reports that a
California state judge tentatively ruled that nearly 6,000 Black
factory workers can sue Tesla as a group for the electric vehicle
maker's alleged failure to address rampant race discrimination and
harassment at its Fremont plant.
California Superior Court Judge Noel Wise in Oakland said in a
written order issued on Wednesday that the lawsuit presents
questions common to all Black workers at the plant of whether Tesla
was aware of the alleged misconduct and refused to take steps to
prevent it.
The named plaintiff, former assembly line worker Marcus Vaughn,
first sued in 2017, alleging that Black factory workers were
subjected to a range of racist conduct including slurs, graffiti
and nooses hung at their workstations.
Tesla did not immediately respond to a request for comment on
Thursday.
Lawrence Organ, a lawyer for Vaughn, said he was "heartened" by the
ruling and looked forward to developing a plan for a trial in the
case.
"I think the numerous complaints over time show how Tesla failed to
prevent racial harassment of its Black employees," Organ said in an
email.
Tesla has maintained it does not tolerate workplace harassment and
that it has fired employees who were found to have engaged in
racial harassment.
The tentative ruling comes ahead of a hearing scheduled for Friday
where Tesla can contest Wise's decision, though judges are
typically unlikely to change their minds.
The decision represents a major blow to Tesla as it opens the
company up to a potential multimillion-dollar judgment. The class
includes people who self-identified as Black and worked at the
Fremont factory going back to November 2016.
Wise said she planned to hold a trial in the lawsuit beginning in
October, when she also will preside over a trial in a case
involving similar claims against Tesla by a California state civil
rights agency.
Tesla is also facing race bias claims in federal court in
California brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, which enforces federal anti-discrimination laws. Tesla
has moved to dismiss that case or alternatively to pause it,
claiming the other lawsuits should be resolved first.
The company, meanwhile, is appealing a $3.2 million jury verdict
awarded to a Black former elevator operator at the Fremont plant in
a separate racial harassment lawsuit. The worker, Owen Diaz, had
won a $137 million jury verdict after an initial 2021 trial, but a
judge ordered a second trial after ruling the award was excessive.
[GN]
TESLA INC: Court Certifies Class Suit Over Race Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Anderson of CarScoops reports that a judge in California has
allowed thousands of Tesla employees to proceed with a class-action
racial discrimination lawsuit against the carmaker.
Former Tesla assembly line worker Marcus Vaughn first sued Tesla in
2017, claiming that Black workers were subjected to different
racist conduct, "including regularly being called racial slurs by
co-workers and supervisors," his lawsuit alleged. Additionally,
Vaughn claims Black employees were subjected to racist graffiti and
had nooses hung at their workstations.
On February 28, 2024, Judge Noël Wise approved the class-action
lawsuit representing nearly 6,000 workers, asserting that Tesla has
an alleged "pattern or practice" of inadequately preventing racial
discrimination." Tesla has tried to arbitrate the issue internally,
pushing for it in both 2021 and in January last year.
Tesla says it does not tolerate workplace harassment and claims to
have fired employees who have engaged in racial harassment. Wise
wants to hold the trial at around the same time she will also
preside over a separate trial against Tesla by the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, Reuters reports.
In 2017, Tesla chief executive Elon Musk sent an email to workers
saying those from a less represented group don't get a free pass to
be jerks.
"If someone is a jerk to you, but sincerely apologizes, it is
important to be thick-skinned and accept that apology," he wrote.
"If you are a part of a less represented group, you don't get a
free pass on being a jerk yourself. We have had a few cases at
Tesla where someone in a less represented group was actually given
a job or promoted over more qualified highly represented candidates
and then decided to sue Tesla for millions of dollars because they
felt they weren't promoted enough. That is obviously not cool."[GN]
TESLA INC: Employees' Racial Discrimination Suit Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
David Odejide, writing for Drive Tesla, reports that Tesla
employees can now go ahead and sue the company in a class-action
lawsuit on the basis of racial discrimination, according to a
Californian judge.
The initial plaintiff is Marcus Vaughn, an assembly line employee
who dragged Tesla to court in 2017. He alleged that Black workers
faced racist treatment, with racial slurs directed at them
regularly by fellow workers and supervisors. Vaughn also accused
the EV maker of allowing a working condition where racist graffiti
and hanging nooses were found on the factory floor.
Judge Noel Wise has now given the nod for a class-action lawsuit
covering about 6,000 employees to proceed, Reuters reports. The
lawsuit alleged that Tesla failed to adequately prevent racial
discrimination suffered by some of its workers. This came after
Tesla unsuccessfully tried to handle the matter in-house twice.
Meanwhile, Tesla has stated it does not foster a workplace rife
with racial discrimination. It claimed it had fired some staff
members found to be engaging in such harassment.
Judge Wise is in charge of another lawsuit against Tesla by the
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The two trials might
hold around the same time if Wise has her way.
Ezoic
In 2022, a former contract worker successfully sued Tesla for
racial discrimination. However, the massive $137 million
compensation was slashed to $15 million. This was further reduced
to $3 million in punitive damages on a retrial. [GN]
TRANSMEDICS GROUP: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announced
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of TransMedics Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: TMDX) resulting
from allegations that TransMedics may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased TransMedics securities you may be
entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees
or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm
is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=22793 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On February 21, 2024, after market hours, U.S.
Representative Paul Gosar issued a letter to his Twitter/X feed,
accusing TransMedics, among other things, of misappropriating
corporate resources.
On this news, TransMedics' stock price fell $2.18 per share, or
2.5%, to close at $84.81 per share on February 22, 2024.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
TWEEGS INC: Pullman et al. Allege Labor Law Breaches
----------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDRA PULLMAN, JACLYN KNANISHU, ARIANNA MILANESE, individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. DANA COLLINS and KEVIN COLLINS, individually and in their
representative capacities, and TWEEGS, INC. d/b/a MELZINGAH TAP
HOUSE and ROONIES, INC. d/b/a PUBLICK HOUSE 23, and all related
entities, successors, and assigns, Defendants, Case No.
7:24-cv-01383 (S.D.N.Y., February 23, 2024) seeks to recover
minimum wages, overtime compensation, misappropriated tips, wages,
and other damages for Plaintiffs and their similarly situated
co-workers -servers, bussers, food runners, barbacks, bartenders,
and other similarly situated non-managerial front-of-house
employees. Plaintiffs allege violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.
Plaintiff Pullman was employed by Defendants and was a bartender
and server from approximately 2014 through March 2022. She worked
mainly at Publick House in 2022, but worked primarily at Melzingah
until 2018. Throughout their employment, the Defendants maintained
a policy and practice whereby Plaintiffs were not paid the
appropriate premium overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40
per workweek in willful violation of New York state and federal
law, the Plaintiffs contend.
Tweegs, Inc. owns and operates Melzingah Tap House, a bar and
restaurant located in Beacon, NY. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brooke D. Youngwirth, Esq.
YOUNGWIRTH LAW PLLC
63 Cannon Street - Suite B
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Telephone: (845) 745-3019
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Wage and Hour Class Suit in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lenzo & Reis, LLC disclosed that looking to get into a new line of
work or just make some extra money? The ride-sharing service Uber
touts that a career with them is all you need. Unfortunately, the
company has been named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits
across the country alleging violations of wage and hour laws.
One such suit was recently filed in federal court in Newark, New
Jersey, as a class action brought on behalf of Uber and Uber X
drivers. Although not explicitly set forth, the crux of the
plaintiffs' claim appears to be that they were improperly
classified as independent contractors instead of employees and
that, as a result, Uber violated the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law
and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law in a number of ways.
Specifically, the drivers allege that they worked in excess of 40
hours per week but were not paid overtime and that they were not
reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses such as gas, tolls and mobile
phone service, among other things.
Uber faces similar lawsuits in Arizona, Florida, Illinois, New
York, Ohio, and Texas. In addition, the company has just agreed to
a $100 million settlement in a similar suit in California. Uber is
also defending another New Jersey case based on alleged violations
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act involving employee credit
reports.
If you believe that you are being denied wages or overtime pay or
otherwise improperly classified as an independent contractor
instead of employee, you should contact experienced employment
attorneys like those at Lenzo & Reis, LLC. [GN]
UNITED STATES: Court Won't Consolidate New Jersey & Sokolich Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Leo M. Gordon of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey denies the motion for consolidation in the lawsuit
entitled STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION, et al., Defendants, and METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, et al., Defendant-Intervenors; MARK
SOKOLICH, in his capacity as the mayor of Fort Lee and a resident
of Fort Lee, and RICHARD GALLER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION, et al., Defendants, Case Nos.
2:23-cv-03885-LMG-LDW, 2:23-cv-21728 (D.N.J.).
The matter is before the Court on motion of the Plaintiffs in
Sokolich v. U.S. Dep't of Transportation, No. 23-cv-21728, to
consolidate their proposed class action with State of New Jersey v.
U.S. Dep't of Transportation, No. 23-cv-03885. The Sokolich
Plaintiffs are Mark Sokolich, in his capacity as the Mayor of Fort
Lee and a resident of Fort Lee, and Richard Galler, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated.
The Defendants in both the State of New Jersey action and the
Sokolich action oppose the motion. The Defendants consist of the
U.S. Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway
Administration ("FHWA"), Shailen Bhatt, in his official capacity as
Administrator of FHWA, and Richard J. Marquis, in his official
capacity as Division Administrator of the New York Division of FHWA
(collectively, the "Federal Defendants").
The Defendants in the Sokolich action include the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority ("MTA"), John Janno Lieber, in his
official capacity as Chair and CEO of the MTA, the Triborough
Bridge and Tunnel Authority ("TBTA"), Catherine T. Sheridan, in her
official capacity as President of the TBTA, the Traffic Mobility
Review Board ("TMRB"), and Carl Weisbrod, in his capacity as Chair
of the TMRB collectively, the "NY Defendants"). The MTA and the
TBTA also intervened as Defendant-Intervenors in the State of New
Jersey action.
The Plaintiff in the State of New Jersey action does not oppose the
motion, provided consolidation does not delay resolution of that
action.
The State of New Jersey action involves a challenge to the FHWA's
Finding of No Significant Impact pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") in connection with the Central
Business District Tolling Program. The Plaintiff alleges violations
of NEPA, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Clean Air Act.
This matter is to be resolved on the basis of the administrative
record, and a briefing on cross-motions for summary judgment has
concluded.
In contrast, the Sokolich Plaintiffs filed a putative class action
complaint in which they adopt and incorporate by reference the
allegations in the State of New Jersey action but seek additional
remedies and relief for two separate classes. The Defendants'
response to the Sokolich complaint was due on Feb. 15, 2024, and
they have expressed their intent to seek dismissal of the action.
Judge Gordon notes that the possibility of delay, confusion, or
prejudice disfavors consolidation. Though the actions involve
similar claims, they seek different remedies and reflect different
procedural postures. The movant's concern regarding "divergent
outcomes" with respect to similar claims is alleviated in light of
the assignment of both actions to Judge Gordon.
Accordingly, the Court denies the Sokolich Plaintiffs' motion to
consolidate.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Feb. 8,
2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/jj2xpjt4from
PacerMonitor.com.
UNITED STATES: New Jersey Can't Supplement Complaint, Court Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Leo M. Gordon of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey denies without prejudice the Plaintiff's Letter
Requesting Leave to File a Motion to Supplement the Complaint in
the lawsuit entitled STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff v. UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al., Defendants, and
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, et al.,
Defendant-Intervenors, Case No. 2:23-cv-03885-LMG-LDW (D.N.J.).
The matter is before the Court pursuant to a letter filed by the
Plaintiff seeking leave to file a motion to supplement its
complaint. The Defendants take no position on the request. The
Defendants are the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Federal
Highway Administration ("FHWA"), Shailen Bhatt, in his official
capacity as Administrator of FHWA, and Richard J. Marquis, in his
official capacity as Division Administrator of the New York
Division of FHWA.
The Defendant-Intervenors oppose the request. The
Defendant-Intervenors are the Metropolitan Transportation Authority
("MTA") and the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority ("TBTA").
The Plaintiff seeks permission to supplement the complaint to
include factual allegations regarding a recent tolling
recommendation issued by the Traffic Mobility Review Board
("TMRB"), a TBTA affiliate, in connection with the challenged
congestion pricing scheme. The Plaintiff also seeks permission to
add two co-plaintiffs, as well as new claims based on the dormant
Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the Privileges and
Immunities Clause of Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, and the
Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution.
The proposed new co-plaintiffs are Timothy Horner and Eric
Grossman, residents of New Jersey, who claim that they will suffer
direct injury from the congestion pricing plan.
The Plaintiff asserts that its request is timely, notwithstanding
the fact that a final vote on the TMRB's recommendation is yet to
occur, because, by then, the tolling scheme will essentially have
become a fait accompli.
The Defendant-Intervenors argue that the proposed amendment would
be futile because the claims are not yet ripe, and that amendment
risks undue delay. The Plaintiff argues that its proposed
constitutional claims are ripe, or at least would be before the
pending litigation is finally concluded.
Although the Plaintiff's request is framed as a letter seeking
leave to file a motion, Judge Gordon explains that Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 15(d) provides that on motion and reasonable
notice, the Court may, on just terms, permit a party to serve a
supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, or
event that happened after the date of the pleading to be
supplemented. If granted, the Court may order that the opposing
party plead to the supplemental pleading within a specified time.
In its request, the Plaintiff recognizes that briefing on
cross-motions for summary judgment in connection with its existing
claims concluded on Jan. 26, 2024, and that resolution of these
claims in the Plaintiff's favor will obviate any need to resolve
the proposed claims. The Plaintiff, therefore, urges adjudication
of the existing claims prior to adjudication of the proposed
claims.
Given these considerations, the Court finds that granting the
Plaintiff's request at this stage of the litigation does not serve
judicial economy. Instead, the prudent course is to deny the
Plaintiff's request without prejudice so that it may renew the
request after the Court adjudicates the existing claims.
Accordingly, Judge Gordon rules that the Plaintiff's Letter
Requesting Leave to File a Motion to Supplement the Complaint is
denied without prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Feb. 8,
2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/twetnpbsfrom
PacerMonitor.com.
UNLIMITED CARRIER: Faces Class Suit Over Wage Law Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Cook County Record reports that a class action lawsuit has accused
three suburban trucking companies of allegedly violating federal
truth in leasing law and state wage law by allegedly misclassifying
the drivers as independent contractors and allegedly claiming
improper deductions from their pay.
The lawsuit was filed Feb. 26 in Chicago federal court against
Unlimited Carrier Inc., Trans Quality Inc. and ES Express Lines
Inc., along with three individuals.
The plaintiffs, Timothy Wooten and Paul White, both of Montgomery
County, Georgia, accuse the companies of allegedly violating
federal Truth in Leasing regulations and Illinois state wage laws.
According to the complaint, both named plaintiffs worked for the
companies as lease drivers from 2014 to 2023.
According to the complaint, the companies allegedly misclassified
drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. They are
also accused of taking improper deductions from drivers' pay
without proper disclosure or specification. Furthermore, they
allegedly failed to include mandatory provisions in their lease
agreements with drivers and allegedly did not compensate them
properly.
The lawsuit also alleges violations of the Illinois Wage Payment
and Collection Act. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants
allegedly did not pay all wages owed to the lease drivers and took
unlawful deductions from their wages. The companies also allegedly
required drivers to cover necessary expenditures related to their
employment that primarily benefited the defendants.
The lawsuit seeks restitution and other unspecified damages, plus
attorney fees.
They are represented by attorneys James B. Zouras, of the firm of
Stephan Zouras LLP, of Chicago; and Rachel Smit, Hillary Schwab and
Brant Casavant, of Fair Work P.C., of Boston. [GN]
VENTYX BIOSCIENCES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Apr 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on March 1 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Ventyx Biosciences, Inc. ("Ventyx" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ:VTYX) and certain officers. The class action,
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of California is on behalf of all persons and entities other than
Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) Ventyx common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents (defined
below) issued in connection with the Company's initial public
offering conducted on or about October 21, 2021 (the "IPO" or
"Offering"); and/or (b) Ventyx securities between October 21, 2021
and November 6, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired (a)
Ventyx common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering
Documents issued in connection with the Company's initial public
offering; and/or (b) Ventyx securities during the Class Period, you
have until April 30, 2024, 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 Danielle
Peyton 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.
Ventyx is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that develops
small-molecule product candidates to address a range of
inflammatory diseases. The Company's lead clinical product
candidate is VTX958, a selective allosteric tyrosine kinase type 2
inhibitor for psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and Crohn's disease.
In 2022, Ventyx initiated a Phase 2 clinical trial of VTX958 for
the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis (the "Phase 2
SERENITY Trial").
On September 29, 2021, Ventyx filed a registration statement on
Form S-1 with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in
connection with the IPO, which, after several amendments, was
declared effective by the SEC on October 20, 2021 (the
"Registration Statement").
On October 21, 2021, Ventyx filed a prospectus on Form 424B4 with
the SEC in connection with the IPO, which incorporated and formed
part of the Registration Statement (the "Prospectus" and,
collectively with the Registration Statement, the "Offering
Documents").
The complaint alleges that the Offering Documents were negligently
prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material
fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance
with the rules and regulations governing their preparation. In
addition, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Offering Documents and
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) VTX958 was less effective in treating psoriasis
than Defendants had led investors to believe; (ii) as a result,
VTX958's clinical and/or commercial prospects were overstated;
(iii) accordingly, the Company had misrepresented its ability to
develop and commercialize effective product candidates; (iv)
Ventyx's post-IPO business prospects were thus inflated; and (v) as
a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
On November 6, 2023, during after-market hours, Ventyx issued a
press release announcing results from the Phase 2 SERENITY Trial.
Therein, the Company disclosed that "[a]lthough the trial achieved
its primary endpoint, the magnitude of efficacy observed did not
meet our internal target to support the advancement of VTX958 in
plaque psoriasis." Based on these results, the Company announced
that it "will terminate ongoing activities in the Phase 2 plaque
psoriasis trial effective immediately" and "terminate the ongoing
Phase 2 trial of VTX958 in psoriatic arthritis."
On this news, Ventyx's common stock price fell $11.36 per share, or
80.62%, to close at $2.73 per share on November 7, 2023.
Then, on November 22, 2023, Ventyx disclosed in a filing with the
SEC on Form 8-K that the Company's President and Chief Medical
Officer Defendant William J. Sandborn would cease to serve in those
roles.
As of the time this Complaint was filed, the price of Ventyx common
stock continues to trade below the $16.00 per share Offering price,
damaging investors.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, 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
billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members.
See www.pomlaw.com. [GN]
VENTYX BIOSCIENCES: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Ventyx
Biosciences, Inc. ("Ventyx" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: VTYX). The
lawsuit alleges Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse information
in its Offering Documents and throughout the Class Period regarding
the Company's business, operations, and prospects, including
allegations that:
(i) VTX958 was less effective in treating psoriasis than
Defendants had led investors to believe;
(ii) as a result, VTX958's clinical and/or commercial prospects
were overstated;
(iii) accordingly, Ventyx had misrepresented its ability to
develop and commercialize effective product candidates; and
(iv) Ventyx's post-IPO business prospects were thus inflated.
If you bought Ventyx shares pursuant and/or taceable to the October
21, 2021 IPO, or between October 21, 2021 and November 6, 2023, and
suffered a significant loss on that investment, you are encouraged
to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey Holzer, Esq. at
cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888)-508-6832 or,
you may visit the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/ventyx/
to learn more.
The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the
case is April 30, 2024.
Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law
firm for 2021 and 2022, dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative
litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys
have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of
dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate
misconduct. More information about the firm is available through
its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm.
Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this
promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney
responsible for its content.
CONTACT:
Corey Holzer, Esq.
Holzer & Holzer, LLC
211 Perimeter Center Parkway, Suite 1010
Atlanta, GA 30346
(888) 508 6832 (toll-free)
cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN]
VERRA MOBILITY: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on March 2
announced an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf
of shareholders of Verra Mobility Corporation (NASDAQ: VRRM)
resulting from allegations that Verra may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Verra securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=3848 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: Rosen Law Firm is investigating potential civil
securities claims.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
CONTACT:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
WAKEFERN FOOD: S.D.N.Y. Narrows Claims in Feldman Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Philip M. Halpern of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York grants in part and denies in part the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint filed in the lawsuit
titled SARA FELDMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WAKEFERN FOOD CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 7:22-cv-06089-PMH (S.D.N.Y.).
Plaintiff Sara Feldman brings this putative class action against
Defendant Wakefern Food Corporation alleging that the labeling on
its "Graham Crackers" product is deceptive and misleading. She
asserts the following claims for relief: (i) violations of New York
General Business Law ("GBL") Sections 349 and 350; (ii) violation
of various State Consumer Fraud Acts; (iii) breaches of Express
Warranty, Implied Warranty of Merchantability/Fitness for a
Particular Purpose, and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C.
Sections 2301, et seq. ("MMWA"); (iv) fraud; and (v) unjust
enrichment.
Before the Court is the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Defendant
moved to dismiss on April 5, 2023, in accordance with the briefing
schedule set by the Court.
The Defendant manufactures, labels, markets, and sells "Graham
Crackers" under the "Bowl & Basket" brand (the "Product"). The
front panel includes the phrases "Graham Crackers," "Sugar Honey,"
and "No High Fructose Corn Syrup," and features the image of a
honey dipper in a jar of honey The front panel also includes a
"stamp" stating "Whole Grain - 8g or more per serving," with small
text underneath which "references the 48g of whole grains people
should consume daily.
The placement of "Enriched Flour" before "Graham Flour" in the
Product's ingredient list, which lists ingredients in descending
order of predominance by weight, allegedly reveals that "Enriched
Flour" is the predominant flour in the Product.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Product's front label misleads
consumers into believing that the product has a greater absolute
and relative amount of whole grain graham flour compared to
non-whole grain flour than it does and that it contains a non-de
minimis amount of honey. Specifically, she alleges that the term
"Graham flour" is an alternative name for whole wheat flour and,
therefore, causes consumers to expect the Product is predominantly
whole grain.
The Plaintiff alleges that the "Whole Grain - 8g or more per
serving" representation is similarly misleading because it does not
tell consumers that the Product is predominantly non-whole grain
flour.
Lastly, the Plaintiff alleges that honey is added to the Product to
impart a darker color to the crackers, which contributes to
consumers getting the misleading impression the Product contains
more whole grain graham flour than it does. She alleges that
consumers prefer whole grains to non-whole, or refined, grains
because whole grains are nutritionally superior; and, therefore,
the Product is sold at a higher price than it would be sold for
absent the misleading representations.
The Plaintiff purchased the product at multiple locations,
including one in Yonkers, New York, between December 2021 and
February 2022. She claims, among other things, that she would not
have purchased the Product if she knew the representations and
omissions were false and misleading or would have paid less for
it.
The Plaintiff seeks certification of a "New York Class" and a
"Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class" under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure Rule 23 in connection with this action.
In its motion to dismiss, the Defendant raises two arguments
relevant to the Plaintiff's GBL claims: (i) she fails to plausibly
allege that reasonable consumers would be deceived by the
challenged representations; and (ii) she has not suffered an
injury.
Drawing all inferences in favor of the Plaintiff as the Court must
at the pleading stage, the Court reaches the same conclusion and
finds the Plaintiff's allegations sufficient to state a claim under
Sections and 350.
The Defendant separately argues that the Plaintiff's GBL claims
fail because the allegations that she paid a price premium are
"conclusory."
The Plaintiff alleges that the Product is sold at a premium price,
approximately no less than $3.29 for 14.4 oz, excluding tax and
sales, higher than similar products, represented in a
non-misleading way, and higher than it would be sold for absent the
misleading representations and omissions.
Judge Halpern finds the Plaintiff has sufficiently pled an injury
in connection with her claims alleging violations of GBL Sections
349 and 350.
The Defendant also asserts the affirmative defense of preemption.
The Defendant contends that the Plaintiff's claims are expressly
preempted by the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA"),
which governs the terms and images on the Product's label.
The Court declines to dismiss the Plaintiff's first claim for
relief for violations of GBL Sections 349 and 350 based on alleged
misrepresentations regarding the predominance of non-whole grain
flour.
The Plaintiff brings claims as a putative class action on behalf of
"the Consumer Fraud MultiState Class," which she defines as "all
persons in the States of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire,
Delaware and Connecticut who purchased the Product during the
statutes of limitations for each cause of action alleged."
The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's multi-state claims fail
for the same reasons the GBL claims do. The Court has already
concluded, however, that the Plaintiff's GBL claims have been
adequately pled.
The Defendant separately argues that the Plaintiff has failed to
fulfill statutory requirements under the statutes for Connecticut
and New Jersey, and that the statute for Delaware bars claims for
damages where, as here, she is not entitled to injunctive relief.
The Plaintiff does not dispute that she failed to meet these
statutory requirements under the laws of Connecticut, New Jersey,
and Delaware, but rather argues that the Court should "defer
standing objections until after class certification.
Therefore, Judge Halpern holds that to the extent the Plaintiff
brings claims under the laws of Connecticut, New Jersey, and
Delaware, those claims are dismissed. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's
claims brought under the laws of Connecticut, New Jersey, and
Delaware are dismissed, and her claims brought under the laws of
Pennsylvania and New Hampshire will proceed.
The Defendant also argues that the Plaintiff's claims for breaches
of warranty should be dismissed because she failed to provide
pre-suit notice. The Plaintiff first argues that notice
requirements for breaches of warranty have long been jettisoned for
retail sales. She separately argues that the filing of her
Complaint constitutes sufficient notice.
Judge Halpern finds the Plaintiff failed to allege pre-suit notice
and that is fatal to her breach of express warranty claim.
The Plaintiff also alleges that the Product was not merchantable
because the Defendant had reason to know the particular purpose for
which the Product was bought by her, because she expected the
Product had a greater absolute and/or relative amount of whole
grain graham flour compared to non-whole grain flour than it did,
and she relied on the Defendant's skill and judgment to select or
furnish such a suitable product.
These conclusory allegations are insufficient to state a claim for
breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose,
Judge Halpern holds. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion is granted
as to the Plaintiff's claims for breach of express warranty, breach
of the implied warranty of merchantability and warranty of fitness
for a particular purpose.
With respect to her claim under the MMWA, the Plaintiff, in her
opposition, does not oppose the Defendant's argument that the MMWA
claim fails automatically because the state-law warranty claims
fail. Accordingly, because the Plaintiff failed to state a breach
of warranty claim under New York law, her claim under the MMWA
fails, as well, Judge Halpern holds.
The Defendant further argues that the Plaintiff failed to plead
facts that give rise to a strong inference of fraudulent intent.
The Court agrees.
Here, Judge Halpern notes, the Plaintiff's only allegation about
the Defendant's intent is the conclusory allegation that its
fraudulent intent is evinced by its knowledge that the Product was
not consistent with its representations. Judge Halpern opines that
tThat allegation on its own is insufficient because the simple
knowledge that a statement is false is not sufficient to establish
fraudulent intent, nor is a defendant's generalized motive to
satisfy consumers' desires or increase sales and profits.
Accordingly, Judge Halpern holds that the Defendant's motion is
granted as to the Plaintiff's claim for fraud.
According to Judge Halpern, the Plaintiff acknowledges that her
theory of unjust enrichment is duplicative because it is based on
the same underlying conduct. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's unjust
enrichment claim is dismissed.
For these reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint. The Court
grants the motion to dismiss with respect to the: (i) Second Claim
for Relief: state consumer fraud acts in New Jersey, Connecticut,
and Delaware; (ii) Third Claim for Relief: breaches of express
warranty, implied warranty of merchantability/fitness for a
particular purpose, and the MMWA; (iii) Fourth Claim for Relief:
fraud; and (iv) Fifth Claim for Relief: unjust enrichment.
The Court denies the motion to dismiss with respect to the: (i)
First Claim for Relief: violations of GBL SectionSection 349 and
350; and (ii) Second Claim for relief: violations of state consumer
fraud acts in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire.
The Defendant is directed to file an Answer to the Complaint within
14 days of the issuance of this Opinion and Order. The Clerk of the
Court is directed to terminate the motion sequence pending at Doc.
16.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Feb. 8,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc7zmfmd from
PacerMonitor.com.
WALMART INC: $45MM Settlement Approval Hearing Set June 12
-----------------------------------------------------------
5Chicago reports that If you've bought groceries at a Walmart in
the last seven years, you may be entitled to a payment as part of a
$45 million class-action settlement against the chain.
Shoppers could collect up to $500 as part of the settlement filed
in a Florida court, claiming the retailer overcharged customers for
"weighted goods," such as packaged meat and poultry, seafood and
"bagged citrus" like oranges, grapefruit and tangerines.
According to the lawsuit, the prices marked on the weighted and
bagged goods were higher than the price-per-unit of the actual
items, causing shoppers to pay more than the "lowest in-store
advertised price" for those goods.
According to the settlement website, Walmart denies any wrongdoing
or liability in the case.
Customers who shopped at Walmart between Oct. 19, 2018 and Jan. 19,
2024 are eligible to file a claim, and there's still time to do so,
the settlement website said.
According to the site, the settlement's final approval hearing is
scheduled for June 12. Here's what to know in order to file a
claim, how much you could get and more.
According to the settlement administrator, anyone who made an
in-person purchase of weighted goods or bagged citrus at any
Walmart store between Oct. 19, 2018 and Jan. 19, 2024 is eligible
to file a claim.
Some shoppers may have received an email containing a notice about
the suit along with a claim confirmation code, the administrator's
site showed.
Those wishing to file a claim with or without such an email can do
so here. The deadline to file a claim is June 5, 2024.
What if I don't have a receipt or proof of purchase?
As part of the claim, there are two options users can check when
filing a claim.
The first is to proceed with filing a claim without proof of
purchase. In that case, shoppers must describe the types of goods
purchased, and in what year.
The second option is to file a claim with proof of purchase or
documentation. Shoppers then must enter the number of products, and
the total amount paid.
How much money could I get?
Amounts vary, the settlement administrator said, depending on how
many items were purchased, and whether or not receipts or
documentation were provided.
For those without proof of purchase, the following payment tiers
were provided, though the settlement administrator stresses that
the following dollar amounts are not guaranteed and could increase
or decrease based on the number of people who submit a valid
claim:
-- Up to 50 weighted goods and/or bagged citrus: $10
-- Between 51 and 75 weighted goods and/or bagged citrus: $15
-- Between 76 and 100 weighted goods and/or bagged citrus: $20
-- 101 or more weighted goods and/or bagged citrus: $25
For those who attest to having proof of purchase, the amount could
be higher. According to the administrator, those shoppers "may
receive" 2% of the total amount paid for the products, capped at
$500.
Claimants can select to receive payments through Venmo, Zelle,
physical check or Virtual Prepaid Card, the website said.
When can I expect to get a payment?
The court will hold a final approval hearing at 10 a.m. on June 12,
the settlement website said, to decide whether or not to approve
the settlement.
If the court approves the settlement, appeals could delay the
conclusion of the case. If there are no appeals, settlement
benefits would be "processed promptly," the site said.
"Please be patient," the administrator said. "It may take several
months before the Settlement becomes final and for Claims to be
processed." [GN]
WARRANTECH CONSUMER: Court Denies Class Cert Bid in Breach Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tre'Vaughn Howard of Bloomberg Law reports three consumers failed
to show sufficient predominance of common questions that would
support class certification of their breach of contract claim
against a company over its extended warranty service plan, a
federal judge said.
The US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denied
Kenneth Elliott -- and two others -- who allege they bought a home
appliance with a "no lemon guarantee" from Warrantech Consumer
Product Services Inc, class certification because their motion
lacked the "analytical rigor and precision" required to establish
predominance.
Elliott alleges Warrantech violated the contract by defining
multiple attempts to fix the same appliance problem as a single.
[GN]
WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Suit Over Fake-Accounts Scandal
--------------------------------------------------------
Rajashree Chakravarty of Banking Dive reports that Wells Fargo was
hit with a new lawsuit on February 29, 2024 alleging the bank did
not do enough to reimburse customers affected by its 2016
fake-accounts scandal, Reuters reported.
The class-action lawsuit, filed in a San Francisco federal court by
Amanda Gonzales, a schoolteacher from New Mexico, comes on the
heels of Wells Fargo recently sending letters to customers urging
them to contact the bank if they were unknowingly enrolled in
unwanted products.
The proposed class action alleges the lender intentionally made the
letters vague and confusing in the hopes that customers would
discard them rather than realize they may have valid claims.
The complaint claimed Wells "relies on the inconspicuous and
suspicious nature of the letter to depress claims rates, shifting
the burden on the customer to take action to dispute an
'enrollment' that Wells Fargo knows to have been."
Wells Fargo intends to "avoid, reduce and delay its ultimate
liability and sweep under the rug its long-standing, intentional
misconduct" by switching the burden on the customers, the complaint
noted.
"We are still reviewing the claims in this lawsuit and can't share
specifics at this time," Wells Fargo said in a statement to Banking
Dive. "Wells Fargo is a different company on March 2, 2024, with
new people, structure, processes, controls, and culture in place,
and we have placed heavy emphasis on remediating customers for past
practices."
The complaint seeks $5 million for recipients of the letter and
alleges Wells violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, as
well as consumer protection laws in California and New Mexico.
Gonzales said in the complaint that her local branch
representatives and other customer care staff couldn't give her a
clear answer when she asked about being enrolled in an insurance
product covering accidental deaths, according to Reuters.
Wells Fargo offered Gonzales $200 to resolve her claim, her lawyer,
Marc Dann, told Reuters.
The bank faces several enforcement actions connected to the scandal
-- most notably, a $1.95 trillion asset cap the Federal Reserve has
kept in place for six years.
"It's a high priority to get out from these enforcement orders,"
Dann said. "In typical Wells Fargo fashion, they're doing the
minimum." [GN]
WP BEVERAGES: Floeter Sues Over Wage and Hour Law Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
MACKENZIE FLOETER, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown, Plaintiff v. WP BEVERAGES,
LLC, d/b/a ) PEPSI-COLA OF ROCKFORD, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-50081 (N.D. Ill., February 23, 2024) accuses the Defendant
of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law, and Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.
The Plaintiff began working for Defendant as an installation
technician on November 18, 2020. He resigned July 7, 2023.
Throughout his employment and each workday, Defendant deducted 30
minutes from employee's hourly pay for employee meal breaks;
however, Plaintiff and the Class never received the aforementioned
breaks. Accordingly, he and the Class were not paid their earned
and agreed to wage for all hours worked, not paid the applicable
minimum wage for all hours worked, and in certain cases, paid less
than time-and-one-half their regular hourly rates for hours worked
over 40, the Plaintiff contends.
WP Beverages, LLC is a Wisconsin limited liability company that
operates a beverage bottling plant in Loves Park, IL. The company
is a subsidiary of Fortune 500 Company, PepsiCo, Inc. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew Fletcher, Esq.
THE GARFINKEL GROUP, LLC
701 N. Milwaukee Ave.
Chicago, IL 60642
Telephone: (312) 736-7991
E-mail: matthew@garfinkelgroup.com
YEUNG'S TRADING: Chapeta Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
JUAN CHAPETA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. YEUNG'S TRADING (NY) CORP. and MING RONG
WONG, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01383 (E.D.N.Y., February 23,
2024) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, Articles 6 and 19, and the
supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a forklift operator
from in or about February 2018, to in or about November 2022.
Additionally, from the start of Plaintiff's employment until
approximately May 2022, Plaintiff made deliveries on Saturdays each
week. Throughout his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff was
required to work approximately 61 hours per week. However,
Defendants failed to pay him at the statutorily required overtime
rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay, or one and
one-half the minimum wage rate, for hours worked in excess of 40
hours in violation of the FLSA and NYLL, says the Plaintiff.
Headquartered in Brooklyn, NY, Yeung's Trading operates as a retail
and commercial distributor of frozen food. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq.
ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Telephone: (631) 257-5588
E-mail: mfarnworth@romerolawny.com
[*] Financialright Trucks to Sue Manufacturers Over Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Agnieszka Kulikowska - Wielgus, writing for Trans.info, reports
that the renowned LegalTech platform Financialright Trucks has
officially announced that it will file a new class action lawsuit
against the truck manufacturers' cartel. This means that injured
companies will have one last chance to pursue their claims at no
cost to them.
"In addition to the classic assignment model, in which
Financialright Trucks pursues compensation claims on behalf of the
damaged companies, a full buy-out of claims is also offered, in
which the companies can receive an immediate purchase price for
pursuing compensation claims within the cartel without having to
wait for out-of-court measures or court proceedings against the
truck manufacturer cartel," Financialright Trucks 24 GmbH explains
in an official release.
Price fixing by truck manufacturers has been the subject of legal
disputes for years. Recall that in July 2016 and September 2017,
the European Commission found a cartel and imposed record fines on
the companies involved. The new class action, organised by
Financialright Trucks, is an opportunity for hauliers who have not
yet filed a claim to recover overpaid prices for the vehicles they
bought.
"The initiation of the new joint action is a further step in our
mission to enforce the rights of those injured by large cartels and
to fight for fair compensation," explains Dr Sven Bode, Managing
Director of Financialright Trucks 24 GmbH, which will pursue the
claim as a legal service provider.
"This approach offers the opportunity to pursue compensation claims
without any financial risk," adds Bode. This is made possible by
the so-called 'no win, no fee' approach.
This means that a commission is only paid to the legal service
provider if the case is successful and the legal service provider
pays all the legal costs.
"If an out-of-court or court claim is unsuccessful, the client will
not incur any costs," adds the law firm. It points out that
collective redress is becoming increasingly important in case law,
with the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) seeing comprehensive
redress as an effective way forward.
"The Federal Court of Justice's confirmation of the class actions
offered by Financialright Trucks shows that this is a sensible and
effective way of helping affected companies to assert their
rights," says Dr Katharina Kolb, a partner at the law firm Lieff
Cabraser, which is leading the proceedings and is already
representing the claims of more than 50,000 trucks in parallel
proceedings.
Behind Financial Right Trucks' decision to file another class
action lawsuit is a recent ruling by the Court of Justice of the
European Union (1 February this year), in which the CJEU rejected
Scania's appeal against a lower court ruling confirming the
manufacturer's participation in the cartel.
"The Financialright Trucks offer is aimed at all companies that
bought or leased new trucks between 1997 and 2014 and have not yet
filed a claim for a truck manufacturer cartel action. The
Financialright Trucks service is available to companies who wish to
receive further information and discuss the possibility of joining
a class action," the law firm said. [GN]
[*] Trends in 2023's Crypto Securities Suit Litigation Discussed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joni S. Jacobsen, Angela M. Liu, Timothy Spangler and Vishan J.
Patel, writing for Lexology, report that the year 2023 witnessed a
recovery in the cryptocurrency and digital assets market
corresponding with fewer crypto-related securities class action
litigation actions than in 2022. Despite this decrease, the nature
of the allegations made by plaintiffs in 2023 remains similar to
those in previous years. The fallout from the collapse of several
major market players in late 2022 also featured prominently in some
cases. This article explores the key trends in 2023's
crypto-related securities class action litigation, including the
decrease in the number of cases filed, the geographical
distribution of the cases, the types of defendant companies and
allegations, the impact of stock or asset price drops, and
remaining legal questions.
2023 Decrease in Cases Filed Correlates with Crypto Market
Recovery
In 2023, there was a significant drop in crypto securities class
action filings, a stark contrast to the record-breaking surge in
2022. Amidst the turbulence of the crypto market in 2022 -- which
ended with the collapse of FTX, one of the world's largest
cryptocurrency exchanges -- a total of twenty-three class actions
were filed. This was a substantial increase from the thirteen and
twelve cases filed in 2020 and 2021, respectively. However, with
the recovery of the crypto market in 2023, the number of class
action filings fell to fourteen, which is consistent with the
trends observed prior to the 2022 bear market. The 2023 decrease in
litigation likely corresponds to the recovery of the crypto market
in 2023 after months of uncertainty in 2022.
Interestingly, most of the crypto securities class action
litigation for 2023 occurred in the aftermath of the late 2022
crypto meltdown, with a decrease in such litigation as crypto
prices rallied in late 2023.
Four of the complaints from 2023 involved allegations concerning
companies that either themselves collapsed in the aftermath of
FTX's failure in November 2022 or were alleged to have hastened
FTX's collapse. These complaints involve Binance, BlockFi, Eqonex,
and Genesis Global Capital. Two of these complaints were filed in
Q1 2023, one was filed in Q2, and one was filed in Q4.
In 2023, crypto securities class action litigation cases were filed
across more jurisdictions than in years past, and the Southern
District of New York (S.D.N.Y.) became a particularly less-favored
forum.
In previous years, such cases have predominantly been filed in
federal court in California and New York. For instance, of the
twenty-three total cases filed in 2022, almost two-thirds (fifteen
total) were filed in either California or New York, and almost a
quarter (five total) were filed in the S.D.N.Y. alone.
However, of the fourteen cases filed in 2023, only seven were filed
in federal court in California or New York. Specifically,
California had three cases filed in the Northern District of
California and one case filed in the Southern District of
California. New York had two cases initially filed in the Eastern
District of New York while only one was filed in the S.D.N.Y. -- a
marked decline for the S.D.N.Y. compared to years past.
No other single jurisdiction saw multiple crypto securities class
action filings: Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Massachusetts,
Nevada, New Jersey and Texas each served as the jurisdiction for
only one such case.
Of the companies that are either defendants in or central to the
allegations of these fourteen cases:
-- one is headquartered in the United Kingdom (Argo Blockchain)
-- one is headquartered in the Cayman Islands (Binance)
-- one is headquartered in Switzerland (BProtocol Foundation)
-- one was headquartered in Singapore prior to its bankruptcy
(Eqonex)
-- one has an unknown location for its headquarters (Lido, a
general partnership).
The other nine companies are or were headquartered in the United
States. This may represent a modest return to litigants outside of
the United States, particularly towards Asia. Crypto class action
defendants in 2021 saw a similar breakdown as in 2023: in 2021,
nine of twelve defendants were headquartered in North America and
three of twelve defendants were headquartered in China. However,
the explosion of crypto litigation in 2022 largely involved
American defendants, with twenty-one of twenty-three headquartered
in the United States, one in Australia, and one in Singapore. The
location of defendants' headquarters in 2022 may be an aberration,
as defendants in 2023 reverted to around three-quarters U.S.
headquarters, just as in 2021.
Many of the crypto securities cases filed in 2023 are still in
early stages of litigation. In ten cases, class counsel and the
lead plaintiff have been appointed, but in two others, the
plaintiffs have made a motion for class counsel and lead counsel
which the court has not yet approved. Eight pending cases have had
amended complaints filed, while five pending cases have only the
original complaint filed. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss in
eight of the cases. Only one case from 2023 has been resolved: the
complaint against Pollen Mobile,6 which was filed on August 9,
2023, and voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on September 15,
2023.
Types of Crypto Allegations and Defendants
Crypto securities class actions were brought against a variety of
defendants in 2023, including crypto exchanges, staking platforms,
lending or trading platforms, token or NFT issuers, cryptocurrency
miners, and financial services companies servicing the crypto
industry. As in previous years, the most common issues raised in
the complaints were (1) the sale or offering of unregistered
securities (i.e. those not registered with the U.S. Securities &
Exchange Commission), in violation of Secs. 5, 12, and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933; and/or (2) false and/or misleading
statements and/or omissions/failures to make proper disclosures,
resulting in alleged financial losses for purchasers or investors.
As in years past, the most common defendants in crypto-related
securities class actions filed in 2023 were crypto exchanges,
staking platforms, and/or lending or trading platforms (or the
parent companies thereof). These defendants include Binance (a
cryptocurrency trading platform),8 BlockFi (an offeror of
high-yield accounts on crypto deposits), BProtocol Foundation
(which controls an automated platform for trading crypto assets),
Genesis Global Capital (a digital currency prime brokerage for
qualified institutional investors), Eqonex (a digital assets
financial services company that operated, among other product
lines, a crypto brokerage and exchange), and Lido (an Ethereum
staking platform). A complaint against the sports betting website
DraftKings also alleged that the secondary market platform that
DraftKings operated for the purchase and sale of DraftKings NFTs
was an unregistered securities exchange and brokerage.
The case against the BProtocol Foundation (the "Foundation") is
typical of complaints against crypto exchanges and similar
entities. The Foundation controlled BProtocol, a crypto exchange
which required liquidity to facilitate crypto transactions. To
acquire this liquidity, the Foundation's leadership advertised that
its platform protected against loss through "impermanent loss
protection," which the Foundation's leadership represented would
allow liquidity providers to invest crypto into BProtocol and
generate interest without taking on any risk. However, BProtocol's
platform functioned by guaranteeing payouts to investors in the
form of BNT, BProtocol's native token. BProtocol was always in
deficit for the actual currencies invested by liquidity providers
into the platform, and if too many investors tried to withdraw
their liquidity at once, BProtocol was at risk of a "run" that
would cause BProtocol to crumble. In June 2022, such a "death
spiral" occurred: as more and more investors sought to withdraw
their liquidity from BProtocol, BProtocol paid out more and more
BNT, resulting in a collapse in value of the BNT token. This led
the Foundation's leadership to suspend impermanent loss protection,
leading to further collapse of BNT.
In the class action against the Foundation, the plaintiffs allege
that the investments by liquidity providers into BProtocol were
investment contracts within the meaning of a "security" under the
Securities Act, and thus that the Foundation's failure to register
these securities violated Sections 5 and 12(a)(1) of the Securities
Act. The plaintiffs also allege, inter alia, that the guarantees
the Foundation made about the impermanent loss protection program
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
thereunder. Finally, the plaintiffs allege that BProtocol operated
as an unregistered securities exchange and securities brokerage in
violation of Sections 5, 15(a)(1), and 29(b) of the Exchange Act.
The plaintiffs also advance certain theories of control person
liability and violation of state securities law. Since first filing
in May 2023, the plaintiffs in the BProtocol case have filed an
amended complaint and successfully appointed class counsel and a
lead plaintiff, and defendants have moved to dismiss. As of
February 2024, this last motion is still pending.
Cryptocurrency mining companies were another common category of
defendant for crypto securities class actions in 2023. These
defendants include Argo Blockchain (a blockchain technology company
focused on large-scale mining of Bitcoin and other
cryptocurrencies), Marathon Digital Holdings (a company that mines
digital assets with a focus on the blockchain ecosystem), and VBit
Technologies (a company that offers hardware and hosting services
for Bitcoin mining).
The lawsuit filed against Argo Blockchain exemplifies a securities
class action against crypto miners. Argo is a blockchain technology
company focused on large-scale mining of Bitcoin and other
cryptocurrencies. In March 2021, Argo began the process of
constructing a large cryptocurrency mining facility in rural Texas,
the "Helios Facility," for a projected total cost of around US$80
million. In August and September 2021, Argo filed its offering
documents with the SEC in advance of its September 2021 IPO. On
September 27, 2021, after an IPO which raised approximately
US$114.80 million, Argo was listed on the NASDAQ under the ticker
symbol "ARBK." But on October 7, 2022, less than one month after
the IPO, Argo faced an imminent "cash crunch" and began selling off
its recently-acquired mining machines and issuing additional stock.
The plaintiffs allege that this caused Argo stock to drop by almost
86% from its value at the IPO.
In the present action, a plaintiff class of purchasers of Argo
securities before or around the time of the Argo IPO alleges that
the offering documents contained untrue statements and material
omissions, especially regarding the operation of the Helios
Facility. They allege that Argo and certain members of its
leadership are strictly liable for the misrepresentations in those
documents pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act.
They also allege that Argo and certain of its leadership knowingly
or recklessly misrepresented Argo's financial position in the
Offering Documents and in other capacities prior to the IPO, and
that they are liable pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Since filing the initial
complaint, the Argo plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint and
successfully appointed class counsel and a lead plaintiff, and
defendants have moved to dismiss. As of February 2024, this last
motion is still pending.
Other securities class action litigation targeted offerors of NFTs
or token issuers with allegations relating specifically to those
NFTs or tokens. These defendants include DraftKings (whose
DraftKings NFTs were alleged by the plaintiffs to be unregistered
securities), Lido (whose LDO governance token was alleged by the
plaintiffs to be an unregistered security), and Pollen Mobile
(whose PCN token was alleged by the plaintiffs to be an
unregistered security).
For example, plaintiffs filed an action against the sports betting
website DraftKings for claims related to the issue of the website's
DraftKings NFTs. These NFTs, representing images of various
football, golf, and mixed-martial arts athletes, were made
available for purchase and resale exclusively on the DraftKings
Marketplace, DraftKings' platform for transactions for their NFTs.
The plaintiffs allege that these NFTs are unregistered securities,
and that the DraftKings marketplace is an unregistered exchange and
brokerage. They assert that the sale of the DraftKings NFTs
violates Sections 5 and 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act, and that
the operation of the DraftKings Marketplace violates Sections 5,
15(a)(1), and 29(b) of the Exchange Act. Since this complaint was
filed, an amended complaint has been filed, a lead plaintiff and
class counsel have been appointed, and defendants have moved to
dismiss. As of February 2024, this last motion is still pending.
A few actions were filed in 2023 regarding financial services
companies who offered services relating to cryptocurrencies. These
companies include Ryvyl (a crypto company that develops, markets,
and sells blockchain-based payment solutions) and Signature Bank (a
full-service commercial bank that the plaintiffs allege recklessly
expanded its liquidity risks by taking on billions of dollars of
deposits in crypto).
Finally, one case from 2023 had a unique defendant: Shaquille
O'Neal. A group of plaintiffs allege that certain tokens and NFTs
promoted and sold by O'Neal were unregistered securities, and that
the sale of those tokens and NFTs violated federal securities laws.
The first version of this complaint was filed against O'Neal alone,
but the amended complaint also targets a group of companies of
which O'Neal is alleged to be "one of the founders, main promoters,
[and] main stars."
Stock or Crypto Asset Price Declines
In 2022, cryptocurrency securities class action litigation cases
were characterized by stock or crypto asset price drops that were
generally more dramatic than those seen in other securities
litigation cases. This trend held true into 2023 as well, but with
a twist: while many complaints alleged specific price drops in
tokens or securities (as in 2022), others now involve a complete
loss of value as a result of high-profile bankruptcies from
November 2022 involving the collapse of FTX.
In 2022, eleven cases -- almost half of the twenty-three filed that
year -- alleged stock or crypto asset price drops of at least 75%,
with seven of these alleging price drops of at least 90%.50 But in
2023, only five complaints -- slightly more than a third of the
fourteen filed last year -- alleged a stock or crypto asset price
drop of at least 75%. These include the Argo complaint, which
alleged that Argo shares fell by almost 86%; the Binance complaint,
which alleged that defendants' conduct resulted in the decline of
rival exchange FTX's cryptocurrency token by 86%, causing FTX to
declare bankruptcy; the Eqonex complaint, which alleged that
defendants' actions over the course of the class period caused
Eqonex's share price to decline from a high of US$2.15 to a low of
US$0.093; the Pollen Mobile complaint, which alleged that the PCN
token went from a secondary market value of almost 40 cents per
token to being "effectively worthless;" and the Signature Bank
complaint, which alleged that Signature Bank's stock declined
99.81%.
However, two additional crypto securities class actions from 2023
involve bankrupt non-parties. In the wake of the collapse of FTX,
both the crypto exchange BlockFi and the crypto broker Genesis
Global Capital are now bankrupt, and the suits against their
officers and/or parent or related companies do not allege any
specific decline in the value of any of their securities; instead,
they allege complete loss of assets invested for at least some
investors. If the complaints involving BlockFi and Genesis Global
Capital are read to allege a similarly dramatic decline in the
value of a security as the complaints against Argo, Binance,
Eqonex, Pollen Mobile, and Signature Bank, then slightly over half
of all complaints filed last year allege dramatic price drops,
which is in line with the proportion of actions filed in 2022.
The remaining complaints allege either comparatively mild price
drops of around 50% or less, or allege unspecified damages suffered
without any particularized dollar amount for price drops of any
security.
Legal Questions Remain
As in 2022, the key legal question that remains for cryptocurrency
securities class action litigation is when a cryptocurrency or
digital asset can be considered a security. The S.D.N.Y. attempted
to provide an answer in SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc. et al., when it
ruled that sales of the cryptocurrency XRP to retail investors
through secondary trading platforms did not generally constitute
securities transactions, but direct sales to institutional
investors did. According to the court in Ripple, the nature of
institutional sales themselves, as well as Ripple's marketing of
XRP and the means by which Ripple pooled the proceeds of those
institutional XRP sales, contributed to the court's classification
of the institutional sales as securities transactions. By contrast,
the court concluded that retail sales of XRP to public buyers were
not securities transactions because the investors did not know from
whom they purchased the XRP and did not have reason to be aware
that they were investing in Ripple. Some commentators noted that
this decision could make it much harder to bring crypto securities
class actions, as the differentiation of potential plaintiffs
between retail and institutional investors could make it much
harder to certify a class. However, it is unclear whether the
principle in Ripple will be followed in future cases: in SEC v.
Terraform Labs, et al., issued just eighteen days after Ripple,
another judge in the S.D.N.Y. departed from the approach in Ripple
when it declined to universally exclude cryptocurrencies sold on a
public marketplace to retail buyers from being classified as
securities. Instead, the Terraform court observed that the
distinction that determines when a cryptocurrency sale is or is not
a securities transaction should consider the totality of the
circumstances surrounding the sale and not the manner of sale,
institutional or retail, alone. Whether, and how, cryptocurrencies
are securities thus remains an open question.
Other cases decided in the S.D.N.Y. in 2023 dodged this issue. For
instance, in Underwood v. Coinbase Glob., Inc., et al., a plaintiff
class alleged, among other claims, that defendant Coinbase was
selling unregistered securities in violation of the Securities Act.
Coinbase moved to dismiss on the grounds that it was not a "seller"
within the meaning of the Securities Act. The court agreed, finding
that Coinbase was not a "seller" because Coinbase never held title
to the cryptocurrencies in the relevant transactions. In so doing,
the court in that case avoided deciding whether cryptocurrencies
are indeed securities.
Conclusion
As the crypto market recovered in 2023 from its 2022 decline, the
number of crypto securities class actions filed has decreased.
Nevertheless, numerous actions were filed in 2023 against a variety
of defendants; particularly notable are the four complaints
relating to the failure of major crypto firms in November 2022.
Notably, fewer cases were filed in California and New York,
especially in the S.D.N.Y. As in previous years, most actions focus
on allegations of sales of unregistered securities or
misrepresentations in disclosure documents; the former area of law
in particular remains very unsettled. [GN]
[] 8th Annual Class Action Conference in May, Register Today!
-------------------------------------------------------------
Registration is now open for the 8th Annual Class Action Money &
Ethics Conference.
Join top professionals and thought leaders in the class action
industry for this one-day event.
CAME 2024 will be held in-person at The Harmonie Club on Monday,
May 6, 2024. To register, visit
https://www.classactionconference.com/
For sponsorship or speakership opportunities, please contact:
Will Etchison
Tel: 305-707-7493
E-mail: will@beardgroup.com
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Cos. Still Faces Product Liability Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Carlisle Companies Incorporated, over the years, has been named as
a defendant, along with numerous other defendants, in lawsuits in
various courts in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to
exposure to asbestos-containing friction products produced and sold
predominantly by its discontinued Motion Control business between
the late-1940s and the mid-1980s and roofing products produced and
sold by Henry Company LLC, which the Company acquired on September
1, 2021, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company has been subject to liabilities for indemnity and
defense costs associated with these lawsuits.
The Company has recorded a liability for estimated indemnity costs
associated with pending and future asbestos claims. As of December
31, 2023, the Company believes that its accrual for these costs is
not material to the Company's financial position, results of
operations or operating cash flows.
The Company recognizes expenses for defense costs associated with
asbestos claims during the periods in which they are incurred.
The Company currently maintains insurance coverage with respect to
asbestos-related claims and associated defense costs. The Company
records the insurance coverage as a receivable in an amount it
reasonably estimates is probable of recovery for pending and future
asbestos-related indemnity claims. Since the Company's insurance
coverage contains various exclusions, limits of coverage and
self-insured retentions and may be subject to insurance coverage
disputes, the Company may incur expenses for indemnity and defense
costs and income from insurance recoveries in different periods, as
such recoveries are recorded only if and when it becomes probable
that such costs will be covered by insurance.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=u6fyfZ
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Defends Product Liability Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation is a defendant in a substantial number of
lawsuits that seek to recover damages for personal injury allegedly
resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products formerly
manufactured and/or distributed by us, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Such products were used as internal components
of process equipment, and we do not believe that there was any
significant emission of asbestos-containing fibers during the use
of this equipment. Although we are defending these allegations
vigorously and believe that a high percentage of these lawsuits are
covered by insurance or indemnities from other companies, there can
be no assurance that we will prevail or that coverage or payments
made by insurance or such other companies would be adequate.
Unfavorable rulings, judgments or settlement terms could have a
material adverse impact on our business, financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TMxvRS
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Freeport-McMoRan Defends Numerous PI Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Freeport-McMoRan Inc., since approximately 1990, and various
affiliates have been named as defendants in a large number of
lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos or talc
allegedly contained in industrial products such as electrical wire
and cable, raw materials such as paint and joint compounds,
talc-based lubricants used in rubber manufacturing or from asbestos
contained in buildings and facilities located at properties owned
or operated by affiliates of FCX, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Many of these suits involve a large number of
codefendants. Based on litigation results to date and facts
currently known, FCX believes that the amounts of any such losses,
individually or in the aggregate, are not material to its
consolidated financial statements. There can be no assurance that
future developments will not alter this conclusion.
"There has been a significant increase in the number of cases
alleging the presence of asbestos contamination in talc-based
cosmetic and personal care products and in cases alleging exposure
to talc products that are not alleged to be contaminated with
asbestos. The primary targets have been the producers of those
products, but defendants in many of these cases also include talc
miners. Cyprus Amax Minerals Company (CAMC), an indirect wholly
owned subsidiary of FCX, and Cyprus Mines Corporation (Cyprus
Mines), a wholly owned subsidiary of CAMC, are among those targets.
Cyprus Mines was engaged in talc mining and processing from 1964
until 1992 when it exited its talc business by conveying it to a
third party in two related transactions. Those transactions
involved (1) a transfer by Cyprus Mines of the assets of its talc
business to a newly formed subsidiary that assumed all pre-sale and
post-sale talc liabilities, subject to limited reservations, and
(2) a sale of the stock of that subsidiary to the third party. In
2011, the third party sold that subsidiary to Imerys Talc America
(Imerys), an affiliate of Imerys S.A. In accordance with the terms
of the 1992 transactions and subsequent agreements, Imerys
undertook the defense and indemnification of Cyprus Mines and CAMC
in talc lawsuits.
"Cyprus Mines has contractual indemnification rights, subject to
limited reservations, against Imerys, which historically
acknowledged those indemnification obligations and took
responsibility for all cases tendered to it. However, in February
2019, Imerys filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, which
triggered an immediate automatic stay under the federal bankruptcy
code prohibiting any party from continuing or initiating litigation
or asserting new claims against Imerys. As a result, Imerys stopped
defending the talc lawsuits against Cyprus Mines and CAMC. In
addition, Imerys took the position that it alone owns, and has the
sole right to access, the proceeds of the legacy insurance coverage
of Cyprus Mines and CAMC for talc liabilities. In March 2019,
Cyprus Mines and CAMC challenged this position and obtained
emergency relief from the bankruptcy court to gain access to the
insurance until the question of ownership and contractual access
could be decided in an adversary proceeding before the bankruptcy
court, which is currently on hold. The bankruptcy court continues
to temporarily stay approximately 950 talc lawsuits against CAMC,
Cyprus Mines, FCX and Imerys but there can be no assurance that the
bankruptcy court will continue to impose the interim stay.
"At December 31, 2023, had a litigation reserve of $195 million
associated with the proposed settlement (representing charges
recorded to environmental obligations and shutdown costs of $65
million in 2023 and $130 million in 2020)."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=br3NV6
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GATX Corp. Defends Exposure Claims
---------------------------------------------------
GATX Corporation and its subsidiaries have been named as defendants
in various legal actions and claims, governmental proceedings, and
private civil suits arising in the ordinary course of business,
including environmental matters, workers' compensation claims, and
other personal injury claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Several of our subsidiaries have also been
named as defendants or co-defendants in cases alleging injury
caused by exposure to asbestos. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified
amount of damages based on common law, statutory, or premises
liability. In addition, demand has been made against GATX for
asbestos-related claims under limited indemnities given in
connection with the sale of certain of our former subsidiaries.
These matters are subject to many uncertainties, and it is possible
that some of these matters could ultimately be decided, resolved,
or settled adversely."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OrHguB
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Has 35,800 Pending Exposure Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company is currently one of numerous
defendants in legal proceedings in certain state and federal courts
involving approximately 35,800 claimants at December 31, 2023
relating to their alleged exposure to materials containing asbestos
in products allegedly manufactured by us or asbestos materials
present at our facilities, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "To date, we have disposed of approximately
159,900 claims by defending, obtaining a 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 $580 million and $570 million through
December 31, 2023 and 2022, respectively.
"We periodically, and at least annually, review our existing
reserves for pending claims, including a reasonable estimate of the
liability associated with unasserted asbestos claims, and estimate
our receivables from probable insurance recoveries. We recorded
gross liabilities for both asserted and unasserted claims,
inclusive of defense costs, totaling $120 million and $125 million
at December 31, 2023 and 2022, respectively. In determining the
estimate of our asbestos liability, we evaluated claims over the
next ten-year period. Due to the difficulties in making these
estimates, analysis based on new data and/or a change in
circumstances arising in the future may result in an increase in
the recorded obligation, and that increase could be significant.
"We maintain certain primary and excess insurance coverage under
coverage-in-place agreements, and also have additional excess
liability insurance with respect to asbestos liabilities. After
consultation with our outside legal counsel and giving
consideration to agreements with certain of our insurance carriers,
the financial viability and legal obligations of our insurance
carriers and other relevant factors, we determine an amount we
expect is probable of recovery from such carriers. We record a
receivable with respect to such policies when we determine that
recovery is probable and we can reasonably estimate the amount of a
particular recovery."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YYBNjM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Int'l. Made $109MM in Asbestos Payments
------------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. is named in asbestos-related personal
injury claims related to NARCO, which was sold in 1986, and the
Bendix Friction Materials (Bendix) business, which was sold in
2014, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Payments, net of insurance recoveries, related
to known asbestos matters were $109 million, $166 million, and $240
million for the years ended December 31, 2023, 2022, and 2021,
respectively, and are estimated to be approximately $177 million in
2024. We expect to make payments associated with these asbestos
matters from operating cash flows. The timing of these payments
depends on several factors, including the timing of litigation and
settlements of liability claims. In early 2023, we made payments of
approximately $1.3 billion in connection with the NARCO Buyout. "
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dGv8Mt
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Int'l. Paper Has $97MM Liability as of Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Company has $97 million and $105 million total
recorded liability with respect to pending and future
asbestos-related claims, net of insurance recoveries as of December
31, 2023 and December 31, 2022, respectively, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
International Paper states, "While it is reasonably possible that
the Company may incur losses in excess of its recorded liability
with respect to asbestos-related matters, we are unable to estimate
any loss or range of loss in excess of such liability, and do not
believe additional material losses are probable."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GlMl7x
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l. Has $17.9MM Reserves as of Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lennox International Inc. has reported accrued asbestos reserves of
$17.9 million as of December 31, 2023, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "We are involved in various claims and lawsuits
incidental to our business, including those involving product
liability, labor relations, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
materials and environmental matters, some of which claim
significant damages. Estimates related to our claims and lawsuits,
including estimates for asbestos-related claims and related
insurance recoveries, involve numerous uncertainties. Given the
inherent uncertainty of litigation and estimates, we cannot be
certain that existing claims or litigation or any future adverse
legal developments will not have a material adverse impact on our
financial condition."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eh8Vk8
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Defends Numerous Personal Injury Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, MLIC is and has been a
defendant in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed
primarily in state courts, alleging that the plaintiff or
plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to
asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
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-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RKAuYo
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Tech Has 574 Exposure Cases as of Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Inc. and certain of the its subsidiaries are
among numerous defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for
alleged exposure to asbestos-contaminated talc products sold by the
its subsidiary Barretts Minerals Inc. ("BMI"), according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "As of December 31, 2023, we had 574 open cases
related to certain talc products previously sold by BMI, which is
an increase in volume from previous years. As a result of the
Chapter 11 Cases, these cases are stayed.
"These claims typically allege various theories of liability,
including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and
seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages, but most of
these claims do not provide adequate information to assess their
merits, the likelihood that the Company will be found liable, or
the magnitude of such liability, if any. We are unable to state an
amount or range of amounts claimed in any of these lawsuits because
state court pleading practices do not require the plaintiff to
identify the amount of the claimed damage. The Company's position,
as stated publicly, is that the talc products sold by BMI are safe
and do not cause cancer.
"The Company records accruals for loss contingencies associated
with legal matters, including talc-related litigation, when it is
probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of the
loss can be reasonably estimated. Amounts accrued for legal
contingencies often result from a complex series of judgments about
future events and uncertainties that rely heavily on estimates and
assumptions including timing of related payments. The ability to
make such estimates and judgments can be affected by various
factors, including whether damages sought in the proceedings are
unsubstantiated or indeterminate, the stage of the litigation, the
factual and legal matters in dispute, the ability to achieve
comprehensive settlements, the availability of co-defendants with
substantial resources and assets participating in the litigation,
and our evaluation of the unique attributes of each claim.
"While costs relating to the talc-related cases have increased
concurrently with the volume, the majority of these costs have
historically been borne by Pfizer Inc. in connection with certain
agreements entered into in connection with the Company's initial
public offering in 1992, and as long as the litigation is subject
to the stay under the Chapter 11 Cases, the Company will not be
required to make any payments in respect thereof. The Company is
entitled to indemnification, pursuant to agreement, for liabilities
arising from sales prior to the initial public offering. The
Company continues to receive information from Pfizer Inc. with
respect to potential costs associated with the defense and/or
settlement of talc-related cases that Pfizer alleges are not
subject to indemnification. Although the Company believes that the
talc products are safe and that claims to the contrary are without
merit, BMI opportunistically settled certain talc-related cases in
2022 and 2023. None of such settlements have been material to the
Company. For the twelve months ended December 31, 2023, the Company
recorded a charge of $29.2 million of litigation expenses in
connection with the Chapter 11 Cases and by BMI to defend against
and restore its reserve for claims associated with certain talc
products sold by BMI."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wiAMCA
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Defends 523 Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------
MRC Global Inc., as of December 31, 2023, is a named defendant in
approximately 523 lawsuits involving approximately 1,088 claims,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Each claim involves allegations of exposure to
asbestos-containing materials by a single individual, his or her
spouse or family members. The complaints in these lawsuits
typically name many other defendants. In the majority of these
lawsuits, little or no information is known regarding the nature of
the plaintiffs' alleged injuries or their connection with the
products we distributed. The potential liability associated with
asbestos claims is subject to many uncertainties, including
negative trends with respect to settlement payments, dismissal
rates and the types of medical conditions alleged in pending or
future claims, negative developments in the claims pending against
us, the current or future insolvency of co-defendants, adverse
changes in relevant laws or the interpretation of those laws and
the extent to which insurance will be available to pay for defense
costs, judgments or settlements. In addition, applicable insurance
policies are subject to overall caps on limits, which coverage may
exhaust the amount available from insurers under those limits. In
those cases, the Company is seeking indemnity payments from
responsive excess insurance policies, but other insurers may not be
solvent or may not make payments under the policies without
contesting their liability. Further, while we anticipate that
additional claims will be filed against us in the future, we are
unable to predict with any certainty the number, timing and
magnitude of future claims. Therefore, pending or future asbestos
litigation may ultimately have a material adverse effect on us."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k48ofk
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Corp. Defends Personal Injury Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parsons Corporation has been named as a defendant in lawsuits
alleging personal injuries as a result of contact with asbestos
products at various project sites, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "We believe that any significant costs relating
to these claims will be reimbursed by applicable insurance and do
not expect any of these claims to have a material adverse effect on
our financial condition or results of operations. We record a
liability when we believe that it is both probable that a loss has
been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated.
Management judgment is required to determine the outcome and the
estimated amount of a loss related to such matters. Management
believes that there are no claims or assessments outstanding which
would materially affect our consolidated results of operations or
our financial position."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=y5OIXW
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair plc Has 590 Pending Claims as of Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pentair plc's subsidiaries, along with numerous other companies,
are named as defendants in a substantial number of lawsuits based
on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials, substantially
all of which relate to its discontinued operations, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "As of December 31, 2023, there were
approximately 590 claims pending against our subsidiaries,
substantially all of which relate to our discontinued operations.
We cannot predict with certainty the extent to which we will be
successful in litigating or otherwise resolving lawsuits in the
future, and we continue to evaluate different strategies related to
asbestos claims filed against us including the possibility of
entity restructuring. Unfavorable rulings, judgments or settlement
terms could have a material adverse impact on our business and
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. In
addition, while most of the asbestos claims against us are covered
by liability insurance policies from many years ago, not all claims
are insured. As our insurers resolve claims relating to past policy
periods, the aggregate coverage provided by those policies erodes.
If we exhaust our coverage under those policies, we will be exposed
to potential uninsured losses. Over time, the uninsured portion of
our asbestos docket may increase, which may require us to set
greater reserves to resolve future asbestos cases."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9vlQzE
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Selective Insurance Has $19.1MM A&E Loss Reserves
------------------------------------------------------------------
Selective Insurance Group, Inc., has total recorded net loss and
loss expense reserves for exposure to asbestos and environmental
claims of $19.1 million as of December 31, 2023, and $20.3 million
as of December 31, 2022, with asbestos claims constituting
approximately 18% of these reserves in 2023 and 23% in 2022,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Environmental claims have arisen primarily
from insured landfill exposures in municipal government and small
non-manufacturing commercial risks, and leaking underground storage
tanks under homeowners policies. Asbestos claims have arisen
primarily from policies issued to (i) various distributors of
asbestos-containing products, such as electrical and plumbing
materials and (ii) contractors exposed to or handling
asbestos-containing products, such as heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning contractors. We handle our asbestos and environmental
claims in a centralized and specialized asbestos and environmental
claim unit. That unit establishes case reserves on individual
claims based on the then-known facts and circumstances, which IBNR
reserves supplement.
"Estimating IBNR reserves for asbestos and environmental claims is
difficult because these claims have delayed and inconsistent
reporting patterns. In addition, significant uncertainties are
associated with estimating critical reserve assumptions, such as
average clean-up costs, third-party costs, potentially responsible
party shares, allocation of damages, litigation and coverage costs,
and potential state and federal legislative changes."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2i1pSY
*********
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 2024. 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 ***