/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241129.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, November 29, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 240
Headlines
AGENUS INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in MA
ALASKA AIRLINES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due June 27, 2025
ALLSTATE FIRE: Dorazio Seeks to File Class Cert Portion Under Seal
ALLSTATE FIRE: Dorazio Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Policyholders
ALTIMMUNE INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Maryland
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Connelly Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Martinez Wins Bid for Class Certification
AMERICAN NATIONAL: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Wylie Alleges
AMERICAN TAX SERVICE: Mott Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
APPLE INC: Scott Sues Over Breaching of Contracts
ASHFORD HOSPITALITY: Mediation in Class Suit Set for Jan. 31, 2025
AURORA CANNABIS: $8.05MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Jan. 28
AXSOME THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Gru Securities Class Suit
AXT INC: Continues to Defend Camelot Event Class Suit
AXT INC: Continues to Defend Interest Rate-Related Suit in NY
AXT INC: Continues to Defend Philadelphia Antitrust Class Suit
AXT INC: Continues to Defend Young Shareholder Class Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Bid Seal Documents in Class Suit Partly OK'd
BASSETT HEALTHCARE: Bid to Certify Class Referred to Judge Katz
BCE-MACH III: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to April 16, 2025
BCE-MACH III: Parties Seek to Extend Class Cert Deadline
EARTHLINK HOLDINGS: $$85MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Feb. 6
ECONOMIC TRADING: Starling Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
EXICURE INC: $5.62MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Jan. 13
GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Seeks Leave to File Sur-Reply in Brandi Suit
KATZ NANNIS: Faces Godbee Suit Over Clients' Compromised Info
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Sells Contaminated Products, Zeitlin Claims
MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Alabama
MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in S.D.N.Y.
MICHAELS STORES: Vizcarra Seeks to Seal Class Materials
MICHAELS STORES: Vizcarra Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
MIL-SPEC SAFETY: Washington Seeks Unpaid OT for Security Workers
SANTANDER CONSUMER: $162.5MM Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 17
SEISUKE KNIFE: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Herrera Claims
SET FORTH: Waudby Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Consumers' Info
WALKER & SONS: Delacruz Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
XEROX HOLDINGS: Artificially Inflated Stock Price, Wilson Alleges
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Has $414MM Reserves as of Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Has $402MM Reserves at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Group Has $184MM Loss Reserves at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Faces 650 New Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Defends Product Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Merck & Co. Defends 330 Cases as of Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Receives 2,251 New PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Faces 507 PI Lawsuits as of Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Co-Defends 106 Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Perrigo Co. Defends 130 Product Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sempra Has a Pending PI Lawsuit as of Nov. 1
*********
AGENUS INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in MA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Agenus Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 12, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend itself from securities class suit in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
In September 2024, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
commenced in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts naming as defendants Agenus and three current
officers. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making false and misleading
statements and omissions of material fact related to the efficacy
and commercial prospects of botensilimab and balstilimab.
The plaintiff seeks to represent all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired Agenus securities between January 23, 2023, and
July 17, 2024.
The plaintiff seeks damages and interest, and an award of costs,
including attorneys' fees.
The Company is unable to estimate a range of loss, if any, that
could result were there to be an adverse final decision in this
action.
Agenus Inc. is a leading clinical-stage biotechnology company
developing therapies targeting cancer with a robust pipeline of
immunological agents.
ALASKA AIRLINES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due June 27, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE CREER, v. ALASKA
AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-03780-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge James Donato entered an order setting the following case
management deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16
and Civil Local Rule 16-10.
Event Deadline
Add parties or amend pleadings: Dec. 6, 2024
Fact discovery cut-off: March 28, 2025
Expert disclosures: April 18, 2025
Rebuttal expert disclosures: May 2, 2025
Expert discovery cut-off: May 16, 2025
Last day to file motion for class June 27, 2025
Certification:
Last day to file dispositive and FRE 702 Oct. 17, 2025
Motions:
Pretrial conference: Feb. 26, 2026
Alaska Airlines provides air transportation services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xncZ4e at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALLSTATE FIRE: Dorazio Seeks to File Class Cert Portion Under Seal
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brian Dorazio, on behalf
of his minor daughter, A.D., v. Allstate Fire and Casualty
Insurance Company, Case No. 2:23-cv-00017-KML (D.Ariz.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order permitting the Plaintiff
to file under seal portions of Plaintiff's motion for class
certification and Exhibits A and B as well as Exhibits 1, 3, 4, and
5 to the declaration of John DeStefano in support of the Motion.
The Plaintiff intends to attach to the Motion material the
Defendant has designated confidential pursuant to the governing
protective order.
The Plaintiff has conferred with Defendant regarding its
confidentiality designations. The Defendant has withdrawn its
confidentiality designation as to Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 5 to the
MCC Declaration and has given Plaintiff permission to publicly
describe the number of class members identified using Defendant's
designated data.
The Plaintiff has reviewed the designated materials and does not
agree that they contain competitively sensitive information.
The Plaintiff currently takes no position on the sealing of these
materials and reserves the right to challenge Defendant’s
designations at a later point in this litigation. Additionally, the
Plaintiff seeks to file Exhibit 5 to the MCC Declaration under
seal. Sealing this exhibit is appropriate as Exhibit 5 includes a
summary of the medical records of the Plaintiff, a minor.
Allstate Fire offers auto, home, renters, condo, motorcycle, life,
and roadside insurance services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 15, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=T4giYp at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert B. Carey, Esq.
John DeStefano, Esq.
Tory Beardsley, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Telephone: (602) 840-5900
Facsimile: (602) 840-3012
E-mail: rob@hbsslaw.com
johnd@hbsslaw.com
toryb@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Brett L. Slavicek, Esq.
James Fucetola, Esq.
Justin Henry, Esq.
THE SLAVICEK LAW FIRM
5500 North 24th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (602) 285-4435
Facsimile: (602) 287-9184
E-mail: brett@slaviceklaw.com
james@slaviceklaw.com
justin@slaviceklaw.com
ALLSTATE FIRE: Dorazio Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Policyholders
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brian Dorazio, on behalf
of his minor daughter, A.D, v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance
Company, Case No. 2:23-cv-00017-KML (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order certifying a Class of Allstate Fire and
Casualty Insurance Company ("Allstate") policyholders based on
Allstate's imposition of an improper limit on uninsured and
underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverages under (1) multi-vehicle
automobile policies and (2) multiple policies that apply to the
accident, resulting in thousands of dollars in underpayments to
insured accident victims.
This limitation arose out of Allstate's failure to stack coverages
purchased by Plaintiff and Class Members. The Plaintiff alleges
that on a classwide basis, Allstate did not meet the statutory
conditions that would allow it to avoid stacking policies and
coverages. Accordingly, Allstate acknowledges only a fraction of
available coverage by applying only one unit of UM/UIM coverage
when multiple units were available, all in violation of Arizona’s
Uninsured Motorist Act (UMA).
The Plaintiff requests that the Court grant his motion for class
certification and enter an order certifying a Class of insureds on
Plaintiff’s claims of breach of contract, injunction, and
declaratory relief against Defendant under Rules 23(a), (b)(2),
and/or (c)(4), appoint Plaintiff as Class Representative, and
appoint Plaintiff’s counsel Robert Carey as Class Counsel.
The Plaintiff can prove his claims through common evidence—that
is, evidence sufficient for every Class Member to prove his or her
own case—supporting his allegations that Allstate, through
uniform, systematic, and company-wide procedures, breaches its
contractual duty and duty of good faith and fair dealing by failing
to disclose and apply the proper amount of available benefits under
multi-vehicle policies, resulting in a systemic, classwide failure
to disclose available benefits and statistically calculable
underpayments of those benefits for the Class as a whole.
Mr. Dorazio is a single man and the natural father of A.D. In 2021,
A.D. was a seven-year-old passenger in a 2003 Toyota Corolla driven
by her sister when when non-party Keone Byrd collided with the
vehicle in Goodyear, Arizona. 14 As a direct and proximate result
of the collision, A.D. suffered severe and permanent physical,
emotional and economic injuries in excess of $400,000, including
life-altering pelvic and intestinal injuries.
The Plaintiff asks that the Court certify the following Class of
Allstate insureds:
"All insured persons under one or more Allstate Fire and
Casualty
Insurance Company Policies issued in Arizona to the same
purchaser
covering multiple vehicles at the time of a covered loss who,
from
the earliest allowable time to the date judgment enters,
received
UM/UIM benefits in an amount equal to the limits of only one of
the
UM/UIM coverages under the applicable policy or policies."
Allstate Fire offers auto, home, renters, condo, motorcycle, life,
and roadside insurance services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 15, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8bgoHK at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert B. Carey, Esq.
John DeStefano, Esq.
Tory Beardsley, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Telephone: (602) 840-5900
Facsimile: (602) 840-3012
E-mail: rob@hbsslaw.com
johnd@hbsslaw.com
toryb@hbsslaw.com
Brett L. Slavicek, Esq.
James Fucetola, Esq.
Justin Henry, Esq.
THE SLAVICEK LAW FIRM
5500 North 24th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (602) 285-4435
Facsimile: (602) 287-9184
E-mail: brett@slaviceklaw.com
james@slaviceklaw.com
justin@slaviceklaw.com
ALTIMMUNE INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Maryland
--------------------------------------------------------------
Altimmune Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 12, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the consolidated securities class
suit in the federal district court of the District of Maryland,
Southern Division.
On May 6, 2024, a class action complaint was filed in federal
district court in the District of Maryland, Southern Division,
naming as defendants the Company and three of the Company's
executive officers, which is now captioned In re Altimmune, Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 24-cv-01315 (D. Md.).
The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making false and misleading statements
and omissions of material fact to the investing public including
the plaintiff and class members, who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's common stock between December 1, 2023 and
April 26, 2024.
The plaintiff and class members seek to have the action maintained
as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and for the defendants to pay damages, interest, and an
award of costs, including attorneys’ fees.
A substantially similar complaint, captioned Campanile v.
Altimmune, Inc., et al., No. 8:24-cv-01918 (D. Md.), was also filed
in the same court by another plaintiff on July 1, 2024 against the
Company and three of its executive officers, based upon the same
general set of allegations and class period.
On October 2, 2024, the court consolidated the Campanile action
with the Class Action for all purposes and appointed lead
plaintiffs for the consolidated litigation.
On October 18, 2024, the court entered a scheduling order for the
filing of an amended complaint on or by December 16, 2024 and any
response to that amended complaint, including motions to dismiss,
to follow thereafter.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against this class action
litigation.
Altimmune Inc. is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company
incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Connelly Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RENEE CONNELLY, on Behalf
of Herself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, V.
AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-02768-JMG (E.D. Pa.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying lawsuit
as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)
and (b)(3). Plaintiff seeks to certify the following Classes:
1. PMWA Class:
"All current and former hourly paid employees of Amazon who
underwent a COVID-19 screening during at least one week in
Pennsylvania in the three-year period before July 19, 2023."
a. Subclass 1:
"All current and former hourly paid employees of Amazon
who
underwent a COVID-19 screening and clocked-in on a
physical
time clock at an Amazon site during at least one week in
Pennsylvania in the three-year period before July 19,
2023."
Additionally, Plaintiff has brought claims under the common law of
Pennsylvania for breach of contract and unjust enrichment/quantum
meruit claims to recover unpaid wages in the weeks when the
Plaintiff and Class Members worked less than 40 hours. For these
claims, Plaintiff requests certification of the following Classes:
1. Common Law Class:
"All current and former hourly paid employees of Amazon who
underwent a COVID-19 screening during at least one week in
Pennsylvania when they worked less than 40 hours in the
four-
year period before July 19, 2023."
a. Subclass 1:
"All current and former hourly paid employees of Amazon
who
received a written offer letter from Amazon and who
underwent
a COVID-19 screening during at least one week in
Pennsylvania
when they worked less 40 hours in the four-year period
before
July 19, 2023.
The Plaintiff, a former non-exempt hourly paid employee of Amazon,
brings this lawsuit seeking compensation for the time spent
off-the-clock as a result of Amazon’s company-wide policy
requiring each of its employees to pass a COVID screening in order
to work for the day. Amazon's failure to pay Plaintiff and the
Class Members for this time (1) violates the Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act ("PMWA"), and (2) constitutes a breach of contract, or in
the alternative, unjust enrichment and quantum meruit.
Amazon.com Services provides e-commerce services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 15, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BIYxdy at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Don J. Foty, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, LLP
2 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 250
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
- and -
Matthew Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 999-5229
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Martinez Wins Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ESTEFANY MARTINEZ, v.
AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00502-BAH (D. Md.), the
Hon. Judge Brendan Hurson entered an order granting the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification:
2) To facilitate notice to the class, Defendant shall produce a
list of class members including their names and last known
addresses to Plaintiffs' counsel within 15 business days of
the
date of this Order. Plaintiffs' counsel is authorized to mail
the amended notice to the class members within 25 business
days
of the date of this Order. The notice shall include a date 65
business days after the date of this Order to allow putative
class members to opt out of the class.
3) The Court certifies the following question to the Supreme
Court
of Maryland:
Does the doctrine of de minimis non curat lex, as described
in
Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (1946) and
Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp., 571 U.S. 220 (2014), apply to
claims brought under the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection
Law and the Maryland Wage and Hour Law?
Amazon.com retails books, diamond jewelry, electronics, appliances,
apparels, and accessories.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rr0gtz at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMERICAN NATIONAL: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Wylie Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA WYLIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-03285 (D.D.C., November 20, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per
se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, invasion
of privacy, and unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected
health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals stored within its computer systems following a data
breach between December 4, 2020, and November 19, 2021. The
Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly
situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the
private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was
compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown
and unauthorized third parties, says the suit.
American National Standards Institute, Inc. is a private,
not-for-profit organization with its headquarters in Washington,
D.C. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David K. Lietz, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
5335 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 440
Washington, DC 20015
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Email: dlietz@milberg.com
- and -
Raina Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
Email: raina@straussborrelli.com
AMERICAN TAX SERVICE: Mott Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Tax Service,
LLC. The case is styled as William Mott, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. American Tax Service, LLC, Case
No. 2:24-cv-00275-RWS (N.D. Ga., Nov. 18, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
American Tax Service, LLC -- https://americantaxservice.com/en/ --
is the premier tax company concentrating in all tax areas
throughout the nation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John A. Love, Esq.
LOVE CONSUMER LAW
2500 Northwinds Parkway, Suite 330
Alpharetta, GA 30009
Phone: (404) 855-3600
Email: tlove@loveconsumerlaw.com
APPLE INC: Scott Sues Over Breaching of Contracts
-------------------------------------------------
Everett Scott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. APPLE, INC. and APPLECARE SERVICES COMPANY, INC., Case
No. 3:24-cv-06866 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 30, 2024), is brought as a
result of the Defendants breaching its contracts with consumers,
violated California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), and unjustly enriched itself
at its customers' expense.
Countless consumers opt to purchase AppleCare+ when they buy a new
Apple device. AppleCare+ provides coverage and protection for the
device beyond the standard warranty included with the device.
AppleCare+ is a sensible investment for most consumers, as it
provides peace-of-mind and protection for what could be very
expensive repairs.
However, AppleCare+ runs with the specific device for which it is
purchased, and when the consumer trades in or returns that device,
Apple is required to stop charging AppleCare+ subscription fees for
that device. Obviously, once the device is returned to Apple,
consumers have no need for protection or support on that device and
should no longer be required to pay for that protection and
support.
Unfortunately, rather than honoring its own AppleCare+ agreements,
Apple continued charging Plaintiff and members of the Class for
AppleCare+ subscriptions tied to devices Apple knew had been
returned to Apple. In Plaintiff's case, Apple kept collecting
monthly fees well after the trade-in, while also charging new
monthly AppleCare+ subscription fees for his new devices.
Apple's conduct of continuing to charge consumers for AppleCare+
tied to devices that Apple knows are no longer owned by those
consumers is unfair and unlawful. Apple's own trade-in terms
require consumers to relinquish ownership of the covered devices
forever. AppleCare+ is an extended warranty and service contract
that is worthless to the consumer without the covered device. In
addition, Apple will never have to provide the protections under
AppleCare+ to the consumer because the consumer no longer has the
device. In essence, Apple is collecting fees for services that it
knows it will never have to provide, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased the device, he also ordered AppleCare+.
Apple, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place of
business located at One Apple Park Way, Cupertino, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kyle McLean, Esq.
Lisa R. Considine, Esq.
Leslie L. Pescia, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
700 S. Flower Street, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: 212-532-1091
Facsimile: 646-417-5967
Email: kmclean@sirillp.com
lconsidine@sirillp.com
lpescia@sirillp.com
ASHFORD HOSPITALITY: Mediation in Class Suit Set for Jan. 31, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashford Hospitality Trust Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2024, that the
second mediation for an employment class suit is set not later than
January 31, 2025.
On December 20, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against one
of the Company's hotel management companies in the Superior Court
of the State of California in and for the County of Contra Costa
alleging violations of certain California employment laws, which
class action affects nine hotels owned by subsidiaries of the
Company.
The court has entered an order granting class certification with
respect to: (i) a statewide class of non-exempt employees of its
manager who were allegedly deprived of rest breaks as a result of
its manager's previous written policy requiring its employees to
stay on premises during rest breaks; and (ii) a derivative class of
non-exempt former employees of its manager who were not paid for
allegedly missed breaks upon separation from employment.
Notices to potential class members were sent out on February 2,
2021.
Potential class members had until April 4, 2021 to opt out of the
class; however, the total number of employees in the class has not
been definitively determined and is the subject of continuing
discovery.
The opt-out period has been extended until such time that discovery
has concluded.
In May 2023, the trial court requested additional briefing from the
parties to determine whether the case should be maintained,
dismissed, or the class de-certified.
After submission of the briefs, the court requested that the
parties submit stipulations for the court to rule upon. On February
13, 2024, the judge ordered the parties to submit additional
briefing related to on-site breaks.
The Court has ordered the parties to complete a second mediation no
later than January 31, 2025.
Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc.
operates as a self-advised real estate investment trust focusing on
the lodging industry.
AURORA CANNABIS: $8.05MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Jan. 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
In re AURORA CANNABIS INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION
This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS.
No. 2:19-cv-20588-BRM-JBC
CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED AURORA CANNABIS INC.
("AURORA") COMMON STOCK ON THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE BETWEEN
OCTOBER 23, 2018 AND FEBRUARY 28, 2020, INCLUSIVE ("SETTLEMENT
CLASS" OR "SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBERS")
THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on January 28,
2025, at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable James B. Clark, III at the
United States District Court, District of New Jersey, Frank R.
Lautenberg Post Office & U.S. Courthouse, 2 Federal Square, Newark,
New Jersey 07102, to determine whether: (1) the proposed
settlement (the "Settlement") of the above-captioned Litigation as
set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation")[1] for
$8.05 million in cash should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Judgment as provided under the
Stipulation should be entered dismissing the Litigation with
prejudice; (3) to award Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees
and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice
of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"),
which is discussed below) and, if so, in what amounts; (4) to
reimburse Lead Plaintiffs for their time and expenses in connection
with their representation of the Settlement Class and, if so, in
what amounts; and (5) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by
the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate.
There exists the possibility that the Court may decide to conduct
the Settlement Hearing by video or telephonic conference, or
otherwise allow Settlement Class Members to appear at the hearing
by telephone or videoconference, without further written notice to
the Settlement Class. In order to determine whether the date and
time of the Settlement Hearing have changed, or whether Settlement
Class Members must or may participate by telephone or video, it is
important that you monitor the Court's docket and the website,
www.AuroraCannabisSecuritiesLitigation.com, before making any plans
to attend the Settlement Hearing. Any updates regarding the
Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of
the hearing or updates regarding in-person or telephonic
appearances at the hearing, will also be posted to that website.
Also, if the Court requires or allows Settlement Class Members to
participate in the Settlement Hearing by telephone or
videoconference, the access information will be posted to the
website, www.AuroraCannabisSecuritiesLitigation.com.
IF YOU PURCHASED AURORA COMMON STOCK ON THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE
BETWEEN OCTOBER 23, 2018 AND FEBRUARY 28, 2020, INCLUSIVE, YOUR
RIGHTS ARE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION.
To share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release
form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than February
27, 2025) or electronically via the website (no later than February
27, 2025). Failure to submit your Proof of Claim by February 27,
2025, will subject your claim to rejection and preclude you from
receiving any of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of
this Litigation. If you purchased Aurora common stock on the New
York Stock Exchange between October 23, 2018 and February 28, 2020,
inclusive, and do not request exclusion from the Settlement Class,
you will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and releases
entered in the Litigation, including, but not limited to, the
Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim.
The Notice, which more completely describes the Settlement and your
rights thereunder (including your right to object to the
Settlement), the Proof of Claim, the Stipulation (which, among
other things, contains definition for the defined terms used in
this Summary Notice), and other important documents, may be
accessed online at www.AuroraCannabisSecuritiesLitigation.com, or
by writing to or calling:
Aurora Cannabis Securities Settlement
Claims Administrator
c/o JND Legal Administration
P.O. Box 91320
Seattle, WA 98111
Telephone: 1-877-495-6308
Inquiries should NOT be directed to Aurora, Defendants, the Court,
or the Clerk of the Court.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of
Claim, may be made to Lead Counsel:
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
Ellen Gusikoff Stewart
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 1-800-449-4900
settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com
- or -
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
Lucas Gilmore
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: 1-510-725-3000
lucasg@hbsslaw.com
If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit a request for exclusion such that it is postmarked by
January 6, 2025, in the manner and form explained in the notice.
All Settlement Class Members will be bound by the Settlement even
if they do not submit a timely proof of claim.
If you are a Settlement Class Member, you have the right to object
to the Settlement, the plan of allocation, the request by Lead
Plaintiffs' Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees not to exceed
25% of the $8.05 million settlement amount, litigation expenses not
to exceed $150,000, plus interest on both amounts, or awards to
lead plaintiffs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(4). Any
objections must be filed with the court and sent to Lead Counsel
and Defendants' Counsel by January 6, 2025, in the manner and form
explained in the notice.
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
The Stipulation can be viewed and/or obtained at
www.AuroraCannabisSecuritiesLitigation.com.
AXSOME THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Gru Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Axsome Therapeutics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2024, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Gru securities class
suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York.
On May 13, 2022, Evy Gru filed a putative class action complaint
captioned Gru v. Axsome Therapeutics, Inc., et al. in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, or the SDNY
District Court, against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and one director, which we refer to as the
Securities Class Action. The complaint asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and alleges, among other things, that the
defendants made false statements and omissions concerning the
Company's Chemistry Manufacturing and Controls practices, and its
NDA with the FDA, with respect to one of its product candidates,
AXS-07. The named plaintiff sought unspecified damages, fees,
interest, and costs.
On August 11, 2022, the SDNY District Court appointed co-lead
plaintiffs in the Securities Class Action, one of whom later
withdrew. On October 7, 2022, the Securities Class Action
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which contained
substantially similar allegations as in the initial complaint. On
September 25, 2023, the SDNY District Court granted defendants'
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On October 13, 2023, plaintiffs' counsel filed a letter seeking
leave to file an amended complaint and to substitute new
plaintiffs, which defendants opposed. The SDNY District Court
re-opened the lead plaintiff appointment process.
Thomas Giblin, Paul Berger, and Paul Sutherland moved jointly to be
appointed replacement plaintiffs. On January 22, 2024, the SDNY
District Court granted that motion and ordered that the case name
be changed to In re Axsome Therapeutics, Inc. Securities
Litigation.
On January 26, 2024, the replacement plaintiffs renewed their
request for leave to file a proposed second amended complaint, and,
on February 6, 2024, the SDNY District Court granted that request.
Plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint on February 7, 2024.
On March 11, 2024, the defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint.
Axsome Therapeutics, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company leading a
new era in the treatment of central nervous system ("CNS")
disorders. The Company delivers scientific breakthroughs by
identifying critical gaps in care and develops differentiated
products with a focus on novel mechanisms of action that enable
meaningful advancements in patient outcomes.
AXT INC: Continues to Defend Camelot Event Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
AXT Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ending September 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 12, 2024, that the Company continues to
defend itself from the Camelot Event Driven Fund class suit.
On August 13, 2021, the plaintiff in Camelot Event Driven Fund, a
Series of Frank Funds Trust v. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, et al.
filed in the Supreme Court of NY a purported class action complaint
alleging violations of the federal securities laws against
ViacomCBS, certain of its officers and directors, and the
underwriters, including the Company, of two March 2021 Viacom
offerings: a $1,700 million Viacom Class B Common Stock offering
and a $1,000 million offering of 5.75% Series A Mandatory
Convertible Preferred Stock (collectively, the "Offerings").
The complaint alleges, inter alia, that the Viacom offering
documents for both issuances contained material misrepresentations
and omissions because they did not disclose that certain of the
underwriters, including the Company, had prime brokerage
relationships and/or served as counterparties to certain derivative
transactions with Archegos Capital Management LP, a fund with
significant exposure to Viacom securities across multiple prime
brokers.
The complaint, which seeks, among other things, unspecified
compensatory damages, alleges that the offering documents contained
material misrepresentations and did not adequately disclose the
risks associated with Archegos's concentrated Viacom positions at
the various prime brokers, including that the unwind of those
positions could have a deleterious impact on the stock price of
Viacom.
On November 5, 2021, the complaint was amended to add allegations
that defendants failed to disclose that certain underwriters,
including the Company, had intended to unwind Archegos's Viacom
positions while simultaneously distributing the Offerings.
On February 6, 2023, the court issued a decision denying the
motions to dismiss as to the Company and the other underwriters,
but granted the motion to dismiss as to Viacom and the Viacom
individual defendants.
On February 15, 2023, the underwriters, including the Company,
filed their notices of appeal of the denial of their motions to
dismiss.
On March 10, 2023, the plaintiff appealed the dismissal of Viacom
and the individual Viacom defendants.
On April 4, 2024, the Appellate Division upheld the lower court's
decision as to the Company and other underwriter defendants that
had prime brokerage relationships and/or served as counterparties
to certain derivative transactions with Archegos, dismissed the
remaining underwriters, and upheld the dismissal of Viacom and its
officers and directors.
On July 25, 2024, the Appellate Division denied the plaintiff’s
and the Company's respective motions for leave to reargue or appeal
the April 4, 2024 decision.
On January 4, 2024, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for
class certification.
On February 14, 2024, the defendants filed their notice of appeal
of the court’s grant of class certification.
AXT, Inc. -- http://www.axt.com/-- designs, develops,
manufactures, and distributes compound and single element
semiconductor substrates.[BN]
AXT INC: Continues to Defend Interest Rate-Related Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
AXT Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ending September 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 12, 2024, that the Company continues to
defend itself from the interest rate swaps antitrust class suit
settlement granted preliminary approval by the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Beginning in February of 2016, the Company was named as a defendant
in multiple purported antitrust class actions now consolidated into
a single proceeding in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York ("SDNY") styled In Re: Interest Rate
Swaps Antitrust Litigation.
Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that the Company, together with a
number of other financial institution defendants, violated U.S. and
New York state antitrust laws from 2008 through December of 2016 in
connection with their alleged efforts to prevent the development of
electronic exchange-based platforms for interest rate swaps
trading.
Complaints were filed both on behalf of a purported class of
investors who purchased interest rate swaps from defendants, as
well as on behalf of three operators of swap execution facilities
that allegedly were thwarted by the defendants in their efforts to
develop such platforms.
The consolidated complaints seek, among other relief, certification
of the investor class of plaintiffs and treble damages.
On July 28, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaints.
On December 15, 2023, the court denied the class plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.
On December 29, 2023, the class plaintiffs petitioned the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for leave to appeal
that decision.
On February 28, 2024, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle the class claims.
On July 11, 2024, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement.
AXT, Inc. -- http://www.axt.com/-- designs, develops,
manufactures, and distributes compound and single element
semiconductor substrates.[BN]
AXT INC: Continues to Defend Philadelphia Antitrust Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
AXT Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ending September 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 12, 2024, that the Company continues to
defend itself from the City of Philadelphia Antitrust Class Suit.
The Company is a defendant in three antitrust class action
complaints which have been consolidated into one proceeding in the
United States District Court for the SDNY under the caption City of
Philadelphia, et al. v. Bank of America Corporation, et al.
Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that the Company, along with a
number of other financial institution defendants, violated U.S.
antitrust laws and relevant state laws in connection with alleged
efforts to artificially inflate interest rates for Variable Rate
Demand Obligations ("VRDO"). Plaintiffs seek, among other relief,
treble damages. The class action complaint was filed on behalf of a
class of municipal issuers of VRDO for which defendants served as
remarketing agent. On November 2, 2020, the court granted in part
and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint, dismissing state law claims, but denying
dismissal of the U.S. antitrust claims.
On September 21, 2023, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.
On October 5, 2023, defendants petitioned the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit for leave to appeal that
decision, which was granted on February 5, 2024.
AXT, Inc. -- http://www.axt.com/-- designs, develops,
manufactures, and distributes compound and single element
semiconductor substrates.[BN]
AXT INC: Continues to Defend Young Shareholder Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
AXT Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ending September 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 12, 2024, that the Company continues to
defend itself from the Young shareholder class suit in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.
On May 6, 2024, a shareholder class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on
behalf of persons or entities who purchased or acquired its
publicly traded securities, against the Company, Morris S. Young,
its Chief Executive Officer, and Gary L. Fischer, its Chief
Financial Officer.
The court transferred the case to the Northern District of
California, where its headquarters is located. A lead plaintiff has
been appointed and an amended complaint was filed.
The amended complaint asserts a putative class period from March
24, 2021 and April 3, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The amended complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
defendants, and seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest, and
attorneys' fees.
The motion to dismiss is due on November 8, 2024.
AXT, Inc. -- http://www.axt.com/-- designs, develops,
manufactures, and distributes compound and single element
semiconductor substrates.[BN]
BANK OF AMERICA: Bid Seal Documents in Class Suit Partly OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Bank of America California
Unemployment Benefits Litigation, Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB
(S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Gonzalo Curiel entered an amended order
granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to seal
documents in support of motion for class certification and granting
motion to file corrected documents under seal:
-- The Court grants in part and denies in part Defendant's motion
to
seal documents in support of Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
-- The Court grants Defendant's motion to seal Exhibit 60 as
unopposed and denies Defendant's motion to seal Exhibits 62, 76
and 115 as unopposed. The Court grants Defendant's motion to
file
under seal Exhibits 24-44, 46-51, 54-58, 64-68, 74-75, 77-102,
104-11, 113-14, 116-30, 132-45, 147-48, 150, 152, 153-56.
-- The Court denies BANA's motion to file under seal Exhibits 45,
59,
69 and 146.
-- The Court also grants Defendant's motion to file under seal
Exhibits 14-16, and 107 of the corrected documents.
Due to the risk of future fraud and ability to combat future fraud,
the Court finds that BANA has provided compelling reasons to seal
documents concerning its fraud detection and prevention policies
and strategies; claims review policies and strategies and their
implementation; analyses of transactional fraud; and analyses of
claims fraud and potential strategies to combat that fraud
including use of the CFF.
The Plaintiffs allege that BANA used a highly flawed Claim Fraud
Filter ("CFF") to automatically deny error claims by EDD debit
cardholders, or to freeze or block EDD prepaid accounts without
adequate investigation.
Bank of America is the second-largest banking institution in the
United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XEzVJn at no extra
charge.[CC]
BASSETT HEALTHCARE: Bid to Certify Class Referred to Judge Katz
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Browning v. Bassett
Healthcare Network, Case No. 6:23-cv-01514 (N.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 1,
2023), the Hon. Judge Lawrence E. Kahn entered an order referring
the Plaintiff's motion to certify class, to the Hon. Mitchell J.
Katz.
The suit alleges violation of the Equal Pay Act and the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).
Bassett provides a full spectrum of health care to patients through
five regional hospitals.[CC]
BCE-MACH III: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to April 16, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAGACITY, INC., et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. BCE-Mach
III LLC, Case No. 6:23-cv-00039-JFH-GLJ (E.D. Okla.), the Hon.
Judge Gerald Jackson entered a third amended scheduling order:
1. Documents previously produced by parties March 14,
2025
shall be deemed authenticated except as
to those objected to:
2. Class Certification Motion filed with all April 16,
2025
supporting evidence, including expert
disclosures:
3. Class Certification Response filed with June 16,
2025
all supporting evidence, including expert
disclosures:
4. Class Certification Reply filed with any July 16,
2025
rebuttal evidence, including rebuttal
expert disclosures, if any:
5. Class Certification Discovery Cutoff: July 16, 2025
6. Evidentiary hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion Aug. 5,
2025,
for Class Certification. Each side shall
have three and one-half (3.5) hours to
present its position, which each party may
allocate as it chooses among argument,
examination of the party's fact and expert
witnesses, and cross-examination of the
opposition's fact and expert witnesses:
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bAP01d at no extra
charge.[CC]
BCE-MACH III: Parties Seek to Extend Class Cert Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sagacity, Inc., et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. BCE-Mach
III LLC, Case No. 6:23-cv-00039-JFH-GLJ (E.D. Okla.), the Parties
ask the Court to enter an order extending the class certification
scheduling order as follows:
Event Current Proposed
Deadline Deadline
Mediation Deadline: Oct. 22, 2024 No change
proposed
Documents previously produced Dec. 16, 2024 March 14,
2025
by parties shall be deemed
authenticated except as to those
objected to:
Class Certification Motion Jan. 13, 2025 April 16,
2025
filed with all supporting
evidence, including expert
disclosures:
Class Certification Response March 17, 2025 June 16,
2025
filed with all supporting
evidence, including expert
disclosures:
Class Certification Reply April 15, 2025 July 16,
2025
filed with any rebuttal
evidence, including rebuttal
expert disclosures, if any:
Class Certification Discovery April 15, 2025 July 16,
2025
Cutoff:
The Parties therefore expect that depositions will be taken by
Plaintiffs in January and February 2025.
11. Beyond these litigation activities, the Parties also attended
mediation on October 30, 2024, with Robert G. Gum presiding as the
mediator.
12. While the Parties did not resolve the case at mediation, the
mediator made a proposal that he set for expiration on December 9,
2024, so the Parties could continue to discuss and analyze various
accounting issues identified during the mediation.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 15, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=46XAsK at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
Ryan K. Wilson, Esq.
BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC
431 W. Main Street, Suite D
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 698-2770
E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com
ryan@bradwil.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jeffrey C. King, Esq.
K&L GATES LLP
301 Commerce Street, Suite 3000
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Telephone: (817) 347-5270
Facsimile: (817) 347-5299
E-mail: jeffrey.c.king@klgates.com
- and -
Timothy J. Bomhoff, Esq.
Patrick L. Stein, Esq.
MCAFEE & TAFT
Eighth Floor, Two Leadership Square
211 North Robinson Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 235-9621
Facsimile: (405) 235-0439
E-mail: tim.bomhoff@mcafeetaft.com
patrick.stein@mcafeetaft.com
EARTHLINK HOLDINGS: $$85MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Feb. 6
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued a statement regarding the
EarthLink Merger Litigation:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
ROBERT MURRAY, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
EARTHLINK HOLDINGS CORP., et al.
Defendants.
No. 4:18-cv-00202-JM
CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
IF YOU: (I) ACQUIRED WINDSTREAM COMMON STOCK IN EXCHANGE FOR SHARES
OF EARTHLINK IN CONNECTION WITH THE CLOSE OF THE MERGER BETWEEN
EARTHLINK AND WINDSTREAM ON OR ABOUT FEBRUARY 27, 2017, AND WERE
DAMAGED THEREBY; (II) HELD EARTHLINK COMMON STOCK AS OF JANUARY 23,
2017, THE RECORD DATE FOR EARTHLINK STOCKHOLDERS IN THE MERGER, AND
ACQUIRED WINDSTREAM COMMON STOCK IN EXCHANGE FOR SHARES OF
EARTHLINK IN CONNECTION WITH THE CLOSE OF THE MERGER ON OR ABOUT
FEBRUARY 27, 2017, AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY; OR (III) PURCHASED OR
OTHERWISE ACQUIRED WINDSTREAM COMMON STOCK PURSUANT AND/OR
TRACEABLE TO THE OFFERING DOCUMENTS ISSUED IN CONNECTION WITH THE
MERGER, AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY, YOU COULD RECEIVE A PAYMENT FROM
A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. CERTAIN PERSONS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE
DEFINITION OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS AS SET FORTH IN THE STIPULATION
OF SETTLEMENT.
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A
CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and by Order of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas, that in the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action"), a Settlement has been proposed for $85
million in cash. An in-person hearing will be held on February 6,
2025, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable James M. Moody Jr., at
the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas,
Courtroom 4A, Richard Sheppard Arnold United States Courthouse, 500
West Capitol Avenue, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201, for the purpose
of determining whether: (1) the proposed Settlement should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate to the
Settlement Class; (2) the Settlement Class as defined in the
parties' Stipulation of Settlement should be certified for
Settlement purposes; (3) the Action should be dismissed with
prejudice against the Defendants and the releases specified and
described in the Stipulation of Settlement should be granted; (4)
the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the Settlement
proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate and therefore should be
approved; and (5) the application of Lead Counsel for the payment
of attorneys' fees and expenses and any award to Lead Plaintiff
from the Settlement Fund, including interest earned thereon (the
"Fee and Expense Application"), should be approved.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THE ACTION, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED
TO SHARE IN THE NET SETTLEMENT FUND. If you have not received a
detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action
(the "Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release (the
"Proof of Claim"), you may obtain a copy of these documents by
contacting the Claims Administrator: EarthLink Merger Settlement,
Claims Administrator c/o Gilardi, a Verita Global Company, P.O. Box
301171, Los Angeles, CA 90030-1171;
info@earthlinkmergersettlement.com; 1-866-967-0679. You may also
obtain copies of the Stipulation of Settlement, Notice, and Proof
of Claim at www.EarthLinkMergerSettlement.com.
If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in
the distribution of the funds remaining after the payment of
certain fees and expenses (the "Net Settlement Fund"), you must
submit a Proof of Claim by mail postmarked no later than February
3, 2025, or submit it online by that date. Proofs of Claim that are
legibly postmarked no later than February 3, 2025 will be treated
as received on the postmark date. Please be advised that the U.S.
Postal Service may not postmark mail which is not presented in
person. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a
valid Proof of Claim by the deadline, you will not be eligible to
share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will
still be bound by any judgment or orders entered by the Court in
this Action (including the releases provided for therein).
If you are a Settlement Class Member, you will be bound by any
judgment entered by the Court in this Action (including the
releases provided for therein) whether or not you submit a Proof of
Claim. If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you
must submit a request for exclusion such that it is postmarked (if
sent by U.S. mail) or received (if sent by private carrier) by the
Claims Administrator no later than January 16, 2025, in the manner
and form explained in the Notice. If you properly elect to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by the
terms of the Settlement or any final judgment related to the
Settlement and you will have no right to recover money from the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.
Any objection to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or the Fee
and Expense Application must be received by each of the following
recipients no later than January 16, 2025:
Clerk of the Court
United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas
Richard Sheppard Arnold United States Courthouse
500 West Capitol Avenue
Little Rock, AR 72201
Lead Counsel:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
David A. Knotts
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Counsel for Defendants:
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Noelle M. Reed
Wallis M. Hampton
1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 6800
Houston, TX 77002
Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP
Peter A. Stokes
98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 1100
Austin, TX 78701-4255
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you
may contact Lead Counsel at the address listed above.
DATED: October 16, 2024
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
ECONOMIC TRADING: Starling Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY STARLING, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ECONOMIC TRADING, INC. D/B/A OFFER
TAX, Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-01135-P (N.D. Tex., November 19,
2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Texas Business & Commerce
Code.
The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending
prerecorded calls to the cellular phone numbers of consumers,
including the Plaintiff, in an attempt to promote its tax services
without obtaining prior consent. Further, the Defendant continued
to send prerecorded calls despite receiving numerous complaints
about its unsolicited calling.
Economic Trading, Inc., doing business as Offer Tax, is a provider
of tax services headquartered in Los Angeles, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200
Southlake, TX 76092
Telephone: (817) 416-5060
Facsimile: (817) 416-5062
Email: chris@crmlawpractice.com
- and -
Max S. Morgan, Esq.
THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC
1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Email: Max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com
EXICURE INC: $5.62MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Jan. 13
------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
MARK COLWELL, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
EXICURE, INC., DAVID A. GILJOHANN,
BRIAN C. BOCK, and GRANT T. CORBETT,
Defendants
Case No. 1:21-CV-06637
Honorable John F. Kness
SUMMARY NOTICE
TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
EXICURE COMMON STOCK BETWEEN JANUARY 7, 2021 AND DECEMBER 10, 2021,
BOTH INCLUSIVE (the "Settlement Class").
THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern
Division (the "Court") and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, that a hearing will be held on January 13, 2025, at 1:30
p.m., before the Honorable John F. Kness, at the Everett McKinley
Dirksen United States Courthouse, 219 South Dearborn Street,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, for the purpose of determining: (1)
whether the proposed settlement of the claims in the
above-captioned litigation (the "Litigation") for the sum of
$5,625,000 in cash (the "Settlement") should be approved by the
Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a Settlement
Class should be certified for purposes of the Settlement; (3)
whether, thereafter, this Litigation should be dismissed with
prejudice pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the
Stipulation of Settlement dated September 6, 2024 (the
"Stipulation"); (4) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation is
fair, reasonable, and adequate and therefore should be approved;
and (5) the reasonableness of the application for payment of
attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in connection with this
Litigation together with the interest earned thereon (and any
payment to the Lead Plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 in connection with his representation
of the Settlement Class). The Court may change the date of this
hearing, or hold it remotely, without providing another notice. You
do NOT need to attend the hearing to receive a distribution from
the Net Settlement Fund.
The Litigation has been preliminarily certified as a class action
on behalf of a Settlement Class of all Persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Exicure common stock between
January 7, 2021 and December 10, 2021, both inclusive, except for
certain Persons or entities excluded from the Settlement Class, as
defined in the full Long-Form Notice of Pendency and Proposed
Settlement of Class Action ("Long-Form Notice"), which is available
as described below. If the Settlement is approved, it will resolve
all claims in the Litigation.
A detailed description of the Litigation, including important
information about your rights and options, is in the detailed
Long-Form Notice available at www.ExicureSecuritiesLitigation.com
or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: Exicure Securities
Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Epiq Class Action & Claims
Solutions, Inc., P.O. Box 4746, Portland, OR 97208-4746, or (866)
913-4224.
If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of
Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim") online at
www.ExicureSecuritiesLitigation.com or by mail postmarked no later
than January 27, 2025. Failure to timely submit a Proof of Claim
will subject your claim to possible rejection and may preclude you
from receiving any payment from the Settlement.
If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit a request for exclusion electronically or postmarked by
December 13, 2024, in the manner and form explained in the detailed
Long-Form Notice referred to above. All Members of the Settlement
Class who do not timely and validly request exclusion from the
Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the
Litigation pursuant to the terms and conditions of the
Stipulation.
Any objection to the Settlement, Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense
Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be mailed
or delivered to the Clerk of Court and counsel for the Parties at
the addresses below such that it is received no later than December
23, 2024:
Court:
Clerk of the Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
Dirksen Federal Building
219 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
Lead Counsel:
Joseph A. Fonti
BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
300 Park Avenue, Suite 1301
New York, NY 10022
Emailed copy to exicuresettlement@bfalaw.com
Counsel for Defendants:
Douglas L. Shively
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
One North Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
Emailed copy to dshively@bakerlaw.com
Bethany K. Biesenthal
JONES DAY
110 North Wacker Drive, Suite 4800
Chicago, IL 60606
Emailed copy to bbiesenthal@jonesday.com
Andrew C. Porter
SALVATORE PRESCOTT PORTER & PORTER
1010 Davis Street
Evanston, IL 60201
Emailed copy to aporter@sppplaw.com
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you
may contact counsel for Lead Plaintiff at the address listed above,
email exicuresettlement@bfalaw.com, call (888) 879-9418, or go to
the following website: www.ExicureSecuritiesLitigation.com.
DATED: November 11, 2024
BY THE COURT: Judge John F. Kness
URL: www.ExicureSecuritiesLitigation.com
GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Seeks Leave to File Sur-Reply in Brandi Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDI CRAWFORD-JOHNSON,
ET AL., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. GRAPHIC PACKAGING INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-00842-RJJ-SJB (W.D. Mich.), the Defendant asks the Court to
enter an order granting the Defendant's motion for leave to file
sur-reply in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
The Plaintiffs served their motion for class certification on Aug.
30, 2024.
On Oct. 11, 2024, GPI served its opposition to Plaintiffs' motion.
In its opposition, GPI explained how Plaintiffs failed to satisfy
almost every element of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and
(b).
The Plaintiffs' reply raised new issues and factual inaccuracies.
Because Plaintiffs will not be prejudiced by allowing a sur-reply,
GPI respectfully submits that it would be appropriate for the Court
to permit GPI to file the sur-reply brief attached hereto as
Exhibit A.
The sur-reply brief is only 2,059 words—less than half of
Plaintiffs' Reply.
Graphic Packaging is a printed carton supplier, producing packaging
product for both the food and beverage sectors.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 18, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XqIAtx at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Charles M. Denton, Esq.
Anthony C. Sallah, Esq.
Mark P. Miller, Esq.
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
171 Monroe Avenue, NW, Suite 1000
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
Telephone: (616) 742-3930
Facsimile: (616) 742-3999
E-mail: cdenton@btlaw.com
asallah@btlaw.com
mmiller@btlaw.com
KATZ NANNIS: Faces Godbee Suit Over Clients' Compromised Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
BERTHA GODBEE, DELORES JACKSON WILLIAMS, and PHENICIA BROWN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. KATZ NANNIS + SOLOMON, PC, Defendant, (Mass. Super.,
November 20, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for
negligence, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust
enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of the
Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and
protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiffs and similarly
situated individuals stored within its computer systems following a
data breach on November 21, 2023. The Defendant also failed to
timely notify the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals
about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the
Plaintiffs and Class members was compromised and damaged through
access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties,
says the suit.
Katz Nannis + Solomon, PC is an accounting firm based in Waltham,
Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Randi Kassan, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (212) 594-5300
Email: rkassan@milberg.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Grayson Wells, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
gwells@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Christina Xenides, Esq.
Tyler Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
Facsimile: (646) 417-5967
Email: cxenides@sirillp.com
tbeans@sirillp.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 332-4200
Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
- and -
Anthony Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW PC
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (615) 485-001
Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
Email: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Sells Contaminated Products, Zeitlin Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRUNI ZEITLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-08085 (E.D.N.Y., November 20, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of New York General Business
Law, breach of implied warranty, and unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its U Click by
Kotex products. According to the complaint, the Defendant
improperly, deceptively, and misleadingly labeled and marketed the
products to reasonable consumers, like the Plaintiff, by omitting
and not disclosing to consumers on its packaging that the products
are contaminated with or at the risk of being contaminated with
unsafe levels of lead, which is a powerful neurotoxin that is known
to cause inter alia cognitive deficits, mental illness, dementia,
and hypertension. Had the Plaintiff and the Class known that the
products are contaminated with high levels of lead, they would not
have purchased the products or would have paid less for them, says
the suit.
Kimberly-Clark Corporation is a consumer goods company, with its
principal place of business in Irving, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Telephone: (845) 483-7100
Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
dlevin@lfsblaw.com
- and -
James L. Ferraro, Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM, P.A.
600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3800
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 375-0111
Email: jferraro@ferrarolaw.com
MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Alabama
------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical Properties Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2024, that the
Company continues to defend itself from securities class suit in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama.
On April 13, 2023, the Company and certain of its executives were
named as defendants in a putative federal securities class action
lawsuit alleging false and/or misleading statements and/or
omissions resulted in artificially inflated prices for its common
stock, filed by a purported stockholder in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Case No.
2:23-cv-00486).
The complaint seeks class certification on behalf of purchasers of
its common stock between July 15, 2019 and February 22, 2023 and
unspecified damages including interest and an award of reasonable
costs and expenses. This class action complaint was amended on
September 22, 2023 and alleges that it made material misstatements
or omissions relating to the financial health of certain of its
tenants.
On September 26, 2024, the Court dismissed the amended complaint
with prejudice.
On October 24, 2024, the plaintiff moved to alter the Court's
judgment and for leave to further amend the complaint.
On November 11, 2024, the Company filed an opposition to
plaintiff's motion.
Medical Properties Trust, Inc. engages in the business of investing
in, owning, and leasing healthcare real estate through its
operating partnership subsidiary, MPT Operating Partnership, L.P.
MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical Properties Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2024, that the
Company continues to defend itself from securities class suit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.
On September 29, 2023, we and certain of our executives were named
as defendants in a putative federal securities class action lawsuit
filed by a purported stockholder in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:23-cv-
08597).
The complaint seeks class certification on behalf of purchasers of
our common stock between May 23, 2023 and August 17, 2023 and
alleges false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions in
connection with certain transactions involving Prospect.
This class action complaint was amended on October 30, 2024 and
alleges that it made material misstatements or omissions in
connection with certain transactions involving Prospect.
Medical Properties Trust, Inc. engages in the business of investing
in, owning, and leasing healthcare real estate through its
operating partnership subsidiary, MPT Operating Partnership, L.P.
MICHAELS STORES: Vizcarra Seeks to Seal Class Materials
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NEA VIZCARRA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MICHAELS STORES,
INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-00468-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff moves
the Court to consider whether the following Michaels materials
should be sealed:
Document Portion(s) Designating Entity and
to Seal Reason(s) for Sealing
Plaintiff's Redactions The material redacted in the
Motion and on Pages: 2, Motion has been designated
Memo of Law 4, 5, 7, 8, "CONFIDENTIAL" or "HIGHLY
in Support 12, 17, 19 CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS'
EYES
of Class ONLY" by Michaels. Plaintiff
Certification therefore is not in a position
to
place this information in the
public record.
Exhibits 5, The entirety All, or materially all, of the
13, and 14 to of exhibits content has been designated
Plaintiff's 5, 13, 14 "CONFIDENTIAL" or "HIGHLY
Motion in CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS' EYES
Support of ONLY" by Michaels. Plaintiff
Class therefore is not in a position
to
Certification place this information in the
public record.
Michaels is one of the country's largest retailers of arts and
crafts supplies.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 15, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ikc4VN at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq.
Simon Franzini, Esq.
Grace Bennett, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
E-mail: jonas@dovel.com
simon@dovel.com
grace@dovel.com
MICHAELS STORES: Vizcarra Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NEA VIZCARRA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MICHAELS STORES,
INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-00468-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on May
15, 2025, will move the Court to certify a class and subclasses
consisting of:
-- California Class:
"All California consumers that purchased a Private Brand
product
from Michaels.com or a Michaels California store, between Jan.
1,
2020 and June 30, 2023, using a coupon offering at least 20%
off
all regular price purchases."
-- Online Subclass:
"Class members who purchased from Michaels.com."
-- In-store Subclass:
"Class members who purchased from a Michaels California
store."
The Plaintiff also moves for her appointment as class
representatives and for the appointment of Dovel & Luner LLP as
class counsel.
Throughout the class period, Michaels permeated its website with
advertisements for time-limited coupons offering at least "20% off
all regular price purchases." The coupons could be used in stores
or online. But the coupons were not really time-limited; they were
always available.
And on top of the coupons, Michaels bombarded its website and
stores with other deep discounts on product categories. As a
result, consumers who used the coupons were not really getting a
discount off Michaels’ true "regular" prices.
Michaels is one of the country's largest retailers of arts and
crafts supplies.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 15, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5w98UO at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq.
Simon Franzini, Esq.
Grace Bennett, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
E-mail: jonas@dovel.com
simon@dovel.com
grace@dovel.com
MIL-SPEC SAFETY: Washington Seeks Unpaid OT for Security Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN WASHINGTON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MIL-SPEC SAFETY & SECURITY, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:24-cv-06201 (E.D. Pa., November 20, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a security worker from
approximately July 2020 until approximately September 2024.
Mil-Spec Safety & Security, LLC is a security guard service company
based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Winebrake, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Telephone: (215) 884-2491
SANTANDER CONSUMER: $162.5MM Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 17
--------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN RE SANTANDER CONSUMER USA HOLDINGS INC. STOCKHOLDERS'
LITIGATION
CONSOLIDATED
C.A. No. 2022-0689-LWW
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER CLASS ACTION,
SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR
TO:
All former holders of Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc.
("SCUSA") common stock as of the January 31, 2022 closing of the
acquisition by Santander Holdings USA, Inc. ("SHUSA") of the
publicly held shares of SCUSA common stock (the "Acquisition") who
received $41.50 per share in cash in exchange for their shares of
SCUSA common stock in connection with the Acquisition (the
"Class").
Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Class by
definition, as set forth in the full Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Stockholder Class Action, Settlement
Hearing, and Right to Appear (the "Notice"), available at
www.SCUSAStockholdersLitigation.com. Any capitalized terms used in
this Summary Notice that are not otherwise defined in this Summary
Notice shall have the meanings given to them in the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement, Compromise, and Release dated October 14,
2024 (the "Stipulation"), which is also available at
www.SCUSAStockholdersLitigation.com.
PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY A STOCKHOLDER CLASS ACTION PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"), that the
above-captioned stockholder class action (the "Action") has been
certified as a class action on behalf of the Class defined above.
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that (i) plaintiffs The Liverpool Limited
Partnership and Elliott International L.P. (together, "Lead
Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and all other members of the
Court-certified Class; (ii) additional plaintiffs Lycoming County
Employees' Retirement System and Central Laborers' Pension Fund
(with Lead Plaintiffs, "Plaintiffs"); and (iii) defendants SHUSA,
Banco Santander, S.A., Homaira Akbari, Juan Carlos Alvarez de Soto,
Leonard Coleman Jr., Stephen A. Ferriss, Victor Hill, Edith E.
Holiday, Javier Maldonado, and Mahesh Aditya (together,
"Defendants") have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for
$162,500,000.00 (U.S. Dollars) in cash (the "Settlement"). The
terms of the Settlement are stated in the Stipulation. If approved
by the Court, the Settlement will resolve all claims in the
Action.
Absent further order of the Court, a hearing (the "Settlement
Hearing") will be held on December 17, 2024, at 11:00 a.m., before
The Honorable Lori W. Will, Vice Chancellor, either in person at
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, New Castle County,
Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North King Street,
Wilmington, DE 19801, or remotely by telephone or videoconference
(in the discretion of the Court), to, among other things: (i)
determine whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as
fair, reasonable, and adequate to Plaintiffs and the other Class
Members; (ii) determine whether the proposed Order and Final
Judgment approving the Settlement, dismissing the Action with
prejudice, and granting the Releases provided under the Stipulation
should be entered; (iii) determine whether the proposed Plan of
Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable, and
should therefore be approved; (iv) determine whether and in what
amount any award of attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses ("Fee
and Expense Award") to Plaintiffs' Counsel should be paid out of
the Settlement Fund, including any incentive awards ("Incentive
Awards") to Plaintiffs to be paid solely from any Fee and Expense
Award to Plaintiffs' Counsel; (v) hear and rule on any objections
to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and/or Plaintiffs'
Counsel's application for a Fee and Expense Award, including any
Incentive Awards to Plaintiffs; and (vi) consider any other matters
that may properly be brought before the Court in connection with
the Settlement.
Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes
to the date, time, or format of the hearing or updates regarding
remote or in-person appearances at the hearing, will be posted to
the Settlement website, www.SCUSAStockholdersLitigation.com.
If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to
share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the
Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by contacting the
Settlement Administrator by mail at SCUSA Stockholders Litigation,
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173133, Milwaukee, WI 53217; by
telephone at 877-883-9956; or by email at
info@SCUSAStockholdersLitigation.com. A copy of the Notice can
also be downloaded from the Settlement website,
www.SCUSAStockholdersLitigation.com.
If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date
occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata
basis to Eligible Class Members in accordance with the proposed
Plan of Allocation stated in the Notice or such other plan of
allocation as is approved by the Court. Pursuant to the proposed
Plan of Allocation, each Eligible Class Member will be eligible to
receive a pro rata payment from the Net Settlement Fund equal to
the product of (i) the number of Eligible Shares held by the
Eligible Class Member and (ii) the "Per-Share Recovery" for the
Settlement, which will be determined by dividing the total amount
of the Net Settlement Fund by the total number of Eligible Shares
held by all Eligible Class Members. As explained in further detail
in the Notice, pursuant to the Plan of Allocation, payments from
the Net Settlement Fund to Eligible Class Members will be made in
the same manner in which Eligible Class Members received payment
for their shares of SCUSA common stock upon the Closing of the
Acquisition. Eligible Class Members do not have to submit a claim
form to receive a payment from the Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Plaintiffs' Counsel's application for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses must be filed with the Register in
Chancery in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and
delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they
are received no later than December 2, 2024, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.
Please do not contact the Court or the Office of the Register in
Chancery regarding this Summary Notice. All questions about this
Summary Notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to
participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Settlement
Administrator or Lead Counsel.
Requests for the Notice should be made to the Settlement
Administrator:
SCUSA Stockholders Litigation
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173133
Milwaukee, WI 53217
Telephone: 877-883-9956
Email: info@SCUSAStockholdersLitigation.com
Website: www.SCUSAStockholdersLitigation.com
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, should be made to
Lead Counsel:
Edward Timlin
Bernstein Litowitz Berger
& Grossmann LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
44th Floor
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: 800‑380‑8496
Email: settlements@blbglaw.com
BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
SEISUKE KNIFE: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Herrera Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
EDERY HERRERA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SEISUKE KNIFE INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-08782 (S.D.N.Y., November 19, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the
New York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://us.seisukeknife.com, contains access barriers which hinder
the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text) or a text
equivalent, empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and
linked images missing alt-text.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Seisuke Knife Inc. is a company that sells online goods and
services, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
SET FORTH: Waudby Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Consumers' Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN WAUDBY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SET FORTH, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-11886 (N.D. Ill., November 19, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract,
unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated consumers stored within its computer systems
following a data breach discovered on May 21, 2024. The Defendant
also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private
information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and
damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and
unauthorized third parties, says the suit.
Set Forth, Inc. is a company that provides online account
administration services to consumers enrolled in debt relief
programs, located in Schaumburg, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Salena J. Chowdhury, Esq.
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
Lisa A. White, Esq.
MASON LLP
5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640
Washington, DC 20015
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
Email: schowdhury@masonllp.com
gmason@masonllp.com
dperry@masonllp.com
lwhite@masonllp.com
WALKER & SONS: Delacruz Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EMANUEL DELACRUZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WALKER & SONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-08865 (S.D.N.Y., November 20, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the
New York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://slapyamama.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text) or a text
equivalent, empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and
linked images missing alt-text.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Walker & Sons, LLC is a company that sells online goods and
services, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
XEROX HOLDINGS: Artificially Inflated Stock Price, Wilson Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. XEROX HOLDINGS CORPORATION, STEVEN J.
BANDROWCZAK, and XAVIER HEISS, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-08809
(S.D.N.Y., November 19, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding Xerox's business, operations,
and prospects in order to trade Xerox securities at artificially
inflated prices between January 25, 2024, and October 28, 2024.
Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1)
that, after a large workforce reduction, the company's salesforce
was reorganized with new territory assignments and account
coverage; (2) that, as a result, the company's salesforce
productivity was disrupted; (3) that, as a result, the company had
a lower rate of sell-through of older products; (4) that the
difficulties in flushing out older product would delay the launch
of key products; (5) that, as a result, Xerox was likely to
experience lower sales and revenue; and (6) that, as a result of
the foregoing, the Defendants' positive statements about the
company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
When the truth emerged, Xerox's share price fell $1.79, or 17.41
percent, to close at $8.49 per share on October 29, 2024, on
unusually heavy trading volume. As a result of the Defendants'
fraudulent statements and omissions, the Plaintiff and similarly
situated investors have sustained significant damages, the suit
alleges.
Xerox Holdings Corporation is a company that sells print and
digital document products and services, with its principal
executive offices located in Norwalk, Connecticut. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rebecca Dawson, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Ave., Suite 358
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
Email: rdawson@glancylaw.com
- and -
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
- and -
Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800
Century City, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 914-5007
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Has $414MM Reserves as of Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc., in its news release dated November 6, 2024, has
reported $414 million asbestos litigation reserve as of September
30, 2024, according to the Company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xUWW0T
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Has $402MM Reserves at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous claims for
indemnification and medical cost reimbursement related to asbestos
exposure which arises from exposure to or use of asbestos in
connection with construction and maintenance activities conducted
on its electric generation plants prior to 1985, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized asbestos-related reserves of
$402 million at September 30, 2024, and $423 million at December
31, 2023. These reserves are classified in Other within Other
Noncurrent Liabilities and Other within Current Liabilities on the
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. These reserves are based on
Duke Energy Carolinas' best estimate for current and future
asbestos claims through 2044 and are recorded on an undiscounted
basis. In light of the uncertainties inherent in a longer-term
forecast, management does not believe they can reasonably estimate
the indemnity and medical costs that might be incurred after 2044
related to such potential claims. It is possible Duke Energy
Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities in excess of the recorded
reserves.
Duke Energy Carolinas has third-party insurance to cover certain
losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an
aggregate self-insured retention. Receivables for insurance
recoveries were $539 million at September 30, 2024, and $572
million at December 31, 2023. These amounts are classified in Other
within Other Noncurrent Assets and Receivables within Current
Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Any future
payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed by the
third-party insurance carrier. Duke Energy Carolinas is not aware
of any uncertainties regarding the legal sufficiency of insurance
claims. Duke Energy Carolinas believes the insurance recovery asset
is probable of recovery as the insurance carrier continues to have
a strong financial strength rating.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8a17fU
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Group Has $184MM Loss Reserves at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Group, Ltd., with respect to asbestos only, at September
30, 2024, has reported net asbestos loss reserves of $184 million,
or 90.4%, of total net A&E reserves, all of which was for assumed
business, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Ultimate loss projections for A&E liabilities
cannot be accomplished using standard actuarial techniques. We
believe that our A&E reserves represent management's best estimate
of the ultimate liability; however, there can be no assurance that
ultimate loss payments will not exceed such reserves, perhaps by a
significant amount.
"Industry analysts use the "survival ratio" to compare the A&E
reserves among companies with such liabilities. The survival ratio
is typically calculated by dividing a company's current net
reserves by the three-year average of annual paid losses. Hence,
the survival ratio equals the number of years that it would take to
exhaust the current reserves if future loss payments were to
continue at historical levels. Using this measurement, our net
three-year asbestos survival ratio was 5.8 years at September 30,
2024. These metrics can be skewed by individual large settlements
occurring in the prior three years and therefore may not be
indicative of the timing of future payments."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xjrY20
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Faces 650 New Exposure Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, for the nine months ended
September 30, 2024, has received 650 new claims, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "We are a defendant in numerous lawsuits
alleging various asbestos-related personal injuries purported to
result from alleged exposure to asbestos in certain products
manufactured by us or present in certain of our facilities.
Typically, these lawsuits have been brought against multiple
defendants in state and federal courts. To date, we have disposed
of approximately 160,850 claims by defending, obtaining the
dismissal thereof, or entering into a settlement. The sum of our
accrued asbestos-related liability and gross payments to date,
including legal costs, by us and our insurers totaled approximately
$591 million through September 30, 2024 and $580 million through
December 31, 2023.
"We recorded an insurance receivable related to asbestos claims of
$65 million and $66 million at September 30, 2024 and December 31,
2023, respectively. We expect that approximately 55% of asbestos
claim related losses would be recoverable through insurance during
the ten-year period covered by the estimated liability. Of these
amounts, $10 million were included in Current Assets as part of
Accounts Receivable at both September 30, 2024 and December 31,
2023. The recorded receivable consists of an amount we expect to
collect under coverage-in-place agreements with certain primary and
excess insurance carriers as well as an amount we believe is
probable of recovery from certain of our other excess insurance
carriers."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GxtWJo
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Defends Product Liability Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Manitex International, Inc., has been named as a defendant in
several multi-defendant asbestos related product liability
lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
In certain cases the plaintiff has, to date, not been able to
establish any exposure by the plaintiff to the Company's products.
The Company is uninsured with respect to these claims but believes
that it will not incur any material liability with respect to these
claims.
On May 5, 2011, Company entered into two separate settlement
agreements with two plaintiffs. As of September 30, 2024, the
Company has a remaining obligation under these agreements to pay
the plaintiffs $580 without interest in 7 annual installments of
$95 on or before May 22 of each year. The Company has recorded a
liability for the net present value of the liability. The
difference between the net present value and the total payment will
be charged to interest expense over the payment period.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Oeazbh
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Merck & Co. Defends 330 Cases as of Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., as of September 30, 2024, had approximately 330
cases pending in various state courts, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
As previously disclosed, Merck is a defendant in product liability
lawsuits in the U.S. arising from consumers' alleged exposure to
talc in Dr. Scholl's foot powder, which Merck acquired through its
merger with Schering-Plough Corporation and sold as part of the
divestiture of Merck's consumer care business to Bayer in 2014. In
these actions, plaintiffs allege that they were exposed to
asbestos-contaminated talc and developed mesothelioma as a result.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0760u5
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Receives 2,251 New PI Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, for the nine months ended
September 30, 2024 and 2023, has received approximately 2,251 and
1,924 new asbestos-related claims, respectively, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is and has been a defendant in
a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state
courts. These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or
plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to
asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages. Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company has never engaged in the business of
manufacturing or selling asbestos-containing products, nor has
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company 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
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's employees during the period
from the 1920s through approximately the 1950s and allege that
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company 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.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company 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 Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's defenses include that: (i)
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company owed no duty to the plaintiffs;
(ii) plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company; (iii) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company'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 Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company, while other trial courts have denied
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motions. There can be no
assurance that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company will receive
favorable decisions on motions in the future. While most cases
brought to date have settled, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
intends to continue to defend aggressively against claims based on
asbestos exposure, including defending claims at trials.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YCcFsi
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Faces 507 PI Lawsuits as of Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
MRC Global Inc., as of September 30, 2024, is named a defendant in
approximately 507 lawsuits involving approximately 1,072 claims,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "We are one of many defendants in lawsuits that
plaintiffs have brought seeking damages for personal injuries that
exposure to asbestos allegedly caused. Plaintiffs and their family
members have brought these lawsuits against a large volume of
defendant entities as a result of the defendants' manufacture,
distribution, supply or other involvement with asbestos, asbestos
containing-products or equipment or activities that allegedly
caused plaintiffs to be exposed to asbestos. These plaintiffs
typically assert exposure to asbestos as a consequence of
third-party manufactured products that our MRC Global (US) Inc.
subsidiary purportedly distributed. No asbestos lawsuit has
resulted in a judgment against us to date, with a majority being
settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved. Applicable third-party
insurance has substantially covered these claims, and insurance
should continue to cover a substantial majority of existing and
anticipated future claims. Accordingly, we have recorded a
liability for our estimate of the most likely settlement of
asserted claims and a related receivable from insurers for our
estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that the amounts of
recovery are probable. It is not possible to predict the outcome of
these claims and proceedings. However, in our opinion, the
likelihood that the ultimate disposition of any of these claims and
legal proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our
condensed consolidated financial statements is remote."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UZsqKp
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Co-Defends 106 Exposure Cases
--------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Industries, Inc., is a co-defendant in 106 cases
asserting claims on behalf of 151 plaintiffs alleging personal
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "These asbestos cases generally relate to
production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege
various theories of liability, including negligence, gross
negligence and strict liability, and seek compensatory and, in some
cases, punitive damages.
"In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
$25,000 to $75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages sought.
To the extent that any specific amount of damages is sought, the
amount applies to claims against all named defendants.
"Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-containing
product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries. We intend
to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe we will
continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases.
However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the
unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation. Despite this
uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows
for a particular period could be adversely affected by
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management
believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
liquidity or results of operations. Among the factors management
considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical
success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits on the
bases mentioned above; (b) many cases have been improperly filed
against one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs
have been unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our
products or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been
unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable
injury or compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they
have incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos;
and (e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants
and, in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to
individual defendants. Additionally, we do not believe that the
amounts claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful
indicators of our potential exposure because the amounts claimed
typically bear no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's injury,
if any."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bAMa1a
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Perrigo Co. Defends 130 Product Liability Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc, as of September 28, 2024, has been named in
approximately 130 individual lawsuits seeking compensatory and
punitive damages, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company has been named, together with other manufacturers, in
product liability lawsuits in a variety of state courts alleging
that the use of body powder products containing talcum powder
causes mesothelioma and lung cancer due to the presence of
asbestos. All but one of these cases involve legacy talcum powder
products that have not been manufactured by the Company since 1999.
One of the pending actions involves a current prescription product
that contains talc as an excipient. The Company has several
defenses and continues to vigorously defend these lawsuits as well
as explore various means of expeditiously resolving these claims.
Trials for these lawsuits are currently scheduled throughout 2024
and 2025.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dcmWV6
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sempra Has a Pending PI Lawsuit as of Nov. 1
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sempra's indirect subsidiaries which were acquired as part of the
merger of Energy Future Holdings Corp. (EFH), were defendants in
personal injury lawsuits brought in state courts throughout the
U.S., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "These cases alleged illness or death as a
result of exposure to asbestos in power plants designed and/or
built by companies whose assets were purchased by predecessor
entities to the EFH subsidiaries, and generally assert claims for
product defects, negligence, strict liability and wrongful death.
They sought compensatory and punitive damages. As of November 1,
2024, one lawsuit is pending. Additionally, approximately 28,000
proofs of claim were filed, but not discharged, in advance of a
December 2015 deadline to file a proof of claim in the EFH
bankruptcy proceeding on behalf of persons who allege exposure to
asbestos under similar circumstances and assert the right to file
such lawsuits in the future. The costs to defend or resolve such
claims and the amount of damages that may be incurred could have a
material adverse effect on Sempra’s results of operations,
financial condition, cash flows and/or prospects."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=50oCpq
*********
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 ***