CLASS ACTION ADMINISTRATION CASES

On February 4, 2019, the Court approved the proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit about the labeling of Aveeno® Baby Wash and Shampoo and Aveeno® Baby Calming Comfort Bath (collectively, the “Products”). The Plaintiff in the lawsuit asserts that the Products’ labels were false or misleading before they were changed (in November of 2012 for the Wash and Shampoo Product, and in November of 2013 for the Calming Comfort Bath Product), by claiming that the Products were a “Natural Oat Formula.” Defendant Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. (“J&JCC” or “Defendant”) denies all allegations and is entering into this settlement, among other reasons, to avoid burdensome and costly litigation. The settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing.

The Complaint seeks relief on behalf of nominal defendant Adtalem based upon, among other things, alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Individual Defendants. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that certain members of the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”), and Hamburger in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”), breached their respective fiduciary duties in connection with certain advertising campaigns for the Company’s then-subsidiary DeVry University, Inc. (“DeVry”).

See Court Notice

The Action is a securities fraud class action lawsuit that was commenced on March 4, 2015. On August 24, 2015, pursuant to the lead plaintiff provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”), the Court appointed the Akorn Investor Group, currently consisting of Mikolaj Sarzynski, J. M. Cunniff, Jr., and Elizabeth Cunniff (“Class Plaintiffs” or “Plaintiffs”), as lead plaintiff. The Court also appointed Class Plaintiffs’ counsel, Pomerantz LLP and Glancy Prongay & Murray (together, “Class Counsel”), as co-lead counsel.

Bollenbach Enterprises Limited Partnership (“Plaintiff”) has filed a class action lawsuit asserting that Oklahoma Energy Acquisitions LP, Alta Mesa Services, LP, and Alta Mesa Holdings, LP (collectively, the “Defendants”) underpaid royalties on gas and its constituents (such as residue gas, natural gas liquids, helium, nitrogen, or drip condensate) produced from Oklahoma wells that Defendants and their affiliated predecessors and successors operated or, as a working interest owner, marketed their share of gas and directly paid royalty owners. Plaintiff asserts that from October 1, 2014 through June 30, 2017, Defendants took deductions for fees and expenses related to the midstream post-production costs of gathering, compression, dehydration, treatment, processing, and marketing.

There is currently pending a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Central District of California. The class action lawsuit, filed in 2014, challenged the treatment of gay, bisexual and transgender inmates who were housed in the Alternative Lifestyle Tank (or "ALT") of the West Valley Detention Center (a San Bernardino County jail). A preliminary settlement has been reached that calls for both modifying what Plaintiffs alleged was discriminatory treatment, and providing a compensation fund.

A class action lawsuit challenges the legality of group strip searches in the outside bus garage at the LA County women’s jail in Lynwood, California (this jail is referred to as the “Century Regional Detention Facility” or “CRDF”). The lawsuit covers all women who were strip searched in groups, without individual privacy, in the bus garage, upon entering or returning to CRDF, between March 2008 and January 2015. In June of 2017, a federal court ruled that the group strip searches in the bus garage were illegal. Counsel is preparing for settlement negotiations before a retired federal judge to try and secure financial compensation for women who were illegally searched.

The Complaint alleges that Baazov engaged in insider trading in connection with several of Amaya’s acquisitions in violation of Canadian securities laws and Amaya’s own policies prohibiting insider trading. The Complaint further alleges that Defendants Baazov and Amaya made material false and misleading statements in press releases and SEC filings denying that Baazov engaged in any violations of the securities laws, and that Defendants Baazov and Sebag falsely represented that they had disclosed all fraud involving management to the Board of Directors. The Complaint alleges the truth was revealed when, on March 23, 2016, the Autorité des marchés financiers (“AMF”), the securities regulatory authority in the Province of Quebec, announced it filed five charges against Baazov alleging violations of Canadian securities laws in connection with trading in advance of Amaya’s announcement of its plan to acquire The Oldford Group (then owner of Poker Stars), which the Complaint asserts led Amaya’s shares to decline $3.07 per share, or approximately 21.5% from its previous closing price, to close at $11.18 per share on March 23, 2016 on the NASDAQ. Defendants have denied and continue to deny each, any, and all allegations of wrongdoing, fault, liability, or damage whatsoever asserted by Lead Plaintiffs. Defendants have also denied, inter alia, the allegations that Lead Plaintiffs or the Settlement Class have suffered damages or that Lead Plaintiffs or the Settlement Class were harmed by the conduct alleged in the Action. Defendants continue to believe the claims asserted against them in the Action are without merit.

A settlement (the “Settlement”) has been approved by the federal court in a class action lawsuit alleging breaches of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) in connection with the Amgen Retirement and Savings Plan and the Retirement and Savings Plan of Amgen Manufacturing, Limited (collectively, the “Plans”). This Settlement will provide for a payment of $2,750,000.00 to the Settlement Fund.

This is a lawsuit brought under New York Labor Law and asserts that The Hartford should have paid overtime wages for members of the Class and should have provided accurate wage statements. The Named Plaintiffs in this lawsuit are eight present and former Hartford employees, who allege that they were wrongly classified and not paid overtime compensation for their work at Hartford. The Class seeks unpaid overtime pay, liquidated damages, damages for failure to provide accurate wage statements and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Hartford denies that it owes the plaintiffs any overtime pay, and contends that plaintiffs’ duties made them exempt from overtime pay.

Atlantic Ambulance alleged that Counterclaimants failed to pay for services provided by Atlantic Ambulance. Counterclaimants alleged that Atlantic Ambulance violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, as well as certain common law claims, by overcharging Counterclaimants and others similarly situated. Class certification was denied by the trial court, which was affirmed on appeal with the exception of Atlantic Ambulance’s bill to the Hittis and those similarly situated of $14.00 for one-mile of transport that Atlantic Ambulance did not provide but for which it billed, whose claim was remanded to the trial court for further consideration of class certification. Counterclaimants’ motion to the New Jersey Supreme Court for review was denied.

Au pairs have sued the companies that sponsored their J-1 visas, alleging violations of federal and/or state law arising from the weekly stipend paid to them. The Court has allowed this lawsuit to be a class action on behalf of au pairs who were sponsored by any one of fifteen (15) J-1 visa sponsors at any time from 2009 to the present.

A proposed Settlement has been reached by the Parties in the constituent actions that make up the consolidated class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona (the “District Court”), which was brought on behalf of the Settlement Class. The District Court has preliminarily approved the Settlement, the terms of which are set forth in the Stipulation, which is available on the Important Documents page and has preliminarily certified the Settlement Class for purposes of Settlement only.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida has preliminarily approved the proposed Settlement reached in the class action lawsuit known as The City of Los Angeles et al. v. Bankrate, Inc., et al., Case No. 9:14-cv-81323-DMM (the "Action"). If granted final approval by the Court, the Settlement will resolve allegations that Defendants violated the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements and failing to disclose certain material facts about Bankrate Inc.'s financial results during the Settlement Class Period.

A proposed settlement has been reached in a consolidated class action lawsuit in which plaintiffs allege that Equifax Information Services LLC, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., and TransUnion LLC (“Defendants”) violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and state laws by failing to employ reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy in reporting debts discharged in bankruptcy or by failing to properly investigate disputes from consumers regarding such debts. Defendants deny these allegations or any wrongdoing.

The Settlement resolves the Action concerning whether Barclays, Barclays Capital Inc., and William White (collectively, “Defendants”) violated federal securities laws by allegedly making misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in public statements to the investing public concerning Barclays’ “dark pool,” known as Liquidity Cross or LX, a private trading venue on which participants can trade securities without publicly displaying bids or offers.

The lawsuit alleges that TIAA failed to pay Named Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees in Advisory Positions properly for all overtime hours they worked. The Plaintiffs allege that those in training for an Advisory Position role were misclassified as exempt from overtime and not paid properly for all hours worked in a Training Period during the Material Times.

Plaintiff brought claims on behalf of all persons in the RoundPoint Settlement Class. Plaintiff alleges that when a borrower was required to have insurance for his or her property pursuant to a residential mortgage or home equity loan or line of credit, and evidence of acceptable coverage was not provided (for example, when the insurance policy did not exist or had lapsed), RoundPoint would place insurance in a manner such that RoundPoint allegedly received an unauthorized benefit. Plaintiff alleges further that RoundPoint did so primarily to receive other consideration from Great American or Willis of Ohio. Plaintiff also alleges that the way in which LPI policies were obtained and placed caused the premiums and the amount of coverage to be excessive. All Defendants expressly deny Plaintiff's allegations and assert their actions were and are fully authorized under the mortgage instruments and by law. They also expressly deny that they did anything wrong. There has been no court decision on the merits of this case and no finding that Defendants committed any wrongdoing.

Plaintiffs allege that Wells Fargo, as trustee for the Trusts, breached its contractual and common law duties by failing to enforce Trust repurchase claims when it discovered mortgage loans that allegedly breached representations and warranties made by the entities (or their successors) that sold the mortgage loans to the Trusts, and failing to provide notices to cure known servicing violations to the servicers responsible for servicing the mortgage loans in the Trusts.

A Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit against BP Solar and Home Depot involving solar panels manufactured between 1999 and 2007 with an S-type junction box (“Class Panels”). You may be entitled to benefits from a $45.33 million common fund or a separate, $20 million claims-made settlement.

The lawsuit claims that Wal-Mart at times gave a refund or credit on a product purchased from a Wal-Mart or Sam’s Club retail location within the United States or online from Walmart.com or Samsclub.com for delivery within the United States, and the amount of sales tax refunded or credited was less than the full amount of sales tax paid at the time the product was purchased.

A settlement has been reached in a class action antitrust lawsuit filed on behalf of Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (“Plaintiffs”) with Defendant Fieldale Farms Corporation (“Fieldale Farms”). This Settlement only applies to Fieldale Farms and does not dismiss claims against other Defendants in the case entitled In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, N.D. Ill., Case No. 1:16-cv-08637. The lawsuit claims that Broiler chicken producers, including Fieldale Farms, combined and conspired in restraint of trade, the purpose and effect of which was to suppress competition and allow them to charge supra-competitive prices for Broilers during the Class Period, in violation of federal law. Fieldale Farms vigorously and affirmatively denies it did anything wrong, and denies that it in any way conspired with competitors to restrain trade or suppressed competition to charge supra-competitive prices. The Court did not decide which side was right, but both sides agreed to the Settlement to resolve the case. The case is still proceeding on behalf of the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs against all other Defendants.

On October 10, 2018, Lead Plaintiff Jacob Petersen and TFI Defendants agreed to a Settlement regarding Townsend Farms Organic Anti-Oxidant Blend Frozen Berry Mix (Berry Mix) for all persons who (1) consumed the Berry Mix that was both purchased at Costco in California and recalled on either June 4, 2013 or June 28, 2013 and (2) subsequently obtained an immune globulin (“IG”) shot or hepatitis-A virus (“HAV”) vaccination between May 31, 2013 and June 13, 2013. Claimants are eligible to submit a claim for Non-Economic and Economic Damages.

This lawsuit is about whether Cathedral failed to pay its Flowback and Production Testing Operators for all of their overtime pay. In particular, the lawsuit alleges that Cathedral: 1) failed to include all compensation in the overtime rates; and 2) failed to properly calculate the number of overtime hours worked each week. Cathedral Energy denies that it did anything wrong and intends to defend itself through the course of this case, including appeal.

Plaintiff (John Cecil) alleges that BP America breach an implied covenant to market, breached the underlying leases, breached an alleged fiduciary duty, violated RICO, and committed fraud with respect to royalty payments for gas and its constituents (including helium, residue gas, natural gas liquids, nitrogen and condensate). Defendant expressly denies all allegations of wrongdoing or liability with respect to the claims and allegations in the Litigation. The Court has made no determination with respect to any of the parties' claims or defenses.

The lawsuit claimed that Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital failed to ensure nurses could take breaks and record missed breaks as hours worked as required by Washington laws.

This lawsuit is about whether Defendants’ use of letters on the letterhead of a California district attorney, and charging allegedly unlawful fees in connection with a dishonored check, violates the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and the California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) or constitutes negligent misrepresentation or fraudulent misrepresentation. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated federal and California law by: (1) collecting and attempting to collect fees that were not permitted by law; (2) using district attorney letterhead, and otherwise giving the impression that they were the office of various California district attorneys; (3) using letters that explicitly and implicitly falsely threatened check writers with prosecution if the check writers did not pay fees for the “District Attorney Bad Check Restitution Program; and, (4) sending collection letters that did not include disclosures and notices of consumer rights required by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Defendants deny all allegations made by Plaintiffs and have asserted various defenses to these claims.

On December 17, 2018, the Court preliminarily approved a Settlement in the above-captioned litigation (the "Litigation") between Chieftain Royalty Company, Kelsie Wagner as Trustee of the Kelsie Wagner Trust, and Kelsie Wagner as Successor Trustee of the Wade Costello Trust, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated ("Plaintiffs"), and Marathon Oil Company ("Defendant"). The Litigation asserts that Defendant failed to pay statutory interest on payments made by Defendant (or on behalf of Defendant) outside the time periods set forth in the Production Revenue Standards Act, 52 Okla. St. §570.1, et seq. (the “PRSA”) for oil and gas production proceeds from oil and gas wells in Oklahoma. Defendant expressly denies all factual and legal allegations and denies liability to Plaintiffs or any of the Class Members for any of the claims and allegations in the Litigation. The Court has made no determination with respect to any of the parties’ claims or defenses. Instead, Plaintiffs and Defendant have agreed to the Settlement in order to avoid the risk, cost and time of a trial, and Plaintiffs have avoided any further delay in resolving the Litigation.

Plaintiff Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative claims that Defendant United States has not made cost-sharing reduction reimbursements on a timely and periodic basis for the 2017 or 2018 benefit years to which it and other Qualified Health Plan "QHP" issuers such as your organization are entitled under the Affordable Care Act. Section 1402 of the Affordable Care Act established a cost-sharing reduction program that applied to insurers who offered QHPs on the Affordable Care Act’s insurance exchanges. The cost-sharing reduction program provides that QHP issuers must pay a portion of eligible insureds’ out-of-pocket costs, such as deductibles, co-pays, and similar expenses, thereby reducing the amount eligible insureds must pay. Section 1402 further states that the Secretaries of the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) and the Treasury “shall make periodic and timely payments to the [QHP] issuer equal to the value of the reductions.” Beginning in 2014, the United States began making these cost-sharing reduction reimbursements, but then ceased paying them in 2017 and continues to not pay them.

The description of the Settlement of claims in the securities class action brought by investors alleging, among other things, that the Settling Defendants violated the federal securities laws by filing financial statements for more than three years that were materially false and misleading, violated Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”), and improperly recognized more than $43 million in fictitious revenues.

A class action lawsuit entitled Connolly v. Umpqua Bank, Case No. 2:15-cv-00517-TSZ, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle (the “Lawsuit”). The Lawsuit claims that Defendant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681a-1681x, by procuring background and credit checks without complying with certain aspects of 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2). Defendant denies the claims, has asserted numerous defenses to the action, and denies that class certification is required or appropriate.

A proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit against Costco Wholesale Corporation ("Costco"). The lawsuit claims Costco sent unsolicited facsimile advertisements in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Court in charge of the case is the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri (the "Court"), and the case is known as The Backer Law Firm, LLC v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Case No. 4:15-CV-00327-SRB. The Court did not decide in favor of the Class or the Defendant. Instead, both sides agreed to a settlement. That way, they avoid the cost of a trial, and the people affected will get compensation. The Class Representative and the attorneys think the settlement is best for everyone who is in the Class.

The Office of the Attorney General for the State of New York ("NYAG") sued Steven Croman, Anthony Falconite, Croman Real Estate Inc., 9300 Realty Management Inc., 9300 Realty Inc., Falconite LLC, and the special-purpose limited liability real-estate entities over which Steven Croman exercise control alleging violations of city and state law for: unlawful tenant harassment; deceptive business practices; illegal construction practices; violation of city lead-safety laws; violations of the Real Estate Broker Law; violations of Private Investigator Law; fraud; and violations of security deposit laws.

This lawsuit is about whether Cutters Wireline Group failed to pay Wireline Operators their overtime pay. Cutters Wireline Group denies Plaintiff’s allegations and also denies any liability to any putative plaintiffs. Cutters Wireline Group maintains that its Wireline Operators were properly compensated in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and are exempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirements under the Motor Carrier Act.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida has preliminarily approved the proposed Settlement reached in the class action lawsuit known as Barry R. Lloyd, v. CVB Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10-06256-CAS (the "Action"). If granted final approval by the Court, the Settlement will resolve allegations that Defendants violated the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements and failing to disclose certain material facts about CVB's financial results during the Settlement Class Period.

The complaints allege, inter alia, that several defendants entered into sham transactions that ultimately transferred a controlling interest in USAE to their family, friends and affiliates.  Plaintiffs’ complaints include causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, legal malpractice, vicarious liability, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste and civil conspiracy. 

In the lawsuit, Plaintiffs claimed that Uber’s policies and practices regarding compensation and promotion violated federal and California state laws by unlawfully discriminating against women and Latino/Latina/Hispanic, African American/Black, Native American, Alaskan Native, and/or multiracial individuals (who are in part one of the foregoing races) who work or worked for Uber in a Covered Software Engineering Position, and that there was harassment or a hostile work environment for those employees. The lawsuit asked the Court to require Uber to provide damages, penalties, and other compensation to those employees (or former employees). The lawsuit also sought to compel Uber to change its policies and procedures so that such conduct does not happen in the future.

The Class Representative contends that Cottage Health System, Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital, Goleta Valley Cottage Hospital, Santa Ynez Valley Cottage Hospital, InSync Computer Solutions, Inc., CIO Solutions, Inc. and CIO Solutions, LP violated the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, California Civil Code §§56, et seq. (“CMIA”), by placing the Settlement Class Members’ confidential medical information on a computer server that was accessible without log-in credentials, passwords, or encryption, at times between October 26, 2015 and November 8, 2015 without login credentials, passwords or encryption and allegedly releasing that confidential medical information.

In this securities class action, Lead Plaintiffs allege that Defendants made false and misleading statements during the Class Period about Dole’s operations and financial condition, which had the effect of deflating the price of Dole common stock, in order to permit Defendant Murdock to acquire the outstanding publicly traded shares of Dole for a reduced price, harming Settlement Class Members who sold shares of Dole common stock during the Class Period.

In the lawsuit, Plaintiffs allege that Cimarex Energy Co: (1) failed to pay statutory interest on payments made outside the time periods set forth in the Production Revenue Standards Act, 52 Okla. St. §570.1, et seq. (the “PRSA”); (2) awaited a demand prior to paying statutory interest under the PRSA; (3) misrepresented and/or omitted the amount of statutory interest owed; and (4) is liable to Class Members for breach of the PRSA, actual fraud, constructive fraud, deceit, unjust enrichment/disgorgement, accounting, punitive damages, and injunctive relief. Defendant does not believe it paid statutory interest incorrectly, paid proceeds untimely, or violated any laws, and denies any liability and all allegations of wrongdoing asserted.

The lawsuits allege that DirecTV, LLC violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay employees for all hours worked, failing to pay all overtime, failing to provide meal and rest breaks, and other alleged violations.

The named Plaintiff alleges that The Reserves Network ("TRN") violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") by taking adverse employment actions (terminating or not hiring or placing those individuals) due to the results of a background check TRN obtained on the employee or applicant. TRN disputes the named Plaintiff's allegations and denies all liability to the named Plaintiff and the Settlement Class. TRN denies the named Plaintiff's allegations and has raised a number of defenses to the claims asserted. The Parties are settling the Litigation to avoid the risk and expense of further litigation. No court has found TRN to have violated the law in any way. No court has found that the Named Plaintiff could recover any certain amount in this Litigation. Although the Court has authorized notice to be given of the proposed Settlement, this Notice does not express the opinion of the Court on the merits of the claims or defenses asserted by either side in the Litigation.

A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit with publisher Hearst Communications, Inc., the Defendant in this case. Plaintiff Josephine James Edwards alleges that the Defendant violated its customers’ subscription information to third parties which is alleged to violate Michigan privacy law.

Endurance provides web solutions for small businesses, including domains, website builders, web hosting, and other subscription-based and non-subscription-based products and services. This case involves Defendants’ representations concerning Endurance’s non-GAAP metrics, including: (a) subscriber count; (b) average revenue per subscriber; (c) products per subscriber; and (d) the number of subscribers paying $500 or more for Endurance’s products and services. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants touted these metrics to create an impression of future revenue growth, but in fact, certain of the metrics reported by Defendants were misstated and Defendants also omitted data necessary to render their statements not misleading.

Plaintiff Family Medicine Pharmacy, LLC (the "Plaintiff") sued Impax Laboratories, Inc., alleging that it received unsolicited facsimile advertisements sent by the Defendant promoting Defendant's goods and/or services, without prior consent or an established business relationship, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. & 227. Plaintiff sought to represent a class of persons to whom Defendant sent the allegedly unsolicited facsimile advertisements. Defendant denies these allegations but has agreed to settle these claims solely to avoid the costs and uncertainties of litigation. Defendant will vigorously defend the lawsuit if the proposed settlement is not approved. Plaintiff has brought this action on behalf of itself and the Settlement Class. The class action is called Family Medicine Pharmacy LLC v. Impax Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 1:17-CV-00053, and is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, located in Mobile, Alabama.

This is a securities class action brought against FCA; FCA’s Chief Executive Officer throughout the Class Period, Sergio Marchionne; FCA’s Chief Financial Officer throughout the Class Period, Richard K. Palmer; and FCA’s Head of U.S. Sales throughout the Class Period, Reid Bigland. Lead Plaintiffs allege that, during the Class Period, Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business and operations.  Specifically, Lead Plaintiffs allege that Defendants fraudulently inflated FCA’s U.S. vehicle sales numbers during the Class Period, including misrepresenting the Company’s streak of year-over-year monthly U.S. sales growth.

The Plaintiffs, Daniel Finerman and Donna Devino, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, brought claims by a complaint as a putative class action challenging certain fees they were charged to book cruises when using Exchange Points they obtained as members of the Exchange Program. The complaint alleges that Defendants failed to provide cruises in exchange for Class Members’ points and charged Class Members additional sums to cover the costs of cruises under the guise of port fees or cruise line pass through fees. Defendants deny any and all liability or wrongdoing with respect to the claims alleged in the lawsuit but desire to settle the case to avoid the risk, expense, and distraction of continued litigation.

On February 5, 2016, the United States of America (“United States”) filed a lawsuit against the City of Chicago (“Chicago”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois claiming that Chicago used a hiring practice that did not comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The United States claimed that Chicago’s use of a ten-year continuous United States residency requirement (“ten-year residency requirement”) as part of its background check overly excluded people born outside the United States from being hired as probationary police officers (“PPOs”) with the Chicago Police Department. The United States claimed that this requirement was not shown to be job related and consistent with business necessity, as required by federal law. Chicago stopped using the ten-year residency requirement in 2011, and began using a five-year continuous United States residency requirement.

The lawsuit alleges that Wawa misclassified AGMs as “exempt” employees, instead of properly classifying them as employees who are entitled to the protections of the FLSA, and failed to pay them overtime for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The Plaintiffs claim that the duties they primarily performed, such as greeting and assisting customers; cashiering; sales; returns; stocking; inventory; cleaning; preparing food and coffee; and operational/clerical duties, entitled them to receive overtime compensation like other, hourly Wawa employees who similarly performed such duties.

A class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Western District of Arkansas titled In re Global Tel*Link Corporation Litigation, Case No. 5:14-cv-5275 (the "Lawsuit") alleges that Global Tel*Link Corporation ("GTL") obtained exclusive contracts to provide inmate calling services ("ICS") to inmates at correctional facilities throughout the United States in exchange for the payment of "kickbacks" or "site commissions" to the facilities. Plaintiffs claim that GTL charged unjust and unreasonable: (1) rates for interstate calls, and (2) fees when someone used a credit card to fund a prepaid calling account. Plaintiffs allege that GTL violated the Federal Communications Act of 1934 as well as state law preventing "unjust enrichment." Plaintiffs seek to recover these allegedly unjust charges for themselves and all class members. GTL denies that it obtained exclusive contracts in exchange for the payment of site commissions or "kickbacks", and denies that its practices, rates, and fees are unjust or unreasonable.

This Action was filed on January 25, 2016 and asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (“1933 Act”) (15 U.S.C. §§ 77k, 77l(a)(2), and 77o), with respect to the dissemination of allegedly false, misleading, and materially incomplete statements in the registration statement and incorporated prospectus, as amended (the “Offering Materials”) and filed by defendant GoPro with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on or about June 26, 2014 in connection with the public offering of approximately 20,470,000 shares of GoPro Class A common stock (the “IPO”).

Lead Plaintiff has filed this lawsuit alleging that magicJack and its former and current executive officers violated the federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements and/or omitting statements of material fact regarding magicJack’s business by telling investors that magicJack’s fourth quarter and full year revenue for fiscal year 2013 would be less than previously announced. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Action, which the Court denied on November 14, 2016. Defendants deny each and all of the claims and contentions of wrongdoing alleged by Lead Plaintiff in the litigation. They contend that they did not make any materially false or misleading statements, they disclosed all material information required to be disclosed, and any alleged misstatements or omissions were not made with the requisite intent or knowledge of wrongdoing. Defendants also contend that any losses suffered by members of the Class were not caused by any false or misleading statements by Defendants and/or were caused by other events.

The Settlement will provide a one hundred million ($100,000,000) all cash Settlement Fund for the benefit of Class Members who purchased or otherwise acquired Halliburton common stock between August 16, 1999 and December 7, 2001, inclusive. This hard-fought litigation spans more than a decade and involves two arguments before the Supreme Court and multiple appeals to the Fifth Circuit. Class Counsel (defined below) obtained a certified Class, completed discovery, and fully briefed summary judgment before achieving the $100,000,000 all cash result. These legal services were performed on a wholly contingent basis, and therefore Class Counsel have not received any payment for their services, nor have they been reimbursed for their litigation expenses. Before final approval of the Settlement, Class Counsel will apply to the Court for an award of attorneys’ fees in an amount not to exceed one-third (33⅓%) of the gross Settlement Fund, and apply for reimbursement of litigation expenses in an amount not to exceed $7,500,000.

Plaintiff Health Republic Insurance Company claims that Defendant United States has not fully paid the risk corridor amounts for 2014 and 2015 to which it and other insurers such as your organization are entitled under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Affordable Care Act”). Health Republic seeks payment for the class from the United States for the full amount of unpaid risk corridor payments for the 2014 and 2015 plan years. A detailed description of this claim and important Court Documents can be found on the Important Documents page of this website.

A proposed settlement has been reached in a consolidated class action lawsuit in which plaintiffs allege that Equifax Information Services LLC, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., and TransUnion LLC (“Defendants”) violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and state laws by failing to employ reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy in reporting debts discharged in bankruptcy or by failing to properly investigate disputes from consumers regarding such debts. Defendants deny these allegations or any wrongdoing.

Several lawsuits were filed by current and former Parking Production Assistants ("PPAs") asserting that PPAs are owed compensation for hours worked for which they were not paid. Specifically, the PPAs allege, inter alia, that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law by not paying the PPAs correctly for all the hours, including overtime hours, that they worked. Defendants deny that they violated the law and maintain that they have consistently acted in accordance with all governing laws at all times, including by paying PPAs correctly. However, to avoid the burden, expense, and inconvenience of continued litigation, Defendants have agreed to settle the lawsuits, without admitting any wrongdoing or liability.

Plaintiff alleges that Checkr violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) by allegedly producing background reports on individuals containing non-conviction information older than seven years from the date of the report. Plaintiff alleges that this reporting caused him harm and violated the law.

A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit against Suunto Oy (“Suunto”) and Aqua Lung America, Inc. (“Aqua Lung”) concerning certain Suunto Dive Computers in the case entitled Huntzinger v. Suunto Oy, et al., Case No. 37-2018-00027159-CU-BT-CTL. The class action lawsuit claims that the depth pressure sensors in certain Dive Computers manufactured and sold by Suunto and distributed and sold by Aqua Lung are defective, resulting in inaccuracies in depth and temperature readings. The lawsuit pursues claims for violations of consumer protection statutes and breach of implied warranty. Suunto and Aqua Lung deny that they have violated any law, deny that they engaged in any wrongdoing, and deny that there is any defect with respect to the depth pressure sensors in the Suunto Dive Computers. The parties agreed to resolve these matters before these issues were decided by the Court.

A Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit (In re Intuit Data Litigation, Case No. 15-cv-1778-EJD (N.D. Cal.)) about taxpayers whose identities were used to file fraudulent federal tax returns by someone else using Intuit’s TurboTax service for tax years 2014, 2015, and 2016 (for which tax returns were filed in calendar years 2015, 2016 and 2017, respectively). The lawsuit claims that Intuit failed to adequately prevent the filing of these fraudulent tax returns in their names. Intuit denies any wrongdoing and the Court has not ruled that Intuit did anything wrong or violated any law.

A settlement has been proposed in a class action lawsuit pending in the Ventura County Superior Court titled Press, et al. v. J. Crew Group, Inc. et al.. The lawsuit alleges that J. Crew engaged in deceptive advertising by advertising false reference prices on merchandise on the J. Crew Factory website, and in J. Crew Factory and/or J. Crew Mercantile stores in California, New York, and New Jersey.

A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit involving lender-placed insurance (“LPI”) charged by Fay Servicing LLC (“Fay”) and issued by Southwest Business Corporation, American Modern Insurance Group, Inc., or one of its affiliates (collectively “the Insurer Defendants”), between January 1, 2009 and August 9, 2017. The lawsuit alleges that when a borrower was required to have insurance for his or her property under a residential mortgage or home equity loan or line of credit, and evidence of acceptable coverage was not provided, Fay would place insurance in a manner such that Fay allegedly received an unauthorized benefit. Defendants expressly deny the allegations in the lawsuit. The Court has not decided who is right or that Defendants did anything wrong.

The Class Representatives claim that the Defendants have underpaid royalties from wells located in the Counties of Nowata and Washington, State of Oklahoma. The Class Representatives assert that Bullseye and CEP breached the lease: contracts, including the implied duty to market the gas, and breached a fiduciary duty allegedly owed to its royalty interest owners. The Class Representatives further claim that Bullseye has not reported royalty payments correctly, in violation of the Oklahoma Production Revenue Standards Act (“PRSA”), and has misrepresented certain information related to its royalty payments.

The purpose of the notice is to advise Class Members of Johnson v. Yahoo! Inc. that, by order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, this former class action is decertified. The Court determined that this action can no longer proceed as a class action. Individuals who were previously members of the Class and who wish to pursue their claims against Yahoo must now bring their claims in individual lawsuits.

A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit against Code42 Software, Inc. ("Code42"). The settlement resolves a lawsuit over whether Code42 complied with a California law that requires companies selling automatically renewing services to provide certain information to consumers; it avoids costs and risks to you from continuing the lawsuit; pays money to consumers like you; and releases Code42 from liability. Your legal rights are affected whether you choose to act or don't act. The Court in charge of this case still has to decide whether to approve the settlement. Payments will be made if the Court approves the settlement and after appeals are resolved. Please be patient.

There is a pending class action settlement in a lawsuit alleging that from November 1, 2016 through January 8, 2018 Elan 99 violated the Texas Property Code by assessing and collecting from residential tenants at Elan 99 West apartments rent late fees that exceeded the amount they were statutorily permitted to collect. Elan 99 maintains that it properly assessed and collected the fees, and denies all claims and allegations that it acted wrongfully or unlawfully.

A proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit known as Kenneth Wright v. Lyft, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-00421-BJR (W.D. Wash.) (the “Action”), alleging that Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”) violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (the “TCPA”), the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act, RCW 19.190.010 et seq. (“CEMA”), and the Washington Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86.010 et seq. (“CPA”), by sending unsolicited text messages to the members of the Settlement Class through its “Invite A Friend” program. The two sides disagree about whether Lyft’s conduct was proper, whether Lyft is liable, and if so, the extent of any such liability. The parties have agreed to resolve the lawsuit by a settlement, which has a total value of $3,995,000. Eligible class members who file claims are entitled to receive payments under the Settlement if it is approved.

There is a Proposed Settlement of a class action lawsuit concerning alleged violation of Montana law by defendants Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, Allstate Indemnity Company, Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company, and Allstate Insurance Company, individually and on behalf of all affiliated entities (collectively, “Allstate,” as defined in the Settlement Agreement). The Named Plaintiffs were involved in an automobile accident while insured under an automobile policy issued by a Allstate entity. The Named Plaintiffs allege their Allstate entity insurer subrogated from the at-fault driver before the Named Plaintiffs were made whole for their property damages or bodily injury damages. The Named Plaintiffs allege their Allstate entity insurer had no legal right to subrogation, and failed to conduct a reasonable investigation to determine whether the Named Plaintiffs were or would be made whole from payments received from the at-fault driver or their insurer. The Named Plaintiffs allege, generally, that Allstate engaged in improper subrogation in Montana by subrogating before conducting a proper made whole analysis.

Plaintiffs (Kyle Sullivan and Jeanne Sloan) filed a proposed class action lawsuit, the Action, against Defendant (Wenner Media LLC). In the Action, Plaintiffs claimed, among other things, that Defendant disclosed subscriber information in violation of Michigan law. Defendant denies all allegations of wrongdoing and believes it complied with applicable law. Defendant has asserted many defenses it believes would succeed at trial. In agreeing to settle, Defendant maintains that it complied with the law and does not admit any wrongdoing.

Lead Plaintiff in the Consolidated Action alleged that in pursuing the proposed transaction announced on March 26, 2018, by which New Legacy would acquire all of the interest in the Partnership and the Partnership GP (the “Reorganization Transaction”), Legacy breached the Partnership Agreement and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by, among other things, (i) proposing to convert all Series A Preferred Units and Series B Preferred Units into the right to receive 1.9620 and 1.72236 shares of New Legacy, respectively, and (ii) failing to allow holders of Series A Preferred Units and Series B Preferred Units to vote to amend the Partnership Agreement in order to authorize the Reorganization Transaction.

Settlements have been reached with Citibank, HSBC and Barclays (The “Settling Defendants”) in In re LIBOR-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2262. The lawsuit claims that the Settling Defendants and Non-Settling Defendants unlawfully manipulated U.S. Dollar London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) between August 1, 2007 and May 31, 2010, artificially lowering the rate which caused class members to lose money in connection with loans they held.

This is a securities class action brought against Lion, its former President and Chief Executive Officer Manish Singh, its former Chief Financial Officer Michael Handelman, and Kamilla Bjorlin, the founder and owner of stock promotion firm Lidingo Holdings, LLC (“Lidingo”). Lead Plaintiff alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants artificially inflated the price of Lion’s common stock by arranging for the publication on investment websites of paid promotional articles designed to appear as unaffiliated investment advice from analysts/investors with no connection to the Company. Lead Plaintiff also alleges that defendants improperly failed to disclose Lion’s retention of the stock promotion firm Lidingo, which facilitated such publications, and actively hid those facts (and in so doing made a number of false and misleading statements to the investing public).

On July 7, 2016, and again on September 2, 2016, Wolford America, Inc. (“Wolford”) sent the Text Message(s) to the Plaintiff and many other recipients. Plaintiff contends that the Text Message(s) did not comply with and violated the federal statute, known as the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) 47 USC § 227. Plaintiff claims, and Wolford denies, that the Text Message(s) failed to include proper description of the sender of the text and failed to include a proper opt-out mechanism. Wolford denies any wrongdoing, and no court or other judicial entity has made any judgment or other determination of any wrongdoing. Nonetheless, to avoid the further costs of litigation, Wolford has agreed to settle.

This litigation stems from allegations regarding LSB’s purchase, disassembly, transportation and then attempted reassembly of a long dormant ammonia plant.

Dennis Wilson filed the instant action on September 25, 2015, Dkt. No. 1. He was appointed Lead Plaintiff and his selection of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as Lead Counsel for the proposed class was approved by Order dated December 15, 2015, Dkt. No. 16.

A Settlement has been reached with Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. ("Maxim") in a lawsuit alleging that Maxim violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) by accessing consumer credit reports to conduct pre-employment background checks of applicants who signed a release and authorization form when applying for employment with Maxim.  Maxim denies any liability or wrongdoing.  The Court has not decided which side is right.

On September 6, 2018, the Court preliminarily approved a Settlement in the above-captioned litigation (the "Class Lawsuit") between Plaintiff, McKnight Realty Co. (“Plaintiff”), on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, and Bravo Arkoma, LLC, and Bravo Natural Resources, LLC (“Defendants” or “Bravo”). The Litigation asserts that Bravo underpaid royalties by taking deductions for fees and expenses relating to the midstream post-production costs of gathering, compression, dehydration, treatment, processing, and marketing and used fuel from the Class Wells without paying royalty on the volume of gas so used from January 1, 2014 through May 31, 2018. Bravo continues to deny all of the allegations of liability and damages and has asserted various defenses to the Class Representative’s Claims and to the certification of the Class. The Court has made no determination with respect to any of the parties’ claims or defenses.

The lawsuit was filed by Sharina McNeal, et al., (Plaintiffs) on behalf of themselves and the Settlement Class, against AccentCare, Inc. for the following allegations: (1) failure to pay minimum wage; (2) failure to pay overtime compensation; (3) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (4) failure to timely pay owed compensation; (5) unlawful and/or unfair business practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code; and (6) civil penalties pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act. Among other things, Plaintiffs contend that AccentCare did not properly compensate Care Partners for working 24-hour shifts. The lawsuit seeks money and other relief from Defendants.

The Litigation seeks damages for Defendant's alleged failure to pay statutory interest on allegedly late payments under Oklahoma law. Defendant expressly denies all allegations of wrongdoing or liability with respect to the claims and allegations in the Litigation. The Court did not decide which side is right.

A Settlement has been reached in a class action filed in 2004 on behalf of owners of property bordering Lake Erie in the State of Ohio. The Plaintiffs in this lawsuit asserted various claims against the State of Ohio (“State”) and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (“ODNR”) concerning the State’s position that it held title in trust to all lands lakeward of the Ordinary High Water Mark (the “OHWM”) of Lake Erie.

This is a proposed class action on behalf of customers who received and paid for student-provided services at one of the five student salon clinics operated by the Robert Fiance Beauty School in New Jersey between January 25, 2010 and March 15, 2019.  One or more of the Defendants operates each of the five Robert Fiance Beauty School student salon clinics in New Jersey, where cosmetology students provide cosmetology, hairstyling and other services to the general public in exchange for certain fees.  The Plaintiff contends that these fees exceeded the cost of the materials used in providing the services, in violation of New Jersey law. 

The Defendants deny the Plaintiff’s allegations and claims in their entirety but have agreed to settle the lawsuit to avoid the burdens and costs of litigation.

A Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit against magazine publisher Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., d/b/a Condé Nast. The class action lawsuit involves whether Condé Nast disclosed its customers’ subscription information to third parties, which is alleged to violate Michigan privacy law.

A class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Western District of Arkansas titled Mojica, et al. v. Securus Technologies, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-5258 (the “Lawsuit”) alleges that Securus Technologies, Inc. (“Securus”) obtained exclusive contracts to provide inmate calling services (“ICS”) to inmates at correctional facilities throughout the United States in exchange for the payment of “kickbacks” or “site commissions” to the facilities. Plaintiffs allege that Securus charged unjust and unreasonable: (1) rates for interstate calls, and (2) fees when someone used a credit card to fund a prepaid calling account. Plaintiffs allege that Securus violated the Federal Communications Act of 1934 as well as state law preventing “unjust enrichment.” Plaintiffs seek to recover these unjust charges for themselves and all class members. Securus denies that it obtained exclusive contracts in exchange for the payment of site commissions or “kickbacks”, and denies that its practices, rates, and fees are unjust or unreasonable.

A lawsuit was filed by current and former Parking Production Assistants ("PPAs") asserting that PPAs are owed compensation for hours worked for which they were not paid. Specifically, the PPAs allege, inter alia, that the Defendants (as defined in the Settlement Agreement) violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL") by not paying the PPAs correctly for all of the hours, including overtime hours that they worked. Defendants deny that they violated the law and maintain that they have consistently acted in accordance with all governing laws at all times, including by paying PPAs correctly. However, to avoid the burden, expense, and inconvenience of continued litigation, Defendants have agreed to settle the lawsuit, without admitting any wrongdoing or liability. To learn more about the claims in the Complaint and information about this Settlement, you can go to the Important Documents page. No decisions have been made by any court about the merits of Plaintiffs' claims in the Litigation or whether any case, in the absence of this Settlement, may proceed as a class and/or collective action.

The lawsuit alleges that Murphy was charging sales tax on the Murphy-funded portion of the discount on sale items starting on January 8, 2016 at all Murphy USA and Murphy Express stores in twenty-four (24) states (Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia).  Murphy did not keep any portion of the sales tax it collected.  Murphy alleges all of the money collected from customers as sales tax was paid to state and local government taxing authorities.  Murphy denies any wrongdoing, and the Court has not ruled that Murphy did anything wrong or violated any law.

Plaintiffs have sued Ford Motor Company alleging that certain Ford and Lincoln vehicles sold and leased before August 9, 2013 were equipped with defective MyFord Touch or MyLincoln Touch (“MFT”) information and entertainment systems. The purpose of this notice is to inform you that the Court has allowed certain of Plaintiffs’ claims against Ford to proceed on a class-wide basis, which may affect your rights. The Court has not yet decided whether Ford did anything wrong. There are no benefits available at this time and no guarantee there will be. However, your legal rights are affected, and you have a choice to make now.

This Class Action Litigation was filed in the District Court of Texas County, Oklahoma. The Class Representative on behalf of itself and similarly situated royalty owners asserted that Lime Rock underpaid royalties by taking deductions for fees and expenses, including fuel used, relating to the midstream post-production costs of gathering, compression, dehydration, treatment, processing, and marketing from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2018. Lime Rock continues to deny all of the allegations of liability and damages and has asserted various defenses to the Class Representative's Claims and to the certification of the class.

Nesbitt, et al. (the "Plaintiffs") filed a class action lawsuit that alleges that Postmates, Inc. ("Postmates") violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) in two ways. First, Plaintiffs allege that Postmates failed to provide proper legally required disclosures to individuals who signed up to be couriers utilizing Postmates’ platform prior to obtaining consumer reports on them. Second, Plaintiffs allege that Postmates failed to provide individuals who signed up to be couriers utilizing Postmates’ platform with a copy of their consumer reports and a notice of their rights before taking adverse action against them. Plaintiffs allege that Postmates procured and used these consumer reports for “employment purposes.” Defendant disputes Plaintiffs’ allegations and denies all liability to Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class. The parties have agreed to resolve the lawsuit against Postmates through a settlement.

Nozzi, et al. (the "Plaintiffs") filed a class action lawsuit that alleges that Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles, et al. (the "Defendants") reduced the Voucher Payment Standard (“VPS”) between July 2005 and July 2006 without providing adequate notice to Section 8 recipients, thereby violating various federal and state law. The VPS is the maximum monthly subsidy that supplements the amount paid by Section 8 recipients for rent and utilities. Plaintiffs allege that HACLA did not provide the required one-year notice prior to rolling back housing benefits to Section 8 recipients. Further, the information provided to Section 8 recipients was not a formal administrative notice and failed to inform recipients that their out-of-pocket rent payments would be increasing. Defendants dispute Plaintiffs’ allegations and deny all liability to Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class. The parties have agreed to resolve the lawsuit against HACLA through a settlement.

The proposed Settlement resolves class action litigation over whether Opus and certain of its current and former executives allegedly made or were otherwise liable for several allegedly material misrepresentations and omissions contained in Opus’ public statements made during the Class Period. Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System (“APERS”), previously designated by the Court as “Lead Plaintiff” in the Action, has been preliminarily appointed by the Court to represent all Class Members as the “Class Representative” for the case.

Former seasonal drivers of UPS have sued UPS in a collective action, claiming that UPS violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay the minimum wage for all hours worked. The Honorable Judge Christine M. Arguello and Magistrate S. Kato Crews are overseeing this lawsuit, which is called Ortez et al. v. United Parcel Service, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-01202-CMA-SKC

A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit Parker, et al. v. Universal Pictures, et al., M.D. Fla. Case No. 6:16-CV-01193-CEM-DCI, claiming that Defendants Legendary Pictures, Universal Pictures, and Handstack impermissibly sent text messages relating to the release of the film Warcraft to wireless telephone numbers without consent of the recipients in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act 47 U.S.C. § 227. Defendants deny the allegations in the lawsuit, and the Court has not decided who is right.

The Notice relates to a proposed Settlement of claims in a pending securities class action brought by investors alleging, among other things, that defendants Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. (“Santander”), Thomas G. Dundon (“Dundon”), Jason Kulas (“Kulas”), Ismail Dawood (“Dawood”), and Jennifer Davis (“Davis”) (collectively, the “Defendants”) violated the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding Santander’s published financial statements that caused Settlement Class Members to suffer damages. A more detailed description of the Action is set forth in paragraphs 11-22 of the Notice. The proposed Settlement, if approved by the Court, will settle claims of the Settlement Class, as defined in paragraph 23 of the Notice.

Plaintiffs allege that Higher One’s Pre-Class Period misconduct included improper marketing of and fees charged on OneAccounts and debit cards in violation of §5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), which was addressed by a 2012 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) Consent Order and settlement of a consumer class action, both barring future misconduct.  Plaintiffs further allege that throughout the Class Period, Higher One did not comply with the 2012 FDIC Consent Order and continued its prior misconduct, including violating FTC Act §5. 

Former Petco Assistant Managers (“AMs”) sued Petco Animal Supplies, Inc., Petco Holdings, Inc., Petco Holdings, Inc. LLC, and Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc. (together “Petco”), alleging that they were not paid overtime for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The AMs claim that they are owed money under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and/or the state laws of Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Pennsylvania. Petco denies these allegations and asserts that its pay practices for AMs complied with all legal requirements. Without admitting liability, Petco agreed to a settlement to avoid further litigation.

The lawsuit involves lender-placed insurance (“LPI”), also known as “creditor-placed” or “forced-placed” insurance. A bank or mortgage servicer may arrange for the placement of LPI on a property when it is believed that the borrower’s insurance is insufficient, when the borrower’s policy has lapsed, or the borrower has not provided sufficient proof of insurance coverage on the property.

Swisher Sweets Settlement: Plaintiff alleges that Swisher Sweets cigarillo 5-packs advertised as “5 for the price of 3” violated the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act because such advertising implies that five cigarillos could be purchased for the price of three, but consumers could purchase three individual cigarillos for less than the price of the 5-pack. Swisher does not sell products directly to consumers and believes that retailers price products within the scope of the promotion, and that consumers did not overpay.

This is a class action against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws during the Class Period. Class Representatives make the following allegations: Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omitted material adverse facts regarding, among other things, PCC’s long-term earnings-per-share guidance, its undisclosed reliance on “pull in” sales (i.e., sales scheduled to occur in future quarters that PCC accelerated into the current quarter) in order to meet sales targets, and the long-term, negative impact of customer “destocking” on the Company’s business.

In the lawsuit, Plaintiff's claim that United Propane Gas did not have the right under the 2013-2014 PreBuy KeepFull Agreement to suspend or ration deliveries under the circumstances during the winter of 2013-2014.

Lead Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Second Amended Class Action Complaint (the “Second Amended Complaint”), filed on February 23, 2016, alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the Second Amended Complaint, Defendants violated these statutes by disseminating materially misleading statements about the Company’s ability to complete its core product, the Skyworks Duplexer.

The Court has granted Preliminary Approval to a proposed Settlement of a class action lawsuit (“Action”) against EOS Fitness Brand, Limited Liability Company, a Nevada Limited Liability Company (the “Fitness Facility”). On July 29, 2015, Plaintiff Gregory Rich, on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint entitled Gregory Rich v. EOS Fitness Brand, LLC, Riverside Superior Court Case No. RIC1508918. Plaintiff alleges that the Fitness Facility provided a separate “Women’s Workout” area for female customers, without providing a comparable area for male customers. Plaintiff alleges that the Fitness Facility violated the Unruh Act, the Gender Tax Repeal Act, and committed an unfair business practice. The Fitness Facility denies the class claims and any wrongdoing. The Parties however have entered into a Settlement relating to the Action.

The lawsuit alleges that RMH misclassified AMs as “exempt” employees ineligible for overtime compensation under the FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act), and failed to pay AMs overtime for hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

Roy v. County of Los Angeles is a class action lawsuit against the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department. It challenges the Sheriff's Department’s former practice of detaining people on immigration detainers (aka “ICE holds.”).The lawsuit challenges three things: (1) Detention on ICE Holds: The lawsuit challenges the Sheriff’s Department’s practice of detaining people on ICE holds after they should have been released on criminal charges. (2) Booking people into jail who should have been released due to their low bail amount: The lawsuit challenges the Sheriff's Department’s practice of jailing people whose bail was less than $25,000, simply because they had an ICE hold. This part of the case applies to people who would not have been booked into jail in the first place, if not for the ICE hold. (3) Refusing to accept bail: The lawsuit challenges the Sheriff's Department’s practice of refusing to accept bail for people with ICE holds (before October 2012).

A Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit against nonprofit magazine publisher Consumer Reports, Inc. The class action lawsuit involves whether Consumer Reports, Inc. disclosed its customers’ subscription information to third parties, which is alleged to violate Michigan privacy law.

A class action lawsuit is pending against Saar's. The lawsuit alleges that Saar's willfully violated a federal law (known as the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act or "FACTA", 15 U.S.C. §1681c(g)) by printing on customer credit transaction receipts the expiration date of its customer's credit card or debit card. Saar's disputes the class action allegations and denies that it willfully violated FACTA. The Court has not yet decided in favor of either the Class or Saar's. Instead, both sides have agreed upon a proposed Settlement of the class action lawsuit to avoid the uncertainty and cost of a trial, and to provide benefits to Class members. Saar's does not admit any violation of FACTA by agreeing to the proposed Settlement.

A settlement ("Settlement") has been proposed in a class action lawsuit pending in San Diego County Superior Court ("Court") titled Seegert v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc., et al., Case No.37-2017-00016131-CU-MC-CTL (the "Action"). The Action alleges that Defendant P.F. Chang's utilized a Credit Card Transaction Form that contained preprinted spaces designated for filling in the telephone number and email address of the cardholder in violation of the Song Beverly Credit Card Act, Civil Code section 1747.08. Plaintiff sought civil penalties and attorneys' fees and costs, among other relief. P.F. Chang's denies violating California Civil Code section 1747.08 or any wrongdoing and any liability whatsoever.

A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit involving lender-placed insurance (“LPI”) charged by Residential Credit Solutions, Inc. (“RCS”) and issued by Southwest Business Corporation, American Modern Insurance Group, Inc., or one of its affiliates (collectively the “Insurer Defendants”), between January 1, 2008 and August 9, 2017. The lawsuit alleges that when a borrower was required to have insurance for his or her property under a residential mortgage or home equity loan or line of credit, and evidence of acceptable coverage was not provided, RCS would place insurance in a manner such that RCS allegedly received an unauthorized benefit. Insurer Defendants expressly deny the allegations in the lawsuit. The Court has not decided who is right or that Insurer Defendants did anything wrong.

In the lawsuit, Representative Plaintiffs alleged multiple violations of the California Labor Code, the California Business and Professions Code, and the California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) for failure to provide rest periods, failure to provide meal periods, failure to timely furnish accurate itemized wage statements, and failure to timely pay wages upon separation of employment, among other items.

There is a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota which may affect you. The Plaintiffs (former and potential future tenants) in this lawsuit allege that the Defendants--the owners and managers of the apartment complex formerly known as Crossroads at Penn and currently known as Concierge Apartments ("Crossroads/Concierge"), headquartered at 7620 Penn Ave South, Richfield, MN 55423, and including 7600, 7610, 7700, 7710 and 7720 Penn Ave--discriminated on the basis of race, disability, familial status, and national origin in violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §3604(a), and that former and potential residents were injured as a result.

The lawsuit alleges that Stein Mart misclassified ASMs as “exempt” employees, instead of properly classifying them as employees who are entitled to the protections of the FLSA, and failed to pay them overtime for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The Plaintiffs claim that the duties they primarily performed, such as greeting and assisting customers; cashiering; sales; returns; stocking; inventory; cleaning; folding, tagging and hanging clothes; and operational/clerical duties, entitled them to receive overtime compensation like other, hourly Stein Mart employees who similarly performed such duties.

The proposed Settlement of claims in a pending securities class action brought by investors alleging, among other things, that Stericycle, the Officer Defendants, the Director Defendants, and the Underwriter Defendants (collectively, “Defendants”) violated the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding Stericycle’s business. 

A class action has been approved by the Supreme Court of the State of New York that alleges that approximately 61 apartments (“Units”) at The Clermont York, 445 East 80th Street, New York, New York, were improperly deregulated under the Rent Stabilization Law.

This website describes the Proposed Settlement of a class action lawsuit concerning alleged violation of law by Defendants State of Montana, Department of Corrections, and Treasure State Correctional Training Center. The named Plaintiff alleges that, while he was employed by the Defendants, he worked in excess of 40 hours per week, but was not compensated for the overtime wages which were due to him for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The named Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in the same violation of Montana law generally by not compensating other employees for the overtime wages due to them. The named Plaintiff alleges that this conduct is a violation of the Defendants' personnel manuals and policies, of §39-3-204, M.C.A. and of §39-3-405, M.C.A.

A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit involving lender-placed insurance (“LPI”) charged by Carrington Mortgage Services LLC, Carrington Mortgage Holdings LLC, or Carrington Holding Company LLC (collectively “Carrington”) and issued by American Modern Insurance Group, Inc. or one of its affiliates (together, “AMIG Defendants”), and/or Southwest Business Corporation, between December 1, 2012 and August 9, 2017. The lawsuit alleges that when a borrower was required to have insurance for his or her property under a residential mortgage or home equity loan or line of credit, and evidence of acceptable coverage was not provided, Carrington would place insurance in a manner such that Carrington allegedly received an unauthorized benefit. Defendants expressly deny the allegations in the lawsuit. The Court has not decided who is right or that Defendants did anything wrong.

This Action alleges that NantKwest, certain of its former officers and directors, and the underwriters for NantKwest’s IPO made material misrepresentations in violation of the Securities Act of 1933 in the Registration Statement for NantKwest’s July 28, 2015 IPO. Earlier complaints also alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, for statements made in the Registration Statement and thereafter.

The Settlement resolves a lawsuit as to whether SquareTrade allegedly made misleading statements to consumers with respect to its sales of Protection Plans on Amazon in violation of Iowa’s Private Consumer Frauds Act, Iowa Code Chapter 714H, the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq., and the common law prohibition against unjust enrichment. SquareTrade denies the allegations in the lawsuit and denies any wrongdoing.

On July 20, 2018, TCF Bank, the BCFP and the OCC entered into a settlement agreement that requires TCF Bank to pay $25 million in restitution to a subset of account holders from 2010-2013 where there is the possibility that some customers may not have fully understood their options for participating in the service and paid overdraft fees, even though TCF provided customers with written disclosures about the overdraft service that fully complied with the law and regulations. The settlement resolves Federal regulators concerns related to TCF’s overdraft opt-in processes and practices.

The Action involves allegations that Defendants violated certain federal securities laws by making misrepresentations or omissions of material fact concerning TERP’s internal controls over financial reporting and risks to its growth strategy. The Second Amended Securities Class Action Complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges that the misstatements or omissions artificially inflated the price of TERP securities, and that the securities prices dropped in response to certain subsequent disclosures. Defendants have denied and continue to deny each, any and all allegations of wrongdoing, fault, liability or damage whatsoever asserted in the Action. The Settlement shall in no event be construed as, or deemed to be evidence of, liability, fault, wrongdoing, injury or damages, or of any wrongful conduct, acts or omissions on the part of any of the Released Parties, or of any infirmity of any defense, or of any damages to the Plaintiffs or any other Settlement Class Member. The Settlement resolves all of the claims in the Action, as well as certain other claims or potential claims, whether known or unknown.

Plaintiff’s First Amended Class Action Complaint alleges that Defendant violated the Gender Tax Repeal Act of 1985 (Civ. Code, § 51.6, subd. (b)), the Unruh Act (Civ. Code, § 51.5, subd. (a)), and committed an unfair business practice (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200, et. seq.) by charging paying male customers more than females to attend its parties at the venue known as “Unici Casa” in Culver City, California. Plaintiff alleges that the practice has been ongoing since April 13, 2015. Defendant has denied and continues to deny any wrongdoing in this action and believes that Plaintiff’s claims are without merit. Defendant maintains that it did not discriminate against male paying customers. The court has not yet ruled on the merits of Plaintiff’s claims or Defendant’s defenses. The court granted Plaintiff’s motion for class certification on April 24, 2018, determined that this action may be maintained as a class action, and appointed Plaintiff as class representative.

The lawsuit alleges that TJX engaged in false or misleading price comparison advertising through the Compare At prices on TJX price tags in its California stores between July 17, 2011, and December 6, 2017 in violation of various California laws that prohibit false advertising and unfair competition. TJX denies: (1) that it used false or misleading price comparison advertising; (2) that it has done anything wrong; and (3) that the Plaintiffs or consumers have been harmed in any way. The Court has not decided who is right.

The lawsuit was filed by Sara Tkachyk on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, concerning alleged violation of Montana law by defendants Travelers Home & Marine Insurance Company, The Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company, Northland Casualty Company, Northland Insurance Company, Phoenix Insurance Company, St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company, The Standard Fire Insurance Company, Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America, Travelers Commercial Insurance Company, The Travelers Indemnity Company, Travelers Indemnity Company of America, The Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut, and Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, individually and on behalf of all affiliated entities (collectively, “Travelers,” as defined in the Settlement Agreement).

Former employees of Avvo brought claims against the company for allegedly misclassifying them as exempt, failing to pay overtime wages in violation of RCW 49.46.130, and willfully withholding wages owed in violation of RCW 49.52.070. Avvo denies the allegations and denies any wrongdoing. The parties have reached a Class Action Settlement.

TouchTunes is a provider of digital jukebox services and also operates a mobile App which allows users to purchase credits to play songs on its digital jukeboxes. To use TouchTunes’ services, users agree to its Terms of Use. Plaintiffs claim that, before October 28, 2013, the Terms of Use did not adequately inform TouchTunes’ users that a song they purchased using credits from the mobile App might not play due to the ability of a person to skip a purchased song using a TouchTunes-branded remote control. TouchTunes denies that its Terms of Use were misleading, and no court or other entity has made any judgment or other determination of any wrongdoing or that the law has been violated.

A settlement has been approved in a class action lawsuit against General Information Solutions LLC (the “Defendant”) on behalf of consumers who on or after January 19, 2014 but on or before December 31, 2016 were the subject of a background check that contained a record other than a conviction of a crime with a disposition date more than seven years before the date of the report.

The Notice relates to a proposed Settlement of claims in a pending securities class action brought by investors alleging, among other things, that defendants Unilife, Alan Shortall (“Shortall”), and Dennis Pyers (“Pyers”) (collectively, the “Defendants”) and defendant Jim Bosnjak, violated the federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements regarding Unilife. A more detailed description of the Action is set forth in ¶¶ 11-21 of the Notice. The proposed Settlement, if approved by the Court, will settle claims of the Settlement Class, as defined in ¶ 22 of the Notice.

Greyhound Lines has entered into a Consent Decree with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to resolve a lawsuit brought by the DOJ under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This resolution addresses claims under the ADA, including claims that Greyhound failed to provide accessible transportation and transportation-related services to people with disabilities. Greyhound denies these allegations.

A proposed Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California titled In re USC Student Health Center Litigation, Case No. 2:18-cv-04258-SVW. The proposed Settlement of $215,000,000 is on behalf of all women who were seen for treatment by Dr. George M. Tyndall at the University of Southern California student health center during the period from August 14, 1989 to June 21, 2016 (a) for Women’s Health Issues, or (b) whose treatment by Dr. George M. Tyndall included an examination by him of her breast or genital areas, or (c) whose treatment included the taking of photographs or videotapes of her unclothed or partially clothed body. “Women’s Health Issues” includes but is not limited to any issue relating to breast, vaginal, urinary tract, bowel, gynecological, or sexual health, including contraception and fertility. The women who sued allege that Dr. Tyndall assaulted, abused, sexually harassed, committed medical malpractice related to a Women’s Health Issue against, or otherwise acted inappropriately towards female patients and that USC and the Board of Trustees of USC failed to respond appropriately to Dr. Tyndall’s conduct. Dr. Tyndall and USC deny these allegations, but both sides have agreed to the proposed Settlement to avoid the costs and risks of a lengthy trial and appeals process.

The Plaintiffs in this case filed a complaint against Vita-Mix Corporation, et al. (the “Defendants”), alleging that the top seals of the blade assembly in containers of certain Vitamix blenders were defective because they deposit tiny black polytetrafluoroethylene (“PTFE”) flecks into blended food and drink. These PTFE flecks are of a non-stick material that is common in cookware and many other products in the food industry. Plaintiffs’ Complaint does not allege any medical harm resulted from any consumption of PTFE. Vita-Mix produced information from an independent third-party lab reporting that the flecks are harmless when consumed and do not present a human health or safety risk. The Plaintiffs claimed, among other things, breach of express and implied warranties of merchantability, breach of contract, negligent design, engineering, and manufacture, fraud and fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act.

A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit, Wahl v. Yahoo! Inc., d/b/a Rivals.com. The Plaintiff in this action asserts claims for alleged violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law on behalf of a purported class of California consumers based on alleged violations of California’s Automatic Renewal Law. Class members are California customers who were charged on a recurring basis by Rivals.com for a subscription entered into between March 31, 2013 and the present.

In the lawsuit, Plaintiffs claimed that AT&T misclassified Designers and Deliverers as exempt from the overtime pay requirements of federal and California state law, and consequently failed to pay them overtime pay.

A settlement that has been reached in a class action lawsuit (In re ConAgra Foods, Inc., United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:11-cv-05379-CJC-AGR, MDL No. 2291) involving claims that the marketing, advertising and sale of Wesson brand cooking oils, including Wesson Vegetable Oil, Wesson Canola Oil, Wesson Corn Oil, and Wesson Best Blend (“Wesson Oil Products”) made from Genetically Modified Ingredients (“GMOs”) as “100% Natural” was unlawful. If you resided in California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, or Texas and purchased Wesson Oil Products in that state for your own personal, non-commercial use during the eligible time periods, you may be eligible to participate in the proposed class action settlement.

There is a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota which may affect you.

This litigation has been brought by William Fosbrink (the “Class Representative”), on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, against Defendant Area Wide Protective (“Defendant”) alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. (the “FCRA”). In the Complaint, the Class Representative seeks certification of a nationwide class under the FCRA. As alleged in the Complaint, the Class Representative was formerly employed by Defendant. During the employment application process, Defendant procured a consumer report on the Class Representative. The Class Representative alleges that, in connection therewith, Defendant violated Section 1681b(b)(2)(A) of the FCRA by failing to: 1) disclose to the Class Representative and other of its employees, former employees, and/or prospective employees (in a document consisting solely of the disclosure) that it was going to obtain a consumer report for employment purposes prior to obtaining a copy of the actual report; and, 2) as a result, obtain the proper authorization under the FCRA to obtain those consumer reports (collectively, the “FCRA Claims”). More particularly, the Class Representative alleges that the FCRA disclosure and authorization form(s) utilized by Defendant: 1) was/were not (a) stand-alone disclosure(s); and 2) contained extraneous information, more particularly “liability releases,” “blanket authorizations to various entities to release information otherwise protected by state or federal laws,” and “extraneous information about various state laws."

Brokerpriceopinion.com, Inc., First Valuation, LLC, First Valuation Services, LLC, First Valuation Technology, LLC, Cartel Asset Management, LLC, Walter Coats, and ValuTech, Inc. (“Brokerprice” or “Defendants”) have agreed to pay $1,020,000 to cover payments to persons who completed broker price opinions on Brokerprice’s behalf but were not paid for their services in accordance with their payment terms. Brokerprice will pay this amount in several installments over the course of four years.

The Action is a securities fraud class action lawsuit that was commenced on March 4, 2015. On August 24, 2015, pursuant to the lead plaintiff provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”), the Court appointed the Akorn Investor Group, currently consisting of Mikolaj Sarzynski, J. M. Cunniff, Jr., and Elizabeth Cunniff (“Class Plaintiffs” or “Plaintiffs”), as lead plaintiff. The Court also appointed Class Plaintiffs’ counsel, Pomerantz LLP and Glancy Prongay & Murray (together, “Class Counsel”), as co-lead counsel.