View the Paragon Coin Notice of Class Certification Here

Click here to view the notice

ARRIS- Hearing Rescheduled

The notice linked below is to inform all persons who owned stock of ARRIS International, PLC (“ARRIS”) at any time between and including November 8, 2018 and April 4, 2019 that a settlement has been proposed in Uzun v. ARRIS International, PLC, Case No. 18-cv-05555-WMR in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The settlement provided additional disclosures to stockholders in connection with the acquisition of ARRIS by CommScope. Please review the notice and contact Elizabeth Tripodi at 202-524-4291 with any questions. VIEW NOTICE

On November 18, 2019, the Firm achieved an important victory in In re Avon Securities Litigation, No. 19 Civ. 01420 (CM), pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, when it defeated a motion to dismiss the complaint.  In ruling for Plaintiffs, the Court found that they had sufficiently alleged in their complaint that Defendants constructed a false narrative to portray Brazil as a growth center critical to Avon’s business, even though Defendants had dramatically lowered credit standards for their sales Representatives in Brazil—predominately women of lower socioeconomic status—resulting in Avon incurring large, uncollectable debts.  Instead of selling products in physical retail stores, or online, Avon uses a direct sales model in which Avon’s products are first sold on credit to Representatives who then sell the products to the ultimate consumers.  Because of the central relationship between Avon’s Representative count and its revenue, analysts and investors critically focused on Representative growth as an indicator of Avon’s overall economic health.   Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that between January 21, 2016 and November 1, 2017 (the “Class Period”), Defendants concealed that they had dramatically loosened credit standards for their Representatives in Brazil to mask declining performance, and also entirely stopped training their Brazilian Representatives.  Plaintiffs further alleged that instead of disclosing this material information, Defendants falsely assured the market that both sales and Representative growth were increasing because of robust recruitment.  As detailed in Plaintiffs’ complaint, when Avon’s new Brazilian Representatives predictably and sadly fell heavily into debt and could not pay for the merchandise they purchased on credit, Defendants continued to mislead investors and used aggressive debt collection tactics on their own Representative to further hide the scope of the problem.  Plaintiffs pleaded that Avon’s securities ultimately plunged in value when the truth was revealed.   Plaintiffs’ successful complaint was supported by statements provided by seven former employees demonstrating that in 2015, the Company made a uniform, undisclosed decision to loosen credit standards for Brazilian Representatives.  The witnesses’ information supported Plaintiffs’ allegation that Defendants either knew or acted recklessly by ignoring information in their possession concerning the inevitable, negative consequences the pivot in credit policy would have on the Company.  The District Court’s noteworthy decision further develops recent caselaw concerning the effectiveness of the investigative process that must be employed by sophisticated counsel to craft a pleading which will survive a motion to dismiss.   View the Court's Decision Here

Levi & Korsinsky, as co-lead counsel in the class action lawsuit against Prothena Corporation PLC, secured preliminary approval of a full settlement in In re Prothena Corporation PLC Securities Litigation, No. 1:18-cv-06425-ALC (S.D.N.Y.). The settlement provides the shareholder class with a cash recovery of $15,750,000. For more information about the settlement and instructions on how to submit a claim, please review the notice and claim form here.

NEW YORK, July 19, 2019 – Notice is hereby provided to all persons who held shares of Papa Murphy’s Holdings, Inc. (“Papa Murphy’s” or the “Company”) common stock at any time during the period from and including April 11, 2019 through May 23, 2019. The purpose of this Notice is to inform you about developments with respect to the putative class action lawsuit captioned Swan v. Papa Murphy’s Holding, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2019-0343-KJSM (the “Action”), including the dismissal of the Action and an agreement to pay attorneys’ fees and expenses to counsel for Plaintiff Arnold Swan (“Plaintiff”) in the Action. On April 10, 2019, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with MTY Franchising USA, Inc. (“Parent”) and MTY Columbia Merger Sub, Inc. (“Merger Sub”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent, providing for the acquisition of the Company by Parent in an all-cash transaction, consisting of a tender offer in the amount of $6.45 per share in cash (the “Offer”) for all of the outstanding shares of the Company’s common stock, followed by a subsequent merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company (the “Merger”), with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent.  On April 25, 2019, the Company filed a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on Schedule 14D-9 (the “Original Schedule 14D-9”) relating to the Offer. On May 7, 2019, Arnold Swan, a purported stockholder of the Company, filed the Action and named as defendants the Company, members of the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”), Merger Sub, and Parent.  The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Board violated its fiduciary duties under Delaware law by failing to provide in the Original Schedule 14D-9 all material information needed by stockholders to make an informed decision whether to tender their shares or seek appraisal.  As relief, the complaint sought, among other things, an injunction against the Offer and the Merger, rescissory damages should the Offer and the Merger be consummated, and an award of attorneys’ and experts’ fees.  The Company and the other defendants have denied that they have committed any violation of law or engaged in any of the wrongful acts that were or could have been alleged in the Action, and expressly maintain that they diligently and scrupulously complied with their fiduciary and other legal duties. After the complaint was filed, the Company determined to provide certain additional disclosures that are supplemental to those contained in the Original Schedule 14D-9, which were included in amendments to the Original Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC on May 10, 2019 and May 15, 2019 (the “Supplemental Disclosures”).  On June 10, 2019, the Court approved a stipulation under which the Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the Action with prejudice as to himself only, but without prejudice to any other putative class member.  The Court retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of adjudicating the anticipated application of Plaintiff’s counsel for an award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses in connection with the Action (the “Fee Application”).  Following negotiations after Plaintiff filed the Fee Application, the Company agreed, while denying any and all liability, to pay $180,000 to Plaintiff’s counsel for attorneys’ fees and expenses in full satisfaction of the Fee Application.  The Court has not been asked to review, and will pass no judgment on, the payment of attorneys’ fees and expenses. Attorneys for Plaintiff and Papa Murphy’s may be contacted at the following addresses:     Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Donald J. Enright, Esq. 1101 30^th Street, NW Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: (202) 524-4290 Fax: (866) 367-6510 www.zlk.com   Attorney for Plaintiff Perkins Coie LLP Ronald L. Berenstain Sean C. Knowles 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101 Tel: (206) 359-8000 Fax: (206) 359-9000 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Papa Murphy’s Holdings, Inc.

NEW YORK, May 16, 2019 - Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that Gregory Mark Nespole has joined the firm in its New York office.  Mr. Nespole joins the firm as a Partner. “We are exceptionally pleased to welcome Greg to the firm,” said Managing Partner Eduard Korsinsky. “His reputation with the judiciary and among his peers in the securities bar is outstanding, which no doubt will allow Greg to bring substantial value for our clients and drive the firm to further success. It is a privilege to have someone of Greg’s repute and experience join us.” Mr. Nespole focuses on complex class actions, derivative securities matters, transactional litigation representing institutional investors, such as public and labor pension funds, labor health and welfare benefit funds, and private institutions. For over twenty years, Mr. Nespole has played a lead role in numerous shareholder securities fraud and merger and acquisition matters and has led legal teams in recovering multi-million-dollar settlements on behalf of shareholders. Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, Connecticut, California, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involving financial fraud, representing investors throughout the nation in securities lawsuits and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders.   CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com

On November 27, 2018, Levi & Korsinsky was selected by U.S. District Judge Edward M. Chen to represent the class in In re Tesla Inc. Sec. Litig., 3:18-cv-04865, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The class action litigation seeks to hold Tesla and Elon Musk accountable for two allegedly false August 2018 tweets that sent the Company’s stock price into a frenzy after Elon Musk tweeted on Aug. 7, 2018 that Tesla had secured funding to take the company private at $420 per share. The class includes all Tesla investors who suffered losses as a result of the tweet, including purchasers and sellers of stock, options, and other securities.

 

On September 11, 2018, legal analytics firm Lex Machina released its 2018 Securities Litigation Report presenting findings from analyses of its database including over 15,000 federal securities cases. The report concluded that 45 federal securities lawsuits involving cryptocurrencies, blockchain technologies and/or Initial Coin Offerings (“ICO”) were filed in the first six months of 2018—triple the number of such cases filed in 2017. In discussing these findings with The National Law Journal, Laura Hopkins—a legal data expert with Lex Machina—noted that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) was the second most active filer of cryptocurrency-related securities cases, “topped only by the law firm Levi & Korsinsky,” representing investors in more than 30% of these cases.

Levi & Korsinsky is at the forefront of cryptocurrency-related litigation. For instance, the firm has been litigating on behalf of investors in Centra Tech, Inc.’s ICO (“Centra ICO”) since December 13, 2017, Rensel v. Centra Tech, Inc., 17-cv-24500-JLK (S.D. Fla. filed Dec. 13, 2017) (the “Centra Action”).  Notably, the Centra Action was initiated nearly four months prior to the Government’s filing of civil and criminal actions predicated on substantively identical factual allegations and similar legal theories. The firm’s efficient representation of cryptocurrency investors has yielded substantial benefits for such investors.  For example, within just six days of the firm initiating an action on behalf of investors in Paragon Coin, Inc.'s ICO (the “Paragon ICO”), Holland, et al, v. Paragon Coin, Inc., et al, 4:18-cv-00671-JSW (N.D. Cal. filed Jan. 30, 2018), the firm negotiated and secured an on-the-record agreement with defendants pursuant to which defendants agreed to, inter alia, limit their use of cryptocurrencies raised in the Paragon ICO to specific enumerated uses; limit access to these funds to two individual defendants; and ensure any such funds converted to fiat currency would remain under Paragon’s control at a U.S. financial institution. Similarly, the firm’s vigorous litigation of plaintiff’s renewed motion for a temporary restraining order in the Centra Action resulted in Magistrate Andrea M. Simonton’s June 25, 2018 Report and Recommendation (the “Centra R&R”), which has prevented the dissipation of millions of dollars’ worth of Ethereum invested in Centra ICO. Levi & Korsinsky is leading the charge in this new area and, as a result, the firm has been appointed Lead Counsel or Co-Lead Counsel to serve on behalf of investors in cryptocurrency-related class actions by six different United States District Court Judges.  Moreover, the firm’s prosecution of these cases is assisting courts in defining legal standards in an emerging field of securities litigation. For instance, Law360’s Expert Analysis of the Centra R&R, “The 1st Judicial Finding That Judicial Tokens are Securities,” published on July 31, 2018, concluded that the Centra Action is one of two cryptocurrency-related securities cases that are “helping to shape a body of law that courts will look to when faced with deciding” whether “tokens sold in the absence of fraud are securities.” The National Law Journal’s article regarding the Lex Machina 2018 Securities Litigation Report is available here. You may also read Law360’s Expert Analysis of the Centra R&R is available here.

On September 11, 2018, legal analytics firm Lex Machina released its 2018 Securities Litigation Report presenting findings uncovered by analyses of over its database including over 15,000 securities cases. Based on these analyses, the report ranked Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as the busiest and leading law firm in federal securities cases filed between January 2017 and June 30, 2018. More specifically, the report found that during that eighteen-month period, the firm filed an impressive 266 federal securities lawsuits—30% more than the next highest ranked firm. In reference to Levi & Korsinsky and its newfound leading role in federal securities litigation, Owen Byrd, Lex Machina’s General Counsel stated to the New York Law Journal that the firm is “aggressively expanding their practice in plaintiffs-side securities work.” In a Law360 article published detailing Lex Machina’s findings, it was noted that Levi & Korsinsky is also the “top law firm for shareholders.” Founding Partner Eduard Korsinsky told Law360 that the firm’s success stems from its resolute focus on protecting the investing public through securities litigation and unparalleled work ethic: “This is all we do, and we all work hard each and every day to do it better than everyone else.” For more, see the full versions of the articles on Law360 and New York Law Journal

NEW YORK, June 26, 2018 -- Notice is hereby provided to all persons who held shares of Fogo de Chão, Inc. (“Fogo”) common stock at any time during the period from and including February 20, 2018 through April 5, 2018.

The purpose of this Notice is to inform you about developments with respect to the putative class action lawsuit captioned Pazral v. Fogo de Chão, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2018-0202-JTL (the “Action”), including the effects of these developments on Fogo and its stockholders, the dismissal of the Action, and an agreement that has been reached for the payment of attorneys’ fees and expenses to counsel for Plaintiff Jan Pazral (“Plaintiff”) in the Action.

This matter concerned a February 20, 2018 merger agreement between Fogo and Prime Cut Intermediate Holdings, Inc. (“Prime Cut”). Pursuant to this agreement, Prime Cut ultimately acquired all outstanding shares of Fogo for the right to receive $15.75 per share in cash consideration (the “Merger” or the “Transaction”). Because Fogo’s controlling stockholder, Thomas H. Lee Partners, held approximately 60.7% of the voting common stock in the Company and provided its written consent to the Transaction, the Transaction was approved without a stockholder vote.

On March 16, 2018, Fogo filed a Definitive Information Statement (the “Information Statement”) with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on Form DEFM14C that, among other things, described the background of the Transaction, the fairness opinion issued in connection with the Transaction, and certain financial projections generated by Fogo’s management.

On March 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Verified Class Action Complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware related to the Transaction alleging that the individual defendants had breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose material information necessary for Fogo stockholders to determine whether to seek appraisal of their shares (the “Action”). Immediately thereafter, counsel for the Defendants informed counsel for the Plaintiff that Defendants intended to moot Plaintiff’s claims, and the parties negotiated the content of certain supplemental disclosures.

On April 2, 2018, Fogo filed a Form 8-K (the “Supplemental Disclosures”) (accessible on the United States Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1627487/000095010318004191/dp89021_8k.htm). This form supplemented the original Information Statement to include certain additional information which mooted Plaintiff’s claims.

On April 6, 2018, the parties in the Action jointly submitted to the Court a Stipulated [Proposed] Order Dismissing Action as Moot and Retaining Jurisdiction to Determine Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Application for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees & Reimbursement of Expenses (the “Stipulation”). The next day, the Court granted the Stipulation and thereby dismissed the Action with prejudice as to Plaintiff, and without prejudice as to any absent members of the putative class. Pursuant to the Order, the Court retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of determining Plaintiff’s counsel’s application for an award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses.

Only after the Action was dismissed did the parties commence and engage in discussions regarding a resolution of Plaintiff’s counsel’s application for fees and expenses and the amount thereof. After negotiations, Defendants agreed to make an all-inclusive fee and expense payment to Plaintiff’s counsel in the Action in the amount of $75,000.00 to resolve any application for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses to be made by counsel for Plaintiff in the Action. This amount will be paid by Fogo. The parties to the litigation have agreed that payment will be made within ten (10) days of final dismissal and closure of the Action.

CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Donald J. Enright, Esq. 1101 30^th Street, NW Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: (202) 524-4290 Fax: (866) 367-6510 www.zlk.com

 

On June 21, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn appointed Levi & Korsinsky, LLP to serve as Co-Lead Counsel in the class action lawsuit against Credit Suisse AG entitled Chahal Credit Suisse AG, 1:18-cv-02268-AT (S.D.N.Y.). The class action alleges that Credit Suisse made materially false and/or misleading statements regarding its Inverse VIX Short ETNs and their true economic value. In the Opinion, Judge Netburn noted the firm's "extensive experience representing classes in securities actions."

 

 

On June 19, 2018, United States District Court Judge Ronald M. Middlebrooks appointed Levi & Korsinsky, LLP to serve as Co-Lead Counsel in the consolidated class action lawsuit entitled In re Bitconnect Securities Litig., Case No. 9:18-cv-80086-DMM (S.D. Fla.).

The class action alleges that Bitconnect International PLC, Bitconnect Ltd., and Bitconnect Trading Ltd. (collectively, “Bitconnect”), a cryptocurrency startup, and certain of its executives and affiliate promoters operated fraudulent Ponzi/pyramid schemes in violation of numerous consumer protection laws and securities laws by offering and selling investment contract securities that were not registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The firm looks forward to representing those investors alleged to have been harmed by this conduct and achieving a positive result in this lawsuit on their behalf.

Levi & Korsinsky has been at the forefront of cryptocurrency-related securities litigation, including representing shareholders who suffered losses as a result of securities laws violations related to initial coin offerings and the issuance of unregistered securities, as well the issuance of misleading information to investors. On May 10, 2018 and April 11, 2018, respectively, the firm was appointed Lead Counsel in Davy v. Paragon Coin, Inc., 4:18-cv-00671-JSW (N.D. Cal.), and Rensel v. Centra Tech, Inc., 1:17-cv-24500-JLK-AMS (S.D. Fla.) to represent investors in Paragon Coin, Inc.’s and Centra Tech, Inc.’s allegedly unlawful offer and sale of unregistered securities in connection with their initial coin offerings.

For more information about the Bitconnect lawsuit, please contact Levi & Korsinsky attorneys Eduard Korsinsky, Rosemary M. Rivas, Donald J. Enright and John A. Carriel.

Partner Amy Miller and Associates William J. Fields and Christopher J. Kupka contributed to a chapter analyzing litigation in the Second Circuit in the American Bar Association’s 2018 Survey of Federal Class Action Law: A Circuit-by-Circuit Analysis. The survey is a reference class action litigators, with case by case treatment of “how the holdings of the Supreme Court have played out and how the common law of class actions continues to develop, in the lower courts, as they apply both Supreme Court and Circuit-level decisions to emerging issues and particular circumstances.” Ms. Miller’s practice focuses on representing investors in stockholder derivative lawsuits and class actions involving corporate governance matters. Mr. Fields’ practice concerns stockholders in securities class actions, stockholder derivative lawsuits, and corporate governance matters. Mr. Kupka represents victims of wrongdoing in employment, consumer, and securities class actions and stockholder derivative suits.  

 

On May 10, 2018, United States District Court Judge Jeffrey S. White appointed Levi & Korsinsky, LLP to serve as Lead Counsel in the class action lawsuit against Paragon Coin, Inc. entitled Davy v. Paragon Coin, Inc., et al. 4:18-cv-00671-JSW (N.D. Cal.).

The class action alleges that Paragon Coin, a cryptocurrency startup, violated securities laws by not registering its initial coin offering with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The firm looks forward to representing those investors alleged to have been harmed by this conduct and achieving a positive result in this lawsuit on their behalf.

Levi & Korsinsky has been at the forefront of cryptocurrency-related securities litigation, including representing shareholders who suffered losses as a result of securities laws violations related to initial coin offerings and the issuance of unregistered securities, as well the issuance of misleading information to investors. On April 11, 2018 the firm was appointed Co-Lead in Rensel v. Centra Tech, Inc., 17-cv-24500-JLK (S.D. Fla. Apr. 11, 2018), representing investors allegedly misled by certain assertions made by Centra Tech and spokespersons hired by the company.

For more information about the Paragon Coin lawsuit, please contact Levi & Korsinsky attorneys Eduard Korsinsky, Rosemary M. Rivas, Donald J. Enright and John A. Carriel.

On March 20, 2018, the California Daily Journal honored Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Partner Rosemary M. Rivas with a California Lawyer Attorney of the Year (CLAY) Award based on her work in In re: Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” MDL, which resulted in unprecedented settlements exceeding $14 billion dollars.  The CLAY awards are given annually to outstanding California practitioners “whose extraordinary work and cases had a major impact on the law.” The Daily Journal wrote that the Volkswagen litigation “involved a world-renowned auto company mired in scandal, a third-party technology company that helped orchestrate one of the largest regulation-evading fraud schemes in history, and thousands of consumers and car dealerships stuck with defective vehicles they could not drive without violating the law.” More than 95 percent of Class members participated in the buyback/repair programs as a result of the case and more than $9 billion in payments have been made. Congratulations to Rosemary M. Rivas for her outstanding work on the Volkswagen litigation.

 

ISS Securities Class Action Services (SCAS) released its annual Securities Class Action Services Top 50 report for the year 2017. The SCAS 50 lists the top 50 plaintiffs’ law firms ranked by the total dollar value of final securities class action settlements occurring in 2017 in which the law firm served as lead or co-lead counsel.

Levi & Korsinsky is pleased to announced that it is yet again included in the SCAS 50, creating millions of dollars in value for our clients nationwide and continuing its long history of obtaining precedent setting decisions.

On Tuesday, March 20, 2018, the United States Supreme Court released its long-anticipated decision in Cyan, Inc. et al. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund et al., No. 15-1439, unanimously affirming the findings of the California state courts en route to bringing much needed clarity regarding the jurisdictional bounds of claims brought under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “’33 Act”). View a copy of the decision here. View a copy of the amicus brief here. As touched on by the Court, for more than a decade, plaintiffs and defendants have sparred across the country over one question: does the Securities Litigation Uniform Standard Act of 1998 (“SLUSA”) strip state courts of any jurisdiction to adjudicate actions alleging only ’33 Act violations? Justice Kagan, writing for the unanimous Court, resoundingly rejected petitioner Cyan’s strained interpretation of statutory text in favor of its own plain reading in favor of concurrent state court jurisdiction over these claims. The Court similarly found that the text of SLUSA does not arm defendants with a right of removal of ’33 Act claims brought in state court, a position put forth by the United States as amicus curiae, as reading the text to provide for such leads to an incongruous and untenable application of the law. At the core of its decision, the Supreme Court rejected the invitation of Cyan and the Federal Government to read into the statute incongruous congressional intent and limitations that would otherwise render the law ineffective for its actually-stated purposes, or otherwise strip away clear, unambiguous meaning. In its opinion rejecting Cyan’s and the government’s interpretations of the statute, the Supreme Court echoed arguments made in an amicus curiae brief submitted by a group of institutional investors (the “Amici”), in support of the positions of respondents in the action, particularly with respect to the legislative history surrounding the enactment of SLUSA. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP is proud to have been part of the legal team representing the Amici, alongside Scott + Scott, LLP and Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C. In praising the court’s decision, Levi & Korsinsky founding partner Eduard Korsinsky stated, “Today’s Supreme Court decision is a victory for all shareholders in every state, opening the courthouse doors across the country to investors seeking to hold corporate bad actors accountable.” With the issue of state court concurrent jurisdiction over ’33 Act cases now settled law, plaintiff-investors have been afforded an additional arrow in their quiver for addressing corporate malfeasance with respect to securities offerings.

Levi & Korsinsky has received preliminary approval of a settlement in a shareholder derivative action concerning United Development Funding IV. The lawsuit, styled Evans v. Greenlaw, et al., No. 3:16-cv-00635-M (N.D. Tex.), alleges, among other claims, breach of fiduciary duty against UDF IV’s Trustees. A settlement hearing in the matter is scheduled for April 16, 2018. Additional information about the terms of the settlement can be found in the attached documents. The Notice of  Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Derivative Litigation and Hearing is available here. The Stipulation of Settlement is available here.

 

On February 2, 2018, United States District Court Judge Robert B. Kugler appointed Levi & Korsinsky, LLP to serve as Lead Counsel in the class action lawsuit against Navient Corporation entitled In re Navient Corporation, 1:17-cv-08373-RBK-AMD (D.N.J.). The class action alleges that Navient issued materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that Navient had engaged in deceptive practices to facilitate the origination of subprime loans and steer student borrowers into payment plans that postponed bills.

On December 18, 2017, United States District Court Judge Jon S. Tigar appointed Levi & Korsinsky, LLP to serve as Lead Counsel in the  class action lawsuit against Depomed, Inc. entitled Huang v. Depomed, Inc. et al,  3:17-cv-04830-JST (N.D. Cal.). In the order appointing Lead Counsel, Judge Tigar noted the firm's experience as lead counsel in securities class action lawsuits, including lawsuits in the Northern District of California. The class action alleges that Depomed issued materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that Depomed had engaged in questionable practices in connection with the sales and marketing of the Company's opioid products.  

On November 22, 2017, U.S. District Judge Louis L. Stanton certified a class of investors in Resource Capital Corp. in the action Levin v. Resource Capital Corp., et al. (1:15-cv-07091-LLS)(SDNY). Judge Stanton certified a class consisting of all purchasers of Resource Capital common stock as well as Series B and Series C preferred shares during the period from October 31, 2012 to August 4, 2015. Judge Stanton also appointed Levi & Korsinsky as Class Counsel. The action seeks to recover damages associated with Resource Capital’s alleged issuance of materially false and/or misleading information about portions of its loan portfolio. The class alleges that Resource Capital’s misleading statements caused Resource Capital common and preferred stock to trade at artificially inflated prices and that the stock price declined when the truth about Resource Capital’s loan portfolio was revealed. Judge Stanton had previously denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss the allegations by an order dated October 5, 2016. A copy of the Order certifying the class is available here. A copy of the Order denying the motion to dismiss is available here.

On September 29, 2017, United States District Court Chief Judge Virginia A. Phillips appointed Levi & Korsinsky, LLP to serve as Lead Counsel in the consolidated class action lawsuit against Mattel, Inc. entitled Waterford Township Police and Fire Retirement System v. Mattel, Inc. et al,  2:17-cv-04732 VAP (KSx) (C.D. Cal.). In the order appointing Lead Counsel, Judge Phillips noted that the firm’s attorneys have “experience litigating securities class action suits such as this one” and that the firm  “has litigated such actions successfully in the past.” The class action alleges that Mattel issued materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that Mattel’s retail customers were loaded with extremely high levels of unsold Mattel product, and that as a result, Mattel was exposed to heightened risk that it would have to issue its retailers financial concessions to remove the excess inventory, as well as a heightened risk that Mattel would experience slower sales growth in future periods.  

A settlement has been proposed in the class action lawsuit Kozma v. Sieczkarek, No. 16-cv-01254-JFB, filed on behalf of certain NovaBay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NYSE American: NBY, formerly NYSE MKT: NBY) shareholders.  The settlement resolves, among other things, allegations concerning the Amendment to NovaBay's 2007 Omnibus Shareholder Plan approved by stockholders on May 26, 2016. If you held NovaBay  stock at any time between the close of business on April 7, 2016 and the close of business on April 21, 2017, your rights will be affected by this class action settlement. The Notice of Proposed Settlement of Derivative and Class Action is available here. The Stipulation of Settlement is available here.

On July 26, 2017, United States District Court Judge Edward J. Davila appointed Levi & Korsinsky, LLP to serve as Lead Counsel in the class action lawsuit against Gigamon Inc., Rodriguez v. Gigamon Inc., 5:17-cv-00434-EJD (N.D. Cal. July 26, 2017) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The class action alleges that during the Class Period, among other allegations, Gigamon made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Levi & Korsinsky looks forward to representing those shareholders alleged to have been harmed by this conduct and achieving a positive result in this lawsuit on their behalf.  For more information about this case, please contact Levi & Korsinsky attorneys Adam C. McCall, Adam M. Apton, or Nicholas I. Porritt. A copy of the Order dated July 26, 2017 may be found here.

On June 23, 2017, United States District Court Judge Thomas D. Schroeder appointed Levi & Korsinsky, LLP to serve as Co-Lead Counsel in the class action lawsuit against Argos Therapeutics, Inc., Maurer v. Argos Therapeutics, Inc. (Case No. 1:17-cv-00216) in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The class action alleges that during the Class Period, among other allegations, Argos Therapeutics made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Levi & Korsinsky looks forward to representing those shareholders alleged to have been harmed by this conduct and achieving a positive result in this lawsuit on their behalf.  For more information about this case, please contact Levi & Korsinsky attorney Shannon L. Hopkins. A copy of the Order dated June 23, 2017 may be found here.

No dia 06 de julho de 2017 Levi & Korsinsky, LLP iniciou uma ação coletiva contra a JBSAY no Tribunal Distrital de Nova York (United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York). A ação alega que, ao longo do período de 2015 a 2017, os réus emitiram declarações materialmente falsas e enganosas e / ou falharam em divulgar que: (1) Executivos da JBS subornaram agências reguladoras e políticos para subverter inspeções de alimentos em seus estabelecimentos e negligenciar práticas insalubres, como processamento de carne vencida e estabelecimentos com vestígios de salmonelas; (2) O presidente da JBS, Joesley Batista, estava fornecendo pagamentos mensais de suborno a um ex-funcionário do governo brasileiro e a um lobista; (3) houve irregularidades com os empréstimos da JBS recebidos do banco de desenvolvimento estatal brasileiro BNDES; (4) A JBS e outras entidades controladas pelo presidente da JBS Joesley Batista e CEO da JBS, Wesley Batista, fizeram negociações no mercado de ações com o uso de informações privilegiadas antes da revelação do acordo de delação premiada com os principais executivos da JBS; E (5), conseqüentemente, as declarações dos réus sobre os negócios, operações e perspectivas da JBS eram materialmente falsas e enganosas e / ou faltavam bases razoáveis. Para maiores informações, por favor clique aqui e preencha um formulário de coleta de informações

On May 15, 2017, United States District Court Judge Anne E. Thompson appointed Levi & Korsinsky, LLP to serve as Lead Counsel in the class action lawsuit against Agile Therapeutics, Inc., In re Agile Therapeutics, Inc. Sec. Litig. (Case No. 3:17-cv-00119-AET-LHG) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The class action alleges that during the Class Period, among other allegations, Agile Therapeutics made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Levi & Korsinsky looks forward to representing those shareholders alleged to have been harmed by this conduct and achieving a positive result in this lawsuit on their behalf.  For more information about this case, please contact Levi & Korsinsky attorneys Adam Apton or Nicholas Porritt. A copy of the Order dated May 15, 2017 may be found here.

On May 8, 2017, United States District Court Judge Esther Salas appointed Levi & Korsinsky, LLP to serve as Lead Counsel in the class action lawsuit against SITO Mobile, Ltd., Roper v. SITO Mobile Ltd., et al. (Case No. 2:17-cv-01106-ES-MAH). The class action alleges that during the Class Period, among other allegations, SITO made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that SITO’s growth of bookings would not propel the Company’s fourth fiscal quarter 2016 media placement revenues and revenue growth to the level represented during the Class Period. Levi & Korsinsky looks forward to representing those shareholders alleged to have been harmed by this conduct and achieving a positive result in this lawsuit on their behalf.  For more information about this case, please contact Levi & Korsinsky attorneys Adam Apton or Nicholas Porritt. A copy of the Order dated May 8, 2017 may be found here.

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP is pleased to announce that it has opened an office in San Francisco.  The Firm is headquartered in New York City and also has offices in Connecticut and Washington D.C.  The Firm enjoys a national practice in the areas of securities fraud, mergers and acquisitions, and consumer protection, and expects to grow its West Coast presence to meet the increasing demands of its clients. Partners Joseph E. Levi and Eduard Korsinsky founded the Firm in 2003 and are pleased to see their practice expand on both the East and West Coasts. The Firm also welcomes Rosemary M. Rivas and Quentin A. Roberts. Ms. Rivas has joined Levi & Korsinsky as a Partner and will head the new San Francisco office. She brings more than 16 years of experience representing consumers in complex, class action litigation in both state and federal courts. She is one of the attorneys selected by Judge Charles R. Breyer to serve as a member of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in In re: Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Marketing, Sales Practices, & Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 15-md-2672 (N.D. Cal.), which to date has settled for more than $10 billion dollars on behalf of consumers. Ms. Rivas is a regular speaker on consumer protection issues, including false advertising and data privacy. Previously, Ms. Rivas was a partner at another class action firm. Quentin Roberts has joined the Firm’s San Francisco office.  Mr. Roberts received his J.D. from the University of San Francisco School of Law where he graduated magna cum laude. He has worked closely with Ms. Rivas in approximately a dozen consumer cases, including In re: Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” MDL.  Before that, he clerked and worked for several other class action litigation firms. The San Francisco office opening follows the Firm’s expansion in Connecticut and Washington, D.C. “With the expansion in Connecticut, Washington D.C. and now San Francisco, we are able to better serve our clients and work with our co-counsel,” said Partner Donald J. Enright, who manages the Firm’s D.C. office.  Partner Shannon L. Hopkins, who manages the Connecticut office, agrees: “Most complex litigation firms practice nationwide and it only makes sense to have offices in key cities.” The expansion of the practice to California affirms the Firm’s commitment to representing and serving consumers and shareholders throughout the United States.

On May 1, 2017, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP was appointed to serve as Co-Lead Counsel by Judge Michael M. Baylson in the consolidated class action entitled In re Egalet Corporation Sec. Litig. (Case No. 2:17-cv-00617). This is a securities class action against Egalet Corporation pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Levi & Korsinsky represents Lead Plaintiffs Joseph Spizzirri, Abdul Rahiman, and Kyle Kobold and other members of the class in the consolidated action.   The class action alleges that during the Class Period, among other allegations, Egalet made materially false and/or misleading statements concerning its lead product, ARYMO ER and the likelihood the product would receive its requested abuse-deterrent labeling.   Levi & Korsinsky looks forward to representing those shareholders alleged to have been harmed by this conduct and achieving a positive result in this lawsuit on their behalf.  For more information about this case, please contact Levi & Korsinsky attorneys Adam Apton or Nicholas Porritt. A copy of the Order dated May 1, 2017 may be found here.  

In the recently-issued report “ISS Securities Class Action Services 50,” Levi & Korsinsky is listed as having recovered over $53 million on behalf of shareholders in its securities class action litigation practice in 2016. This report is issued by Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS), which maintains a database of industry leaders in the field of securities class action litigation. The report lists the top 50 plaintiffs’ law firms ranked by the dollar value of final class action settlements occurring in 2016 in which the firm served as lead or co-lead counsel. The report does not include data on derivative or merger lawsuits for which Levi & Korsinsky is an industry leader, having recovered millions of dollars on behalf of investors in 2016. Our firm is proud to be honored with this distinction and will continue to aggressively advocate on behalf of our clients nationwide.  

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces it has filed an amended complaint on behalf of Patriot National, Inc. (NYSE: PN) shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Patriot shares since its initial public offering on January 16, 2015. The complaint alleges that Steven M. Mariano—Chairman, President, CEO, Board member, and majority stockholder of the Company—has engaged in a series of behaviors to benefit himself and to the detriment of shareholders, often without the knowledge or approval of other Board members. In particular, the complaint alleges that, among other allegations, Mariano: (1) engaged in a series of post-IPO related-party transactions to enrich himself and other insiders; (2) arranged a private placement for $50 million of Company stock to a group of hedge funds in order to bail out himself and his other entities from a personal liquidity crisis; (3) renegotiated the private placement to provide the Company with no consideration after the market punished the disloyalty of said placement while still sending $30 million to himself; and (4) secretly engaged a second parallel set of advisors in the Company’s name without Board knowledge or approval to shop the Company in search of the best deal for himself; and (5) forced the Board to approve a leveraged recapitalization, over the objection of an independent director, who had resigned in protest.  These disloyal acts have cost the Company and its minority stockholders hundreds of millions of dollars.

On March 8, 2017, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP was appointed to serve as Lead Counsel by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez in the consolidated class action entitled In re Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-08505-PSG-PJW. This is a securities class action against Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. pending in the United States District Court Central District of California. Levi & Korsinsky represents Plaintiff Joel Kuhn and other members of the class in the consolidated action. Arrowhead develops medicines that treat intractable diseases by silencing the genes that cause them. Using a broad portfolio of RNA chemistries and efficient modes of delivery, Arrowhead therapies trigger the RNA interference mechanism to induce rapid, deep and durable knockdown of target genes. The Company was developing and testing ARC-520, an RNAi-based therapeutic to treat hepatitis B. The class action alleges that during the Class Period, Arrowhead made false and misleading statements that failed to disclose that its drug candidate, ARC-520, was fatal at certain doses, and due to this, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration was unlikely to approve ARC-520 as a hepatitis B treatment. Additionally, the company overstated the approval prospects and commercial viability of ARC-520. Consequently, Arrowhead announced it would discontinue the development of 3 hepatitis treatments, and trim its workforce by 30 percent. Levi & Korsinsky looks forward to representing those shareholders alleged to have been harmed by this conduct and achieving a positive result in this lawsuit on their behalf.  For more information about this case, please contact Levi & Korsinsky attorney(s), Alexander Krot, Adam M. Apton, or Nicholas Porritt. Copies of the Memorandum Order dated March 8, 2017 can be found here.  

On March 8, 2017, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP was appointed to serve as Co-Lead Counsel by Judge Jed S. Rakoff in the consolidated class action entitled In re: Amla Litig., Case No. 1:16-cv-06593 (S.D.N.Y).  This is a consumer class action against L'Oreal U.S.A., Inc. and SoftSheen Carson LLC pending in the Southern District of New York.  Levi & Korsinsky represents Plaintiffs Sharon Manier and Dorothy Riles in the consolidated action (Case No. 17-cv-111) (JSR). L’Oréal U.S.A. is the world's largest cosmetics company and has developed activities in the field of cosmetics, concentrating on hair color, skin care, sun protection, make-up, perfume and hair care. In 1998, L’Orèal acquired Soft-Sheen Products Inc., making the company a leading manufacturer in marketing and selling beauty products to consumers of hair relaxers. The class action alleges that Defendants misrepresented the qualities and capabilities of its Amla hair relaxer and, further, that the Amla hair relaxer is not safe or effective as a hair relaxer even when used as directed.  It is also alleges that Defendants falsely market Amla as an oil-based product that can nourish and condition the scalp with vitamins and minerals. Defendants moved to dismiss the claims plead in In re Amla Litig., and in the Manier action. Judge Rakoff largely sustained the claims plead in both actions with leave to replead.  A Consolidated Amended Complaint will be filed by the newly-appointed Co-Lead Counsel. Levi & Korsinsky attorneys, Lori G. Feldman and Andrea Clisura, diligently devoted themselves to obtaining Co-Lead Counsel on this case, and did so successfully. Notably, Levi & Korsinsky’s motion was contested by a competing motion made by three different law firms. The competing motion was supported by eight additional law firms, but was denied by Judge Rakoff. The Levi & Korsinsky team looks forward to vigorously litigating this case with its Co-Lead Counsel, Geragos & Geragos APC, on behalf of all consumers harmed by L’Oréal U.S.A., Inc. and SoftSheen Carson LLC. Copies of the Memorandum Order dated March 8, 2017 can be found here.    

Levi & Korsinsky secured a significant victory on December 5, 2016, when Senior United States District Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in Ford v. Natural Health Trends Corporation (2:16-cv-00255-TJH-AFM).  A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is available here. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages associated with Natural Health Trends Corporation’s alleged omission in statements and disclosures regarding its compliance with Chinese law. Judge Hatter’s decision confirms the merit of Plaintiff’s allegations and allows the case to proceed to discovery. With this significant accomplishment, Levi & Korsinsky will continue to dedicate its efforts towards the successful prosecution of this lawsuit.

On December 1, 2016, United States District Judge Andrea R. Wood selected Levi & Korsinsky LLP to serve as Lead Counsel in a class action securities lawsuit against VASCO Data Security International Incorporated (Case No. 1:16-cv-02220). Levi & Korsinsky is pleased that the court has appointed the firm to lead this case, and looks forward to vigorously litigating this case on behalf of shareholders of VASCO Data Security International Incorporated.

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for Southern District of Texas on behalf of current stockholders of Spectra Energy Corp. (NYSE:SE) in connection with the planned acquisition of the company by Enbridge and its wholly owned subsidiary Sand Merger Sub, Inc. The lawsuit, entitled Lincoln v. Spectra Energy Corp., Index No. 4:16-cv-03019, alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and corresponding Rule 14a-9. In particular, the complaint alleges that the defendants have issued materially false or misleading statements regarding the proposed acquisition. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 31, 2017. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff’s counsel, Joseph E. Levi, at Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, (212) 363-7500 or, or via e-mail at [email protected]. A copy of the complaint is available online here. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A CLASS HAS NOT BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE.  

A settlement has been proposed in a class action lawsuit related to the acquisition of FirstMerit Corp. (NASDAQ: FMER) by Huntington.  The settlement resolves, among other things, allegations about the adequacy of the disclosures in a joint proxy statement filed by FirstMerit and Huntington with the SEC.  If you held FirstMerit stock between January 26, 2016 and August 16, 2016, your rights will be affected by this class action settlement. The following documents pertain to the terms of the settlement in In re FirstMerit Corporation Shareholder Litigation, Case. No. 5:16-CV-00461:

• Amended Summary Notice
• Amended Long Form Notice
• Preliminary Approval
• Stipulation of Settlement

On October 11, 2016, Levi & Korsinsky prevailed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware when Judge Brendan Linehan Shannon ruled that an arbitration agreement was unenforceable under the National Labor Relations Act because it contained a class-action waiver provision. Though the Debtor-Defendant has filed a notice of appeal, the adversary proceeding is currently moving forward in a class capacity. Parties interested in learning about the potential impact of this ruling may see a Research Alert entitled "Turning Tides For Employee Arbitration Agreements," co-written by Levi & Korsinsky attorneys Lori G. Feldman and Christopher J. Kupka and recently featured on Law360.com. The full text of this Note is available by clicking here.

On August 19, 2016, United States District Judge Diane Humetewa selected Levi & Korsinsky LLP to serve as Lead Counsel in a class action securities lawsuit against Freeport-McMoran Incorporated (Case No. 2:16-cv-00186). Levi & Korsinsky is pleased that the court has appointed the firm to lead this case, and looks forward to vigorously litigating this case on behalf of shareholders of Freeport-McMoran Incorporated.

A notice has now been issued to former ADT Corporation shareholders, and may be viewed here.

On July 20, 2016, United States District Judge William H. Pauley III selected Levi & Korsinsky LLP to serve as Lead Counsel in a class action securities lawsuit against Fly Leasing Limited (Case No. 1:16-cv-02220). Levi & Korsinsky is pleased that the court has appointed the firm to lead this case, and looks forward to vigorously litigating this case on behalf of shareholders of Fly Leasing Limited.

On July 12, 2016, United States District Judge Victor Marrero selected Levi & Korsinsky LLP to serve as Lead Counsel in a class action securities lawsuit against magicJack VocalTec Ltd. (Case No. 1:16-cv-01869). Levi & Korsinsky is pleased that the court has appointed the firm to lead this case, and looks forward to vigorously litigating this case on behalf of shareholders of magicJack VocalTec Ltd.

On June 29, 2016, United States District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks selected Levi & Korsinsky LLP to serve as Lead Counsel in a class action securities lawsuit against Platform Specialty Products Corp. (Case No. 9:16-cv-80490). Levi & Korsinsky is pleased that the court has appointed the firm to lead this case, and looks forward to vigorously litigating this case on behalf of shareholders of Platform Specialty Products Corp.

On June 6, 2016, United States District Judge Roger T. Benitez selected Levi & Korsinsky LLP to serve as Co-Lead Counsel in a class action securities lawsuit against Sempra Energy, Inc. (Case No. 3:16-cv-00512). Levi & Korsinsky is pleased that the court has appointed the firm to lead this case, and looks forward to vigorously litigating this case on behalf of shareholders of Sempra Energy, Inc.

On May 2, 2016, United States District Judge Janis L. Sammartino selected Levi & Korsinsky LLP to serve as Lead Counsel in a class action securities lawsuit against Vital Therapies, Inc. The firm approves its appointment as Lead Counsel and will remain dedicated to achieving an optimal outcome for all class members.

After more than five years of litigation, Levi & Korsinsky and co-counsel brought to trial before the Delaware Court of Chancery the class action litigation Chen v. Howard-Anderson, et al. (C.A. No. 5878-VCL), and, on April 14, 2016, obtained a $35 million settlement. The suit began in October 2010 on behalf of the stockholders of Occam Networks, Inc., alleging that the Company was being sold to Calix, Inc. in breach of insiders’ fiduciary duties pursuant to an unfair process and for an unfair price, which at the time of the merger agreement amounted to approximately $171 million.  Prior to the February 2011 close of the deal, we obtained a preliminary injunction due to material misrepresentations and omissions in the proxy statement by which Occam’s stockholders were solicited to vote, requiring the issuance of corrective disclosures.  We then continued to vigorously prosecute this litigation in a dedicated effort to recover money damages for Occam’s former stockholders. We conducted an aggressive discovery program and largely prevailed in motion practice, enabling us to bring this case to trial on a strong record.  On April 11, 2016, trial began, and after three days of testimony, we successfully resolved the case in its entirety.  Pursuant to the proposed settlement, which is pending Court approval, $35 million cash will be paid on behalf of defendants for the benefit of Occam’s former stockholders.

On April 7, 2016, United States District Judge Kevin McNulty selected Levi & Korsinsky LLP to serve as Co-Lead Counsel in a class action securities lawsuit against Liquid Holdings Group, Inc. The firm approves its appointment as Co-Lead Counsel and will remain dedicated to achieving an optimal outcome for all class members.

On April 5, 2016, United States District Judge Jesse M. Furman selected Levi & Korsinsky LLP to serve as Lead Counsel in a class action securities lawsuit against Anavex Life Sciences Corp. The firm approves its appointment as Lead Counsel and will remain dedicated to achieving an optimal outcome for all class members. Read More.

On March 29, 2016, United States District Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. selected Levi & Korsinsky LLP to serve as Co-Lead Counsel in a class action securities lawsuit against Natural Health Trends Corp. The firm approves its appointment as Co-Lead Counsel and will remain dedicated to achieving an optimal outcome for all class members. Read More.

On March 18, 2016, United States District Judge Donald C. Nugent selected Levi & Korsinsky LLP to serve as Co-Lead Counsel in a class action securities lawsuit against TCP International Holdings Ltd. The firm approves its appointment as Co-Lead Counsel and will remain dedicated to achieving an optimal outcome for all class members.

United States Magistrate Judge Karen M. Williams approved Levi & Korsinsky LLP to serve as Lead Counsel in a class action securities lawsuit against Checkpoint Systems, Inc.  The firm’s efforts to secure a victory for shareholders are already underway.  Levi & Korsinsky will remain dedicated to achieving an optimal outcome for all class members. Read more.

Levi & Korsinsky LLP secured a significant victory on January 25, 2016, when Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware denied in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in In re EZCORP Inc. Consulting Agreement Derivative Litigation (C.A. No. 9962-VCL).  A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is available here.   The lawsuit seeks to recover damages associated with EZCORP’s improper and unlawful retention of outside managerial services from entities owned by the Company’s controlling stockholder, Phillip Ean Cohen.  For years, Mr. Cohen has been profiting from these managerial services agreements at the expense of the Company and its common stockholders.  Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges several claims against EZCORP’s Board of Directors and Mr. Cohen, including breach of fiduciary duty.  Vice Chancellor Laster’s decision confirms the merit of Plaintiff’s allegations and allows the case to proceed to discovery.  With this significant accomplishment, Levi & Korsinsky LLP will continue to dedicate its efforts towards the successful prosecution of this lawsuit.

On January 5, 2016, the Honorable Timothy J. Drury, Erie County, NY, Supreme Court Judge, issued a decision granting the motion of four former Buffalo Bills Cheerleaders (“the Jills”) to certify a class of all Buffalo Bills cheerleaders and ambassadors since April 2008, and appointing plaintiffs as representatives for the class.   Judge Drury also appointed plaintiffs’ counsel, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, Marlborough Law Firm, P.C.,  and Dolce Panepinto as co-lead counsel for the class, noting, the firms have “pursued the instant litigation vigorously and with skill and would be expected to continue to do so.”   The Court certified the class with respect to plaintiffs’ statutory wage and common law claims. In connection with his certification of the statutory wage claims, Judge Drury noted:

Plaintiffs have submitted evidence … that the members of the Jills cheerleader squad were required to work for the defendants not as employees, but rather as independent contractors and not paid by the Bills or the other defendants, when in fact they were employees of defendants. Given the above, the defendants would be in violation of the various causes of action the plaintiffs have alleged dealing with their wage claims. The Bills would be responsible for requiring the other employer defendants to misclassify the Jills and the NFL would be responsible for affirmatively approving the unlawful practice.

Similarly, the Court determined that plaintiffs’ common law fraud claim was appropriate for class treatment. With respect to its certification of that claim, the court stated that:

[E]ach Jill was subject to the same misrepresentation [misclassifying them as independent contractors] set forth in the Cheerleading Agreement which they were required to sign. The falsity of this Agreement is evident in the strictures of the Code of Conduct that bound them which treated them as employees. Finally, … the cheerleaders would not have agreed to the misrepresentation if they had known that they were participating in the commission of a crime by agreeing to serve as Bills cheerleaders.

With respect to plaintiffs’ retaliation claim based on the filing of the Buffalo Bills filing of an allegedly retaliatory counterclaim against plaintiffs and unnamed class members, the Court noted that class treatment was not appropriate because some members of the class may not have been aware that a counterclaim was filed against them.   The case is currently in the discovery phase. Pursuant to the Court’s decision, notice to class members of their rights with respect to the action will issue promptly.

We achieved a $36.5 million common fund settlement for former shareholders of Bluegreen Corp. in the wake of a majority shareholder buyout, representing a 25% increase in total consideration to the minority shareholders.