Tag: lawsuit

The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against LOOP Industries, Inc.

The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned Tremblay v. Loop Industries, Inc., et al., (Case No. 1:20-cv-08538) on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Loop Industries, Inc. (“Loop” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: LOOP) securities between September 24, 2018 and October 12, 2020, inclusive (the “Class Period”). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to participate.

Loop is a technology company that purports to own proprietary technology that depolymerizes no- and low-waste PET plastic and polyester fiber. The resulting material is used to create PET resin for food-grade packaging.

On October 13, 2020, Hindenburg Research published a report alleging, among other things, that “Loop’s scientists, under pressure from CEO Daniel Solomita, were tacitly encouraged to lie about the results of the company’s process internally.” The report also stated that “Loop’s previous claims of breaking PET down to its base chemicals at a recovery rate of 100% were ‘technically and industrially impossible,’” according to a former employee. Moreover, the report alleged that “Executives from a division of key partner Thyssenkrupp, who Loop entered into a ‘global alliance agreement’ with in December 2018, told us their partnership is on ‘indefinite’ hold and that Loop ‘underestimated’ both costs and complexities of its process.”

On this news, the Company’s share price fell $3.78, or over 32%, to close at $7.83 per share on October 13, 2020, thereby damaging investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Loop scientists were encouraged to misrepresent the results of Loop’s purportedly proprietary process; (2) that Loop did not have the technology to break PET down to its base chemicals at a recovery rate of 100%; (3) that, as a result, the Company was unlikely to realize the purported benefits of Loop’s announced partnerships with Indorama and Thyssenkrupp; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Follow us for updates on Twitter: twitter.com/FRC_LAW.

If you purchased Loop securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff.  To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.  If you purchased Mesoblast securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims,

Continue reading

Judge throws out Trump campaign’s Pennsylvania lawsuit

CLOSE

We’ve heard a lot about voter suppression as we approach Election Day. So what is it and how does it manifest itself? The Associated Press explains. (Oct. 5)

AP Domestic

HARRISBURG, Pa. — A federal judge in Pennsylvania on Saturday threw out a lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump’s campaign, dismissing its challenges to the battleground state’s poll-watching law and its efforts to limit how mail-in ballots can be collected and which of them can be counted.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan — who was appointed by Trump — in Pittsburgh also poured cold water on Trump’s claims that election fraud.

Trump’s campaign said it would appeal at least one element of the decision, with barely three weeks to go until Election Day in a state hotly contested by Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.

The lawsuit was opposed by the administration of Gov. Tom Wolf, a Democrat, the state Democratic Party, the League of Women Voters, the NAACP’s Pennsylvania office and other allied groups.

“The ruling is a complete rejection of the continued misinformation about voter fraud and corruption, and those who seek to sow chaos and discord ahead of the upcoming election,” Wolf’s office said in a statement.

Ohio officials refute Trump: President claims ‘rigged election’ after wrong ballots sent to 50K voters

The state’s attorney general, Josh Shapiro, a Democrat whose office fought the Trump campaign’s claims, called the lawsuit a political stunt designed to sow doubt in the state’s election.

“We told the Trump campaign and the president, ‘put up or shut up’ to his claims of voter fraud in Pennsylvania,” Shapiro told The Associated Press. “It’s important to note they didn’t even need to prove actual voter fraud, just that it was likely or impending, and they couldn’t even do that.”

Trump’s campaign said in a statement that it looked forward to a quick decision from the appeals court “that will further protect Pennsylvania voters from the Democrats’ radical voting system.”

The lawsuit is one of many partisan battles being fought in the state Legislature and the courts, primarily over mail-in voting in Pennsylvania, amid concerns that a presidential election result will hang in limbo for days on a drawn-out vote count in Pennsylvania.

2020 election live updates: Biden hopes Trump makes sure he’s COVID ‘clear’ before events; Christie out of hospital

In this case, Trump’s campaign wanted the court to bar counties from using drop boxes or mobile sites to collect mail-in ballots that are not “staffed, secured, and employed consistently within and across all 67 of Pennsylvania’s counties.” Trump’s campaign said it would appeal the matter of drop boxes.

More than 20 counties — including Philadelphia and most other heavily populated Democratic-leaning counties — have told the state elections office that they plan to use drop boxes and satellite election offices to help collect the massive number of mail-in ballots they expect to receive.

Trump’s campaign also wanted the court to free county election officials to disqualify

Continue reading

The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of Looming Deadline in the Class Action Lawsuit Against Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation (COG)

The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors of the upcoming October 13, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who acquired Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation (“Cabot Oil” or “the Company”) (NYSE: COG) securities between October 23, 2015 and June 12, 2020, inclusive (the “Class Period”).

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to participate.

On July 26, 2019, the Company disclosed that it had received two proposed Consent Order and Agreements related to two Notices of Violation it had received from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection in 2017 for failure to prevent the migration of gas into fresh groundwater sources in the area surrounding Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania.

On this news, the Company’s share price fell $2.63, or over 12%, to close at $19.16 per share on July 26, 2019.

On June 15, 2020, following a grand jury investigation, the Pennsylvania attorney general’s office charged Cabot Oil with 15 criminal counts due to its failure to fix faulty gas wells, which polluted Pennsylvania’s water supplies through stray gas migration.

On this news, Cabot Oil’s stock price fell $0.67 per share, or 3.34%, to close at $19.40 per share on June 15, 2020.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Cabot had inadequate environmental controls and procedures and/or failed to properly mitigate known issues related to those controls and procedures; (2) as a result, Cabot, among other issues, failed to fix faulty gas wells, thereby polluting Pennsylvania’s water supplies through stray gas migration; (3) that the foregoing was foreseeably likely to subject Cabot to increased governmental scrutiny and enforcement, as well as increased reputational and financial harm; (4) that Cabot continually downplayed its potential civil and/or criminal liabilities with respect to such environmental matters; and (5) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Follow us for updates on Twitter: twitter.com/FRC_LAW.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Cabot Oil securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than October 13, 2020 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to

Continue reading

The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against Mesoblast Limited (MESO)

The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Kristal v. Mesoblast Limited, et al., (Case No. 1:20-cv-08430), on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Mesoblast Limited (“Mesoblast” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: MESO) securities between April 16, 2019 and October 1, 2020, inclusive (the “Class Period”). Plaintiff pursues under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”)

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to participate.

Mesoblast develops allogeneic cellular medicines using its proprietary mesenchymal lineage cell therapy platform. Its lead product candidate, RYONCIL (remestemcel-L), is an investigational therapy comprising mesenchymal stem cells derived from bone marrow. In February 2018, the Company announced that remestemcel-L met its primary endpoint in a Phase 3 trial to treat children with steroid refractory acute graft versus host disease (“aGVHD”).

In early 2020, Mesoblast completed its rolling submission of its Biologics License Application (“BLA”) with the FDA to secure marketing authorization to commercialize remestemcel-L for children with steroid refractory aGVHD.

On August 11, 2020, the FDA released briefing materials for its Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (“ODAC”) meeting to be held on August 13, 2020. Therein, the FDA stated that Mesoblast provided post hoc analyses of other studies “to further establish the appropriateness of 45% as the null Day-28 ORR” for its primary endpoint. The briefing materials stated that, due to design differences between these historical studies and Mesoblast’s submitted study, “it is unclear that these study results are relevant to the proposed indication.”

On this news, the Company’s share price fell $6.09, or approximately 35%, to close at $11.33 per share on August 11, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume.

On October 1, 2020, Mesoblast disclosed that it had received a Complete Response Letter (“CRL”) from the FDA regarding its marketing application for remestemcel-L for treatment of SR-aGVHD in pediatric patients. According to the CRL, the FDA recommended that the Company “conduct at least one additional randomized, controlled study in adults and/or children to provide further evidence of the effectiveness of remestemcel-L for SR-aGVHD.” The CRL also “identified a need for further scientific rationale to demonstrate the relationship of potency measurements to the product’s biologic activity.”

On this news, the Company’s stock fell $6.56, or 35%, to close at $12.03 per share on October 2, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that comparative analyses between Mesoblast’s Phase 3 trial and three historical studies did not support the effectiveness of remestemcel-L for steroid refractory aGVHD due to design differences between the four studies; (2) that, as a result, the FDA was reasonably likely

Continue reading

Trump rape accuser seeks to bar U.S. government from her defamation lawsuit

By Jonathan Stempel

NEW YORK (Reuters) – The writer who accused Donald Trump of raping her in a Manhattan department store a quarter century ago argued that he cannot hide behind his job as U.S. president to escape as a defendant from her defamation lawsuit.

In a Monday night filing in Manhattan federal court, lawyers for former Elle magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll urged a judge to reject the Department of Justice’s bid to replace Trump’s private legal team and substitute the government as a defendant, with taxpayers footing the bill for costs and any damages.

In June 2019, Trump denied raping Carroll in Bergdorf Goodman in the mid-1990s, or even knowing who she was. Her lawyers said Trump was not acting in his role as president when he said that.

“There is not a single person in the United States–not the President and not anyone else–whose job description includes slandering women they sexually assaulted,” the lawyers wrote.

The Justice Department and a lawyer for Trump did not immediately respond on Tuesday to requests for comment. U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan oversees the case.

Last month, the department said Trump acted “within the scope of his office as president” when speaking with the press about Carroll, and was shielded from her lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

But in Monday’s filing, Carroll’s lawyers Roberta Kaplan and Joshua Matz said that law generally covered lower-level government employees, often in federal agencies, but not the president.

The lawyers also noted that since taking office, Trump has sometimes claimed his business dealings and Twitter activity were “personal” matters. They said this made it incongruous for his comments about Carroll to be “presidential” in nature.

“Only in a world gone mad could it somehow be presidential, not personal, for Trump to slander a woman who he sexually assaulted,” they wrote.

Several women have accused Trump of sexual misconduct occurring before he took office. He has denied their claims.

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by David Gregorio)

Source Article

Continue reading

Trump Rape Accuser Seeks to Bar U.S. Government From Her Defamation Lawsuit | Top News

NEW YORK (Reuters) – The writer who accused Donald Trump of raping her in a Manhattan department store a quarter century ago argued that he cannot hide behind his job as U.S. president to escape as a defendant from her defamation lawsuit.

In a Monday night filing in Manhattan federal court, lawyers for former Elle magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll urged a judge to reject the Department of Justice’s bid to replace Trump’s private legal team and substitute the government as a defendant, with taxpayers footing the bill for costs and any damages.

In June 2019, Trump denied raping Carroll in Bergdorf Goodman in the mid-1990s, or even knowing who she was. Her lawyers said Trump was not acting in his role as president when he said that.

“There is not a single person in the United States–not the President and not anyone else–whose job description includes slandering women they sexually assaulted,” the lawyers wrote.

The Justice Department and a lawyer for Trump did not immediately respond on Tuesday to requests for comment. U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan oversees the case.

Last month, the department said Trump acted “within the scope of his office as president” when speaking with the press about Carroll, and was shielded from her lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

But in Monday’s filing, Carroll’s lawyers Roberta Kaplan and Joshua Matz said that law generally covered lower-level government employees, often in federal agencies, but not the president.

The lawyers also noted that since taking office, Trump has sometimes claimed his business dealings and Twitter activity were “personal” matters. They said this made it incongruous for his comments about Carroll to be “presidential” in nature.

“Only in a world gone mad could it somehow be presidential, not personal, for Trump to slander a woman who he sexually assaulted,” they wrote.

Several women have accused Trump of sexual misconduct occurring before he took office. He has denied their claims.

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by David Gregorio)

Copyright 2020 Thomson Reuters.

Source Article

Continue reading

The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of Looming Deadline in the Class Action Lawsuit Against Airbus SE (EADSY, EADSF)

The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors of the upcoming upcoming October 5, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased Airbus SE (“Airbus” or the “Company”) (OTC: EADSY, EADSF) securities between February 24, 2016, and July 30, 2020, inclusive (the “Class Period”).

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to participate.

On March 15, 2020, The Wall Street Journal reported that, according to internal documents related to the Company’s $4 billion bribery settlement, Airbus executives had previously raised red flags about fees paid to a number of middlemen working with its helicopter division, which was led at the time by the now-Chief Executive Officer, that may have violated global bribery and corruption rules.

On this news, Airbus ADRs fell $3.44 per share, or nearly 16%, to close at $18.46 per share on March 16, 2020, and Airbus foreign ordinaries fell $7.97 per share, or about 9%, to close at $77.75 per share on March 16, 2020.

Then, on July 30, 2020, The Wall Street Journal reported that the U.K. Serious Fraud Office had charged an Airbus subsidiary and three individuals with corruption in connection with a defense contract the U.K. had arranged with Saudi Arabia.

On this news, Airbus ADRs fell $0.67 per share, or about 3%, to close at $18.13 per share on July 31, 2020, and Airbus foreign ordinaries fell $2.85 per share, or about 4%, to close at $72.10 per share on July 31, 2020.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Airbus’s policies and protocols were insufficient to ensure the Company’s compliance with relevant anti-corruption laws and regulations; (2) that, consequently, Airbus engaged in bribery, corruption, and fraud in order to enhance its business with respect to its commercial aircraft, helicopter, and defense deals; (3) that, as a result, Airbus’s earnings were derived in part from unlawful conduct and therefore unsustainable; (4) the full scope and severity of Airbus’s misconduct; (5) that resolution of government investigations of Airbus would foreseeably cost Airbus billions of dollars in settlements and legal fees and subject the Company to significant continuing government investigation and oversight; and (6) that, as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Follow us for updates on Twitter: twitter.com/FRC_LAW.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Airbus securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than October 5, 2020 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the

Continue reading

Government Lawsuit Over John Bolton’s Memoir May Proceed, Judge Rules

A Justice Department spokeswoman, Kerri Kupec, said, “We are pleased with the ruling.”

Charles J. Cooper, a lawyer for Mr. Bolton, said that, “The court’s decision, which we are still studying, means that the case will now move forward to the phase in which the parties will develop and present their evidence to the court.”

The Bolton legal team has also asked Judge Lamberth, if he let the case proceed, to order the White House to turn over evidence to them about the process that administration officials used to handle the manuscript, letting his lawyers know what the government considers classified and permitting them to read internal White House emails and depose witnesses.

Ms. Knight has accused Trump political appointees of illegitimately politicizing the prepublication review process for Mr. Bolton’s book, and Mr. Bolton’s lawyers want to make the case that the government breached its own duty to handle the matter in good faith — and that nothing in the book is truly classified.

But a Justice Department lawyer argued last week against permitting any such “discovery,” saying Mr. Bolton’s decision to publish the book without waiting for written permission is itself sufficient to trigger a ruling that he must forfeit his proceeds from it.

In another legal matter related to a memoir and prepublication review, a federal judge Northern Virginia this week entered a judgment in a case against Edward J. Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who disclosed archives of classified surveillance and hacking related documents to journalists in 2013.

Mr. Snowden has been indicted on suspicion of unauthorized disclosures of classified information and has been living in Russia. But he has given dozens of paid speeches by teleconference, and last year published a memoir, “Permanent Record,” without submitting the prepared remarks or the book manuscript to the prepublication review process.

When his book was published, the Justice Department filed a similar lawsuit —- although it did not try to block publication of the book — seeking to seize Mr. Snowden’s past and future profits from such activities.

Source Article

Continue reading

Judge rejects John Bolton bid to dismiss government lawsuit seeking book proceeds

“The government has the power to prevent harm to the national security,” Lamberth wrote in a 26-page opinion. “While the government may not prevent Bolton from publishing unclassified materials, it may require him to undergo a reasonable prepublication review process. The . . . agreements are thus consistent with the First Amendment.”

In a statement, lead Bolton attorney Charles J. Cooper said, “The Court’s decision, which we are still studying, means that the case will now move forward to the phase in which the parties will develop and present their evidence to the Court.”

Legal analysts said Lamberth’s opinion underscored that Bolton is in serious legal jeopardy, and made it more difficult for other national security professionals to publish without risk of being sued by the government.

“This is a horrible new precedent,” said Mark S. Zaid, a lawyer who specializes in national security and whistleblower cases. “Before this case the U.S. Government had never pursued anyone for simply sharing a draft manuscript with lawyers, literary agents or publishers, even though by law it was improper to do so. As long as the manuscript was approved before actual publication, the U.S. Government was satisfied. But now the rules have changed, and any dissemination can create liability.

Bolton has alleged that Trump appointees took unprecedented steps to hijack the prepublication review by erroneously claiming it contained classified information after the National Security Council’s career senior director for information security completed her own months-long review and declared it did not.

Bolton asserted that the White House sought to block the book to protect Trump from political embarrassment before November’s election.

Justice Department attorneys acknowledged they were unaware of past instances in which political appointees have conducted a second prepublication review. However, they argued, and Lamberth appeared to agree, that if Bolton was dissatisfied, his recourse was to sue the Trump administration on First Amendment grounds, rather than unilaterally publish without approval.

The government sued to prevent the sale of already distributed books, but Lamberth refused to halt publication in a June 20 ruling, saying the government acted too late.

Still pending before the judge are a government motion for a summary ruling to place Bolton’s proceeds in a constructive trust because the book contained classified information, and Bolton’s motion that he first be permitted to investigate whether the government improperly politicized that determination.

Lamberth’s opinion gave a close reading to the terms of agreements Bolton signed. The opinion rejected Bolton’s assertion that the government had to prove he knowingly disclosed materials that “are, relate to, or purport to be” Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information — the highest level of classification, concerning intelligence sources and methods — “or describe activities that produce or relate to SCI.”

Instead, the court found that the requirement to submit his work for review was triggered simply by his decision to draft a work for publication describing his tenure as the president’s top security aide.

“Bolton wrote a memoir of his time serving as National Security Advisor — a

Continue reading

Judge says government’s lawsuit against John Bolton over tell-all book can proceed

A federal judge in the District of Columbia has rejected former national security adviser John Bolton’s request to dismiss the government’s lawsuit complaining his tell-all book about his time in the Trump administration disclosed classified information after it failed to complete its prepublication review. 

Judge Royce Lamberth found that the government proved that the publication of Bolton’s book, “The Room Where it Happened,” improperly “breached his prepublication review and predisclosure consultation obligations” and “his nondisclosure obligations.” The government is seeking the profits Bolton has made from the bestselling book, which painted his former boss, President Trump, in an unflattering light. 

“The government has the power to prevent harm to the national security,” Lamberth wrote. “While the government may not prevent Bolton from publishing unclassified materials, it may require him to undergo a reasonable prepublication review process.”

“We are pleased with the ruling,” Justice Department sppokeswoman Kerri Kupec told CBS News. 

In June, Lambreth had ruled that Bolton could move forward in the publication of his book, which had already been scheduled for release despite the government’s efforts to block it. But in that decision, Lambreth made it clear that he took issue with Bolton’s decision to opt out of the prepublication review process, and had “gambled with the national security of the United States.”

The government first brought the lawsuit in June, alleging that Bolton had become “dissatisfied at the pace of NSC’s review” and “decided to take matters into his own hands” by proceeding with the release of the book before the completion of the pre-publication review process.

The government has asked the court to make a summary judgment in this case, meaning that the court will decide rather than a jury. The Justice Department is also investigating the publication of “The Room Where it Happened,” which was published by Simon & Schuster, a division of ViacomCBS.

In just the first week of its publication, the book sold 780,000 copies.

Source Article

Continue reading