Latest news with #Defendants
Axios
3 days ago
- Politics
- Axios
Trump administration sued by 20 states over FEMA funding cuts
The Trump administration is being sued by 20 states who are seeking to block the cancelation of a grant program that helped protect against potential natural disasters. The big picture: "By unilaterally shutting down FEMA's flagship pre-disaster mitigation program, Defendants have acted unlawfully and violated core separation of powers principles," says the lawsuit that was filed in Boston, Mass., on Wednesday on the program, which has helped states, local and territorial governments and Tribal Nations work to reduce their hazard risk. Driving the news: FEMA announced in an April that it was ending the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities grant program and canceling all BRIC applications from fiscal years 2020-23. The post announcing the cuts that appears to have since been removed was titled, "FEMA Ends Wasteful, Politicized Grant Program, Returning Agency to Core Mission of Helping Americans Recovering From Natural Disasters." The suit that led by Washington and Massachusetts argues that by "refusing to spend funds Congress directed toward BRIC or trying to spend them on other programs" the administration had violated the Constitution and unlawfully intruded on Congress' "power of the purse." Zoom in: "The impact of the shutdown has been devastating. Communities across the country are being forced to delay, scale back, or cancel hundreds of mitigation projects depending on this funding," the states argue in the suit. Projects that have been in development for years, and in which communities have invested millions of dollars for planning, permitting, and environmental review are now threatened. And in the meantime, Americans across the country face a higher risk of harm from natural disasters. For the record: Most of the states suing the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Acting FEMA head Cameron Hamilton, the Department of Homeland Security and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem are Democratic-led. The states suing the administration are: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.
Business Wire
10-07-2025
- Business
- Business Wire
Deadline Soon: MicroStrategy Incorporated (MSTR) Investors Who Lost Money Urged To Contact The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz About Securities Fraud Lawsuit
LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors of the upcoming July 15, 2025 deadline to participate as a lead plaintiff in the securities fraud class action lawsuit filed on behalf of investors who acquired MicroStrategy Incorporated d/b/a Strategy ('Strategy' or the 'Company') (NASDAQ: MSTR) securities between , inclusive (the 'Class Period'). IF YOU ARE AN INVESTOR WHO LOST MONEY ON MICROSTRATEGY INCORPORATED (MSTR), CLICK HERE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SECURITIES FRAUD LAWSUIT. What Happened? On April 7, 2025, Strategy disclosed that, following its adoption of Accounting Standards Update No. 2023-08 ('ASU 2023-08'), which requires publicly traded companies to measure their crypto assets at fair value in their financial statements, it recognized a $5.91 billion unrealized loss on its digital assets for the first quarter 2025. The Company warned that it 'may not be able to regain profitability in future periods, particularly if [it] incur[s] significant unrealized losses related to [its] digital assets.' On this news, Strategy's stock price fell $25.47, or 8.7%, to close at $268.14 per share on April 7, 2025, thereby injuring investors. Then, on May 1, 2025, Strategy released its first quarter 2025 financial results, confirming that it had recorded an unrealized fair value loss on digital assets of approximately $5.9 billion due to applying a fair value accounting methodology to Strategy's bitcoin assets following bitcoin's depreciation in value during the first quarter of 2025. What Is The Lawsuit About? 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 that: (1) the anticipated profitability of the Company's bitcoin-focused investment strategy and treasury operations was overstated; (2) the various risks associated with bitcoin's volatility and the magnitude of losses Strategy could recognize on the value of its digital assets following its adoption of ASU 2023-08 were understated; and (3) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired MicroStrategy securities between April 30, 2024 and April 4, 2025, the deadline to seek appointment as the lead plaintiff in the securities fraud class action is July 15, 2025. Contact Us To Participate or Learn More: 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 us: Frank R. Cruz The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800, Century City, California 90067 Email us at: info@ Call us at: 310-914-5007 Visit our website at Follow us for updates on Twitter: If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. 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. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Business Wire
08-07-2025
- Business
- Business Wire
Deadline Soon: Elevance Health, Inc. (ELV) Investors Who Lost Money Urged To Contact The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz About Securities Fraud Lawsuit
LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors of the upcoming July 11, 2025 deadline to participate as a lead plaintiff in the securities fraud class action lawsuit filed on behalf of investors who acquired Elevance Health, Inc. ('Elevance' or the 'Company') (NYSE: ELV) common stock between , inclusive (the 'Class Period'). IF YOU ARE AN INVESTOR WHO LOST MONEY ON ELEVANCE HEALTH, INC. (ELV), CLICK HERE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SECURITIES FRAUD LAWSUIT. What Happened? On July 17, 2024, Elevance disclosed that it was 'expecting second-half utilization to increase in Medicaid' and that it was 'seeing signs of increased utilization across the broader Medicaid population, including in outpatient home health, radiology, durable medical equipment, as well as some elective procedures.' On this news, Elevance's stock price fell $32.21, or 5.8%, to close at $520.93 per share on July 17, 2024, thereby injuring investors. Then, on October 17, 2024, Elevance released its third quarter 2024 financial results, missing EPS consensus estimates by 13.7% 'due to elevated medical costs in [its] Medicaid business.' Additionally, the Company lowered its EPS guidance for 2024 by 11.3%. On this news, Elevance's stock price fell $52.61, or 10.6%, to close at $444.35 per share on October 17, 2024, thereby injuring investors further. What Is The Lawsuit About? 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 that: (1) sicker patients with higher acuity tended to remain on Medicaid after redetermination, leading to higher per-patient costs; (2) this increase in cost was occurring at a rate that was not adequately reflected in Elevance's rate negotiations with the states or in its financial guidance for 2024; and (3) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Elevance securities between April 18, 2024, and October 16, 2024, the deadline to seek appointment as the lead plaintiff in the securities fraud class action is July 11, 2025. Contact Us To Participate or Learn More: 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 us: Frank R. Cruz The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800, Century City, California 90067 Email us at: info@ Call us at: 310-914-5007 Visit our website at Follow us for updates on Twitter: If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. 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. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Daily Mirror
04-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Daily Mirror
Viral Dr Phil star Bhad Bhabie hit with £494,000 lawsuit
Once known for her viral 'Cash Me Outside' catchphrase, Bhad Bhabie (Danielle Bregoli) turned online notoriety into a multimillion-dollar empire through music and OnlyFans Danielle Bregoli, better known to the world as rapper and OnlyFans powerhouse Bhad Bhabie, who gained viral fame after her appearance on Dr. Phil, could be facing legal trouble as American Express files a lawsuit against her for a whopping $674,452.40 (£494,030) in alleged unpaid credit card debt. Court documents filed this week show the credit card company is suing the 22-year-old for breach of contract, claiming she defaulted on a credit agreement tied to an account issued in April 2021. The account in question, ending in 5000, allegedly stopped receiving payments around December 19, 2023. 'Plaintiff extended credit to Defendant for purchases and/or cash advances by Defendants and/or persons acting with Defendants' permission on the American Express account...' the legal filing states, according to People. 'Defendant promised to repay Plaintiff for all charges, fees, and interest on the Account by paying the balance in full every month or by making monthly payments.' American Express is now reportedly seeking full repayment of the outstanding balance, along with damages for the alleged breach. Despite the size of the debt, Bregoli dismissed the claims in a blunt statement to The Shade Room, saying: 'S** not true. Where do they get this s*** from?*' The lawsuit comes just days after the influencer and entrepreneur gave an interview to Interview magazine, where she reflected on her controversial success on adult content platform OnlyFans. 'A good way to make a lot of money fast,' she said of the platform, where she reportedly earns nearly $1.5 million a month. Since joining OnlyFans shortly after turning 18, Bregoli has repeatedly claimed she's earned over $75 million, even showing receipts to back up the figure. In 2021, Billboard confirmed she pulled in $1 million within just six hours of launching her account, breaking platform records at the time. Despite her wealth, she admitted to spending heavily on 'properties, cars, and all type of s**.*' Currently, her subscription fee stands at $23.99 (£17.50) per month. Bregoli shot to fame in 2016 when, as a 13-year-old, she appeared on Dr. Phil in a now-infamous episode titled: 'I Want to Give Up My Car-Stealing, Knife-Wielding, Twerking 13-Year-Old Daughter…' During the segment, she clapped back at a laughing audience with the line: 'Catch me outside, how about that?', which quickly went viral as 'cash me ousside, how bout dah.' That moment launched a meme empire, a music career, and eventually a digital empire. But now, despite her millions, Bregoli may be facing some very serious financial woes. The Mirror has contacted Danielle Bregoli's representatives for comment on this story.
India Gazette
01-07-2025
- Business
- India Gazette
Delhi HC stays operation of order to Amazon to pay Rs 339 crores to Beverly Hills Polo Club over trademark infringement
New Delhi [India], July 1 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Tuesday granted an interim stay on the operation of a single judge order imposing heavy damages and costs of over Rs 339 crores on Amazon in a case of trademark infringement. The High Court in February 2025 had directed Amazon Technology Inc. to pay the amount for infringement of the luxury brand Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC) owned by Lifestyle Equities. The division bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul passed the order granting an interim stay. Amazon had challenged the judgment passed by the single-judge bench on February 25, 2025. The High Court said that Amazon is not required to pay an amount for the interim stay. Though it would satisfy the damages if there is an order against it. The detailed order is to be uploaded by the High Court. Earlier, a Single judge had passed the judgment in favour of BHPC and against Amazon Technology Inc. The court had said, 'Considering the fact that the Defendants have indulged in deliberate and wilful infringement as also the various factors which are set out herein above, the royalties that the Plaintiffs would have earned based on their business plan which they clearly achieved in the first year is a reasonable measure of damages in the present case in order to compensate the Plaintiffs,' 'A decree of damages to the tune of $38.78 million, as of the date, equal to 336,02,87,000.00 is granted in favour of the Plaintiffs against Defendant No.1. (Amazon Technology Inc).' A single judge held in the judgment passed on February 25. The bench had also said that If the said amount is paid within three months, no interest would be liable to be paid. However, if the same is not paid by the Defendant, interest at the rate of 5% per annum would be payable from the date of this judgment until the full realisation of the said amount. The bench had also passed a decree of costs to the tune of Rs 3,23,10,966.60 along with the Court Fee. This suit was filed by Plaintiff Lifestyle Equities C.V. (LECV) and Lifestyle Licensing B.V. (LLBV) in 2020, seeking a permanent injunction and damages against the Defendants for infringement of their registered trademark, Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC). The allegation in the plaint was that the three Defendants have engaged in activities that constitute a violation of the exclusive rights in the BHPC logo mark. The Plaintiffs had asserted that they are the rightful proprietors of the BHPC mark, which enjoys extensive goodwill and recognition in the domestic and international markets. It was contended that the Defendants were unlawfully using a mark identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs' trademark, thereby violating their statutory and common law rights. It was stated that the horse device is a prominent part of the trademark. The word mark, along with the logo, is a registered trademark of the Plaintiff in various countries of the world. They had submitted that they are the registered proprietors of various marks, including the device mark, in approximately 91 countries, including the USA, UK, India, UAE, Nepal, Mexico, Germany, etc. As per the plaint, Defendant No.1 (Amazon Technology Inc.) was dealing with apparel products under. The private label- 'Symbol', consisting of a horse device mark almost identical to the BHPC logo device, thereby leading to infringement and unauthorised use. Defendant No.2-Cloudtail India Private Limited is alleged to have acted as the retailer of the said infringing apparel products, making them available for sale on the e-commerce platform which is managed and operated by Defendant No.3 Amazon Seller Services Private Limited. It was contended by the Plaintiffs that such unauthorised use of the infringing marks on the Defendant's platform constitutes trademark infringement and misrepresentation, causing consumer confusion and dilution of the Plaintiffs' mark and goodwill. (ANI)
