- Manchester City stopped paying Benjamin Mendy’s wages in September 2021
- He has now reportedly lodged a claim against City with an Employment Tribunal
- A ref had metal plates after a broken jaw and feared being followed home – IAKO
Benjamin Mendy has gone to war with Manchester City after launching a ‘multi-million-pound’ claim against them over unpaid wages.
Mendy was accused of raping a 24-year-old woman in a bedroom at his home in Cheshire in October 2020. He was also charged with the attempted rape of a 29-year-old woman at his home two years earlier.
Mendy, who continually denied both charges and was found not guilty by the jury at Chester Crown Court earlier this year, saw Man City stop paying his £100,000-a-week wages in September 2021.
Now, according to Sky Sports, Mendy has opened a ‘multi-million pound claim’ against City for wages owed.
The claim is reported to have been lodged with the Employment Tribunal in recent days, with Mendy claiming ‘unauthorised deductions from wages’ while his trial was ongoing.
Mendy, who became the Premier League’s most expensive defender at the time City paid AS Monaco £52million in 2017, was due to be under contract in Manchester until June 2023.
As such, Mendy is now seeking salary owed from September 2021 to June 2023 and the expiration of his contract.
Sky’s report adds that prominent sports lawyer Nick De Marco KC is acting on Mendy’s behalf.
A statement made to Sky said: ‘Nick De Marco KC (instructed by Laffer Abogados (Madrid) is acting for the former Manchester City player Benjamin Mendy in a multi-million-pound claim for unauthorised deductions from wages.
‘Manchester City FC failed to pay Mr Mendy any wages at all from September 2021, following Mr Mendy being charged with various offences all of which he was subsequently acquitted of, until the end of his contract in June 2023. The claim will come before an Employment Tribunal.’
Louis Doyle KC, for Mr Mendy, explained last month that discussions with Man City were ongoing and ‘one senses that there is going to be a positive end to the dispute’.
Meanwhile, Mr Mendy’s accountant, David Lumley, previously described the back pay as ‘in the order of nine to 10 million pounds gross’.
Earlier this month it was revealed that Mendy slashed a mega £750,000 off the £5m asking price for his Cheshire mansion in a bid to beat bankruptcy.
MailOnline reported in August that Mendy had put the swanky mansion up for £5m following his move to Ligue 1 side Lorient, where he is looking to rebuild his career after two criminal trials.
But now the 29-year-old is desperate to sell up, and has reduced the asking price to £4.25m, according to The Sun.
It comes months after the High Court heard that Mendy was selling his house and was chasing millions of pounds in back pay from City to avoid bankruptcy. Two offers had been made on the property but the asking price has since been reduced.
Addressing Mendy’s debt, with a bankruptcy order of almost £800,000, Mr Doyle said: ‘He is embarrassed about the fact that he is not able to discharge it quicker than he is able to.
‘He is saying ‘I want to pay as quickly as I can, I realise that I am in difficulty’.’
HM Revenue and Customs is seeking a bankruptcy order against the France international over a tax debt of nearly £800,000, a specialist judge was told.
The hearing was adjourned to October to allow Mendy time to sell the house but it seems the left back has struggled to find the home a new owner.
His prestigious former home in the village of Mottram St Andrew is described by estate agents Savills as ‘one of the finest contemporary homes in Cheshire’.
The ‘amazing 11,000sq-ft residence’ is set in over 1.75 acres of grounds and boasts six bedroom suites, an open plan living area, games room, home cinema, swimming pool, steam room, gym and spa.
Estate agents Savills, which are marketing the property, said: ‘This impressive home was built about 15 years ago and has been upgraded twice in intervening years.’
Among the highlights are ‘an enormous principal bedroom suite with a vaulted bedroom area, a fitted dressing room and a large en-suite bathroom.’
The garden includes a ‘sports pitch, basketball area, extensive terraces and an outside kitchen/entertaining area’.
The property was bought by Mendy from cricketing legend Andrew Flintoff in 2018 for £4.8m.
Flintoff, who never lived at the house, bought it for £1.8million in 2008 and spent two years rebuilding the property – before renting it out.
His tenants included former footballer Peter Crouch and wife Abbey Clancy.
Flintoff bought the property from former Man City boss Mark Hughes, who most recently managed Bradford City. Hughes had already secured planning permission to completely rebuild the property.
The house is in one of the most exclusive roads in Cheshire’s so-called ‘golden triangle’, made up of villages between Prestbury, Alderley Edge and Wilmslow.
Neighbours on the lane have included former Manchester United star Wayne Rooney, before he and his family moved to a newly built £20m mansion nearby.
By Geoff Earle, Deputy U.S. Political Editor For Dailymail.com and Associated Press
21:47 26 Sep 2023, updated 23:07 26 Sep 2023
- Judge Arthur Engoron’s ruling came in Summary Judgment phase
- James found that the former president and his company deceived banks, insurers and others
- READ MORE: Trump demands judge REJECT gag order as ‘an obvious attempt by Biden to silence a political opponent’
A New York judge ruled former President Donald Trump and his companies engaged in fraud, in yet another legal setback for the former president as AG Letitia James’ $250 million civil lawsuit advances.
Judge Arthur Engoron ruled that Trump committed fraud for years while building the real estate empire that catapulted him to fame and the White House, after prosecutors charged he inflated property valuations with lenders and diminished them with tax authorities.
The civil trial begins October and could run through the end of the year, as Trump continues to lead the GOP field for the Republican presidential nomination.
The ruling Tuesday came in a civil lawsuit brought by James, even as Trump faces multiple criminal indictments in multiple jurisdictions related to his election overturn effort and other matters.
She sued last year, claiming numerous acts of fraud. Lawyers representing Trump and his company, as well as his adult children, asked the judge to dismiss the suit through summary judgement.
James found that the former president and his company deceived banks, insurers and others by massively overvaluing his assets and exaggerating his net worth on paperwork used in making deals and securing financing.
She said he boosted valuations by up to $2 billion, inflating the value of signature assets including the Mar-a-Lago club where he now resides and his Manhattan penthouse apartment at Trump Tower.
The decision, days before the start of a non-jury trial in Attorney General Letitia James´ lawsuit, is the strongest repudiation yet of Trump´s carefully coiffed image as a wealthy and shrewd real estate mogul turned political powerhouse.
Beyond mere bragging about his riches, Trump, his company and key executives repeatedly lied about them on his annual financial statements, reaping rewards such as favorable loan terms and lower insurance premiums, Engoron found.
Those tactics crossed a line and violated the law, the judge said, rejecting Trump’s contention that a disclaimer on the financial statements absolved him of any wrongdoing.
Manhattan prosecutors had looked into bringing a criminal case over the same conduct but declined to do so, leaving James to sue Trump and seek penalties that could disrupt his and his family´s ability to do business in the state.
Engoron’s ruling, in a phase of the case known as summary judgment, resolves the key claim in James’ lawsuit, but six others remain.
Engoron is slated to hold a non-jury trial starting Oct. 2 before deciding on those claims and any punishments he may impose. James is seeking $250 million in penalties and a ban on Trump doing business in New York, his home state. The trial could last into December, Engoron has said.
Trump’s lawyers had asked the judge to throw out the case, which he denied.
They contend that James wasn’t legally allowed to file the lawsuit because there isn’t any evidence that the public was harmed by Trump’s actions. They also argued that many of the allegations in the lawsuit were barred by the statute of limitations.
Trump has long accused James and other prosecutors coming after him of bias.
The judgment came in a case where Trump once again delivered potentially harmful statements during a deposition.
Trump under questioning compared his golf and real estate empire to the Mona Lisa and other priceless art works.
Trump made the extraordinary claim while describing his decision to hand off control of his business to his adult sons Don Jr. and Eric during his term as president – with New York AG Letitia James sitting across from him in a Manhattan courthouse for a deposition.
‘We have the Mona Lisas of properties,’ Trump told the prosecuting attorney in the April deposition unsealed Wednesday.
Then he bragged about his golf course in Turnberry, Scotland. ‘I could sell that. That’s like selling a painting. A painting on a wall that sells for $250 million,’ he continued.
‘I have great assets,’ Trump gushed – raving about Mar-a-Lago as well as his property at 40 Wall Street, which he said is ‘the best location,’ he told prosecutor Kevin Wallace in James’ office.
Prosecutors claim he has jacked up his net worth by between $812 million and $2.2 billion every year over a decade. James argues Trump inflated his valuations when seeking lending. Trump’s lawyers are asking a judge to toss the suit, calling it a ‘crusade’ over long-ago loans that have been repaid.
‘You don’t have a case and you should drop this case,’ Trump told James.
The owners of the Jeffco Estates mobile home community are suing Arnold, claiming the city is trying to force the park out of existence.
Lawsuits have been filed by Jeffco Estates MHC LCC in Jefferson County Circuit Court and the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Missouri challenging Arnold’s ordinance governing mobile home districts as unconstitutional.
“We have the gumption and the money to stand up to the town on not just behalf of us but the other 10 or 11 communities in the city of Arnold and the thousands of residents who own homes in these communities who are getting screwed over in the long term by this ordinance,” said Ryan Hotchkiss, CEO of Horizon Land Management, a Maryland-based company that bought Jeffco Estates in 2021 as part of a multi-mobile-home-park purchase.
“It is a horrible ordinance that is clearly drafted with the intent of slowly strangling mobile home parks out of existence,” Hotchkiss said. “Basically, it makes it impossible to ever put homes in the community.”
Jeffco Estates, at 654 Jeffco Boulevard in the northern part of the city near the Fox schools campus, has existed since 1968, four years before Arnold was incorporated as a city in 1972. According to the city’s website, the first ordinance establishing regulations for mobile home communities was established in 1972, and the ordinance has been updated five times, with the City Council approving the most recent change in July 2022.
Hotchkiss said Jeffco Estates, which has 150 lots for mobile homes, had 102 residents when his company purchased the park, but that number has since dropped to 95.
According to the lawsuits Horizon Land Management has filed against Arnold, new homes cannot be installed and existing homes cannot be renovated because of the city’s regulations, which will prevent the owners from continuing to use the property as a mobile home community.
Arnold City Administrator Bryan Richison said the city is not trying to force mobile homes out of Arnold.
“We still have a mobile home park zoning district,” he said. “Just like all of the other zoning districts, it has regulations that you have to meet. Just like all of the other zoning districts, if you are legally nonconforming, you are fine until you want to change something. When you want to change something, you have to conform.
“We have spoken with (Jeffco Estates owners) numerous times about how we will work with them if they put a plan together to reconfigure with new pads that meet all of the regulations. We will let people phase it in, because it is a lot to undertake at one time.”
Hotchkiss said the city’s regulations regarding mobile home communities make it virtually impossible for his company to add new homes or change existing mobile home pads in Jeffco Estates, and the city has not offered options for his company to come into compliance.
“If I could turn this park into a 120-site park out of 150 and fill it up, I would do that all day long. They won’t do that for us.”
Lawsuits
Jeffco Estates initially filed a lawsuit in the Jefferson County Circuit Court against Arnold in September 2022. The company filed another lawsuit in federal court against the city on March 6, the same day the Jeffco Estates lawyer voluntarily dismissed three counts in the Jefferson County court lawsuit that mirrored sections of the federal lawsuit.
“That was unexpected,” Richison said. “We were not expecting after they filed in Circuit Court for them to turn around and want to go to federal. I don’t know the legality of why they would want to do one over the other.”
Hotchkiss said his company wanted file the lawsuit only in federal court, but because the suit is challenging decisions made by Arnold’s Board of Adjustments, which rules on appeals of the city’s zoning code, it had to be filed in the Jefferson County Circuit Court.
A motion by attorney Allyson Sweeney, who represents Arnold along with her father, attorney Bob Sweeney, to dismiss the lawsuit in Jefferson County Circuit Court was denied on Aug. 29.
A pre-trial conference is scheduled for Feb. 9, 2024, court records said.
Allyson Sweeney said Arnold has filed a motion to consolidate the cases in federal court, which has a trial date set for July 29, 2024. However, Sweeney said the city is filing motions to have the federal court case dismissed as well.
“Our position is if you are going to redesign the mobile home park, you need to come into compliance,” she said.
According to the federal court lawsuit, Jeffco Estates applied for five building permits starting in the fall 2021 through May 11, 2022, and the city denied all the applications. The company appealed those denials through the city’s Board of Adjustments, which denied the appeals on Aug. 25, 2022.
The lawsuit said the application denials for building permits at 2139 and 2163 Park Drive and 2163 Lake Drive “did not rely on lawful nonconformities.”
The suit also said the city denied the applications because city code that does not allow for a larger manufactured home to be placed on an existing concrete pad also does not allow for existing concrete pads to be enlarged or modified because of required setbacks to allow space between mobile homes and mobile homes and the road.
“We purposely and strategically picked multiple applications, and each one was denied,” Hotchkiss said. “They are not allowing any homes to come in, whether we reconfigure the park or not because every new home that comes into these parks is one new home further away from them getting rid of mobile home parks.”
The federal lawsuit also said Arnold issued a nuisance violation in September 2022 against a mobile home, saying it was condemned.
The suit claims the nuisance violation was in retaliation for the company challenging the building permits it was denied for other mobile homes.
“They don’t want quote unquote trailer parks in their backyard,” Hotchkiss said of Arnold, as well as some other cities. “Often, they want to get rid of them and have a higher, better use. Who doesn’t want a nice condominium complex there that has a higher tax base that looks nicer?”
The lawsuit also said a representative of Arnold reached out to the owners of Jeffco Estates in July 2022 to tell them a commercial developer was interested in buying the mobile home park.
Richison said he did not know if that happened.
“Any kind of offer for the property would be a private transaction that we wouldn’t be part of,” he said. “I can’t say for sure if it has happened because we wouldn’t know. It would make sense to me that somebody would be interested in turning that into some kind of commercial operation, given its location.”
The lawsuit also said the city contacted Jeffco Estates owners in July 2022 and asked them to provide Arnold with a list of residents who keep pets in their homes.
“I don’t really know what that is referring to,” Richison said. “I am not aware that we would ever ask that, what we would ask that for or what we would do with that information.”
The lawsuit asks Arnold to reverse its denials for building permits and allow new mobile homes to come into Jeffco Estates, and it seeks to recoup last profits, rent and business opportunities the owners said they suffered because of the city’s regulations.
Hotchkiss said the lawsuit is not about getting money from the city, adding that his company only wants to offer an affordable housing option in Arnold.
“I want to be able to continue to operate that park as a healthy park and give it a future,” Hotchkiss said. “These people (Jeffco Estate residents) have spent good money on their homes. They can’t sell their homes because the town will not approve certificates of occupancy. They are taking property away from lower income people. It is disgusting.”
LAS VEGAS, Nev. (FOX5) – A class-action lawsuit filed by home sellers that would fundamentally change the way houses are bought and sold, and in particular, the way real estate agents are compensated, is catching the attention of local agents.
Currently, no matter how much experience a buyer’s agent has in the real estate industry, they get the same commission from the seller that a seasoned veteran does. A case in Illinois known as Moehrl v. National Association of Realtors would change that if the plaintiffs win.
The plaintiffs filed suit against NAR and several major real estate brokerage companies, claiming the system that splits commissions paid by the seller between buyer and seller agents is anticompetitive. Instead, the plaintiffs argue, homebuyers should pay for their own agents.
One local agent who has more than two decades of experience in Southern Nevada says this will cause buyers to become much pickier and could drive many new agents out of the industry.
“If this lawsuit goes through, it would probably cut the agent count from 1.6 million to about 200,000,” Las-Vegas based real estate agent Steve Hawks told FOX5 Wednesday. “It’s going to impact agents that aren’t experienced.”
Hawks says this lawsuit will take away a big advantage for inexperienced realtors if the plaintiffs win.
“If you’ve been in the business one day or 30 years, when you do a transaction on the MLS (Multiple Listing Services), you’re getting paid the same amount,” he explained.
If the plaintiffs win, Hawks says that even playing field is going away because if buyers alone are on the hook for those fees, they’ll want to work with someone with more experience.
“In the future, when the buyers see that it’s going to cost them money one way or the other with their agent, they’re going to start interviewing their buyer’s agent similarly to how sellers do their listing agent,” he said.
Jaime Solorzano is the valley’s newest realtor, having just earned his real estate license Wednesday.
“It doesn’t scare me,” he said of the potential outcome of the lawsuit. “There’s many obstacles you always have to overcome. That doesn’t put fear in me.”
Solorzano thinks the local market is hot enough that he’ll be able to make it despite the potential loss of his biggest advantage as a new agent.
“It’s actually going to become even better,” he said of the Las Vegas real estate market. “People are attracted over here more. People are coming in often, often. Way more than usual.”
Hawks is not so optimistic. He cited data that shows 74% of home buyers choose the first agent they come into contact with because they see it as a free service and that this practice will change pending the outcome of the court case.
“Now the buyers’ agents will be compensated based on their experience and knowledge and the buyers will be actually paying them and interviewing them much like a seller does on the listing agent,” Hawks explained.
Hawks predicts Moehrl v. National Association of Realtors will be decided sometime in 2024.
Copyright 2023 KVVU. All rights reserved.
Utah’s Tabby Mountain was once part of the Uintah Valley Reservation, but it was pried out more than a century ago along with a million other acres when the federal government set aside the forested preserve that became the Ashley National Forest in the Uinta Mountains.
As fate would have it, a chance came up for the Ute Indian Tribe to return the landscape to the fold in 2018 when a subsequent Tabby owner, the Utah School and Institutional Trust Land Administration, or SITLA, solicited sealed bids for the 28,500-acre block.
But SITLA conspired with other state agencies to concoct a fraudulent pretext to reject the tribe’s high $47 million bid and illegally cheat the tribe from regaining control of the landscape at the western edge of the Uinta Basin, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in Salt Lake City’s U.S. District Court.
“Monetary damages are also inadequate here because of the Tribe’s unique and specific interests in Tabby Mountain,” the suit states. “Tabby Mountain, and the plants, natural resources, springs, and medicines found on that property have unique religious and spiritual significance to the Tribe and to tribal members.”
Tribal officials are seeking a court order directing SITLA to sell Tabby to the 3,000-member tribe for $47 million and to cough up punitive damages.
The 28-page suit reads like a searing indictment of the state’s handling of the Tabby sale, alleging illegal discrimination based on religion, race, national origin and ethnicity in violation of the Constitution’s promise of equal protection under the law.
(Christopher Cherrington | The Salt Lake Tribune)
The tribe contends state officials rigged the sales process to ensure the land would be sold to the Utah Department of Natural Resources (DNR) which hopes to one day protect the land as a wildlife preserve, state forest and haven for big game hunting. The tribe’s $47 million bid monkey-wrenched DNR’s plans, setting off backroom scheming to kill the sales process rather than allow it to be sold to Native Americans, the suit alleges.
“Nothing evinces racial animus more clearly than the intentional, purposeful and/or knowing diversion of land from a minority population in order to make that land available for the primary or exclusive benefit of the non-minority population,” the suit says. “It is an incontrovertible fact of American history that non-Indian greed for land and resources is what has motivated nearly all, if not all, of the racial cleansing and genocidal campaigns that non-Indians in the United States have waged against the Native America populations in the United States.”
SITLA’s move not only discriminated against the tribe, it violated the agency’s mission to generate revenue off its 3.4-million acre portfolio of trust lands for schools, the suit says.
Agency officials weren’t immediately available to comment, but they have previously said nixing the Tabby sale was in the best interest of trust lands beneficiaries because the sales process was deeply flawed and needed to be redone. However, the process has yet to be restarted after more than four years.
It was not publicly known that the tribe’s bid for Tabby exceeded DNR’s $41 million bid until last year when a former SITLA staffer filed a whistleblower complaint with the Utah State Auditor John Dougall.
The whistleblower, Tim Donaldson, was the official in charge of Tabby sales process in 2018-19. His complaint alleges top officials at SITLA were pressured by Utah lawmakers to manipulate the sales process to ensure that DNR would be the successful bidder. These lawmakers, which included House Majority Leader Mike Schultz, threatened to pass legislation that would rein in SITLA’s independence if Tabby was sold to the tribe, Donaldson’s complaint alleged.
Subscribe To Open Lands Newsletter
Get the latest news by subscribing to our
Open Lands newsletter. Enter your email below
to receive more stories like these right to your inbox.
SITLA’s land sales procedures, which rely on sealed bids, are carefully structured to ensure the agency receives the highest price possible for trust lands it seeks to sell. In the Tabby case, the agency bent its own rules to the detriment of Utah schools, whose trust fund stood to gain millions had the sale gone through, the suit alleges.
Besides SITLA, the suit names various state officials, including former and current SITLA directors David Ure and Michelle McConkie, respectively, former DNR director Mike Styler and Gov. Spencer Cox.
For the many years Styler led DNR, he had sought to acquire Tabby to manage as a wildlife preserve, state forest and a haven for big game hunting. SITLA, whose mandate is to manage trust lands to raise revenue for schools, likewise wanted to offload the land because it had never made much money off it outside grazing fees.
Styler and other officials had long been concerned about the possibility of rich individuals paying top dollar to acquire Tabby and fencing off one of Utah’s most cherished hunting areas. For more than a decade, DNR brass angled for a negotiated sale, but SITLA chose to solicit sealed bids in accordance with its normal process.
In 2018, the agency hired Highland Commercial to appraise the property and devise a marketing plan. The firm’s confidential appraisal set the market value at between $25 and $37 million, and recommended a $40 million list price with a 24-month marketing period, according to the suit.
SITLA wound up using a tight timeframe that made it difficult for private buyers to work with. While there was a great deal of interest in the property, only two bids came in, one from the state and one from the tribe, which had the cash on hand to buy it.
When SITLA discovered the tribe’s bid exceeded DNR’s by $6 million, it pressured DNR to respond with a $50 million counteroffer, knowing that the state agency did not have the financial means to make good on such a deal, according to the suit.
The mountain in western Duchesne County is named for the Ute chief Tabby-To-Kwanah, who led the Native Americans inhabiting Utah and Heber valleys at the time of Mormon settlement in the 1850s. It was included in the Uintah Valley Reservation, created by President Abraham Lincoln in 1861 as a homeland for various bands of the Ute Indians who were being pushed off their ancestral lands elsewhere in Colorado and Utah.
However, the Utes lost Tabby when the land was incorporated into a federal forest preserve created by President Theodore Roosevelt in the early 20th century when he opened tribal lands in the Uinta Basin for settlement. Adding insult to injury, the U.S. Forest Service gave the land to SITLA’s predecessor agency in the 1960s in exchange for trust lands elsewhere without consulting the tribe, the suit says.
However, the rights to the minerals at Tabby remain partially with the tribe to this day.
Today the land remains largely undeveloped habitat teeming with big game. This land could potentially fetch a massive price from wealthy private parties looking to create an exclusive redoubt in a gorgeous natural setting.
The time for Utah state officials to get a good deal on the land has probably already passed, unless the Legislature changes SITLA’s structure to ensure the state gets the right of first refusal when trust lands go up for sale.
Since the pandemic, Utah land values have skyrocketed, making tracts like Tabby even more costly for public acquisition, and potentially out of reach.
This is a developing story and will be updated.
Editor’s note • This story is available to Salt Lake Tribune subscribers only. Thank you for supporting local journalism.
Selina Lum
The Straits Times
Feb 11, 2023
The director of a property investment firm who was unhappy that he was left with “high and prominent” upper eyelid creases after an operation to correct his asymmetrical eyes sued the plastic surgeon who carried out the cosmetic procedure.
Mr Lee Kong Ghee, 62, alleged that Dr Andrew Khoo Kian Ming, who practises at the Aesthetic and Reconstructive Centre at Mount Elizabeth Medical Centre, had negligently advised him and provided him inadequate or improper medical treatment.
The businessman sought damages for injuries, including discomfort and irritation to his eyes; sensitivity to light, sun and wind; a thick eyelid crease and inflammation of his eyelids, from Dr Khoo and the clinic.
Mr Lee’s suit was dismissed by a district judge, who found that he had been adequately advised on the condition of his brows and upper eyelids and the treatment procedures available, including a brow lift which he declined.
In a judgment published on Friday, District Judge Tan May Tee said Mr Lee also failed to prove that the injuries he claimed to have suffered were caused by Dr Khoo’s diagnosis and treatment.
Judge Tan said: “The plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with the aesthetic result of his eyelids after the procedure is his subjective opinion, which does not provide a legal basis for a negligence claim against the first defendant.”
Notably, the judge added, Mr Lee admitted in cross-examination that he could accept his post-operative look.
Judge Tan also found Mr Lee’s testimony to be unreliable and his credibility suspect.
She said he sought to portray himself as a Chinese-educated layman who did not understand medical advice, but the record showed that he has consulted various medical specialists even before he saw Dr Khoo.
“In court, he showed himself to be an evasive witness who exhibited bouts of selective amnesia throughout his cross-examination and displayed a distinct lack of candour in many of his answers,” said Judge Tan.
An instance of Mr Lee’s tendency to prevaricate was when he denied that he had visited a beautician to perm his eyelashes, and retracted this only after he was confronted with the transcript of a conversation he had secretly recorded.
The case arose from a procedure, known as a blepharoplasty, on Mr Lee’s eyelids to remove sagging skin and fatty tissue in October 2013.
Mr Lee, who was then 53, had first consulted neurosurgeon Alvin Hong to remove a lump on his forehead.
Dr Hong advised him that the lump was a benign bony growth, but Mr Lee wanted it removed for cosmetic reasons. Dr Hong also referred Mr Lee to Dr Khoo.
After Mr Lee consulted Dr Khoo, it was agreed that Dr Hong would remove the lump, with Dr Khoo suturing the wound.
While Mr Lee was under general anaesthesia, Dr Khoo would also carry out cosmetic procedures on his upper and lower eyelids.
The surgery proceeded on Oct 11, 2013, as planned.
At his third post-operative consultation on Nov 4, 2013, Mr Lee was unhappy that the swelling caused his eyelid creases to be higher and more prominent.
Mr Lee surreptitiously recorded his discussion with Dr Khoo during this consultation.
He then went on to consult other doctors, including plastic surgeon Martin Huang. On Jan 30, 2014, Mr Lee went back to see Dr Huang for Botox injections to treat his frown lines and to lift his eyebrows.
On Feb 11, 2014, again armed with a recording device, he returned to see Dr Khoo.
That month, he engaged lawyers, who wrote to Dr Khoo asking for his medical records.
Mr Lee filed a lawsuit against Dr Khoo and the clinic in August 2015 based on a medical report issued by a doctor in Bangkok, Thailand.
He alleged that Dr Khoo failed to advise him of the possible consequences of the procedure; failed to plan and discuss with him the various treatment options; and failed to provide adequate treatment.
He also contended that the outcome of the surgery was not the expected aesthetic result that was promised.
Dr Khoo and the clinic denied all the allegations.
The defendants said Dr Khoo had suggested a browlift procedure as Mr Lee had lower than normal eyebrows, but Mr Lee rejected this and instead opted for the blepharoplasty which the surgeon had said would be less effective.
They said the procedures and accompanying risks were explained by Dr Khoo with the aid of drawings as well as before and after photographs of other patients.
In her judgment, Judge Tan said two pieces of documentary evidence clearly supported Dr Khoo’s account.
One was the facial diagram that Dr Khoo had drawn during the first consultation on Sept 24, 2013.
The other was a letter Dr Khoo sent to Dr Hong on Sept 25, 2013, in which he summarised his diagnosis, his advice to Mr Lee, and Mr Lee’s preferred treatment option.
Judge Tan said Mr Lee’s secret recordings also lent support to Dr Khoo’s account.
The Straits Times
Feb 11, 2023
The director of a property investment firm who was unhappy that he was left with “high and prominent” upper eyelid creases after an operation to correct his asymmetrical eyes sued the plastic surgeon who carried out the cosmetic procedure.
Mr Lee Kong Ghee, 62, alleged that Dr Andrew Khoo Kian Ming, who practises at the Aesthetic and Reconstructive Centre at Mount Elizabeth Medical Centre, had negligently advised him and provided him inadequate or improper medical treatment.
The businessman sought damages for injuries, including discomfort and irritation to his eyes; sensitivity to light, sun and wind; a thick eyelid crease and inflammation of his eyelids, from Dr Khoo and the clinic.
Mr Lee’s suit was dismissed by a district judge, who found that he had been adequately advised on the condition of his brows and upper eyelids and the treatment procedures available, including a brow lift which he declined.
In a judgment published on Friday, District Judge Tan May Tee said Mr Lee also failed to prove that the injuries he claimed to have suffered were caused by Dr Khoo’s diagnosis and treatment.
Judge Tan said: “The plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with the aesthetic result of his eyelids after the procedure is his subjective opinion, which does not provide a legal basis for a negligence claim against the first defendant.”
Notably, the judge added, Mr Lee admitted in cross-examination that he could accept his post-operative look.
Judge Tan also found Mr Lee’s testimony to be unreliable and his credibility suspect.
She said he sought to portray himself as a Chinese-educated layman who did not understand medical advice, but the record showed that he has consulted various medical specialists even before he saw Dr Khoo.
“In court, he showed himself to be an evasive witness who exhibited bouts of selective amnesia throughout his cross-examination and displayed a distinct lack of candour in many of his answers,” said Judge Tan.
An instance of Mr Lee’s tendency to prevaricate was when he denied that he had visited a beautician to perm his eyelashes, and retracted this only after he was confronted with the transcript of a conversation he had secretly recorded.
The case arose from a procedure, known as a blepharoplasty, on Mr Lee’s eyelids to remove sagging skin and fatty tissue in October 2013.
Mr Lee, who was then 53, had first consulted neurosurgeon Alvin Hong to remove a lump on his forehead.
Dr Hong advised him that the lump was a benign bony growth, but Mr Lee wanted it removed for cosmetic reasons. Dr Hong also referred Mr Lee to Dr Khoo.
After Mr Lee consulted Dr Khoo, it was agreed that Dr Hong would remove the lump, with Dr Khoo suturing the wound.
While Mr Lee was under general anaesthesia, Dr Khoo would also carry out cosmetic procedures on his upper and lower eyelids.
The surgery proceeded on Oct 11, 2013, as planned.
At his third post-operative consultation on Nov 4, 2013, Mr Lee was unhappy that the swelling caused his eyelid creases to be higher and more prominent.
Mr Lee surreptitiously recorded his discussion with Dr Khoo during this consultation.
He then went on to consult other doctors, including plastic surgeon Martin Huang. On Jan 30, 2014, Mr Lee went back to see Dr Huang for Botox injections to treat his frown lines and to lift his eyebrows.
On Feb 11, 2014, again armed with a recording device, he returned to see Dr Khoo.
That month, he engaged lawyers, who wrote to Dr Khoo asking for his medical records.
Mr Lee filed a lawsuit against Dr Khoo and the clinic in August 2015 based on a medical report issued by a doctor in Bangkok, Thailand.
He alleged that Dr Khoo failed to advise him of the possible consequences of the procedure; failed to plan and discuss with him the various treatment options; and failed to provide adequate treatment.
He also contended that the outcome of the surgery was not the expected aesthetic result that was promised.
Dr Khoo and the clinic denied all the allegations.
The defendants said Dr Khoo had suggested a browlift procedure as Mr Lee had lower than normal eyebrows, but Mr Lee rejected this and instead opted for the blepharoplasty which the surgeon had said would be less effective.
They said the procedures and accompanying risks were explained by Dr Khoo with the aid of drawings as well as before and after photographs of other patients.
In her judgment, Judge Tan said two pieces of documentary evidence clearly supported Dr Khoo’s account.
One was the facial diagram that Dr Khoo had drawn during the first consultation on Sept 24, 2013.
The other was a letter Dr Khoo sent to Dr Hong on Sept 25, 2013, in which he summarised his diagnosis, his advice to Mr Lee, and Mr Lee’s preferred treatment option.
Judge Tan said Mr Lee’s secret recordings also lent support to Dr Khoo’s account.
A lawsuit filed almost a year ago in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois in Springfield claiming city officials retaliated against local general contractor Paul Offutt for supporting a past political opponent of Danville Mayor Rickey Williams Jr. continues to move forward.
A judge ruled last month against dismissing the lawsuit.
Offutt of Danville is the primary agent and president of Offutt Development Inc. and Security Ventures Inc. He’s operated general contracting businesses in the Danville area for about 40 years.
Williams was elected mayor in 2019 after winning in a four-way race with James McMahon, Steve Nichols and Donald Crews.
In addition to the lawsuit being against the city and Williams, it also names as defendants Danville City Engineer Sam Cole, Assistant City Engineer Eric Childers and Community Development Administrator Logan Cronk.
According to the allegations, Williams, Cronk, Cole and Childers violated Offutt’s rights under the U.S. Constitution with respect to five different properties.
Offutt alleges the city forged his signature on a property easement, titled to Offutt Construction Inc., to construct a new sewer line in Denvale West. Offutt alleges the forged signature after he refused to agree to an easement in a January 2020 meeting with Cole and Childers.
Offutt also alleges that in September of 2021, he met with Cole and Cronk about obtaining a zoning variance for a 50-acre property at Bowman and West Newell Road. Offutt resubmitted a nine-acre petition after the zoning commission denied the original petition, but he pulled it prior to city council action due to city officials not telling the council about the changed petition, he alleges.
Other allegations are on a 600 block of North Gilbert Street property where a house was demolished. The city hadn’t signed off on the demo completion causing Offutt to incur utility charges. A property at 3600 Southgate Drive also was intended for a Sygma truck cleaning facility. Permits weren’t initially issued to Offutt, but to subcontractors with the same plans, the lawsuit alleges.
Lastly, in October of 2021, Offutt requested Williams’ permission to place a memorial statue in front of the Fischer Theatre to memorialize two deceased benefactors of the theater’s restoration, one of whom was Offutt’s deceased wife. Williams refused the request stating in part concerns about pedestrian flow with large crowds in and out of the theater.
These city actions were all alleged to be in retaliation against Offutt for his support of a previous political opponent of Williams.
According to a media release from Chicago Attorney Jeffrey Kulwin, who is one of the attorneys representing Offutt and who has represented a former city employee who settled with the city over a discrimination lawsuit, “The City of Danville lost its attempt to dismiss a lawsuit brought by general contractor Paul Offutt alleging that city officials violated rights guaranteed by the constitution by retaliating against him for his political activity, taking his property without providing just compensation, and singling him out for irrational and intentional discrimination.”
Kulwin and his law firm filed the case in January 2022.
“In a written ruling, the court stated the alleged facts, when taken as true, state ‘a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.’ As a result, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. The defendants must now answer the lawsuit’s allegations.
“The lawsuit accused city of Danville Mayor Rickey Williams and other high-ranking city officials of retaliating against Offutt and his companies because Offutt supported Williams’ opponent in the 2019 election. Offutt lives in Danville and operates general contractor companies for commercial and residential projects. Offutt actively supported Williams’ opponent in the 2019 election. The complaint alleged that, after Williams won the election, city officials perpetuated a campaign of retaliation which included taking a portion of Offutt’s property without compensation using a forged easement, refused to grant routine zoning variances for Offutt’s projects and delayed issuing building permits for time-sensitive projects. According to the complaint, after the election, Williams warned that he intended to be ‘all over’ Offutt’s construction projects.
“The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the events alleged in the complaint came too long after the election occurred. The court stated the complaint alleged that a ‘campaign of unlawful retaliation’ that began since the April 2019 election and, in any case, ‘the mere passage of time is [neither] legally conclusive proof against retaliation’ nor a ‘conclusive bar to an inference of retaliation.’ The court stated that, in this case, Offutt ‘alleged a pattern of behavior in which (city officials) intentionally singled them out and treated them differently than other individuals in Danville …’
“The court also rejected arguments that defendants did not take Offutt’s property because defendants have not ‘built anything’ on the property. The Court stated the ‘Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that an easement imposed by the government without permission by the property owner constitutes a taking’ under the constitution. The ruling stated that an easement with an alleged ‘forged signature does not render the easement any less of a taking’ of property.
“The lawsuit alleged that defendants intentionally violated Offutt’s constitutional rights under the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. Under the First Amendment, government officials may not retaliate against citizens based on their political activity. The Fifth Amendment requires that the government justly compensate individuals when taking property for public use. The Fourteenth Amendment protects individuals and businesses from being irrationally singled out by the government. Under the federal rules of civil procedure, the defendants are required to answer the complaint in writing approximately 30 days. Thereafter, the case will proceed to the discovery where the evidence on the claims will be collected by the parties. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois and captioned as Paul Offutt et al. v. the City of Danville, et al., Case No 22 C 2027.”
Williams called the lawsuit “ludicrous” and said his and Offutt’s reputations precede them.
“I believe justice will be served,” Williams added. He also said he believes the lawsuit should be thrown out.
He said in his position as mayor, he’s supported many people who don’t support him, financially and otherwise.
Kulwin said they are looking forward to getting to the bottom of the case.
An answer from the city is next due by mid-January. The lawsuit’s next discovery phase would include documents asked between the parties and testimony taken from witnesses.
“To me, I think the case involves some serious allegations of the abuse of government power against a citizen,” Kulwin said.
Why does the city have a forged easement in its possession, Kulwin asked, saying it’s not Offutt’s signature.
Kulwin said the truth is, Williams has a long history in Danville, just as Offutt does, to some degree. Kulwin thinks they’re going to get to the bottom of why Offutt and his business has been treated differently than others.
Kari Lake, a candidate for governor in Arizona, failed in her bid during the November election. But Lake, like too many others lately, won’t accept the results of the election — mainly because she lost.
Lake filed a lawsuit alleging wrongdoing by somebody doing something. She offered no evidence other than her opinion that something had cost her the election and allegations already disproven in other jurisdictions. Actually, the voters made that decision, but Lake can’t sue all of them.
An Arizona judge has thrown out Lake’s lawsuit. Like the 70 or so lawsuits filed by former President Donald Trump after he lost the 2020 election, the judge could find no substantiated evidence of anything going wrong during the election. Not a single lawsuit in any state proved election results to be compromised.
Lake has appealed that decision, and she likely will lose again.
The lawsuits filed by the losers who can’t accept defeat do more than clog the courts with nonsense. The steady chorus of “cheat, cheat, cheat” by those desperate to cling to the spotlight can influence some people and erode their confidence in America’s election process. Over time, that loss of confidence could lead to the demise of our republic.
It’s a lot like the old fable of the shepherd boy who falsely cried “Wolf!” over and over. When a wolf actually did attack his flock, no one came to help because they no longer believed him.
Officials who lie to the public don’t want to lead people. They want to control people. One of the core factors of the United States is the public’s trust in the election process. When that trust is eroded by losers making false claims over and over, our republic can fail.
Congress did recently take a few steps in an effort to prevent future situations such as the riot on Jan. 6, 2021, where the mob invaded the U.S. Capitol in the incorrect belief that the 2020 election had been compromised.
The bipartisan bill’s changes include making the vice president’s role a largely ceremonial one in certifying results from the Electoral College. The law also made it more difficult for state legislatures from naming their own sets of federal electors while ignoring their respective state’s election results. Governors must now sign off on voter-selected electors.
Those moves will help, but there also should be some discussion about eliminating the Electoral College and use the nation’s total popular vote to select the president. Two of the past four presidents took office despite losing the popular vote, meaning they won despite not receiving a majority of votes. But that’s an argument for another time.
No legitimate challenge to election results should be stopped. When evidence of corruption or manipulation can be substantiated, those challenges should be heard. But state and federal lawmakers should consider creating substantial penalties for false election claims made not because of real problems but only because a candidate lost. They should act before a real wolf comes calling.
NEW YORK, Dec. 23, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Rent the Runway, Inc. (“Rent the Runway” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: RENT) in the United States District Court of Eastern New York on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Rent the Runway securities pursuant to the company’s October 2021 IPO, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”). Investors have until January 13, 2023 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
Click here to participate in the action.
RTR is an e-commerce platform that allows users to rent, subscribe, or buy designer apparel and accessories. RTR offers high-end apparel such as evening wear and accessories, as well as more causal and mixed-use items such as ready-to-wear, workwear, denim, maternity, outerwear, blouses, knitwear, loungewear, jewelry, handbags, activewear, ski wear, home goods, and kidswear. RTR sources its products from over 750 luxury brand partners.
Customers can access RTR’s designer inventory in several ways. RTR gives customers ongoing access to its “unlimited closet” through its subscription offerings or the ability to rent a-la-carte through its “reserve offerings.” Subscribers and customers also have the ability to buy RTR products through its “resale offering.” In the first six months of 2021, subscription revenue represented 83% of RTR’s total revenue, reserve rental revenue represented 7.6% of RTR’s total revenue, and resale revenue represented 9.4% of RTR’s total revenue.
RTR’s business was severely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, which began in March 2020. As a luxury clothing provider, RTR’s sales and services suffered from stay-at-home orders and the decline in opportunities for social gatherings among its customer base. Between its fiscal 2019 and 2020, RTR’s revenues declined nearly 40% to $157.5 million and its total active subscribers declined nearly 60% to 54,797 active subscribers.1
In the months leading up to the IPO, RTR claimed that it was experiencing a business resurgence as concerns about the COVID-19 pandemic lessened, lockdown orders ceased, and its customers engaged in more social outings. For example, the Company stated that it had grown to 111,732 active subscribers as of September 30, 2021, representing 104% growth since the beginning of fiscal year 2021. Similarly, the Registration Statement stated that during RTR’s second quarter of 2021 (the quarter immediately prior to the IPO) quarterly revenues had grown to $46.7 million, representing 62% growth year-over-year.
On October 4, 2021, the Company filed with the SEC a registration statement on Form S-1 for the IPO, which, after several amendments, was declared effective on October 26, 2021 (the “Registration Statement”). On October 27, 2021, the Company filed with the SEC a prospectus for the IPO on Form 424B4, which incorporated and formed part of the Registration Statement (the “Prospectus”). The Registration Statement and Prospectus were used to sell to the investing public 17 million shares of RTR Class A common stock at $21 per share for $357 million in gross offering proceeds, which was used in substantial part to pay back debt from certain of the Company’s private equity backers.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Rent the Runway shares and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you.
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com
NEW YORK, Nov. 27, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Unisys Corporation (NYSE: UIS), Rent the Runway, Inc. (NASDAQ: RENT), Core Scientific, Inc. (NADAQ: CORZ), and Bird Global, Inc. (NYSE: BRDS). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided.
Unisys Corporation (NYSE: UIS)
On November 8, 2022, Unisys disclosed that it would not be able to timely file its third quarter 2022 financial results due to an internal investigation regarding “certain disclosure controls and procedures matters, including, but not limited to, the dissemination and communication of information within certain parts of the organization.” The Company stated that it expects that the results of the investigation may determine that there are “one or more material weaknesses” in its internal control over financial reporting.
On this news, the Company’s stock fell as much as 49% during intraday trading on November 8, 2022, thereby injuring investors.
For more information on the Unisys investigation go to: https://bespc.com/cases/UIS
Rent the Runway, Inc. (NASDAQ: RENT)
Class Period: pursuant to the company’s October 2021 IPO
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 13, 2023
RTR is an e-commerce platform that allows users to rent, subscribe, or buy designer apparel and accessories. RTR offers high-end apparel such as evening wear and accessories, as well as more causal and mixed-use items such as ready-to-wear, workwear, denim, maternity, outerwear, blouses, knitwear, loungewear, jewelry, handbags, activewear, ski wear, home goods, and kidswear. RTR sources its products from over 750 luxury brand partners.
Customers can access RTR’s designer inventory in several ways. RTR gives customers ongoing access to its “unlimited closet” through its subscription offerings or the ability to rent a-la-carte through its “reserve offerings.” Subscribers and customers also have the ability to buy RTR products through its “resale offering.” In the first six months of 2021, subscription revenue represented 83% of RTR’s total revenue, reserve rental revenue represented 7.6% of RTR’s total revenue, and resale revenue represented 9.4% of RTR’s total revenue.
RTR’s business was severely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, which began in March 2020. As a luxury clothing provider, RTR’s sales and services suffered from stay-athome orders and the decline in opportunities for social gatherings among its customer base. Between its fiscal 2019 and 2020, RTR’s revenues declined nearly 40% to $157.5 million and its total active subscribers declined nearly 60% to 54,797 active subscribers.
In the months leading up to the IPO, RTR claimed that it was experiencing a business resurgence as concerns about the COVID-19 pandemic lessened, lockdown orders ceased, and its customers engaged in more social outings. For example, the Company stated that it had grown to 111,732 active subscribers as of September 30, 2021, representing 104% growth since the beginning of fiscal year 2021. Similarly, the Registration Statement stated that during RTR’s second quarter of 2021 (the quarter immediately prior to the IPO) quarterly revenues had grown to $46.7 million, representing 62% growth year-over-year.
On October 4, 2021, the Company filed with the SEC a registration statement on Form S-1 for the IPO, which, after several amendments, was declared effective on October 26, 2021 (the “Registration Statement”). On October 27, 2021, the Company filed with the SEC a prospectus for the IPO on Form 424B4, which incorporated and formed part of the Registration Statement (the “Prospectus”). The Registration Statement and Prospectus were used to sell to the investing public 17 million shares of RTR Class A common stock at $21 per share for $357 million in gross offering proceeds, which was used in substantial part to pay back debt from certain of the Company’s private equity backers.
For more information on the Rent the Runway class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/RENT
Core Scientific, Inc. (NADAQ: CORZ)
Class Period: January 3, 2022 – October 26, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 13, 2023
Core Scientific is a blockchain computing data center provider and digital asset mining company. It mines digital assets for its own account and provides hosting services for other large-scale miners. It became a public company via business combination with Power & Digital Infrastructure Acquisition Corp. (“XPDI”) consummated on January 19, 2022 (the “Business Combination”).
On March 3, 2022, Culper Research published a report about Core Scientific alleging, among other things, that the Company had overstated its profitability and that the Company’s largest customer lacked the financial resources to deliver the rigs pursuant to its contract.
On this news, Core Scientific’s stock fell $0.72, or 9.4%, to close at $6.98 on March 3, 2022, thereby injuring investors.
On September 28, 2022, Celsius Network LLC and related entities filed a motion to enforce the automatic stay and for civil contempt in bankruptcy proceedings alleging that Core Scientific “has knowingly and repeatedly violated the automatic stay provisions” by refusing to perform its contractual obligations, threatening to terminate the companies’ agreement, and adding improper surcharges.
On this news, Core Scientific’s stock price fell $0.15, or 10.3%, to close at $1.30 on September 29, 2022, thereby injuring investors.
On October 27, 2022, before the market opened, Core Scientific disclosed that “given the uncertainty regarding the Company’s financial condition, substantial doubt exists about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern,” and that it is exploring alternatives to its capital structure. Moreover, the Company held 24 bitcoins, compared to 1,051 bitcoins as of September 30, 2022.
On this news, Core Scientific’s stock fell $0.789, or 78.1%, to close at $0.221 per share on October 27, 2022, on unusually high trading volume.
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, due in part to the expiration of a favorable pricing agreement, the Company was experiencing increasing power costs; (2) that the Company’s largest customer, Gryphon, lacked the financial resources to purchase the necessary miner rigs for Core Scientific to host; (3) that the Company was not providing hosting services to Celsius as required by their contract; (4) that the Company had implemented an improper surcharge to pass through power costs to Celsius; (5) that, as a result of the foregoing alleged breaches of contract, the Company was reasonably likely to incur liability to defend itself against Celsius; (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s profitability would be adversely impacted; (7) that, as a result, there was likely substantial doubt as to the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern; (8) and that as a result of the foregoing, Defendant’s positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
For more information on the Enviva class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/CORZ
Bird Global, Inc. (NYSE: BRDS)
Class Period: May 14, 2021 – November 14, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 17, 2023
On November 14, 2022, Bird filed attached to a Form 8-K announcing it would restate its consolidated financial statements for certain periods due to issues concerning the recognition of Sharing Revenue. In pertinent part, the press release stated:
On November 11, 2022, the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors (the “Audit Committee”) of Bird Global, Inc. (the “Company”), after discussion with management, determined that (i) the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2021 and 2020, and for the years then ended, and quarterly periods within those years, included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on March 15, 2022, (ii) its condensed consolidated financial statements as of March 31, 2022, and for the three months then ended, included in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed with the SEC on May 16, 2022 and (iii) its condensed consolidated financial statements as of June 30, 2022, and for the three and six months then ended, included in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed with the SEC on August 15, 2022 (collectively, the “Original Filings”, and each such quarterly or annual period covered therein, an “impacted period”), should no longer be relied upon. Similarly, any previously furnished or filed reports, related earnings releases, investor presentations or similar communications of the Company describing the Company’s financial results contained in the Original Filings should no longer be relied upon. The determination results from an error identified in connection with the preparation of the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements as of September 30, 2022, and the three and nine months then ended, related to its business system configuration that impacted the recognition of revenue on certain trips completed by customers of its Sharing business (“Rides”) for which collectability was not probable. Specifically, for certain customers with insufficient preloaded “wallet” balances, the Company’s business systems recorded revenue for uncollected balances following the completion of certain Rides that should not have been recorded. The Company believes the error resulted in an overstatement of Sharing revenue in the consolidated statements of operations for the impacted periods and an understatement of deferred revenue in the consolidated balance sheets as of the end of each impacted period. The Company intends to amend the Original Filings as soon as practicable. In connection with the restatement, management has reevaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures. Management has concluded that the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures are not effective at a reasonable assurance level, due to a material weakness in its internal control over financial reporting related to the ineffective design of controls around its business systems that resulted in the recording of revenue for uncollected balances following the completion of certain Rides that should not have been recorded. The Company is in the process of designing and implementing controls to remediate these deficiencies. (Emphasis added.)
On this news, share prices of Bird plummeted $0.069 per share, or over 15%, from the prior trading date to close on November 14, 2022, at $0.364 per share, damaging investors.
As a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company’s securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages.
For more information on the Bird class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/BRDS
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com
