In a momentous development on June 1, 2022, United States District Judge Michael T. Liburdi delivered a crucial decision, denying in substantial part Magellan Health Inc.’s second motion to dismiss, signaling a crucial juncture in the ongoing data breach litigation. Magellan Health had sought to dismiss the Second Amended Consolidated Complaint (SACC) on October 26, 2021, citing a failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The recent ruling by the Court indicates a meticulous examination of the presented arguments.​

While the decision led to the dismissal of certain parties and claims from the litigation, the Court rejected Magellan’s motion concerning specific negligence claims, unjust enrichment claims, and various state law claims. This landmark ruling not only shapes the trajectory of the ongoing legal battle but also establishes a precedent for the involved parties and the broader legal landscape.​

The case, initiated by the Kehoe Law Firm, revolves around a class action lawsuit against Magellan Health, Inc., alleging the inadequate safeguarding of personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) belonging to its current and former employees, as well as health plan participants. The lawsuit follows a targeted cyberattack and data breach, affecting plaintiffs and over 365,000 class members.​

Compromised information, encompassing names, contact details, employee ID numbers, W-2 or 1099 information, Social Security Numbers, taxpayer identification numbers, treatment details, health insurance account information, member IDs, and other health-related data, is alleged to be in the possession of cyberthieves. The complaint contends that Magellan Health’s negligent maintenance of this sensitive information on its computer network left it vulnerable to cyberattacks. 

Michael Yarnoff, Partner at Kehoe Law Firm, underscored the significance of personal information and corporations’ responsibility to protect it, stating, “In an era where personal data is increasingly under threat, corporations must prioritize the protection of sensitive information. The allegations against Magellan Health underscore the importance of robust cybersecurity measures to safeguard personal and health-related details.” 

For more information about Kehoe Law Firm and its involvement in this matter, please contact Michael Yarnoff at [email protected] or call (215) 792-6676.

In a groundbreaking development, a federal judge has refused to dismiss significant claims in the Corvette Cracked Wheels Lawsuit, paving the way for justice in the ongoing legal battle against General Motors (GM). The lawsuit alleges that certain Chevrolet Corvette models suffer from cracked, bent, and warped wheels, and the recent decision by the judge ensures that many of the claims will move forward.​

The class action lawsuit, which includes 2015-19 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 and 2017-2019 Chevrolet Corvette Grand Sport cars, alleges GM of equipped the vehicles with cast aluminum alloy wheels unable to withstand the torque and power generated by the cars. The plaintiffs argue that the cast wheels are too weak, and GM allegedly knew that forged rims would have been a more suitable choice. Additionally, the lawsuit claims GM used insufficient material to save on suspension weight, leading to deformed and cracked wheels that could cost thousands of dollars to replace.​

Michael Yarnoff, Partner with the Kehoe Law Firm, expressed his satisfaction with the judge’s decision, stating, “We are very pleased with the court’s ruling, which acknowledges the validity of our claims and allows us to continue seeking justice on behalf of the affected Corvette owners.”​

The lawsuit alleges that Corvette owners experience wobbling and vibrations when the rims deform, and cracks in the wheels can lead to loss of air pressure, making the cars unsafe. The plaintiffs contend that GM replaces the defective wheels with equally defective ones, putting owners at continued risk.

GM’s attempts to dismiss the lawsuit faced resistance from the judge, who ruled against the automaker’s arguments, allowing express warranty claims, Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) claims, and other crucial claims to proceed. Despite GM’s motion to dismiss MMWA claims based on the number of plaintiffs, the judge permitted the claims to move forward with the existing eighteen plaintiffs.​

The legal battle, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, is gaining momentum as the judge’s decision marks a pivotal moment for the Corvette owners seeking resolution for their wheel-related issues. Kehoe Law Firm remains committed to representing the interests of the affected consumers and seeks a fair resolution for those impacted by the alleged defects.​

For more information about Kehoe Law Firm and its involvement in this matter, please contact Michael Yarnoff at [email protected] or call (215) 792-6676.

The Kehoe Law Firm, a leading national law firm specializing in antitrust and consumer protection litigation, has filed a civil antitrust action against Google under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The class action complaint, filed on behalf of the Sterling International Consulting Group and those similarly situated, alleges that Google has engaged in an anticompetitive scheme to dominate the Publisher Ad Server Market, resulting in artificially inflated prices for publisher ad server services.​

The plaintiff in this case operates a website that sells digital display ads to advertisers. The complaint contends that Google has established and maintained a monopoly in the Publisher Ad Server Market, giving it the power to manipulate prices charged to Publishers, such as the plaintiffs.​

According to John A. Kehoe, a partner at the Kehoe Law Firm, “Google’s anticompetitive actions have had a significant impact on the Publisher Ad Server Market, leading to higher costs for Publishers and limiting their options. This case aims to address the harm caused by Google’s dominance and seeks compensatory and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act.”​

The complaint outlines Google’s control over various levels of the Ad Tech Stack, including publisher ad server products, ad exchange, ad network, and advertiser ad server. It alleges that Google’s series of anticompetitive acts, dating back to at least 2007, have illegally enhanced and maintained its dominant position in the Publisher Ad Server Market.​

The complaint alleges that Google’s acquisitions, exclusionary conduct, and measures to impair potential rivals have stifled competition and harmed plaintiffs and members of the proposed class. The complaint seeks compensatory and injunctive relief for violations of the Sherman Act.

For more information about Kehoe Law Firm and its involvement in this matter, please contact John A. Kehoe at [email protected] or call (215) 792-6676.

The Kehoe Law Firm, a leading national law firm specializing in antitrust and consumer protection litigation, has filed a civil antitrust action against Google under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The class action complaint, filed on behalf of the Sterling International Consulting Group and those similarly situated, alleges that Google has engaged in an anticompetitive scheme to dominate the Publisher Ad Server Market, resulting in artificially inflated prices for publisher ad server services.​

The plaintiff in this case operates a website that sells digital display ads to advertisers. The complaint contends that Google has established and maintained a monopoly in the Publisher Ad Server Market, giving it the power to manipulate prices charged to Publishers, such as the plaintiffs.​

According to John A. Kehoe, a partner at the Kehoe Law Firm, “Google’s anticompetitive actions have had a significant impact on the Publisher Ad Server Market, leading to higher costs for Publishers and limiting their options. This case aims to address the harm caused by Google’s dominance and seeks compensatory and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act.”​

The complaint outlines Google’s control over various levels of the Ad Tech Stack, including publisher ad server products, ad exchange, ad network, and advertiser ad server. It alleges that Google’s series of anticompetitive acts, dating back to at least 2007, have illegally enhanced and maintained its dominant position in the Publisher Ad Server Market.​

The complaint alleges that Google’s acquisitions, exclusionary conduct, and measures to impair potential rivals have stifled competition and harmed plaintiffs and members of the proposed class. The complaint seeks compensatory and injunctive relief for violations of the Sherman Act.

For more information about Kehoe Law Firm and its involvement in this matter, please contact John A. Kehoe at [email protected] or call (215) 792-6676.

Kehoe Law Firm is pleased to announce that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has granted preliminary approval for the proposed settlement in the Mexican Government Bonds Antitrust Litigation.​

The case, brought on behalf of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority Pension Plan (“SEPTA”), among others, alleges that from January 1, 2006, through April 19, 2017, inclusive, various entities conspired to fix the prices for Mexican Government Bonds issued by the Mexican government through the Bank of Mexico (“Banxico”). 

According to a complaint filed in the Southern District of New York, each defendant transacted in price-fixed Mexican Government Bonds (“MGBs”) at artificial prices with uninformed market participants like SEPTA and the Class. Defendants allegedly did so through interrelated means of manipulation. 

Partner John A. Kehoe expressed his satisfaction in being part of the case on behalf of the Plaintiffs, stating, “We are pleased to have reached this partial settlement in the Mexican Government Bonds Antitrust Litigation. The preliminary approval of the proposed settlement is a positive step toward achieving justice for our clients and the Settlement Class.”​

The settlement class includes all persons who entered a MGB transaction between January 1, 2006, and April 19, 2017. The Settlement, subject to final approval, involves the certification and maintenance of the settlement class as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Settling defendants include Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Barclays Capital Securities Limited, Barclays Bank México, S.A., Institución de Banca Múltiple, Grupo Financiero Barclays México, and Grupo Financiero Barclays México, S.A. de C.V. (collectively “ Barclays” ) and JPMorgan Chase & Co., J.P. Morgan Broker-Dealer Holdings Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, Banco J.P. Morgan, S.A. Institución de Banca Múltiple, J.P. Morgan Grupo Financiero, and J.P. Morgan Securities plc.​

Importantly, many other defendants have not joined in the settlement, including entities related to Bank of America, Citibank, Deutsche Bank, and HSBC, among others. For further information about the case, please visit www.MGBAntitrustSettlement.com.​

For more information about Kehoe Law Firm and its involvement in this matter, please contact John A. Kehoe at [email protected] or call (215) 792-6676.

The Kehoe Law Firm is delighted to announce that Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), along with co-plaintiffs Oklahoma Firefighters Pension Retirement System, Electrical Workers Pension Fund Local 103, I.B.E.W., Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority Pension Plan, Metropolitan Transportation Authority Defined Benefit Pension Plan Master Trust, Boston Retirement System, Government Employees Retirement System of the Virgin Islands, and United Food and Commercial Workers Union and Participating Food Industry Employers Tri-State Pension Fund (collectively “Plaintiffs”), has filed a Second Amended Complaint in the Mexican Government Bonds antitrust litigation.​

The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, represents Plaintiffs and all individuals involved in a Mexican Government Bond (“MGB”) transaction between January 1, 2006, and April 19, 2017. It alleges that during this period, the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix the prices for Mexican Government Bonds issued by the Mexican government through the Bank of Mexico (“Banxico”). 

The complaint asserts that the defendants executed transactions involving pricefixed MGBs at artificial prices, impacting uninformed market participants such as Plaintiffs and the Class. The alleged manipulation was reportedly conducted through various interconnected means.​

KLF Partner John A. Kehoe expressed his satisfaction with the progress, stating, “We are extremely pleased to file the Second Amended Complaint on behalf of our esteemed clients, including SEPTA. This collective action seeks justice for all those affected by the alleged antitrust violations related to Mexican Government Bonds. Furthermore, it is gratifying to report that we have already achieved a partial settlement, notably with entities associated with Barclays PLC and JP Morgan Chase & Co., who have committed $20.7 million to a settlement fund pending final court approval.”​

A copy of the complaint is available here: https://www.mgbantitrustsettlement.com/​

For more information about Kehoe Law Firm and its involvement in this matter, please contact John A. Kehoe at [email protected] or call (215) 792-6676.