/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200908.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, September 8, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 180

                            Headlines

ADT LLC: Faces Ingram TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
AIRBUS SE: Schall Law Firm Reminds of October 5 Deadline
ALTERYX INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action
ALTERYX INC: Schall Law Firm Announces Securities Class Action
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Kahn Swick Reminds of October 19 Deadline

AMP: Piper Alderman Prepares to Launch Class Action
APPLE INC: Settles iPhone "Batterygate" Class Action
APPLIED THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims
ARCHSTONE-SMITH: 10th Cir. Vacates $480K Costs Award in Stender
BANK OF AMERICA: November 19 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

BEF FOODS: Court Dismisses Sarr's Mashed Potatoes Suit
BENDIGO AND ADELAIDE: To Face Fresh Investor Class Action
C.R. ENGLAND: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages Under FLSA, Carter Says
CABOT OIL: Rosen Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
CANADA: Settlement Reached in 2010 G20 Summit Class Action

CANADIAN COUNTY, OK: Arndt Appeals W.D. Okla. Ruling to 10th Cir.
CANISIUS COLLEGE: Student Files Class Action Over Tuition Fees
CANNATOPIA GARDENS: Ledesma Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
CINCINNATI CAPITAL: Court Enters Orders on Bids to Dismiss Lee Suit
CIOX HEALTH: Deming Appeals D. Mont. Ruling to Ninth Circuit

COMMONWEALTH EDISON: Faces Class Suit Over Racketeering Conspiracy
DETOX MARKET: Web Site Inaccessible to Blinds, Hecht Suit Claims
DORAL INVESTORS: Court Denies Class Certification in Gaston
DROPBOX INC: Deinnocentis Case Consolidated With Pikal Action
EASTMAN KODAK: Gibbs Law Investigates Securities Law Violations

EASTMAN KODAK: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Class Action
EASTMAN KODAK: Klein Law Firm Reminds of Oct. 13 Deadline
EASTMAN KODAK: RM LAW Announces Securities Class Action
ELI LILLY: 9th Cir. Upholds Denial to Reopen Strafford Case
ENAGIC USA: Court Awards $1.3MM in Counsel Fees in Makaron Suit

ENERGY RECOVERY: Pomerantz Law Firm Probes Shareholders Claims
ERP FEDERAL: Fails to Provide Healthcare Benefits, Jeffery Claims
ERROL ULLOA: Court Denies Bid to Retain $16.8K Wells Fargo Refund
FASTLY INC: Kirby McInerney Announces Securities Class Action
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Faces More Class Actions Over Bribery Scandal

FIRSTENERGY CORP: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Pomerantz Law Files Securities Class Action
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Rosen Law Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
FLAGSHIP CREDIT: Court Denies Final OK on $4MM Deal in Ward Action

FLAMES EATERY: Faces Luna Labor Suit in Calif. Over Unpaid Wages
FMFS OF VS: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Sinclair Says
GEO GROUP: Schall Law Announces Securities Class Action
GERMANTOWN SCHOOL: Denial of Counsel Fees in Choinsky Upheld
HAN DYNASTY: Wins Summary Judgment in Yeh Labor Suit

HDFC BANK: Faces Securities Class Actions
HOTELS.COM: 5th Cir. Affirms $2.2MM Bill of Costs v. San Antonio
HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Settles ERISA Class Action for $10.5MM
INSPERITY INC: Bernstein Liebhard LLP Reminds of Sept. 21 Deadline
INTACT INSURANCE: Sued Over Denied Business Interruption Coverage

INTEL CORP: Robbins LLP Files Securities Suit
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Court Narrows Claims in Arroyo Class Action
INVENTURE FOODS: Class Action Over "Potato Skins" Snack Settled
J2 GLOBAL INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
JAMES HARDIE: Class Action Hearing Begins in Wellington Court

KIRKLAND LAKE: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing
LANDS' END: Court Dismisses Gorss Motel TCPA Suit
LOGOMARK INC: Appeals Court Upholds Arbitration in Richard
LONGFIN CORP: Oct. 1 Opt-Out Deadline Set in Securities Litigation
MICHIGAN: Schiff Hardin Represents Period Equity in Class Action

MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Court Sets Bench Trial in Schuman to Feb 2021
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Flam Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
NESTLE: Seeks Dismissal of Candy Box "Slack Fill" Class Action
NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Court Tosses Travel Insurance Class Action
NPAS SOLUTIONS: Class Claims in Rennick Dismissed Without Prejudice

NUMEN FASHION: Fischler Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
ONESPAN INC: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Oct. 19 Deadline
ONESPAN INC: Schall Law Investigates Securities Law Violations
PAUL HESSE: Winnipeg Man Files Class Action in Manitoba
PEANUT PATCH: Web Site Is Inaccessible to Blind, Monegro Claims

PERRIGO CO: Mislabels Acetaminophen for Infants, McFall Claims
PETER HERMAN: Florida Supreme Ct. Remands Atty. Misconduct Suit
PETROCHEM INSULATION: Court Narrows Claims in Mauia Class Action
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing
REGAL CINEMAS: Faces Amara TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Text Ads

RENE FRENCH: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Diaz Claims
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Salinas, Et Al. Dismissed From Blakely Action
SIMMONS BANK: Fails to Obtain Dismissal of Walkingstick Class Suit
STAAR SURGICAL: Federman & Sherwood Announces Class Action
TRUE WORLD: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Conrado Says

UNITED INDUSTRIES: $2.5M Graves Suit Settlement Gets Final Approval
UNITED STATES: Class of Student Borrowers Certified in Vara Suit
VASTA PLATFORM: Pomerantz Law Firm Investigates Investors' Claims
VAXART INC: Schall Law Announces Securities Class Action
VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline

VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Rosen Law Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
WELLS FARGO: Clay Gatens Announces Cy Pres Awards Recipients
WILMINGTON TRUST: Faces Alvarez ERISA Suit Over HAI Stock Losses

                            *********

ADT LLC: Faces Ingram TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
ARMANIA INGRAM, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ADT LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00376
(E.D. Tenn., Aug. 24, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for
its alleged negligent and willful violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff began receiving calls
from the Defendant on her cellular telephone number ending in 8261
beginning in July 2019. She contends that she never given prior
express consent to be called by the Defendant using an automatic
telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice,
which she found out when she answered the Defendant's calls.
Additionally, despite her request several times to the Defendant to
stop calling, but it continued placing calls to her cellular
telephone number for hundreds if not thousands times.

As a result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff
suffered says she concrete harm in the form of lost time spent
fielding the unwanted calls, loss of use of her cellular telephone
as the calls came in, invasion of her privacy, and intrusion upon
her seclusion and time with her family.

ADT LLC designs and manufactures security systems.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin J. Miller, Esq.
          THE HIGGINS FIRM, PLLC
          525 4th Avenue S
          Nashville, TN 37210
          Tel: (615) 353-0930
          Email: ben@higginsfirm.com


AIRBUS SE: Schall Law Firm Reminds of October 5 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Aug. 10 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Airbus SE ("Airbus" or "the Company") (OTC: EADSY, EADSF) for
violations of the federal securities laws.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between February
24, 2016 and July 30, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before October 5, 2020.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Airbus failed to maintain appropriate
protocols to ensure compliance with anti-corruption laws. The
Company engaged in bribery, corruption, and fraud schemes to
enhance its business in defense deals and other areas. The
Company's earnings were derived in part from these illegal schemes,
and therefore were unsustainable. These schemes were likely to cost
the Company billions in settlements and fines and lead to ongoing
governmental oversight. Based on these facts, the Company's public
statements were false and materially misleading throughout the
class period. When the market learned the truth about Airbus,
investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.

Contacts:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]


ALTERYX INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of the Alteryx, Inc. (NYSE: AYX) between May 6, 2020 and
August 6, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks
to recover damages for Alteryx investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the Alteryx class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1933.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company was unable to close large deals within the
quarter and deals were pushed out to subsequent quarters or
downsized; (2) as a result, Alteryx increasingly relied on adoption
licenses to attract new customers; (3) as a result and due to the
nature of adoption licenses, the Company's revenue was reasonably
likely to decline; and (4) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October
19, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1933.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 cases@rosenlegal.com [GN]

ALTERYX INC: Schall Law Firm Announces Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Alteryx,
Inc. ("Alteryx" or "the Company") (NYSE:AYX) for violations of
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between May 6,
2020 and August 6, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before October 19, 2020.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Alteryx was incapable of closing large
deals, which were typically downsized or pushed into future
quarters. As a result, the Company relied on adoption licenses to
drive new business. This reliance on adoption was likely to result
in decreased revenues. Based on these facts, the Company's public
statements were false and materially misleading throughout the
class period. When the market learned the truth about Alteryx,
investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation. [GN]

AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Kahn Swick Reminds of October 19 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until October 19, 2020 to file lead plaintiff
applications in a securities class action lawsuit against American
Electric Power, Inc. ("AEP") (NYSE: AEP), if they purchased the
Company's securities between November 2, 2016 and July 24, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period").  This action is pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

What You May Do

If you purchased securities of AEP and would like to discuss your
legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to
recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost
to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at
1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-aep/ to learn more. If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by October 19, 2020.

About the Lawsuit

AEP and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

The alleged false and misleading statements and omissions include,
but are not limited to, that: (i) the Company was involved in the
"the largest public corruption case in Ohio history"; (ii) the
Company secretly funneled significant funds to political operatives
to bribe politicians to pass legislation beneficial to the Company
("HB6"); (iii) the Company partially funded a massive, misleading
advertising campaign to support HB6 and concealed its involvement
via a web of dark money entities and front companies; (iv) the
Company aided efforts to undermine a ballot initiative to repeal
HB6; (v) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' Class Period
statements regarding the Company's regulatory and legislative
efforts were materially false and misleading; (vi) as a result of
the foregoing, the Company would face increased scrutiny; (vii) the
Company was subject to undisclosed risk of reputational, legal and
financial harm; (viii) the bribery scheme would jeopardize the
benefits the Company sought by HB6; (ix) contrary to the Company's
repeated public statements regarding a transition to clean energy,
it sought a dirty energy bailout; (x) contrary to the Company's
repeated public statements regarding protection of its customers'
interests, the Company sought an extra and state-mandated surcharge
on its customers' bills; and (xi) as a result of the foregoing,
AEP's financial statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On this news, the price of AEP's shares plummeted.

The case is Nickerson v. American Electric Power, Inc., No.
20-cv-4243.

About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients
– including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors – in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.

To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.

         Lewis Kahn
         Managing Partner
         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
         New Orleans, LA 70163
         Tel No: 1-877-515-1850
         E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN]

AMP: Piper Alderman Prepares to Launch Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Aleks Vickovich, writing for Financial Review, reports that
mid-tier law firm Piper Alderman is preparing to launch class
action lawsuits against financial institutions including AMP, the
Commonwealth Bank and Westpac for payment of conflicted
remuneration to financial advisers.

It is understood a number of suits against financial services
providers are imminent relating to alleged contraventions of the
laws brought under the Rudd-Gillard Labor government's Future of
Financial Advice (FoFA) reforms in 2012.

The controversial reforms banned the payment of investment
commissions, introduced a duty for financial advisers to act in the
best interests of clients and added a raft of disclosure and
administrative requirements.

In a statement, Piper Alderman confirmed it is planning to bring a
"series of class actions against a number of major financial
services institutions, including AMP, CBA and Westpac" relating to
potential breaches of FoFA and evidence uncovered by the Hayne
royal commission.

The actions are "designed to compensate customers of three
institutions who were charged commissions in contravention of the
law", the statement said.

They will be open to consumers who purchased financial products on
the advice of a financial planner authorised by licensees including
AMP Financial Planning, AMP's Hillross and Charter businesses, and
Commonwealth Financial Planning.

Former customers of defunct licensees such as Westpac's Securitor
and Magnitude subsidiaries and CBA's troubled Financial Wisdom
brand, all of which were closed as part of the big banks' partial
exit from the wealth management industry, are also being encouraged
to register.

Count Financial, which CBA sold to ASX-listed wealth and accounting
group CountPlus for just $2.5 million after buying it for $373
million from Rich Lister Barry Lambert in 2011, is also on the
hook.

The actions will be bankrolled by London-headquartered Woodsford
Litigation Funding, which defended the role of third-party funders
in facilitating access to justice for aggrieved consumers.

"In this era of increased focus on, and regulatory reform of,
litigation funding in Australia, it bears remembering that class
actions of this nature come about because of the serious misconduct
of banks and other large corporations, including the misconduct
that was exposed by the royal commission," said Woodsford chief
investment officer Charlie Morris.

"Litigation funding simply makes it financially possible for
actions of this nature to be advanced and for the victims of that
misconduct to be duly compensated."

The comments follow a proposal by the Morrison government to
reregulate the business of litigation funding, requiring financiers
of class actions to hold a financial services licence.

'Escalating cost'
AMP -- which is subject to at least three active class actions and
has been threatened with a bevy of others -- has been critical of
the litigation funding industry.

"[Litigation funders] have created an escalating cost of doing
business in Australia and it is reflected in professional indemnity
insurance, it will result in job losses and higher costs passed on
to consumers," AMP chief executive Francesco De Ferrari told a
parliamentary hearing in July. "This is something I really worry
about."

The corporate regulator took action against CBA and its current and
closed wealth subsidiaries in January for what was alleged to be an
almost immeasurable number of breaches of the FoFA laws after it
missold more than 390,000 superannuation accounts to customers,
generating more than $22 million in payments.

The matter was a referral from the royal commission, which
concluded the conduct may have breached Sections 963E and 963K of
the Corporations Act, and rejected the bank's response that the
super products were sold according to a "balanced scorecard".

AMP, CBA and Westpac declined to comment as they have not yet been
served with any statement of claim. [GN]


APPLE INC: Settles iPhone "Batterygate" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Eli Blumenthal, writing for CNET, reports that still have your
original iPhone SE or an iPhone 6, 6S, 7 or one of the Plus models?
If you live in the US, you may be able to get up to $25 back from
Apple as part of a class-action settlement. What is "batterygate?"
In 2017 Apple revealed that it slows down iPhones as they age in
order to preserve battery life. That news didn't sit well with a
lot of people, who were unaware that the company's iOS software was
doing this automatically. As a result, Apple apologized and made it
easier to monitor battery health and, for a time, it also cut the
prices for battery replacements.

It still didn't stop lawsuits, and the iPhone-maker agreed in March
to pay up to $500 million to settle a class-action lawsuit filed
against it, though it also denied any wrongdoing in the case. Now,
those who qualify are able to submit their claims for their share
at a website set up by the US District Court for the Northern
District of California.

According to the site, those looking to file need to be, or were,
"a United States owner of an iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6S, 6S Plus, 7, 7
Plus, and/or SE device that ran iOS 10.2.1 or later" or an iPhone 7
or 7 Plus owner that "ran iOS 11.2 or later before Dec. 21, 2017."


Filers will also need to have had "experienced diminished
performance on your device(s)."

Those looking to make a claim, which could be worth roughly $25 per
device though the exact number will vary depending on the number of
claims filed, will need to do so before Oct. 6, 2020.

While forms could be submitted online or via mail, you'll need to
have your iPhone's serial number to be able to file, which could be
challenging if you've since sold, traded in or upgraded your older
iPhone. A search tool is available to help look up serial numbers
using your Apple ID email address. [GN]


APPLIED THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an
investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Applied Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: APLT) resulting
from allegations that Applied Therapeutics may have issued
materially misleading business information to the investing
public.

On August 17, 2020, Applied Therapeutics disclosed that the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") has placed a partial clinical
hold on the Company's ACTION-Kids study evaluating the Company's
AT-007 product for the treatment of galactosemia. The FDA cited the
need for additional technical information related to ensuring that
every participant in the study has access to the drug's benefits.

On this news, Applied Therapeutics' stock price fell $3.53 per
share, or 12%, to close at $25.71 per share on August 17, 2020.

Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover
losses suffered by Applied Therapeutics' investors. If you
purchased shares of Applied Therapeutics, please visit the firm's
website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1928.htmlto
join the class action. You may also contact Phillip Kim of Rosen
Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. [GN]

ARCHSTONE-SMITH: 10th Cir. Vacates $480K Costs Award in Stender
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit issued an Opinion
vacating the district court's award of costs in the case captioned
STEVEN A. STENDER; INFINITY CLARK STREET OPERATING, LLC, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, and HAROLD SILVER, Plaintiff, v.
ARCHSTONE-SMITH OPERATING TRUST; ARCHSTONE-SMITH TRUST; ERNEST A.
GERARDI, JR.; RUTH ANN M. GILLIS; NED S. HOLMES; ROBERT P. KOGOD;
JAMES H. POLK, III; JOHN C. SCHWEITZER; R. SCOT SELLERS; ROBERT H.
SMITH; STEPHEN R. DEMERITT; CHARLES MUELLER, JR.; CAROLINE BROWER;
MARK SCHUMACHER; ALFRED G. NEELY; LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDINGS, INC.;
TISHMAN SPEYER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION; RIVER HOLDING, LP; RIVER
TRUST ACQUISITION (MD), LLC; RIVER ACQUISITION (MD), LP;
ARCHSTONE-SMITH MULTIFAMILY SERIES I TRUST; ARCHSTONE, INC.;
AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC.; ARCHSTONE ENTERPRISE, LP; ERP
OPERATING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; EQUITY RESIDENTIAL,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 18-1432.

The Tenth Circuit remands the case for entry of a revised costs
award consistent with its opinion.

Disappointed with the outcome of a merger, minority-shareholder
Plaintiffs brought this class action against Defendants for breach
of contract and fiduciary duties. The parties litigated their
dispute for over ten years across proceedings in arbitration and
federal court. In the end, the district court granted summary
judgment in Defendants' favor, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
Defendants then moved for costs under Rule 54(d). The district
court awarded costs totaling $479,666.22, which included
$230,250.01 in costs for electronic legal research and for attorney
travel and lodging under a state cost-shifting statute.

This appeal presents the question whether a federal district court
exercising diversity jurisdiction can award costs under a generally
applicable state law when those costs are prohibited by Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d). The district court used a Colorado
statute governing costs to award more than $230,000 in costs that
would not be allowable under Rule 54(d).

Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1291, the Tenth
Circuit vacate the costs award and remand for recomputation. The
Supreme Court majority in Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A.
v. Allstate Insurance Co., 559 U.S. 393, 399, 130 S.Ct. 1431, 176
L.Ed.2d 311 (2010), held that a valid Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure governs over a state procedural rule if the two rules
"answer the same question." Because Rule 54(d) answers the same
question as the Colorado statute, and Rule 54(d) is not "ultra
vires" (that is, applying it does not exceed statutory
authorization or Congress's rulemaking power), there was no role
left for the Colorado law, rules the Tenth Circuit.

A full-text copy of the Tenth Circuit's May 4, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybbkg49p from Leagle.com.

Daniel Townsend - daniel@guptawessler.com - Gupta Wessler PLLC,
Washington, D.C. ( Mathew W.H. Wessler - matt@guptawessler.com -
Gupta Wessler PLLC, Washington, D.C., and Kenneth A. Wexler -
kaw@wexlerwallace.com - and Kara A. Elgersma -
kae@wexlerwallace.com - Wexler Wallace LLP, Chicago, Illinois, and
Lee Squitieri - lee@sfclasslaw.com - Squitieri & Fearon, LLP, New
York, New York, with him on the briefs), for
Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Adam B. Banks , Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York, New York (
Jonathan D. Polkes , Caroline Hickey Zalka , and Justin D. D'Aloia
, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153
and Frederick J. Baumann - fbaumann@lrrc.com - and Alex C. Myers -
amyers@lrrc.com - Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Denver,
Colorado, with him on the brief) for Defendants-Appellees.

BANK OF AMERICA: November 19 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Berger Montague PC
regarding the Contant v. Bank of America settlement.

What is this About?
This lawsuit alleges Citigroup, MUFG Bank, Standard Chartered,
Societe Generale, Bank of America, Barclays, BNP Paribas, Credit
Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, JPMorgan, Morgan
Stanley, RBC, RBS, and UBS (the "Defendants") conspired to fix
foreign currency ("FX") instrument prices, causing people to be
overcharged when purchasing an FX Instrument from an individual or
entity and that individual or entity transacted in an FX Instrument
directly with a Defendant or one of Defendants' alleged
co-conspirators. Defendants maintain that these claims lack merit.
The settlements are not evidence of liability or wrongdoing. The
Court has not decided who is right.  

Who's Included?
You are if: (1) you purchased an FX Instrument from an individual
or entity from December 1, 2007 through July 17, 2020, and that
individual or entity in turn transacted in an FX Instrument
directly with a Defendant or alleged co conspirator; and (2) you
lived in NY, AZ, CA, FL, IL, MA, MN, or NC at the time of the
transaction.

What do the Settlements provide?
The $23,630,000 Settlement Fund, less court-approved fees and
costs, will be distributed based on the greater of (1) a pro rata
award based on transaction volume of FX Instrument purchases with a
discount applied for purchases after December 31, 2013, or (2) a de
minimis award.

See the Plan of Allocation at FXIndirectAntitrustSettlement.com for
detailed payout information.

How can I get payment?
You can register to participate in the Settlement by submitting an
online registration form at FXIndirectAntitrustSettlement.com or by
submitting a claim form via mail or email. If the Settlements are
granted final approval, you will receive a claim form in the mail
or by email explaining the calculation of Settlement awards for
eligible claimants. Claim forms will also be available on the
settlement website. If you would like to register online to
participate in the Settlement, you can do so now by visiting
FXIndirectAntitrustSettlement.com, clicking "Register," and
completing the registration form. You can also submit documents
showing your FX Instrument purchases to the Settlement
Administrator, Heffler Claims Group, to substantiate your claim.
The deadline to file a claim will be 120 days after the Court
grants final approval of the Settlements.

What are my Rights?
Do nothing--If you do nothing, you will get no settlement proceeds
but will be legally bound by all Court judgments and you won't be
able to sue, or continue to sue, Defendants for the same claims in
this action.

Object--If you want to remain in the Settlements but wish to object
to the Settlements or any aspect of them, you must submit your
objection by October 15, 2020.

Exclude--If you want to maintain your right to sue the Defendants,
you must exclude yourself from the Settlements by October 15, 2020.
If you exclude yourself, you will not get a payment from these
Settlements. If you do not exclude yourself, you will remain a
member of a Settlement Class and your legal claims will be released
even if you do not submit a claim.

When will the Court decide?
A Fairness Hearing will be held on November 19, 2020 at 11:30 a.m.
at the Thurgood Marshall US Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, NY, NY
10007, in Courtroom 1106 to consider whether to approve the
Settlements and fee application. You may, at your own expense,
appear at the hearing, but you do not have to. Class Counsel will
ask the Court to approve an award of attorneys' fees of up to
26.21% of the Settlement Fund, plus service awards for the class
representatives and reimbursement of costs and expenses. The fee
application will be available on the settlement website when filed.


This is only a summary. For more information, including Settlement
Agreements and release of claims, instructions on filing a claim
(when available), and details on how to exclude or object to the
Settlements, visit FXIndirectAntitrustSettlement.com or call
1-844-245-3777. [GN]


BEF FOODS: Court Dismisses Sarr's Mashed Potatoes Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Allyne Ross of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the
case captioned Boubacar Sarr, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BEF Foods, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-6409 (ARR) (RLM). (E.D.N.Y.).

BEF Foods, Inc. manufactures, distributes, markets, labels, and
sells "Bob Evans" brand mashed potatoes. BEF produces the Mashed
Potatoes in several varieties, ranging from "Original," to "Sour
Cream & Chives," to "Loaded".

The plaintiffs, Boubacar Sarr and several other individuals,
commenced the putative class action against the defendant, BEF
Foods, Inc., a manufacturer of refrigerated, ready-to-eat mashed
potatoes.  Plaintiffs allege that BEF represents its mashed
potatoes as containing real butter and fresh potatoes, when in fact
they also contain vegetable oils and preservatives. Plaintiffs
assert various statutory and common law claims against BEF for
misrepresenting their products.

BEF moves to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court holds that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under New
York's consumer protection statute because BEF's alleged
representations are not likely to mislead reasonable consumers.
The Court notes that the ingredient list here does not correct any
misleading information; rather, it confirms that the Mashed
Potatoes contain predominantly butter, as opposed to vegetable oil.
Considering the context of the entire package, the Mashed
Potatoes' "real butter" representations would not mislead a
reasonable consumer.

The Court further holds that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim
for negligent misrepresentation because they do not allege a
special or privity-like relationship with BEF.

The Court also holds that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for
breach of warranty.  Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for breach of
express warranty because BEF's express representations were
accurate and general.  Plaintiffs also fail to state a claim for
breach of the implied warranty of merchantability because they do
not allege that the parties were in privity.  Because the
applicability of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act is not apparent,
the Plaintiffs' claim under this Act is dismissed without
prejudice, the Court holds.

The Court also opines that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for
fraud because their allegations do not raise a strong inference
that BEF acted with the requisite scienter.  In the instant case,
Plaintiffs' allegations do not give rise to a strong inference that
BEF intended to defraud consumers, knew of some falsity, or
recklessly disregarded the truth, the Court holds.

The unjust enrichment claim is dismissed as duplicative, the Court
holds.  In asserting the unjust enrichment cause of action, the
plaintiffs allege that BEF "obtained benefits and monies because
the Products were not as represented and expected, to the detriment
and impoverishment of plaintiff and class members, who seek
restitution and disgorgement of inequitably obtained profits."
This claim merely duplicates the plaintiffs' other claims, which
arise out of the same alleged misrepresentations, the Court notes.

The plaintiffs' remaining theories are dismissed as implausible
with respect to all causes of action, the Court holds.  First, the
plaintiffs assert that the Mashed Potatoes contain less butter than
advertised.  Next, the plaintiffs raise a claim regarding the
Mashed Potatoes' "natural flavor" ingredient.  They seem to be
alleging that the natural flavor derives from or is part of a
margarine ingredient.  Finally, the plaintiffs allege that BEF
received a blended product - one containing butter and vegetable
oils - from its supplier and promoted only part of that blend -
butter - on the front label of the Mashed Potatoes.  The Court
finds that the plaintiffs are speculating on these theories.

In sum, the Court rules that the First Amended Complaint is
dismissed in its entirety.  To the extent that the Complaint
asserts claims under New York law, those claims are dismissed with
prejudice, as the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim. To the
extent that the laws of other states govern, the plaintiffs' claims
are dismissed without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 13, 2020 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/qqvoyjf from
Leagle.com

Boubacar Sarr, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Jared D'Argenio, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Brenda Rodgers, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Chris Dean, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Kay Jackson, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Charles Wiley,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Steve
Altes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Kellie J Nyanjom, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Glenn Liou, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Rachel Parks, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Jennifer Stephens, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated & Paula Leblanc,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Spencer I. Sheehan -
spencer@spencersheehan.com - Sheehan & Associates, P.C.

BEF Foods, Inc., Defendant, represented by August Theodore Horvath
- ahorvath@foleyhoag.com Foley  - Hoag LLP.


BENDIGO AND ADELAIDE: To Face Fresh Investor Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth McArthur, writing for Financial Standard, reports that
enrollments in a fresh class action against Bendigo and Adelaide
Bank on behalf of investors in the Great Southern managed
investment scheme are being finalised.

EQ Legal director Sasha Ivantsoff told Financial Standard that 850
entities including self-managed super funds, trusts and individual
investors had expressed interest in the class action.

Great Southern was an agricultural managed investment scheme which
sold loan packages marketed as Great Southern Finance. These loans
were to purchase forestry and grape growing plots which were said
to be able to produce investment returns.

Great Southern collapsed in 2009 and the loans were transferred to
Bendigo and Adelaide Bank. The amounts that people owed remained
the same.

A settlement was reached in 2014 in relation to a previous class
action over the Great Southern investment scheme, with the court
finding that Bendigo and Adelaide Bank had not clearly breached any
obligations.

The EQ Legal class action alleges that from December 2014 Bendigo
and Adelaide Bank demanded repayment of loans.

But, subsequent court decisions in various states have since found
that loan documents may have been invalid and therefore borrowers
were not obligated to pay.

The EQ Legal action alleges that demands for repayment that Bendigo
and Adelaide Bank made to group members of the first class action
were misleading or deceptive, and as a result EQ Legal argues that
Great Southern borrowers may be able to recoup any payments on
loans made after 11 December 2014.

Ivantsoff estimates this claim could be in the region of $300
million, though he said the actual value of Great Southern loans to
Bendigo and Adelaide Bank is beyond that.

"Each loan was about $78,000 on average. As we understand it there
were 5479 potentially eligible loans," he said.

Each entity is paying $3300 to enrol in the class action, with
Ivantsoff hopeful it could be in court before the end of the year.

One Great Southern investor who is part of the EQ Legal class
action told Financial Standard they were advised into the scheme by
former financial adviser Steve Navra.

The investor, who prefers not to be named, went to Navra for
cashflow advice after being left unable to work due to a severe
injury.

"He found out what you wanted to achieve and promised the world,
said he could achieve exactly that for you. Then you found out
everyone in ended up in the same funds and they were funds he
controlled," they said.

"The plan helped him. It didn't help you."

The investor lost a house in Sydney due to the fallout of Navra's
advice and still owes Bendigo and Adelaide Bank approximately $1
million in interest alone on the Great Southern loans. They
received an insurance payout from IAG of $23,000 for their losses.

Navra went bankrupt in 2012 and has since reinvented himself as a
property and gold investing guru.

SR Group, which is assisting EQ Legal on the Bendigo and Adelaide
Bank class action, has used the losses incurred by Navra's former
clients to argue a compensation scheme of last resort is needed.
[GN]


C.R. ENGLAND: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages Under FLSA, Carter Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES B. CARTER, JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. C.R. ENGLAND, INC., , Case No. 6:20-cv-00108
(W.D. La., Aug. 25, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its
alleged failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a long-haul
over-the-road truck driver transporting goods in a large container
truck belonging to the Defendant with an attached bunk cab.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and similarly situated
long-haul over-the-road truck drivers were routinely on duty for
over 24 hours straight and required to remain at all times with or
near the truck to protect the Defendant's trucks and the contents
of the towed shipping containers/trailers. However, the wages
received by the Plaintiff and the putative Collective Action
members from the Defendant frequently fell short of the minimum
wage when dividing all weekly wages paid by all weekly hours worked
under the FLSA.

C.R. England, Inc., is a trucking company that provides long-haul
trucking services to its customers with locations across the
U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth W. DeJean, Esq.
          Adam R. Credeur, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH W. DEJEAN
          417 W. University Ave.
          P.O. Box 4325
          Lafayette, LA 70502
          Tel: (337) 235-5294
          Fax: (337) 235-1095
          Emails: kwdejean@kwdejean.com
                  adam@kwdejean.com

                - and –

          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          Ricardo Prieto, Esq.
          SHELLIST LAZARS SLOBIN LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: (713) 621-2277
          Fax: (713) 621-0993
          Emails: marbuckle@eeoc.net
                  rprieto@eeoc.net


CABOT OIL: Rosen Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
--------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Aug. 15
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation (NYSE:
COG) between October 23, 2015 and June 12, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Cabot
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Cabot class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com%2Fcases-register-1920.htmlor call
Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Cabot had inadequate environmental controls and
procedures and/or failed to properly mitigate known issues related
to those controls and procedures; (2) as a result, Cabot, among
other issues, failed to fix faulty gas wells, thereby polluting
Pennsylvania's water supplies through stray gas migration; (3) the
foregoing was foreseeably likely to subject Cabot to increased
governmental scrutiny and enforcement, as well as increased
reputational and financial harm; (4) Cabot continually downplayed
its potential civil and/or criminal liabilities with respect to
such environmental matters; and (5) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October
13, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1920.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
[GN]


CANADA: Settlement Reached in 2010 G20 Summit Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Eric K. Gillespie Professional Corporation on Aug. 17 disclosed
that after ten years of court proceedings and negotiations, the
Toronto Police Services Board and representatives of about 1,100
individuals and public demonstrators who were mass arrested at the
2010 G20 Summit in Toronto have signed a comprehensive and
unprecedented class action Settlement Agreement.

The Settlement Agreement is a three-part package that includes
individual financial compensation totalling up to $16.5 million for
those who were mass arrested and detained, a public police
acknowledgement regarding the mass arrests and the conditions in
which protestors where detained, and a police commitment to
detailed changes regarding policing of future public
demonstrations.  The Settlement Agreement also provides for the
expungement of police records of those allegedly wrongfully mass
arrested.

Under the Settlement Agreement, those arrested will be entitled to
monetary compensation of between $5,000 and $24,700 per person,
depending on their experiences.

During the G20 Summit of world leaders held in Toronto in June of
2010, many public demonstrations were organized on public issues
such as climate change, global poverty and other issues.  Thousands
of protestors demonstrated peacefully, but the protests were also
accompanied by deliberate vandalism by some individuals.

Toronto police reacted by encircling large groups of hundreds of
protestors in several locations in downtown Toronto with cordons of
riot police, holding them for hours, and then transferring many of
them to a temporary Detention Centre where hundreds of protestors
were held in extremely harsh conditions. Ontario's Ombudsman at the
time called what happened "the most massive compromise of civil
liberties in Canadian history".

The lawsuit was launched in August of 2010 by Sherry Good as legal
representative of the approximately 1,100 class members, later
joined by Thomas Taylor.  Toronto Police Services objected to the
class action proceedings in court, and class action status was not
finalized until a police appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was
dismissed in November of 2016.

Class Representative Sherry Good said:  "The terrifying way in
which I and 400 others were suddenly and arbitrarily surrounded and
held by riot police on a street corner for four hours in a freezing
downpour changed forever the way I look at police, continues to
give me chills.  I believe that this Settlement Agreement does
bring about some justice, and I hope, and I think, that our freedom
of expression rights will now be better respected for a long time
to come."

Thomas Taylor, also a Class Representative, said "For me and
hundreds of others, being suddenly surrounded and held captive by
frightening numbers of riot police when we had done nothing at all,
going through violent and unlawful arrests, and then being thrown
into a nightmare detention centre, was a stunning and horrifying
experience.  I had never imagined that such a thing could happen in
Canada, but that experience showed me how very fragile civil
liberties are for so many of us.  I truly hope that this Settlement
Agreement will help make sure that such a thing never happens
again."

The class action was lead from the beginning by Toronto litigation
lawyers Murray Klippenstein and Eric Gillespie.  According to
Gillespie, "When these events happened many Canadians could not
believe they happened in Canada. The settlement appears to fairly
recognize through financial compensation, acknowledgements and
reforms that they shouldn't have happened and will never happen
again".

Murray Klippenstein commented that "Canada had never seen anything
like what happened at the G20 Summit, and hopefully it never will
again.  We are hopeful that this settlement will bring some justice
and some relief to class members, and that we all, including the
police, can benefit in the future from the acknowledgements and
commitments to policing improvements that are built into the
Settlement Agreement".

Under Ontario class action laws, a class action settlement
agreement must be reviewed by a Superior Court Judge for final
approval, and the Settlement Agreement is scheduled for an approval
hearing before Justice Edward Belobaba on October 19, 2020.

Lawyers Klippenstein and Gillespie have urged anyone who was
present in June of 2010 and who might be eligible for compensation
to contact them or to review the G20 class action website.  A copy
of the Settlement Agreement is available on the website for review.
[GN]


CANADIAN COUNTY, OK: Arndt Appeals W.D. Okla. Ruling to 10th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff David Arndt filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in
his lawsuit entitled Arndt v. Hatfield, et al., Case No.
5:20-CV-00181-R, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City.

Barbara Hatfield is sued in her official capacity as Special
District Judge for Canadian County, Oklahoma.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Mar. 9,
2020, the nature of suit is stated as other civil rights.

Barbara "Bobbie" Hatfield (b. December 17, 1935) was a 2014
Democratic candidate for District 35 of the West Virginia House of
Delegates. Hatfield is a former Democratic member of the West
Virginia House of Delegates, representing District 30 from 1998 to
2012.

The appellate case is captioned as Arndt v. Hatfield, et al., Case
No. 20-6128, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Notice of appearance is due on September 25, 2020, for
      Appellant David Arndt; and

   -- Notice of appearance is due on September 9, 2020 for
      Appellees Barbara Hatfield, et al.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant David Arndt of El Reno, Oklahoma, appears pro
se.

Defendants-Appellees BARBARA HATFIELD, individually and in her
official capacity as Special District Judge for Canadian County,
OK; JUSTIN BROWN, individually and in his official capacity as
Director of the Department of Human Services for the State of
Oklahoma; STACY DILLARD, individually and in her official capacity
as an attorney for the Department of Human Services for the State
of Oklahoma; ANGELA BERRY, individually and in her official
capacity as an attorney for the Department of Human Services for
the State of Oklahoma; MARK HIXSON, individually and in his
official capacity as attorney; JACK MCCURDY, individually and in
his official capacity as Elected Judge for Canadian County,
Oklahoma; PAUL HESSE, individually and in his official capacity as
Elected Judge for Canadian County, Oklahoma; BOB HUGHEY,
individually and in his official capacity as Elected Judge for
Canadian County, Oklahoma; TIFFANY MONTE, individually and in her
official capacity as Department of Human Services Child Welfare
Investigator; SHANNON MALLAM, individually and in her official
capacity as Department of Human Services Child Welfare
Investigator; CARMEN FLORES, individually and in her official
capacity as Department of Human Services Child Welfare Supervisor;
JASON DAVIS, individually and in his official capacity as
Department of Human Services Child Welfare Supervisor; and JANET
PEERY, individually and in her official capacity as Chief Executive
Officer of the YWCAOKC; KIM GARRETT, individually and in her
official capacity as CEO and Founder of Palomar, are represented
by:

          Erin Morgan Moore, Esq.
          Martin Daniel Weitman, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF
          OKLAHOMA
          313 NE 21st Street
          Oklahoma City, OK 73105
          Telephone: (405) 521-3921

               - and -

          Tracy Ella Neel, Esq.
          OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
          P.O. Box 25352
          Oklahoma City, OK 73125-0000
          Telephone: (405) 521-3507
          Facsimile: (405) 521-3638

               - and -

          William D. Tharp, Esq.
          RAMEY & THARP
          Three South Fifth Street
          Yukon, OK 73099-2621
          Telephone: (405) 354-1987
          E-mail: rameytharp@msn.com

               - and -

          Maggie M. Logan, Esq.
          Jefferson I. Rust, Esq.
          TOMLINSON MCKINSTRY
          211 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 450
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 606-3350
          E-mail: maggiel@tmoklaw.com
                  jeffr@tmoklaw.com
                
               - and -

          Robert A. Nance, Esq.
          RIGGS, ABNEY, NEAL, TURPEN, ORBISON & LEWIS
          528 NW 12th Street
          Oklahoma City, OK 73103
          Telephone: (405) 843-9909
          E-mail: rnance@riggsabney.com


CANISIUS COLLEGE: Student Files Class Action Over Tuition Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
WKBW reports that a Canisius College student has filed a class
action lawsuit against the college for charging the same tuition,
despite moving its classes online.

The student who filed the lawsuit says he, like many other
students, paid for in-person educational services and he wants his
money back since the school cannot provide those services.

The lawsuit claims Canisius has not refunded any of the tuition or
mandatory fees it collected from students, even though it
implemented an online-only learning model in March. The student
claims the university also stopped providing services that the
mandatory fees were intended to cover.

According to the court documents, an average yearly tuition at
Canisius for undergraduate students is around $28,640, and the
mandatory fees for each semester are $1,600. [GN]


CANNATOPIA GARDENS: Ledesma Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL LEDESMA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CANNATOPIA GARDENS d/b/a CANA SYLMAR, a California
corporation, and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-07690
(C.D. Cal., Aug. 24, 2020), arises from the Defendants' alleged
illegal transmission of unsolicited, autodialed SMS or MMS text
messages in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff asserts that he never provided prior express consent
to the Defendants to transmit numerous SMS or MMS text messages to
his cellular telephone number (805) ***-7271 for over at least the
past year and continuing through the present. Allegedly, the
Defendants used an "automatic telephone dialing system" because its
text messages were sent from a telephone number used to message
consumers en masse.

Mr. Ledesma contends that the unsolicited text messages were
invasive and intruded upon his seclusion upon receipt. As a result,
he became distracted and aggravated every time he received the
Defendants' unsolicited text messages.

Cannatopia Gardens offers cannabis for adult use and for medicinal
purpose.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Parker, Esq.
          Kevin Cole, Esq.
          PARKER COLE, P.C.
          6700 Fallbrook Ave., Suite 207
          West Hills, CA 91307
          Tel: (818) 292-8800
          Fax: (818) 292-8337
          Email: michael@parkercolelaw.com
                 kevin@parkercolelaw.com


CINCINNATI CAPITAL: Court Enters Orders on Bids to Dismiss Lee Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sean Fox of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan entered orders on Motions to Dismiss lodged separately
by Joseph Engelhart and Cincinnati Capital Corporation in the case
captioned Owen V. Lee, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Cincinnati Capital
Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-12133, (E.D. Mich.).

Plaintiffs Owen Lee and Heather Lee filed the putative class action
in state court.  In July 2019, Defendants removed the action to
federal court. Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action
Complaint in August 2019, naming the following two defendants: (1)
Engelhart, an individual and the chief executive officer of
Cincinnati Capital; and (2) Cincinnati Capital, an Ohio
corporation. The complaint asserts the following claims: (1)
"Violation of the SMLA, Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. Sec. 493.51, et seq."
(Count I); (2) "Unjust Enrichment/Restitution" (Count II); (3)
"Violation of Truth-in-Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1601, et seq."
(Count III); and (4) "Violation of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act 12 U.S.C. Sec. 2601, et seq." (Count IV).

The Lees secured a $525,000 home equity line of credit (HELOC) from
Main Street Bank in 2005.  The Lees granted Main Street Bank a
second mortgage on their home property in Northville, Michigan to
secure repayment of the HELOC.  Main Street Bank was placed in
receivership by the FDIC in 2008.  The HELOC and Second Mortgage
was eventually sold to Cincinnati Capital sometime in 2008.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the Secondary Mortgage
Loan Act (SMLA) when they conducted business with the Lees and the
Putative Class despite being unlicensed under SMLA.

The First Amended Complaint asks the Court to "certify a class
action of all persons impacted by Defendants' improper activity
under SMLA, specifically, the mortgagors whose loans were purchased
by Defendants and which were originally executed in favor of Main
Street Bank (as certified, "the Class").

In September 2019, Cincinnati Capital and Engelhart each filed
separate Motions to Dismiss.

On review, the Court grants Defendant Engelhart's motion to the
extent that the Court concludes that Plaintiffs fail to state a
claim against him.  Therefore, all claims against Defendant
Engelhart are dismissed.

The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not sufficiently pleaded
any SMLA claims against Engelhart. And given Plaintiffs' position
that the SMLA claims "underpin both the Lees's state law claims in
this case," that means Plaintiffs fail to state a state-law unjust
enrichment claim against Engelhart.

The Court notes that Plaintiffs concede that they cannot assert any
claims against Cincinnati Capital in the action that would pre-date
the date that Main Street Bank was placed into FDIC receivership
(such as a claim involving the origination of the loan).

The Court also denies Defendant Cincinnati Capital's Motion to
Dismiss.

Cincinnati Capital has not shown that Plaintiffs' SMLA Count (Count
I) could be dismissed as time-barred, the Court finds.

Cincinnati Capital challenges the unjust enrichment claims (Count
II) on timeliness grounds.  Like the Lees' SMLA claims, Cincinnati
Capital contends that their state-law unjust enrichment claims are
also subject to a six-year period of limitations and are
time-barred.  The parties have not separately analyzed when the
unjust enrichment claim accrued. As such, the Court follows the
same analysis that applies to the SMLA claim, and concludes that at
least some claims appear timely.  Thus, the Court will not dismiss
the unjust enrichment count as untimely at this juncture.

Cincinnati Capital's Motion to Dismiss challenges Plaintiffs' TILA
and RESPA counts (Counts III and IV) as time-barred.  Cincinnati
Capital's brief notes that equitable tolling may apply to TILA and
RESPA claims.  Thus, this challenge would be better suited to a
challenge brought in the context of a summary judgment motion. That
is especially so because Plaintiffs have alleged that they
contacted Cincinnati Capital at various times and, as such, the
Court cannot determine that the counts should be dismissed as
untimely based on the allegations in the complaint.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 2020 Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/va7sqzm from Leagle.com

Owen V Lee & Heather Lee, Plaintiffs, represented by Bethany G.
Stawasz - bstawasz@clarkhill.com - Clark Hill, PLC, Courtney L.
Rosenau - crosenau@clarkhill.com - Clark Hill PLC & William G.
Asimakis - wasimakis@clarkhill.com - Jr. , Clark Hill.

Cincinnati Capital Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael
P. Hindelang -mhindelang@honigman.com - Honigman LLP.


CIOX HEALTH: Deming Appeals D. Mont. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Ryan Deming, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in their lawsuit entitled Ryan Deming, et al. v. Ciox
Health, LLC, et al., Case No. 9:20-cv-00016-DWM, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Montana, Missoula.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 19,
2020, the Hon. Judge Donald W. Molloy entered an order:

   1. granting Defendants' motion to extend the response deadline
      to the motion for class certification; and

   2. denying the motion for class certification, subject to
      renewal according to this schedule:

      Class Discovery Deadline:         September 3, 2020

      Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion
      For Class Certification:          September 10, 2020

      Defendants' Response to
      Motion for Class Certification:   September 24, 2020

The Defendants are doing business in healthcare industry.

The appellate case is captioned as Ryan Deming, et al. v. Ciox
Health, LLC, et al., Case No. 20-35744, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Appellants Ryan Deming, Briana Fraiser, Lucas Griswold and
      Michael McFarland's opening brief is due on October 26,
      2020;

   -- Appellees Bozeman Health Deaconess Hospital, Ciox Health,
      LLC, Kalispell Regional Healthcare System, Inc., RCHP
      Billings-Missoula, LLC, SCL Health - Montana and St. James
      Healthcare's answering brief is due on November 25, 2020;
      and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants RYAN DEMING, BRIANA FRAISER, MICHAEL
MCFARLAND, and LUCAS GRISWOLD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Domenic Anthony Cossi, Esq.
          Jory C. Ruggiero, Esq.
          WESTERN JUSTICE ASSOCIATES PLLC
          303 West Mendenhall Street
          Bozeman, MT 59715
          Telephone: (406) 587-1900
          E-mail: info@westernjusticelaw.com

Defendants-Appellees CIOX HEALTH, LLC; ST. JAMES HEALTHCARE; SCL
HEALTH - MONTANA, DBA St. Vincent Healthcare; BOZEMAN HEALTH
DEACONESS HOSPITAL; KALISPELL REGIONAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC.; and
RCHP BILLINGS-MISSOULA, LLC, DBA Community Medical Center, are
represented by:

          Matthew B. Hayhurst, Esq.
          Randy J. Tanner, Esq.
          BOONE KARLBERG P.C.
          201 W. Main Street
          P.O. Box 9199
          Missoula, MT 59807-9199
          Telephone: (406) 543-6646
          E-mail: mhayhurst@boonekarlberg.com
                  rtanner@boonekarlberg.com

               - and -

          Jay P. Lefkowitz, I, Esq.
          Joseph Myer Sanderson, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          601 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446-4800
          E-mail: lefkowitz@kirkland.com
                  joseph.sanderson@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Ian McIntosh, Esq.
          CROWLEY FLECK PLLP
          1915 S. 19th Avenue
          P.O. Box 10969
          Bozeman, MT 59718-0969
          Telephone: (406) 522-4521
          E-mail: imcintosh@crowleyfleck.com


COMMONWEALTH EDISON: Faces Class Suit Over Racketeering Conspiracy
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Meisner, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that a proposed
class-action lawsuit filed in federal court on Aug. 10 alleged
House Speaker Michael Madigan and ComEd engaged in a racketeering
conspiracy aimed at pushing through state legislation favorable to
the power company in exchange for bribes.

The suit filed in U.S. District Court on behalf of several
Commonwealth Edison customers seeks up to $450 million in damages
as well as "immediate injunctive relief" barring Madigan from
participating in legislative activities involving ComEd and
removing him as chair of the Illinois Democratic Party.

The action marked the third lawsuit to be filed since ComEd was
charged last month with running an elaborate bribery scheme aimed
at influencing legislation in Springfield by making payments to a
cabal of Madigan associates and approved lobbyists, some of whom
did little or no actual work for the company.

In a deferred prosecution agreement with prosecutors, ComEd has
agreed to pay a record $200 million fine and cooperate in the
ongoing investigation. If the agreement is fulfilled, the charges
against the company would be dropped in 2023.

Madigan, who was identified in the charges as Public Official A,
has not been charged with wrongdoing.

According to ComEd's agreement with the government, the fine cannot
be raised through rate hikes. The deal, however, does not require
ComEd to reimburse customers for any additional money received
because of the scheme--an omission that several civil cases brought
in recent weeks aim to address.

"We filed our civil RICO case now to protect Illinois ratepayers
from further damage by Michael Madigan--in both his capacity as
Speaker and as Chair of the Democratic Party of Illinois--and also
to get our clients back the damages they have suffered from ComEd's
and Madigan's bribery scheme," plaintiffs' attorney Stuart Chanen
said in a statement.

In addition to Madigan, the suit names as defendants former ComEd
CEO Anne Pramaggiore, Jay Doherty, the longtime president of the
City Club of Chicago who served as on of ComEd's chief lobbyists,
and former Chicago Ald. Michael Zalewski, who was allegedly given
payouts by the company as part of the scheme.

The suit was filed as a class action, meaning it seeks to include a
large percentage of ComEd customers during the time period
established by prosecutors.

The lawsuit also lists former ComEd executives John Hooker and
Fidel Marquez as defendants.

No one named in the suit other than ComEd has been criminally
charged.

ComEd has publicly apologized for its actions, but the company
denies the scheme meant customers were unfairly charged. To the
contrary, a utility spokesman said last month, the company has
increased reliability by 70% since 2012 and customers' bills are
lower now than they were nearly a decade ago because of legislation
passed by the Illinois General Assembly.

"We apologize for the past conduct that did not live up to our
values and have made significant improvements to our compliance
practices to ensure that nothing like it ever happens again,"
spokesman Paul Elsberg said in response to an earlier lawsuit filed
in July. "The improper conduct described in the deferred
prosecution agreement, however, does not mean that consumers were
harmed by the legislation that was passed in Illinois."

Prosecutors have said ComEd's scheme began around 2011--when key
regulatory matters were before the Illinois House that Madigan
controls--and continued through last year.

In all, prosecutors put a value of at least $150 million on the
legislative benefits ComEd received. The federal court documents
specifically noted the 2011 passage of the Energy Infrastructure
and Modernization Act, which "helped improve ComEd's financial
stability" by establishing rate guidelines and a smart grid
overhaul.

A spokeswoman for Madigan, meanwhile, has said the speaker "has
never made a legislative decision with improper motives and has
engaged in no wrongdoing here." [GN]


DETOX MARKET: Web Site Inaccessible to Blinds, Hecht Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
IRENE HECHT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. THE DETOX MARKET INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-06762-PAE (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 21, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its alleged
failure to maintain and operate its Web site in a way to make it
fully accessible for blind or visually-impaired people, in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff, who is dependent on a popular screen reading
software called NonVisual Desktop Access (NVDA), is a legally blind
and visually-impaired handicapped person and a member of a
protected class of individuals under the ADA.

The Plaintiff alleges that when she visited Defendant's Web site,
http://www.thedetoxmarket.com/,in March 2020 with the intent of
browsing and potentially making a purchase, she was denied access
similar to that of a sighted individual due to its multiple
barriers and lack of a variety of features and accommodations,
which effectively barred her from being able to enjoy the
privileges and benefits of the Defendant's public accommodation.

The complaint asserts that Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination by failing and refusing to remove access
barriers to its Web site to be equally accessible for the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired people.

The Detox Market Inc. is a skincare company that owns and operates
the Web site.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Ave., Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Tel: (732) 695-3282
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          Email: Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com


DORAL INVESTORS: Court Denies Class Certification in Gaston
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, Kings County issued a Decision and Order denying
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned
FRANCKLIN GASTON, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. THE DORAL INVESTORS GROUP, LLC
d/b/a House Calls Home Care, DAVID LIPSCHITZ and JOHN DOES #1-10,
Defendants, Docket No. 501710/2018.

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the members of the putative
class, moved for an order, pursuant to Article 9 of the New York
Civil Practice Law and Rules, certifying this action as a class
action.

Plaintiff alleges that the putative class members, employees of the
defendants, worked for defendants for over 40 hours per week
without being paid overtime wages. Plaintiff alleges that they were
not paid time and one-half for overtime hours worked as required by
the New York Labor Law (NYLL) and the supporting New York State
Department of Labor regulations.  

CPLR 901(a) provides:

One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative
parties on behalf of all if: 1. the class is so numerous that
joinder of all members, whether otherwise required or permitted, is
impracticable 2. there are questions of law or fact common to the
class which predominate over any questions affecting only
individual members 3. the claims or defenses of the representative
parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class 4. the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class and 5. a class action is superior to other
available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the
controversy.

While plaintiff maintains that he can prove that there are at least
40 members of the putative class upon completion of discovery, he
has failed to do so in its motion papers. Plaintiff does submit
paystubs of 10 different individuals who were employed by
defendants during the relevant class period, showing that they
worked what constitute overtime hours under the NYLL, and showing
that they were not correspondingly paid overtime wages as required.


Plaintiff offers nothing to clearly establish that there are at
least 40 putative class members. Plaintiff argues that defendants
have not provided payroll records of their employees as requested.
Yet, it is the burden of plaintiff to show numerosity.

Plaintiff contends that, through discovery, he will gain the
evidence with which to establish that there at least 40 members of
the class, and that the class is so numerous as to render joinder
of all class members impracticable. Defendants counter that the
burden such discovery would impose on them would be too great.

In Stewart v. Roberts, 163 A.D.3d 89 (3d Dept 2018), in order to
identify the putative class size and class members in that case,
the plaintiff needed the defendant to review over 12,000
applications submitted to it.

The defendant argued that such discovery would be too burdensome.

While on this motion plaintiff has not set forth a sufficient
evidentiary basis to meet the numerosity requirement, the motion
may be renewed after the parties have conducted limited discovery
on the CPLR 901(a) issues, rules the Court.

Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiff has not established the
numerosity requirement on the instant motion for class
certification. Nonetheless, insofar as there is an issue as to
defendants' compliance with discovery requests, the motion shall be
denied without prejudice to renew.

A full-text copy of the Kings County Supreme Court's May 4, 2020
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycttkxw6 from
Leagle.com.

DROPBOX INC: Deinnocentis Case Consolidated With Pikal Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California issued an order on Ognjen Kuraica's
Motion to Consolidate in the case captioned JASON MICHAEL
DEINNOCENTIS, Plaintiff, v. DROPBOX, INC., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 19-cv-06348-BLF. (N.D. Cal.).

The securities class action is brought on behalf of those who
purchased, or otherwise acquired Dropbox, Inc. stocks pursuant to
Dropbox Inc.'s registration statement issued in connection with the
Company's March 23, 2018 initial public offering (IPO).  The
complaint asserts claims under the Securities Act of 1933 against
Dropbox, the Company's senior executive officers and directors, and
the venture capital sponsors of the IPO.

Before the Court is motion to consolidate the Deinnocentis action
with the related case Pikal v. Dropbox, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:19-cv-06360-BLF (Pikal Action).

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA)
provides that if more than one action on behalf of a class
asserting substantially the same claim or claims arising under this
subchapter has been filed, the Court shall not make the
determination of the most adequate plaintiff until after the
decision on the motion to consolidate is rendered.

The Deinocentis case and the Pikal Action, both pending before the
California District Court, present similar factual and legal
issues, as they each involve the same subject matter and are based
on the same alleged wrongful course of conduct.  Both cases bring
claims under the Securities Act of 1933 against Dropbox, the
Company's senior executive officers and directors, and venture
capital sponsors of the IPO, while the Pikal Action also includes
the underwriters of the IPO.

Because the both actions arise from the same facts and
circumstances, namely, statements made in Dropbox's Registration
Statement and involve the same subject matter and the same class,
persons and entities who purchased Dropbox Class A common stock
pursuant the Registration Statement, the same discovery and similar
class certification issues will be relevant to all related actions.
  

Consolidation under Rule 42(a) is appropriate, the Court opines.

Accordingly, the Court consolidates the Deinnocentis case with the
Pikal Action.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/t2bau5n from Leagle.com

Jason Michael Deinnocentis, Plaintiff, represented by J. Alexander
Hood, II - ahood@pomlaw.com - Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Jeremy
A. Lieberman - jalieberman@pomlaw.com - Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice
& Jennifer Pafiti - jpafiti@pomlaw.com - Pomerantz LLP.

Dropbox, Inc., Andrew W. Houston, Ajay V. Vashee, Timothy J. Regan,
Arash Ferdowsi, Robert J. Mylod, Jr., Donald W. Blair, Paul E.
Jacobs, Condoleezza Rice, R. Bryan Schreier & Margaret C. Whitman,
Defendants, represented by Nina F. Locker - nlocker@wsgr.com -
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.

Sequoia Capital XII, L.P., Sequoia Capital XII Principals Fund,
LLC, Sequoia Technology Partners XII, L.P. & SC XII Management,
LLC, Defendants, represented by Harry Arthur Olivar, Jr.  -
harryolivar@quinnemanuel.com - Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan LLP,
Linda Jane Brewer  - lindabrewer@quinnemanuel.com - Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP & Shuang Zhang -
clairezhang@quinnemanuel.com - Quinn Emanuel.

Xiangqun Miao, Movant, represented by Jennifer Pafiti , Pomerantz
LLP & Jeremy A. Lieberman , Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice.

Ognjen Kuraica, Movant, represented by Adam Marc Apton -
aapton@zlk.com - Levi & Korsinsky, LLP & Adam Christopher McCall
– amccall@zlk.com -  Levi & Korsinsky, LLP.

Rick Gammiere, Movant, represented by Lesley F. Portnoy , :
rprongay@glancylaw.com - Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Pavithra
Rajesh - PRAJESH@GLANCYLAW.COM - Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP &
Robert Vincent Prongay - RPRONGAY@GLANCYLAW.COM - Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP.

Luis Chavez & Bryan Pikal, Movants, represented by Laurence Matthew
Rosen – lrosen@rosenlegal.com - The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.


EASTMAN KODAK: Gibbs Law Investigates Securities Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eastman Kodak Company shares dropped 28% in intraday trading after
the federal government tweeted it was holding back a $765 million
loan, pending the SEC's investigation into Kodak. The U.S.
International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) tweeted on
August 7, 2020 that it "will not proceed any further" in making the
loan, meant to help the photography-focused company manufacture
pharmaceutical materials, "unless these allegations are cleared."
Gibbs Law Group is investigating a potential Kodak Securities Class
Action Lawsuit on behalf of investors who lost money in Eastman
Kodak Company (NYSE:KODK).

To speak with an attorney regarding this class action lawsuit
investigation, call (888) 410-2925.

On Tuesday July 28, 2020, Kodak announced a $765 million loan from
the government to support the company in manufacturing generic drug
components. However, Kodak experienced unusually strong trading
volume the day before this announcement. In response, the SEC
launched an investigation into Kodak on Tuesday August 4, 2020 and
Senator Elizabeth Warren called for a greater investigation by
Congress. Kodak's board of directors has also opened an independent
review. The DFC tweet about pausing the $765 million loan came
shortly after these investigations, on Friday August 7, 2020.

On this news, Kodak's stocks dropped 28% in intraday trading on
Monday August 10, 2020, causing significant harm to investors.

What Should Kodak Investors Do?

If you invested in Kodak, visit our website or contact our
securities team directly at (888) 410-2925 to discuss how you may
be able to recover your losses. Our investigation concerns whether
Eastman Kodak Company has violated federal securities laws.

                     About Gibbs Law Group

Gibbs Law Group represents individual and institutional investors
throughout the country in securities litigation to correct abusive
corporate governance practices, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
proxy violations. The firm has recovered over a billion dollars for
its clients against some of the world's largest corporations, and
our attorneys have received numerous honors for their work,
including "Class Action Practice Group of the Year," "Best Lawyers
in America," "Top Plaintiff Lawyers in California," "California
Lawyer Attorney of the Year," "Top Class Action Attorneys Under
40," "Consumer Protection MVP," and "Top Cybersecurity/ Privacy
Attorneys Under 40."

This press release may constitute Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]


EASTMAN KODAK: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Eastman
Kodak Company ("Kodak" or the "Company") (NYSE: KODK) securities
between July 27, 2020 and August 7, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Kodak investors have until October 13, 2020 to file a
lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their Kodak investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

On July 27, 2020, Kodak issued a statement to media outlets based
in Rochester, New York, where it is headquartered, on the imminent
public announcement of a "new manufacturing initiative" involving
the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation ("DFC") and
the response to COVID-19. Following media publication of Kodak's
initial statement about the deal, the Company claimed this
information was released inadvertently.

On July 28, 2020, media reported that Company had won a $765
million government loan from the DFC under the Defense Production
Act ("DPA") to produce pharmaceutical materials, including
ingredients for COVID-19 drugs.

On August 1, 2020, Reuters reported new details of an "unusual"
1.75 million option grant to Kodak's Chief Executive Officer, Jim
Continenza, which "occurred because of an understanding" between
Continenza and Kodak's Board of Directors "that had previously
neither been listed in his employment contract nor made public."

On this news, Kodak's shares fell $6.91 per share, or 32%, to close
at $14.94 per share on August 3, 2020, thereby injuring investors.

Over the next several days, several articles reported the
Congressional and regulatory scrutiny regarding the option grants
and the DFC loan.

On August 7, 2020, after the market closed, the DFC announced, "On
July 28, we signed a Letter of Interest with Eastman Kodak. Recent
allegations of wrongdoing raise serious concerns. We will not
proceed any further unless these allegations are cleared."

On this news, the Company's stock price declined $4.15, or 28%, to
close at $10.73 per share on August 10, 2020, thereby injuring
investors further.

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 the Company had granted its Executive Chairman, James
Continenza, and several other Company insiders millions of dollars'
worth of stock options immediately prior to the Company publicly
disclosing that it had received the $765 million loan, which
Defendants knew would cause Kodak's stock to immediately increase
in value once the deal was announced. In addition, while in
possession of this material non-public information, Continenza and
other Company insiders purchased tens of thousands of the Company's
shares immediately prior to the announcement, again at prices that
they knew would increase exponentially once news of the loan became
public.

If you purchased Kodak securities, have information or 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 Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of
Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem,
Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at
(888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com [GN]

EASTMAN KODAK: Klein Law Firm Reminds of Oct. 13 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Eastman Kodak Company (NYSE:
KODK) alleging that the Company violated federal securities laws.

Class Period: July 27, 2020 and August 7, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 13, 2020

Learn more about your recoverable losses in DNK:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/eastman-kodak-company-loss-submission-form?id=8753&from=5

According to a filed complaint, defendants failed to disclose that
the Company had granted its Executive Chairman, James Continenza,
and several other Company insiders millions of dollars' worth of
stock options immediately prior to the Company publicly disclosing
that it had received the $765 million loan, which Defendants knew
would cause Kodak's stock to immediately increase in value once the
deal was announced. In addition, while in possession of this
material non-public information, Continenza and other Company
insiders purchased tens of thousands of the Company's shares
immediately prior to the announcement, again at prices that they
knew would increase exponentially once news of the loan became
public.

Shareholders have until October 13, 2020 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

For additional information about the KODK lawsuit, please contact
J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or click the link
above.

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.

         J. Klein, Esq.
         Empire State Building
         350 Fifth Avenue
         59th Floor
         New York, NY 10118
         Telephone: (212) 616-4899
         Fax: (347) 558-9665
         E-mail: jk@kleinstocklaw.com [GN]

EASTMAN KODAK: RM LAW Announces Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
RM LAW, P.C. announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased Eastman Kodak
Company ("Eastman Kodak" or the "Company") (NYSE: KODK) securities
during the period from July 27, 2020 through August 7, 2020
inclusive (the "Class Period").

Eastman Kodak shareholders may, no later than October 13, 2020,
move the Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class. If
you purchased shares of Eastman Kodak and would like to learn more
about these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or to sign
up online, click here.

The class action concerns several matters, including the suspicious
timing of insider trading activity in connection with Kodak's July
28, 2020 announcement that it had reached an agreement with the
U.S. government to receive a $765 million loan to produce
pharmaceutical ingredients.

As news of the deal broke, Kodak, which had been trading under $2
per share, skyrocketed, and within two days, the stock was trading
around $60 per share, with 284 million shares changing hands. Just
prior to the announcement of the loan, insiders purchased or were
granted over 2 million shares of Kodak stock.

More specifically, the day before the deal was announced, the
company granted CEO James Continenza options for 1.75 million
shares, just under 29% of which vested immediately. As a result of
the suspicious timing of the announcement, lawmakers have asked
federal regulators to investigate securities transactions made by
the company and its executives around the time Kodak learned it
could receive the government loan, and the SEC has announced an
investigation. On August 7, 2020, the U.S. International
Development Finance Corporation said it was holding up the payout
of the loan as regulators look into insider trading activity.

On this news, the Company's stock price declined $4.15, or 28%,
from $14.88 per share on August 7, 2020, to $10.73 per share on
August 10, 2020.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than October
13, 2020, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of
the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order
to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may
together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain RM LAW, P.C. or other
counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.

For more information regarding this, please contact RM LAW, P.C.
(Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or by
email at rm@maniskas.com or click here. For more information about
class action cases in general or to learn more about RM LAW, P.C.
please visit our website.

RM LAW, P.C. is a national shareholder litigation firm. RM LAW,
P.C. is devoted to protecting the interests of individual and
institutional investors in shareholder actions in state and federal
courts nationwide.

         Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire
         RM LAW, P.C.
         1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 300
         Berwyn, PA 19312
         Tel No: 484-324-6800
         E-mail: rm@maniskas.com [GN]

ELI LILLY: 9th Cir. Upholds Denial to Reopen Strafford Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the appellate case MELISSA STRAFFORD; CAROL JACQUEZ; DAVID
MATTHEWS, JR., on behalf of themselves and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ELI LILLY AND
COMPANY, an Indiana corporation, Defendant-Appellee, Case No.
18-56064 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit issued a Memorandum affirming the district court denial of
Plaintiffs' Motion to Reopen Their Case.

The appeal arises from a putative class action lawsuit against
defendant Eli Lilly and Company for alleged harms related to its
marketing and labeling of an antidepressant drug.  After receiving
a series of adverse rulings at the district court level, plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed their claims to take advantage of
then-existing Ninth Circuit law allowing plaintiffs to appeal lower
court rulings by voluntarily dismissing their claims with
prejudice.  

However, after an intervening Supreme Court decision, Baker v.
Microsoft Corp., 137 S.Ct. 1702 (2017), invalidated this voluntary
dismissal tactic and deprived the Ninth Circuit of jurisdiction
over their appeal, plaintiffs then sought to reopen their case by
filing in the district court a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(6).

Plaintiffs now appeal the district court's denial of that motion,
which the Ninth Circuit review under an abuse of discretion
standard.

The voluntary dismissal in the Stafford case was vehemently
contested by the defendant.  This demonstrates that plaintiffs
"knowingly risked permanent finality," because Lilly indicated "its
position would be that the case was entirely over if there was no
appellate jurisdiction."  In short, the record reveals that
plaintiffs' choice to move for a voluntary dismissal, unlike the
plaintiffs' actions in Henson v. Fidelity National Financial, Inc.,
943 F.3d 434 (9th Cir. 2019), was the kind of "free, calculated,
deliberate choice[ ] . . . not to be relieved from" through a Rule
60(b)(6) motion.  For these, and other reasons, the district
court's denial of Rule 60(b)(6) relief was not an abuse of
discretion, the Ninth Circuit finds.

Plaintiffs' alternative argument that the district court abused its
discretion by denying Rule 60(b) relief based on Davidson v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 889 F.3d 956, 963 (9th Cir. 2018), is no more
successful, the Ninth Circuit notes.  Plaintiffs argue that
Davidson constitutes a change in law justifying reopening the
district court's dismissal of its injunctive and declaratory relief
claims because Davidson clarified that "a previously deceived
consumer may have standing to seek an injunction against false
advertising or labeling, even though the consumer now knows or
suspects that the advertising was false at the time of the original
purchase."  It is not at all clear, however, whether such a holding
actually undermines the district court's conclusion in the instant
case that plaintiffs lacked standing to seek injunctive and
declaratory relief, the Ninth Circuit notes.

Finally, the Ninth Circuit lacks jurisdiction to conduct the review
of certain of the district court's decisions that preceded the
voluntary dismissal that the plaintiffs now seek to substantively
attack.

In sum, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court denial of
Stafford's request to reopen case.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's January 2020 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/w8l5svh from Leagle.com.


ENAGIC USA: Court Awards $1.3MM in Counsel Fees in Makaron Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned EDWARD MAKARON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ENAGIC USA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-05145-DDP-E. (C.D. Cal.), Judge Dean
Pregerson of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California ruled that class counsel attorneys' fees in the amount
of $1,300,000, and costs in the amount of $60,000 shall be paid in
accordance with the terms of the parties' Settlement Agreement.

The order on attorneys' fees is issued pursuant to a previous Court
Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.

The Court further rules that payments shall be made to Class
Members who submitted valid claims in accordance with the
Settlement Agreement.

A service award of $7,500 shall be paid to Plaintiff, in accordance
with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

The Settlement Administrator, Postlethwaite & Netterville (P&N),
shall be paid for its fees and expenses in connection with the
administration of the Settlement Agreement, the Court further
rules.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 2020 Judgment is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ucblubr from Leagle.com.

Edward Makaron, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Meghan Elisabeth George -
mgeorge@toddflaw.com - Law Offices of Todd M Friedman PC, Thomas
Edward Wheeler - twheeler@toddflaw.com - Todd M Friedman Law
Offices PC, Adrian Robert Bacon  - abacon@toddflaw.com - Law
Offices of Todd M Friedman PC & Todd M. Friedman  -
tfriedman@toddflaw.com - Law Office of Todd M Friedman PC.

Enagic USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andre Joseph Cronthall
- acronthall@sheppardmullin.com - Sheppard Mullin Richter and
Hampton LLP, Fred R. Puglisi - fpuglisi@sheppardmullin.com -
Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP, Jay T. Ramsey -
jramsey@sheppardmullin.com - Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton
LLP, Mark T. Cramer -  mcramer@buchalter.com - Buchalter Nemer APC
& Lawrence B. Steinberg - lsteinberg@buchalter.com - Buchalter
APC.


ENERGY RECOVERY: Pomerantz Law Firm Probes Shareholders Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors Energy
Recovery, Inc. ("Energy Recovery" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ERII).
  Such investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980.

The investigation concerns whether Energy Recovery and certain of
its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or
other unlawful business practices.

On June 29, 2020, Energy Recovery issued a press release announcing
the termination of its licensing agreement with Schlumberger
Technology Corp., citing "different strategic perspectives" with
respect to the commercialization of Energy Recovery's VorTeq
hydraulic pumping technology.  The Company further announced that
following the termination, "no further payments will be made by
either party" and that "Energy Recovery will now be fully
responsible for commercialization of the VorTeq technology
globally."

On this news, Energy Recovery's stock price fell $1.31 per share,
or 14.7%, to close at $7.60 on June 30, 2020.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members.

         Robert S. Willoughby
         Pomerantz LLP
         E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]

ERP FEDERAL: Fails to Provide Healthcare Benefits, Jeffery Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NORMAN R. JEFFERY, JR., on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, and UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA INTERNATIONAL UNION v.
ERP FEDERAL MINING COMPLEX LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00556 (S.D.W. Va.,
Aug. 21, 2020), arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of
collective bargaining agreement, including failure to provide
healthcare benefits, and violations of the Labor Management
Relations Act of 1947 and the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.

Plaintiff Jeffery Jr. is a coal miner formerly employed in a
classified position under a collective bargaining agreement between
the United Mine Workers of America and ERP Federal Mining Complex,
LLC. He was part of a mass layoff in December 2019. Plaintiff
United Mine Workers of America International Union (UMWA) is a
labor organization that represented coal miners.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is required to provide
healthcare benefits to its bargaining unit employees while actively
employed and for a period of 90-days following a lay off pursuant
to the collective bargaining agreements between UMWA and Defendant
ERP. However, because the Defendant would occasionally fall into
arrears in payments to Anthem, its health care administrator since
2015, Anthem would cease to pay on claims made by bargaining unit
members.

The Defendant, subsequently, engaged in a mass layoff of bargaining
unit employees and changed their plan administrator from Anthem to
United Health Care. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant failed
in its affirmative duty as an ERISA fiduciary to inform the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated beneficiaries and
participants of its failure to provide the healthcare benefits,
thereby, leading them to incur additional healthcare bills and
accrue substantial unpaid medical bills by March 2020.

The complaint also asserts that the Defendant has failed and
refused to comply with the mandatory dispute resolution provision
contained in Article XX(g) of the CBA, thereby, breaching and
violating its obligations under Article XX of the CBA.

ERP Federal Mining Complex LLC engages in the business of mining,
processing, transporting and/or selling coal in West Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin F. Fagan, Esq.
          Timothy J. Baker, Esq.
          UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA
          18354 Quantico Gateway Drive, Suite 200
          Triangle, VA 22172
          Tel: (703) 291-2418
          Fax: (703) 291-2448
          Email: kfagan@umwa.org
                 tjbaker@umwa.org


ERROL ULLOA: Court Denies Bid to Retain $16.8K Wells Fargo Refund
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Utah issued a
Memorandum Decision denying the Debtors' Motion to Retain Funds
from Wells Fargo Settlement in the case captioned In re: ERROL
DENNIS ULLOA & JIMENA C. ULLOA, Chapter 7, Debtors, Bankruptcy No.
18-20366 (Bankr. D. Utah).

In this case, the Debtors seek to retain $16,813.44 issued by Wells
Fargo Auto as a refund for the unnecessary, forced placement of
collateral protection insurance in 2008 in connection with the
Debtors' vehicle loan. Because the Debtors did not know about their
entitlement to a refund until Wells Fargo mailed it to their
Bankruptcy Trustee, the Debtors assert that it is not property of
their bankruptcy estate and should be turned over to them rather
than retained by the Chapter 7 Trustee.

The Court finds that the Debtors' claim for a refund from Wells
Fargo arose pre-petition, and, thus, is property of their
bankruptcy estate that is subject to administration by the Chapter
7 Trustee.

Background

Errol Dennis Ulloa and Jimena C. Ulloa (the "Debtors") filed a
Chapter 13 bankruptcy case on January 19, 2018. On October 9, 2018,
the Court confirmed the Debtors' Chapter 13 plan that provided for
a return to non-priority unsecured creditors of the greater of 15%
of allowed claims or a pot of $1,153 distributed pro rata. After
completion of the claims allowance process, the 15% return to
unsecured creditors required a total disbursement of $10,911.

On June 17, 2019, the Chapter 13 Trustee received a letter from
Wells Fargo Auto dated June 14, 2019. The letter listed its subject
as, "Reimbursement related to Wells Fargo* auto loan; 2007 Chrysler
300" (the "Reimbursement Notice").

After referencing the policy number and dates associated with the
account (April 1, 2008 to September 4, 2008), the Reimbursement
Notice also stated: "We carefully thought about what we can do, and
are providing financial reimbursement, with the enclosed check in
the amount of $16,813.44. The payment is in addition to any
CPI-related refunds we previously sent. Cashing this check does not
waive any current or future legal claims against Wells Fargo."
Enclosed with the Reimbursement Notice was a check for $16,813.44
made payable to the order of Lon Jenkins, the Chapter 13 Trustee
for the District of Utah (the "CPI Refund").

The CPI Refund arises from the Debtors' loan from Wells Fargo in
2007 in connection with their purchase of a 2007 Chrysler 300 (the
"Vehicle"). Because Wells Fargo allegedly did not have proof that
the Debtors had insured the Vehicle, Wells Fargo force-placed a CPI
policy covering the period from April 1, 2008, to September 4,
2008. Wells Fargo, "carefully thought about what" it could do to
rectify this error and determined some eleven years later to refund
$16,813.44 to the Debtors.

On August 1, 2019, the Chapter 13 Trustee filed a motion to modify
the Debtors' plan to apply the CPI Refund as a lump sum
contribution and thereby increase the return to unsecured creditors
from $10,911 to $22,681. On August 23, 2019, the Debtors objected
to the Trustee's motion to modify their plan by asserting that
instead of changing the return to creditors, the CPI Refund should
be applied to cure a delinquency and then shorten the length of
their plan.

On September 25, 2019, the Court entered an order granting the
Trustee's motion to use the CPI Refund to increase the return to
unsecured creditors. On October 9, 2019, the Debtors filed a
voluntary Notice of Conversion to Chapter 7.  The case was
converted, and the Elizabeth R. Loveridge was appointed as Chapter
7 Trustee ("Chapter 7 Trustee"). On October 22, 2019, the Chapter
13 Trustee filed a Motion to Disburse Balance on Hand in Case
Converted to Chapter 7 which sought disbursement of the CPI Refund,
less Chapter 13 Trustee fees, to the Chapter 7 Trustee.

On December 19, 2019, the Debtors filed a Motion to Retain the
Wells Fargo Funds ("Motion to Retain"). The Debtors argued, among
other things, that the "'qualifying event'--the one that created
the rights and remedies for the specified class of borrowers--was
the Consent Order, not the liability for some misdeed that may have
occurred prior to bankruptcy." On January 13, 2020, the Chapter 7
Trustee filed an Objection to the Debtor's Motion to Retain. On
January 13, 2020, the Court granted the U.S. Trustee's Motion
Denying Discharge for both Debtors pursuant to Section 727(a)(8) of
the Bankruptcy Code and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4004(d), as the Debtors
had received a Chapter 7 discharge within eight years of this
Chapter 7 case.

Court's Conclusion

The Debtors make emotionally appealing arguments that twelve years
ago, Wells Fargo improperly charged them for an unnecessary CPI
policy; that they had no basis to know about the CPI Refund until
after their bankruptcy filing; that if they had known about the
improper charges and their right to a refund from Wells Fargo, they
might have avoided bankruptcy; thus, it is unfair for the Trustee
to take their refund. But the clock cannot be unwound, and the
Debtors cannot be excused from the legal consequences that flow
from the voluntary conversion of their case to Chapter 7 even
though they do not qualify for a discharge.

Based on the Bankruptcy Code and controlling case law, the Court
concludes that the Debtors' interest in the CPI Refund was
"sufficiently rooted in the prebankruptcy past" to constitute
property of the estate under Section 541(a)(6) and (a)(7). Thus, it
is rightfully subject to the Trustee's possession, control, and
administration.

A full-text copy of the Bankruptcy Court's June 18, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9av6n5c from Leagle.com.


FASTLY INC: Kirby McInerney Announces Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of those who acquired Fastly, Inc.
("Fastly" or the "Company") (NYSE: FSLY) securities during the
period from May 6, 2020 through August 5, 2020 (the "Class
Period"). Investors have until October 26, 2020 to apply to the
Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

On August 5, 2020, Fastly held its second quarter ("Q2") 2020
earnings conference call. During the call, defendants disclosed
that ByteDance, the Chinese company that operates the wildly
popular mobile app TikTok, was Fastly's largest customer in Q2
2020, and that TikTok represented about 12% of Fastly's revenue for
the six months ended June 30, 2020. This news shocked the market,
as TikTok had been under heavy scrutiny by U.S. officials and
others since at least late 2019 due to fears that the data it
collects from its users could be accessed by the Chinese
government. On July 31, 2020, President Trump announced a plan to
ban TikTok in the U.S. over national security concerns. As Fastly's
Chief Executive Officer admitted on the Q2 2020 earnings call, "any
ban of the TikTok app by the US would create uncertainty around our
ability to support this customer[,]" and "the loss of this
customer's traffic would have an impact on our business." On this
news, Fastly's share price fell $19.28, or approximately 17.7%,
from the previous trading day's closing price of $108.92, to close
at $89.64 on August 6, 2020.

Fastly's share price continued to decline on August 6, 2020, when
President Trump issued an executive order effectively banning
TikTok, dropping another $10.31 per share from the closing price on
August 6, 2020, or approximately 11.5%, to close at $79.33 on
August 7, 2020.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants
knowingly and/or recklessly made false and/or misleading statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose: (1) that Fastly's largest customer was
ByteDance, operator of TikTok, which was known to have serious
security risks and was under intense scrutiny by U.S. officials;
(2) that there was a material risk that Fastly's business would be
adversely impacted should any adverse actions be taken against
ByteDance or TikTok by the U.S. government; and (3) that, as a
result, defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you acquired Fastly securities, have information, or would like
to learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of
Kirby McInerney at 212-371-6600, by email at
investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to
discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters
without any cost to you.

Kirby McInerney is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney's website: www.kmllp.com.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]

FIRSTENERGY CORP: Faces More Class Actions Over Bribery Scandal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Mackinnon, writing for Beacon Journal, reports that lawsuits
against FirstEnergy Corp. continue to climb.

Two class action lawsuits were filed with the latest one on Aug. 7
in federal court in Cleveland that alleges share prices dropped
drastically because of wrongdoing by the Akron electric utility
tied to a $60 million bribery and racketeering scheme in Columbus.

These two new lawsuits join others previously filed in various
courts since the scandal broke on July 21 when federal agents
arrested then-Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder. Also arrested
were four other men who included lobbyists for FirstEnergy and
former subsidiary Energy Harbor, previously called FirstEnergy
Solutions.

The Aug. 7 32-page shareholder lawsuit filed by California resident
Jennifer Miller argues, like others, that FirstEnergy senior
executives and board members breached their fiduciary duty, "were
unjustly enriched, wasted corporate assets," and violated
provisions of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. Miller is
identified as being a FirstEnergy shareholder since 1999 who, at
the time of the lawsuit filing, owned 812 shares of stock in the
company.

The second lawsuit, filed Aug. 5 in federal court in Columbus,
differs from the shareholder complaints by alleging that Brian
Hudock and Cameo Countertops Inc., both in Lucas County in
Northwest Ohio, were injured by being forced to pay monthly
surcharges on their electric bills that are tied to the scandal.
The 41-page class action lawsuit alleges violations of the Federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization, or RICO, Act, the
Ohio Corrupt Activity Act, and civil conspiracy.

Both lawsuits heavily draw upon the lengthy criminal complaint and
affidavit that led to the arrest of Householder and the four other
men.

According to court documents, federal agents allege that
FirstEnergy and the former FirstEnergy Solutions funneled as much
as $61 million to Householder and the others they arrested to
support and defend what was called House Bill 6, a law designed to
prop up two aging nuclear power plants owned and operated by the
former FirstEnergy Solutions. HB6, which was signed into law,
created a monthly surcharge on consumer bills that would provide
more than $1 billion in subsidies spread over years to the two
nuclear plants. FirstEnergy Solutions in 2018 filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy, emerging in February this year as Akron-based
independent company Energy Harbor.

FirstEnergy now faces at least six lawsuits with these latest two
filings tied to the Householder investigation. FirstEnergy has
previously said that it will not comment on pending litigation.

FirstEnergy's share price fell 45% within hours of the July
arrests, according to the lawsuits.

Shares have since rebounded slightly; the price is down 39% since
Jan.1; over the past 52 weeks shares have ranged from a low of
$22.85 to a high of $52.52. On Aug. 10, FirstEnergy shares closed
at $30.06.

Also as result of the arrests and criminal complaint, the Ohio
House on July 30 unanimously voted out Householder as speaker.
Householder still retains his House seat. [GN]


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP reminds
investors of the upcoming deadline to move for appointment as lead
plaintiff in the class action litigation on behalf of investors who
purchased the common stock of FirstEnergy Corp. ("FirstEnergy" or
the "Company") (NYSE:FE) between February 21, 2017 and July 21,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you purchased the common stock of FirstEnergy during the Class
Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by
no later than September 28, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions
will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or
other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.

FirstEnergy investors who wish to learn more about the litigation
and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or
contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at
1-800-541-7358.

Background on the FirstEnergy Securities Class Litigation

FirstEnergy, headquartered in Akron, Ohio, is an electric utility
company. The action alleges that, during the Class Period,
defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding FirstEnergy's internal controls, business practices and
prospects. In particular, defendants boasted of FirstEnergy's
legislative "solutions" to difficulties with its nuclear
facilities, but failed to disclose that those "solutions" revolved
around an illicit campaign to influence state lawmakers to support
legislation favoring the Company. For nearly three years,
FirstEnergy and its affiliates channeled more than $60 million to
state politicians and lobbyists, including Ohio Speaker Larry
Householder, to ensure the passage of Ohio House Bill 6 ("HB 6"),
which provided a $1.3 billion ratepayer-funded bailout of
FirstEnergy's failing nuclear facilities. Defendants also falsely
stated that they were in compliance with state and federal laws and
regulations throughout the Class Period, when in reality they were
exposing the Company and its investors to undisclosed risks of
legal, financial, and reputational damage.

On July 21, 2020, federal agents announced the arrest of Speaker
Householder and four other persons, including a lobbyist for
FirstEnergy, in connection with a $60 million racketeering and
bribery scheme. The criminal complaint and affidavit described an
alleged pay-to-play scheme in which FirstEnergy influenced the
legislative process in order to guarantee the passage of HB 6,
including by defending the bill against a citizens ballot
initiative to overturn the bill. Prosecutors described the case as
the "largest bribery, money-laundering scheme" in Ohio history. On
this news, the price of FirstEnergy stock fell $7.01 per share, or
almost 17%, from its closing price of $41.26 on July 20, 2020, to
close at $34.25 on July 21, 2020, on heavy trading volume.

On July 22, 2020, Cleveland.com published an article providing
additional details regarding the Company's illicit actions in
connection with the scheme. On this news, the price of FirstEnergy
stock dropped an additional $7.16, or 20.9% from its closing price
of $34.25 per share on July 21, 2020, to close at $27.09 on July
22, 2020, on extremely heavy trading volume.

                       About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San
Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law
firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting
corporate responsibility.

The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of
the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In
compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent
verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the
best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual
dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as
one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting
our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds
itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest
defense law firms in the world." Benchmark Litigation has named
Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America."

For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's
representation of investors, please visit
https://www.lieffcabraser.com/.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

Source/Contact for Media Inquiries Only

Sharon M. Lee
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
Telephone: 1-800-541-7358 [GN]

FIRSTENERGY CORP: Pomerantz Law Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against FirstEnergy Corporation ("FirstEnergy" or the "Company")
(NYSE: FE) and certain of its officers.   The class action, filed
in United States District Court for the S, and indexed under
20-cv-06896, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired
FirstEnergy securities between February 21, 2017, and July 21,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").  Plaintiff seeks to pursue
remedies against FirstEnergy and certain of the Company's current
and former most senior executives under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule
l0b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased FirstEnergy securities
during the class period, you have until September 25, 2020, to ask
the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy
of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To
discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free,
Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares
purchased.

Defendant FirstEnergy is headquartered in Akron, Ohio.  The Company
is an electric utility company with subsidiaries and affiliates
involved in the distribution, transmission, and generation of
electricity, as well as energy management and other energy-related
services.  FirstEnergy's ten electric utility operating companies
comprise one of the U.S.'s largest investor-owned utilities,
serving more than six million customers in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West
Virginia, Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York.  The
Company also owned and operated two nuclear power plants in
Ohio—the Perry Nuclear Generating Station and the Davis-Besse
Nuclear Power Station.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that:
defendants touted FirstEnergy's legislative "solutions" to problems
with its nuclear facilities, but failed to disclose that these
"solutions" centered on an illicit campaign to corrupt high-profile
state legislators to secure legislation favoring the Company.  Over
a nearly three-year period, FirstEnergy and its affiliates funneled
more than $60 million to prominent state politicians and lobbyists,
including Ohio Speaker Larry Householder ("Householder"), to secure
the passage of Ohio House Bill 6 ("HB6"), which provided a $1.3
billion ratepayer-funded bailout to keep the Company's failing
nuclear facilities in operation.  In addition, defendants falsely
represented that they were complying with state and federal laws
and regulations regarding regulatory matters throughout the Class
Period, exposing the Company and its investors to undisclosed risks
of reputational, legal, and financial harm.

The truth began to be revealed on July 21, 2020.  That day, federal
agents announced the arrest of Householder and four other persons,
including a prominent FirstEnergy lobbyist, in connection with a
$60 million racketeering and bribery scheme.  The 82-page criminal
complaint and affidavit detailed a pay-to-play scheme in which
FirstEnergy corrupted the legislative process to ensure the passage
of HB6.  Prosecutors described the case as involving the "largest
bribery, money-laundering scheme" in Ohio history.

On this news, FirstEnergy's stock price fell, trading as low as
$22.85 per share on July 22, 2020, down nearly 45% from its closing
price of $41.26 per share on July 20, 2020, damaging FirstEnergy
shareholders.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members.

         Robert S. Willoughby
         Pomerantz LLP
         E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]

FIRSTENERGY CORP: Rosen Law Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of FirstEnergy Corp. (NYSE: FE)
between February 21, 2017 and July 21, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important September 28, 2020 lead plaintiff
deadline in the case. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
FirstEnergy investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the FirstEnergy class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1903.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) FirstEnergy and its representatives and affiliates had
orchestrated a $60 million campaign to corrupt the political
process in order to secure the passage of legislation favoring the
Company and its affiliates; (2) FirstEnergy and its representatives
and affiliates had secretly funneled tens of millions of dollars to
Ohio politicians to bribe those politicians in order to secure
votes in favor of Ohio House Bill 6 ("HB 6"), a $1.3 billion
ratepayer bailout for FirstEnergy's unprofitable nuclear
facilities; (3) FirstEnergy and its representatives and affiliates
had conducted a massive, misleading advertising campaign in support
of HB6 and in opposition to a ballot initiative to repeal HB6 by
passing millions of dollars through an intricate web of ‘dark
money' entities and front companies in order to conceal the
Company's involvement; (4) FirstEnergy and its representatives and
affiliates had subverted a citizens' ballot initiative to repeal
HB6 by, among other unscrupulous tactics, hiring more than 15
signature gathering firms (and thus conflicting them out of
supporting the initiative) and bribing ballot initiative insiders
and signature collectors; (5) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' Class Period statements regarding FirstEnergy's
regulatory and legislative efforts were materially false and
misleading; and (6) as a result of the foregoing, FirstEnergy was
subject to an extreme, undisclosed risk of reputational, legal and
financial harm. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September
28, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1903.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 cases@rosenlegal.com [GN]

FIRSTENERGY CORP: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Aug. 10 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
FirstEnergy Corp. (NYSE: FE) ("FirstEnergy" or "the Company") for
violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between February
21, 2017 and July 21, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before September 28, 2020.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. FirstEnergy and associated organizations
and individuals were the architects of a $60 million scheme
involving bribery and the corruption of the political process with
the goal of securing legislation favorable to the Company. The
Company secretly bribed Ohio politicians with tens of millions of
dollars to secure votes for Ohio House Bill 6 ("HB 6"), a $1.3
billion ratepayer bailout of the Company's unprofitable nuclear
generation plants. The Company funneled millions of dollars through
"dark money" organizations to conduct a misleading advertising
campaign in favor of the bill while concealing its involvement. The
Company hired 15 signature gathering firms and bribed others
involved in a ballot initiative to repeal HB6 in order to thwart
the effort, among other unscrupulous tactics. Based on these facts,
the Company's public statements were false and materially
misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the
truth about FirstEnergy, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.

CONTACT:

The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]


FLAGSHIP CREDIT: Court Denies Final OK on $4MM Deal in Ward Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael Baylson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania denied final approval of the proposed
class action settlement in the case captioned ROBERT WARD, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. FLAGSHIP
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE LLC, Civil Action No.
17-2069 (E.D. Pa.).

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on May 5, 2017, alleging that
Flagship Credit Acceptance LLC, a subprime lender that provides
financing to car buyers who would not have access to credit through
traditional debt markets, placed automated and prerecorded phone
calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA).

The parties immediately entered into arm's-length settlement
discussions and reached agreement on terms in February 2018.  The
Court granted preliminary approval of the class settlement in July
2018.  The settlement that was preliminarily approved provided that
each class member who submitted a valid claim would receive an
equal amount of the $4 million settlement fund, entitling each
claiming class member to "the same pro rata share."

Plaintiff then moved for final approval of class settlement in
March 2019.

Upon final review, the Court denies the current Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement and Motion for An Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and an Incentive Award to the Named
Plaintiff.  The Court is primarily concerned with three aspects of
the proposed settlement: first, the lack of information available
to counsel to inform their view and advise the class of the
strengths and weaknesses of the case given the early posture in
which the parties reached agreement; second, the emphasis on
Flagship's inability to pay more than $4 million when no underlying
financial information was provided to the class members, compounded
by the Court's belief, after in camera review of the financials,
that this statement is inaccurate; and third, the Court's
skepticism that $4 million is a fair settlement in this case, given
that it will result in a de minimis per claimant recovery of
$35.30.

The combination of these concerns, plus the amount of attorney's
fees requested by Class Counsel, leads the Court to deny final
approval of the settlement.  However, the Court does not foreclose
the possibility of approving an amended settlement agreement that
is revised to address the concerns outlined in this Memorandum.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 13, 2020
Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/ufm5m6a from
Leagle.com

ROBERT WARD, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by SERGEI LEMBERG --
slemberg@lemberglaw.com -- LEMBERG LAW LLC & STEPHEN F. TAYLOR ,
LEMBERG LAW LLC.

FLAGSHIP CREDIT ACCEPTANCE LLC, Defendant, represented by GERALD E.
ARTH -- garth@foxrothschild.com -- FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP & STEVEN
JOSEPH DAROCI, II -- sdaroci@foxrothschild.com -- FOX ROTHSCHILD
LLP.


FLAMES EATERY: Faces Luna Labor Suit in Calif. Over Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
RAMIRO LUNA, an individual v. FLAMES EATERY & BAR, an unknown
business entity; 4TH STREET FOOD INC., California corporation;
HASSAN AZAD, an individual; and DOES through 20, inclusive, Case
No. ZOCV369402 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Aug. 12, 2020), is
brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees alleging that the Defendants violated the California
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code, by
failing to pay all wages owed, including minimum and overtime
wages.

The lawsuit also asserts claims for the Defendants' failure to
provide timely duty free meal and rest periods or compensation for
meal and rest period violations, to provide accurate wage
statements, and to pay all due wages at separation of employment.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt hourly
laborer in their diner-style restaurant from when they took over
from the restaurant's previous owner, approximately four years ago,
until October 2019.

Flames Eatery & Bar and 4th Street Food Inc. are restaurant and bar
companies in San Jose, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Menendez, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL A. MENENDEZ
          1261 Lincoln Avenue, Suite 208
          San Jose, CA 95125
          Telephone: (408) 479-4969
          Facsimile: (408) 273-6912
          E-mail: daniel@siliconvalleylegal.com


FMFS OF VS: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Sinclair Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
USHA SINCLAIR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. FMFS OF VS, LLC, d/b/a BUFFALO WILD WINGS, Case No.
707076/2020 (N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty., June 9, 2020), alleges that
the Defendant has failed to pay the Plaintiff minimum and overtime
wages for all hours worked over 40 in any given week, in violation
of the New York State Labor Law, the New York Code of Rules and
Regulations, the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Plaintiff filed a Request for Judicial Intervention on August 12,
2020. The case is assigned to Judge Carmen Velasquez.

The complaint asserts that the Defendant required the Plaintiff and
other laborers to wear a uniform consisted of one hat and one apron
for each shift worked. The Defendant only provided the Plaintiff
and the Class with one uniform each despite each of them working
several days per week.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's failure to supply
sufficient articles of uniform clothing consistent with the average
number of days per week worked by the Plaintiff and the Class and
failure to provide any uniform maintenance pay or reimbursement for
the cost of maintaining uniforms is a violation of Article 19 of
the New York Labor Law and its supporting regulations, including
the New York Hospitality Industry Wage Order, and the former New
York Minimum Wage Order for the Restaurant Industry.

FMFS of VS, LLC, doing business as Buffalo Wild Wings, is a New
York-based restaurant company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Gaylord, Esq.
          BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP
          357 Veterans Memorial Highway
          Commack, NY 11725
          Telephone: (516) 742-4949
          E-mail: mark@bglawny.com


GEO GROUP: Schall Law Announces Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class-action lawsuit against The GEO
Group, Inc. ("GEO" or "the Company") (NYSE:GEO) for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between February
27, 2020 and June 16, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before September 8, 2020.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. GEO's COVID-19 response procedures were
ineffective. The Company's failure to maintain appropriate response
procedures placed the residents of its halfway houses at risk.
Placing its residents at significant health risk, in turn, made the
Company vulnerable to financial and reputational harm. Based on
this news, the Company's public statements were false and
materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market
learned the truth about GEO, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.  [GN]

GERMANTOWN SCHOOL: Denial of Counsel Fees in Choinsky Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Wisconsin upheld a decision of a court of
appeals affirming a circuit court denial of the School District's
Motion for Attorneys' Fees in the case captioned Roger Choinsky,
Gary Finn, William Gay, David Kliss, Carol Rudebeck and Janice
Weinhold, Plaintiffs, v. Employers Insurance Company of Wausau and
Wausau Business Insurance Company, Intervenors-Respondents,
Germantown School District Board of Education and Germantown School
District, Defendants-Appellants-Petitioners, Case No. 2018AP116.
(Wis.).

In July 2013, six retired Germantown School District employees, as
representatives in a class action, filed a lawsuit against the
Germantown School District Board of Education and Germantown School
District (the "School District"), alleging four causes of action:
(1) breach of contract (2) breach of implied contract, (3) breach
of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and (4) promissory
estoppel.  The lawsuit arose from the School District's 2012
decision to discontinue group long-term care (LTC) insurance for
its current employees.  This decision caused the retired employees
to lose their LTC insurance benefit.

The School District argued that its insurers, Employers Insurance
Company of Wausau and Wausau Business Insurance Company
("Insurer"), breached the duty to defend the School District in the
Lawsuit brought by retired employees; therefore, the School
District claims its Insurer should pay, as a remedy for the breach,
all the attorney fees incurred by the School District.

The case presents an insurance coverage duty-to-defend issue of
first impression: does an insurer breach its duty to defend its
insured when it denies a tendered claim and then follows the
judicially preferred procedure of filing a motion to intervene and
stay the underlying lawsuit pending a coverage determination, which
is ultimately resolved in the insured's favor?

On review, the Supreme Court concludes that when an insurer
initially denies a tendered claim but promptly proceeds with one of
the Supreme Court's judicially preferred methods for determining
coverage, it does not breach its duty to defend.  If a circuit
court denies any part of an insurer's motion to bifurcate the
coverage issue from the underlying liability lawsuit and stay the
latter, causing an insured to simultaneously defend the liability
suit and litigate coverage against the insurer, an insurer must
defend its insured in the liability lawsuit, retroactive to the
date of tender, under a reservation of rights, until a court
decides the coverage issue.  Because the School District's Insurer
followed this procedure, the Insurer did not breach its duty to
defend and the Insurer is not responsible for any of the attorney
fees the School District paid for the coverage dispute, the Supreme
Court opines.

In reaching this decision, the Supreme Court rejects the School
District's claims that: (1) its Insurer's initial outright denial
of coverage followed by a delayed decision to defend under a
reservation of rights constituted a breach of its duty to defend;
(2) its Insurer's delay in paying liability fees and its failure to
reimburse the School District for the entire amount it paid to its
liability lawyer constitutes a breach of its duty to defend; and
(3) the circuit court's assessment of whether the Insurer breached
its duty to defend is subject to the four-corners rule.

The Supreme Court holds that: (1) the Insurer's initial denial of
coverage did not breach its duty to defend because the Insurer
promptly followed a judicially-approved method to resolve the
coverage dispute; further, it defended the School District upon
denial of the stay motion, agreeing to reimburse the School
District for liability attorney fees retroactive to the date of the
tender; (2) a delay in payment of liability attorney fees alone
does not mean an insurer breached its duty to defend and an insurer
is obligated to pay only reasonable attorney fees; and (3) the
four-corners rule applies in determining whether a duty to defend
exists but does not preclude a court's consideration of whether the
insurer unilaterally denied coverage or whether it chose a
judicially preferred method of resolving a coverage dispute, in
assessing whether an insurer breached its duty to defend.

In sum, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of
appeals.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's February 13, 2020 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/um2hjkw from Leagle.com

For the defendants-appellants-petitioners, there were briefs filed
by Kirk D. Strang , Jenna E. Rousseau and Strang, Patteson,
Renning, Lewis & Lacy, S.C., 660 W. Washington Avenue
Suite 303, Madison, WI, 53703, Madison and Green Bay. There was an
oral argument by Kirk D. Strang.

For the intervenors-respondents, there was a brief filed by Thomas
R. Schrimpf - tschrimpf@hinshawlaw,com - and Hinshaw & Culbertson
LLP, Milwaukee, and Todd G. Smith -
tsmith@gklaw.com - and Godfrey & Kahn, S.C., Madison. There was an
oral argument by Thomas R. Schrimpf.

For amicus Wisconsin Insurance Alliance, a brief was filed by
Robert I. Fassbender and Great Lakes Legal Foundation Madison,10 E
Doty St Ste 504, Madison, WI, 53703-3301


HAN DYNASTY: Wins Summary Judgment in Yeh Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Opinion and Order granting Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment in the case captioned HSIEH LIANG YEH, Plaintiff,
v. HAN DYNASTY, INC., HAN DYNASTY UPPER WEST SIDE CORP., and
LUNG-LUNG SHEN CHIANG, Defendants, Case No. 18-Civ-6018
(S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiff Hsieh Liang Yeh, a former chef at "Han Dynasty"
restaurants in Exton, Pennsylvania and, briefly, on the Upper West
Side of Manhattan, brings wage claims under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"); New York Labor Law ("NYLL"); and the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968 ("PAMWA"), against two Han
Dynasty entities and a Han Dynasty executive. These are Han
Dynasty, Inc., d/b/a Han Dynasty ("HDP"), which operates the Exton
restaurant; Han Dynasty Upper West Side Corp., d/b/a/Han Dynasty
("HDUWS"), which operates the Manhattan restaurant; and Lung-Lung
Shen Chiang ("Chiang"), an officer of HDP. Yeh's principal claims
are that the defendants did not pay him overtime for his work and
did not inform him of his hourly pay rate. He also alleges that
defendants unlawfully failed to furnish him with a new-hire notice
at the time of his move to HDUWS and wage statements during his
tenure at HDUWS, in violation of the NYLL.

Following discovery, defendants have moved for summary judgment,
principally on the ground that Yeh fell within the exemption to
these wage laws for employees who work in a "bona fide executive .
. . capacity."

The Court accordingly finds that defendants have established,
overwhelmingly, that Yeh's duties were primarily managerial. Yeh
supervised the overall kitchen staff. His duties in that role
included giving direction to the kitchen workers as to a range of
critical tasks, including relating to food preparation and quality
control, ingredient inventory and ordering, kitchen clean-up,
scheduling, and employee disputes.

Thus, the executive exemption applies and defeats Yeh's claims that
he was unlawfully denied overtime pay.

For these reasons, the Court grants defendants' motion for summary
judgment in its entirety, in opinion and order dated February 24,
2020, a full-text copy of which is available at
https://tinyurl.com/r9kv3pr from Leagle.com.

Hsieh Liang Yeh, on his own behalf and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron B. Schweitzer ,
Troy Law, PLLC, 4125 Kissena Blvd, Ste 119, Flushing, NY 11355-3150
& John Troy - johntroy@troypllc.com - Troy Law, PLLC.

Han Dynasty, Inc, doing business as Han Dynasty, Han Dynasty Upper
West Side Corp, doing business as Han Dynasty & Lung-Lung Shen
Chiang, Defendants, represented by Kevin K. Yam -kyam@littler.com -
Littler Mendelson, P.C., Sanjay V. Nair - snair@littler.com -
Littler Mendelson, P.C. & William H. Ng - wng@littler.com - Littler
Mendelson, P.C.

HDFC BANK: Faces Securities Class Actions
-----------------------------------------
Prabhjote Gill, writing for Business Insider, reports that HDFC
Bank has been accused of issuing 'materially misleading business
information' to its investors by two US-based law firms, Schall Law
Firm and Rosen Law Firm.

They are looking to file a securities class action against the bank
on behalf of its shareholders.

The firms outline a repeated pattern by the Indian bank of not
disclosing important information to shareholders. Three instances
in particular -- probe into loans practices in vehicle financing,
delay in providing loan details to the RBI, and lower net profits
-- have been called into question.

"We were unaware of any such development (class action lawsuit)
till we heard about it from the media earlier on Aug. 17. We are
getting details of it. We'll examine it and respond to it as
appropriate. Prima facie it does look frivolous as we believe we
have been transparent in our disclosures," HDFC Bank told Business
Insider India. [GN]


HOTELS.COM: 5th Cir. Affirms $2.2MM Bill of Costs v. San Antonio
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit issued an Opinion
affirming the District Court's judgment Entering Bill of Costs
against Plaintiffs in the case captioned CITY OF SAN ANTONIO,
TEXAS, On Behalf Of Itself And All Other Similarly Situated Texas
Municipalities, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HOTELS.COM, L.P.; HOTWIRE,
INCORPORATED; TRIP NETWORK, INCORPORATED, doing business as
Cheaptickets.com; EXPEDIA, INCORPORATED; INTERNETWORK PUBLISHING
CORPORATION, doing business as Lodging.Com; ORBITZ, L.L.C.;
PRICELINE.COM, INCORPORATED; SITE59.COM, L.L.C.; TRAVELOCITY.COM,
L.P.; TRAVELWEB, L.L.C.; TRAVELNOW.COM, INCORPORATED,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 19-50701 (5th Cir.).

This appeal represents the latest installment in a long-running
legal dispute pitting a class of 173 Texas municipalities against
various online travel companies (OTCs) such as Hotels.com, Hotwire,
Orbitz, and Travelocity. The dispute began in 2006 when the City of
San Antonio filed a putative class action lawsuit alleging the
service fees charged by OTCs for facilitating hotel reservations
are part of the "cost of occupancy," and, therefore, subject to the
municipalities' hotel tax ordinances. The municipalities sought
money damages for unpaid and underpaid hotel occupancy taxes, as
well as a declaratory judgment that OTCs must collect and remit
hotel occupancy taxes based on the amount collected for the room
rate and service fee combined, i.e., the "retail rate."

Following entry of final judgment, the OTCs filed a bill of costs
in the district court seeking $2,353,294.58. In addition to the
$905.60 sought in the Second Circuit and various other court fees
and copying costs, the bill of costs included $2,008,359.00 for
post-judgment interest and premiums paid for the supersedeas bonds
required to secure a stay of execution and preserve rights pending
appeal.
  
San Antonio objected, urging the district court to refuse to tax,
or at least substantially reduce, the appeal bond premiums sought
by the OTCs. The district court noted that San Antonio made some
persuasive arguments but, relying on In re Sioux Ltd., Sec. Litig.,
No. 87-6167, 1991 WL 182578 (5th Cir. Mar. 4, 1991), the court
concluded that it lacked discretion to reduce taxation of the bond
premiums.

The district court entered a bill of costs taxing $2,226,724.37
against San Antonio.

The City timely appealed the district court bill of costs taxing
$2,226,724.37 against it.

The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provide a framework for
allocating appellate litigation costs between parties. For example,
if the judgment below is reversed, the costs of printing appellate
briefs are, by default, taxed against the appellees. The rules also
provide that certain other appeal costs, including premiums paid
for bonds used to stay a money judgment and secure the right to
appeal, are taxable in the district court.

San Antonio asserts that even if the district court was authorized
to grant the OTCs' request for Rule 39(e) appeal costs, the award
should nevertheless be vacated because the district court applied
the wrong legal standard, thinking it lacked discretion to deny or
reduce the award when in reality it could have done so.

As San Antonio points out, most other circuits to have considered
this issue have held or at least implied that a district court
retains discretion to deny or reduce a Rule 39(e) award, regardless
of whether the district court's authority to grant the award arises
from one of the default rules in 39(a)(1)-(3) or from an appellate
court's mandate in a 39(a)(4) case.
  
The problem for San Antonio, however, is that the Second Circuit
adopted the contrary position almost three decades ago in Sioux,
which remains binding precedent.

In Sioux, the Second Circuit considered a prior appeal that vacated
the district court's judgment and remanded for retrial.  Applying
Rule 39(a)(4), the Second Circuit treated the mandate, which
awarded appellants the costs on appeal to be taxed by the Clerk of
this Court, as a determination that appellants were the party
entitled to costs' in this case. Further, the Second Circuit
recognized that the appellate mandate did not limit costs on appeal
taxable in the district court.
  
San Antonio argues Sioux is no longer good law because it
specifically relied on language from an old version of Rule 39(e),
which was amended in 1998. The old version stated appellate costs
shall be taxed in the district court whereas the current version
states appellate costs are taxable in the district court.  

San Antonio's argument misses the mark, rules the Second Circuit.
As San Antonio concedes, the 1998 amendment worked no substantive
change to Rule 39(e). This means that, at most, Sioux's treatment
of Rule 39(e) was just as wrong before the amendment as it was
after. But even assuming arguendo that Sioux was wrong from the
start as a matter of interpretation, its treatment of Rule 39
nevertheless remains controlling law.

As a general rule, one panel may not overrule the decision of a
prior panel, right or wrong, in the absence of an intervening
contrary or superseding decision by this court sitting en banc or
by the United States Supreme Court.

The Second Circuit expresses no view on the merits of Sioux's
interpretation of Rule 39(e). It holds only that, because no
substantive change in the law has occurred, Sioux remains binding
precedent. Therefore, the district court correctly recognized that
it lacked discretion to deny or reduce the appeal bond costs to
which the OTCs were entitled under Rule 39.

The order of the district court is AFFIRMED.

A full-text copy of the Second Circuit's May 11, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yan76rup from Leagle.com.

Gary Cruciani , Chelsea Priest , Steven D. Wolens , McKool Smith,
P.C., Dallas, TX, Charles E. Fowler, Jr. , U.S. Attorney's Office
Central District of California, Los Angeles, CA, for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Thomas M. Peterson , Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, L.L.P., San
Francisco, CA, Les J. Strieber, III , Davis, Cedillo & Mendoza,
Incorporated, San Antonio, TX, for Defendants-Appellees Hotels.com,
L.P., Hotwire, Incorporated, Expedia, Incorporated, TravelNow.com,
Incorporated.

Thomas M. Peterson , Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, L.L.P., San
Francisco, CA, Elizabeth Brooke Herrington , Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, L.L.P., Chicago, IL, Les J. Strieber, III , Davis, Cedillo
& Mendoza, Incorporated, San Antonio, TX, for Defendants-Appellees
Trip Network, Incorporated, doing business as CheapTickets.com,
Internetwork Publishing Corporation, doing business as Lodging.com,
Orbitz, L.L.C.

Thomas M. Peterson , Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, L.L.P., San
Francisco, CA, Jennifer J. McGahey , Anne Marie Seibel, Esq. ,
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, L.L.P., Birmingham, AL, Les J.
Strieber, III , Davis, Cedillo & Mendoza, Incorporated, San
Antonio, TX, for Defendants-Appellees Priceline.com, Incorporated,
Travelweb, L.L.C.

Thomas M. Peterson , Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, L.L.P., San
Francisco, CA, Brian Scott Stagner , Kelly, Hart & Hallman, L.L.P.,
Fort Worth, TX, Les J. Strieber, III , Davis, Cedillo & Mendoza,
Incorporated, San Antonio, TX, for Defendants-Appellees Site59.com,
L.L.C., Travelocity.com, L.P.

HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Settles ERISA Class Action for $10.5MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Huntington Bancshares Inc. has struck a $10.5
million deal to settle a proposed class action that challenges its
decision to make allegedly underperforming company-owned mutual
funds the centerpiece of its 401(k) plan. [GN]

INSPERITY INC: Bernstein Liebhard LLP Reminds of Sept. 21 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action that has been filed on behalf
of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of Insperity
Inc., ("Insperity" or the "Company") (NYSE: NSP) between February
11, 2019, and February 11, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

If you purchased Insperity securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Insperity Shareholder
Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414
or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose: (i) the Company had failed to negotiate appropriate rates
with its customers for employee benefit plans and did not
adequately disclose the risk of large medical claims from these
plans; (ii) Insperity was experiencing an adverse trend of large
medical claims; (iii) as a mitigating measure, the Company would be
forced to increase the cost of its employee benefit plans, causing
stunted customer growth and reduced customer retention; and (iv)
the foregoing issues were reasonably likely to, and would,
materially impact Insperity's financial results. The truth about
Insperity's deceptive business practices was revealed through a
series of disclosures.

First, on July 29, 2019, Insperity released its second quarter 2019
financial results. Despite delivering year-over-year growth and
meeting analysts' estimates, the Company offered disappointing
third quarter 2019 and reduced its full-year 2019 guidance. The
Defendants also revealed that Insperity had experienced an increase
in large medical claim costs. On this news, Insperity shares fell
$35.74 per share, or 25 percent.

Second, on November 4, 2019, Insperity released its third quarter
2019 financial results, which substantially missed analysts'
estimates and were materially down year-over-year. On this news,
Insperity shares fell by $36.29 per share, or 34 percent.

Finally, on February 11, 2020, after the close of trading,
Insperity released its fourth quarter and full-year 2019 financial
results. Insperity revealed that large medical claims had impacted
the company significantly increasing operational costs. Further,
the Company stated that it had restructured its contract with
UnitedHealthcare to no longer have financial responsibility for any
medical claims over $1 million. On this news, Insperity's shares
declined $17.44 per share, or over 20 percent.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than September 21, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Insperity securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/insperityinc-nsp-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-285/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2020 Bernstein Liebhard LLP.

The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein
Liebhard LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212)
779-1414. The lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the
State of Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not
guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future
matter.

        Matthew E. Guarnero
        Bernstein Liebhard LLP
        Tel No: (877) 779-1414
        E-mail: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]

INTACT INSURANCE: Sued Over Denied Business Interruption Coverage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fraser, writing for The Province, reports that a hair salon
that has eight outlets in B.C. has filed a class-action lawsuit
alleging that insurance companies are wrongly denying business
interruption insurance coverage for closures and restrictions
resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Great Clips is the representative plaintiff in a class-action
lawsuit filed in B.C. Supreme Court against Canada's major
insurance companies. The plaintiffs claim that 100,000 businesses
across the country, including more than 10,000 in B.C., have been
adversely impacted by the position being taken by the insurance
companies.

The hair salon says it signed a contract with the Intact Insurance
Company for a business interruption insurance policy that featured
coverage for lost business income over a prescribed period of
time.

It says that after B.C.'s state of emergency was declared in March
and restrictions were imposed by health authorities, it was forced
to interrupt its regular business operations for weeks.

The hair salon contacted the insurance firm and submitted a claim
for its business losses, but in May received word that the claim
had been denied on the grounds that the requisite losses or damages
to insured property had not been proven, according to the lawsuit.

The thousands of class members have suffered "significant loss" as
a result of the interruptions brought about by the pandemic, it
says.

"When they began making claims on the defendants for support under
their business interruption insurance policies, they were surprised
and dismayed to see their claims uniformly denied."

The insurance companies collected millions of dollars in insurance
premiums from class members over a period of years or decades "only
to deny them coverage when they needed it most," adds the lawsuit.

The typical business interruption policy covers all perils or risks
unless the perils are specifically excluded and the exclusions
typically do not prevent coverage for pandemics, says the
class-action.

"None of them specially exclude contamination or risk of
contamination by pandemics. None of the class members' policy
language specifically excludes circumstances such as COVID-19 or
its resulting orders, notices, advisories, directives and
guidelines."

The suit is seeking a certification of a class-action and a
declaration that the defendants breached the terms of their
contracts and acted in "bad faith".

Punitive and aggravated damages of $100 million are being sought,
but Tony Merchant, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said on Aug. 10 hat
the figure for total damages could run into the billions of
dollars.

"These claims that we're advancing in Canada and similar claims
that are being advanced in the United States and Europe could be
absolutely huge," said Merchant.

An Intact spokeswoman sent an email response to questions from
Postmedia: "We are aware of the application for authorization for a
class-action lawsuit filed against a number of insurers, including
Intact. As this is potentially in litigation, we cannot provide
further details at this time. We continue to provide support and
relief to our customers wherever we can."

Aaron Sutherland, a vice-president of the Insurance Bureau of
Canada, said that he couldn't comment on the specifics in the
lawsuit.

But he said that insurance coverage for pandemics is typically
excluded in most business policies unless it's specifically sought
and that business interruption policies typically require physical
damage to be proven for a claim to be made out. There has been no
physical damage to businesses under COVID-19, he said.

The class action lawsuit was brought by Keith Chalmers, who owns
eight Great Clips hair salons in B.C., not Great Clips itself.
[GN]


INTEL CORP: Robbins LLP Files Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP announces that a purchaser
of Intel Corporation (NASDAQ: INTC) filed a class action complaint
against the Company for alleged violations of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 between April 23, 2020 and July 23, 2020.
Intel Corporation designs and manufactures hardware and software
for computing, networking, data storage, and communications
solutions.

Intel Corporation (INTC) Shocks Investors by Revealing a Yearlong
Production Delay for New Product Line

According to the complaint, Intel and certain of its officers
failed to communicate important delays in the expected release date
of its new product line. Embarrassing setbacks in the production
and manufacturing of Intel's current 10nm line, released in 2019,
damaged the Company's industry reputation and caused loss of market
share to its competitors. To regain market position, Intel planned
to continue producing and shipping its 10nm line while
simultaneously developing its 7nm processors for release in 2021.
On January 24, 2020, the Company filed a Form 10-K stating that
Intel "was on track to deliver [its] first 7nm-based product…at
the end of 2021." Again, on April 23, 2020, certain Intel officers
announced to investors that the Company was on track for the late
2021 launch of the 7nm line and that it had increased 10nm product
production to meet unexpected demand. Intel shocked investors by
releasing a statement on July 23, 2020, stating that it was further
accelerating its transition to 10nm products and that the
development of its 7nm chips was 12 months behind schedule. At
least one analyst speculated that acceleration of the 10nm product
was not due to demand, but the result of the 7nm delay. On this
news, the share price declined 16%, dropping from $60.40 to close
at $50.59 on July 24, 2020.

If you purchased Intel Corporation (INTC) securities between April
23, 2020 and July 23, 2020, you have until September 28, 2020, to
ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff for the class.

         Lauren Levi
         Tel No: (800) 350-6003
         E-mail: llevi@robbinsllp.com

Robbins LLP is a nationally recognized leader in shareholder rights
law.  [GN]

INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Court Narrows Claims in Arroyo Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division issued an order granting in part and
denying in part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case
captioned  ELISA ARROYO, Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY,
Defendant. Case No. 17-cv-06211-BLF. (N.D. Cal.)

Plaintiff Elisa Arroyo ("Arroyo") asserts individual claims, a
certified class claim, and a representative PAGA claim against
Defendant International Paper Company ("IPC") for alleged failures
to reimburse uniform expenses and provide accurate wage statements.
Following the Court's order granting in part and denying in part
Arroyo's motion for class certification, the following claims are
at issue: Claim 1 for failure to reimburse uniform expenses in
violation of Cal. Lab. Code Section 2802 (individual); Claim 2 for
failure to provide accurate wage statements in violation of Cal.
Lab. Code Section 226 (class); Claim 3 for civil penalties under
PAGA; and Claim 4 for violation of California's Unfair Competition
Law ("UCL") (individual).

IPC seeks summary judgment on all claims. Arroyo opposes the
summary judgment motion and, in the alternative, requests a
continuance pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) to
take additional discovery. IPC contends that the requested
continuance is unwarranted because Arroyo has not shown that she
diligently pursued discovery.

Arroyo worked for IPC and its predecessor, Weyerhaeuser, from
November 1998 through February 2017. IPC manufactures paper, boxes,
bags, and other paper-based products. IPC owns twenty-six different
facilities across California. Those facilities previously were
owned by different companies, each of which had its own policy
regarding use of uniforms and its own method of timekeeping. As a
result, the uniform policies and timekeeping methods differ among
IPC's California facilities.

Arroyo filed this action in the Monterey County Superior Court on
September 27, 2017, asserting multiple wage and hour violations
against IPC on behalf of a putative class of California employees.
On April 4, 2019, the Court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part Arroyo's motion for class certification.

The Court finds that Arroyo has not shown diligence in pursing
discovery. Arroyo's failure to take any merits discovery to date is
inexplicable. The Court did not phase discovery in this case. The
case schedule was set at the Initial Case Management Conference on
March 29, 2018 and was memorialized in a Case Management Order
issued on the same date.

Because it is apparent from this record that Arroyo "failed
diligently to pursue discovery in the past," Arroyo's request for a
continuance of the summary judgment motion pursuant to Rule 56(d)
is DENIED.

Moreover, the Court concludes that IPC has failed to establish as a
matter of law that its wage statements show the total hours worked
as required by Cal. Lab. Code Section 226(a)(2). However, IPC's
wage statements show the applicable overtime rate as required by
Cal. Lab. Code Section 226(a)(9).

IPC contends that its good faith belief that its wage statements
complied with Section 226 precludes liability under the statute.

Because Arroyo has no evidence to controvert IPC's showing of good
faith, IPC is entitled to summary judgment on Arroyo's wage
statement claims on the basis that any violation of Section 226 was
not "knowing and intentional," says the Court.

IPC has demonstrated that it is entitled to summary judgment on
Arroyo's claims for violations of Section 226(a)(2) and (a)(9)
because IPC had a good faith belief that it was in compliance with
Section 226 and therefore it could not have committed a knowing and
intentional violation of the statute. IPC has demonstrated its
entitlement to summary judgment on the Section 226(a)(9) claim on
the additional grounds that Arroyo cannot establish a statutory
violation or resulting injury.

Accordingly, IPC's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to
Claim 2 (class claim), GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as to
Claim 3 (PAGA claim), and DENIED as to Claims 1 and 4 (individual
claims), rules the Court.

Following this ruling, the claims remaining for trial are:

-- Claim 1 for failure to reimburse business expenses in violation
of Cal. Lab. Code Section 2802 (individual claim);

-- Claim 3 for PAGA penalties based on alleged violations of Cal.
Lab. Code Sections 226(a)(2) and 2802; and

-- Claim 4 for violation of California's UCL based on alleged
violation of Cal. Lab. Code Section 2802 and related code sections
(individual claim).

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 24, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/uerwkd6 from Leagle.com

Elisa Arroyo, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis Sangwon Hyun -
dhyun@hyunlegal.com - Hyun Legal APC, Kristen Michelle Agnew  -
kagnew@diversitylaw.com - Diversity Law Group, APC, Larry W. Lee  -
lwlee@diversitylaw.com - Diversity Law Group, P.C., Nicholas
Rosenthal  - nrosenthal@diversitylaw.com - Diversity Law Group &
William Lucas Marder - bill@polarislawgroup.com - Polaris Law
Group, LLP.

International Paper Company, a New York corporation, Defendant,
represented by - mewalker@fisherphillips.com - Fisher Phillips, LLP
& - aolsen@fisherphillips.com - Fisher & Phillips, LLP.



INVENTURE FOODS: Class Action Over "Potato Skins" Snack Settled
---------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that before a
federal judge could decide whether it was fraud to call a snack
"potato skins," the remaining sides in a proposed class action
lawsuit have settled.

After New York federal judge Katherine Polk Failla dismissed Utz
and TGI Friday's as defendants, plaintiff Solange Troncoso and
lawyers at Lee Litigation Group reached a confidential agreement
with Inventure Foods, which makes a chip-like snack marketed as
potato skins using the TGI Friday's trademark.

Troncoso's lawsuit said the snack contained no potato skins, only
potato flakes. She said because of the packaging and because TGI
Friday's sells a potato skin appetizer at its restaurants, she was
led to believe the snacks would contain real potato skins.

Failla in July rejected most of her claims but allowed her to
pursue common law fraud allegations against Inventure.

Troncoso plausibly alleged reasonable consumers would believe the
snacks contain potato peels, Failla ruled.

"Plaintiff has satisfactorily alleged a nexus between a lack of
potato peels and the snack chips in question," the ruling says.

TGI Friday's was dismissed because it merely licensed its name and
Utz was dismissed because it is only Inventure's parent company.

Troncoso sued in March 2019, making several consumer protection
claims as well as a request for injunctive relief that would
prevent Inventure from marketing the product as potato skins.

Judge Failla found Troncoso lacks standing to pursue injunctive
relief.

"Plaintiff failed to allege an intent to purchase the snack chips
in the future, and therefore she has not established a likelihood
of future injury sufficient to show standing," she ruled.

The settlement was reached before a class was ever certified,
meaning Troncoso and her lawyers will keep the entirety of whatever
dollar amount was agreed to. [GN]


J2 GLOBAL INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of those who acquired J2
Global, Inc. ("J2 Global" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: JCOM)
securities during the period from October 5, 2015 through June 29,
2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until September 8, 2020
to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) J2 Global engaged in undisclosed related party
transactions; (2) J2 Global used misleading accounting to hide
requisite impairments and underperformance in acquisitions; (3)
several so-called independent members of the Company's board of
directors and audit committee were not disinterested; and (4) as a
result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

If you acquired J2 Global securities during the Class Period, have
information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please
contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney at 212-371-6600, by
email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact
form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these
matters without any cost to you.

Kirby McInerney is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. [GN]


JAMES HARDIE: Class Action Hearing Begins in Wellington Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
LawFuel reports that a class action brought by a group of over 140
homeowners against cladding manufacturer James Hardie was scheduled
to begin a 16-week hearing on Aug. 17 in the High Court in
Wellington before Justice Simon France.

The plaintiffs' lawyer, Dan Parker of Parker & Associates said the
claim was filed in 2015 and the owner group is looking forward to
the hearing getting underway.

Mr. Parker said the claim alleges that James Hardie was negligent
and made misleading statements in relation to the manufacture and
sale of its wall cladding system, Harditex. He noted that James
Hardie denies the allegations, which will be the subject of
contested fact and expert evidence before the Court over the next
four months.

It is not known exactly how many properties were built using
Harditex from 1987 until the cladding system was withdrawn in
2005.

Lead plaintiff Katrina Fowler bought her Harditex-clad Wellington
home in 2000. She has been told that it will cost more than
$420,000 to fix. Ms Fowler is the chair of the committee that
manages the claim for the group.

"Many in our group have suffered stress and anxiety and struggle
with the financial hardships associated with this situation," Ms.
Fowler said.

"We are pleased that our 'day in Court' has now arrived."

The lead representative plaintiffs represent a group of just over
140 owners. The plaintiffs seek damages for the cost of repairs
plus special damages, general damages, post remediation stigma
damages and expert costs. At this first stage the Court will
determine common issues of whether a legal duty was owed, and if so
whether that duty was breached and whether misleading statements
were made in the technical literature. [GN]


KIRKLAND LAKE: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in the
following companies during the dates listed are encouraged to
contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment.
Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any
recovery.

Kirkland Lake Gold Ltd. (NYSE:KL)

Investors Affected: January 8, 2018 - November 25, 2019

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Kirkland Lake Gold Ltd. The filed complaint alleges that defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Kirkland lacked adequate internal controls over
financial reporting, especially as it relates to its projections of
risks, reserve grade, and all-in sustaining costs; (ii) as a result
of the known, but undisclosed, impending acquisition of Detour, the
Company's projections relating to its risks, reserve grade, and
all-in sustaining costs were false and misleading; (iii) the
Company's financial statements and projections were not fairly
presented in conformity with International Financial Reporting
Standards; (iv) based on the foregoing, Defendants lacked a
reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects and/or lacked a reasonable
basis and omitted material facts.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/kirkland-lake-gold-ltd-loss-submission-form/?id=8467&from=1

Energy Recovery, Inc. (NASDAQ:ERII)

Investors Affected: August 2, 2017 - June 29, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Energy Recovery, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the Company had different strategic perspectives
regarding commercialization of the Company's VorTeq technology than
Schlumberger Technology Corp., which had exclusive rights to the
use of VorTeq (ii) these differences created substantial risk of
early termination of the Company's exclusive licensing agreement
with Schlumberger; (iii) accordingly, the revenue guidance and
expectations of future license revenue was false and lacked
reasonable basis; and (iv) as a result, Defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted material facts.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/energy-recovery-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=8467&from=1

Guidewire Software, Inc. (NYSE:GWRE)

Investors Affected: March 6, 2019 - March 4, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Guidewire Software, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) that the Company's transition
to the cloud was not going well; (2) that Guidewire's cloud-based
products needed to be improved to meet customer needs and catch up
with rival systems; (3) that the Company's failed transition to the
cloud was also hurting Guidewire's traditional on-premise business;
and (4) as a result, Guidewire's revenue guidance, including
guidance principally based on significantly increasing demand for
the Company's cloud-based products, was baseless and unattainable.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/guidewire-software-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=8467&from=1

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]


LANDS' END: Court Dismisses Gorss Motel TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Judge Victor Bolden of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut granted Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the
case captioned GORSS MOTELS, INC., Plaintiff, v. LANDS' END, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00010 (VAB). (D. Conn.).

In January 2017, Gorss Motels, Inc., as the representative of a
putative class action, sued Lands' End, Inc. for allegedly sending
unsolicited facsimiles in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991.

Gorss Motels entered into a franchise agreement with The Wyndham
Hotel Group in 1988, for the operation of a Super 8(R) lodge.  It
had a franchise deal renewal in 2014.  In August 2016, Gorss Motels
sold its Super 8(R) franchise, and is no longer a Wyndham
franchisee.  While it was a Wyndham property, Gorss Motels received
only three faxes relating to Lands' End, on January 12, 2015, June
15, 2015, and May 16, 2016 (collectively, the "Faxes").

In June 2019, Lands' End moved for summary judgment.

Lands' End seeks dismissal of Gorss Motels's claims for several
reasons: (1) Gorss Motels lacks both Article III and prudential
standing; (2) Lands' End was not the "sender" of the faxes at issue
and thus is not subject to TCPA liability; and (3) even assuming
Gorss Motels has standing and Lands' End was the "sender," Gorss
Motels solicited the faxes at issue, and the faxes thus did not
need the specific, additional disclosure that Gorss Motels claims
is missing.  Lands' End seeks dismissal of the state law claim for
the same reasons, and for the additional reason that Connecticut
law does not provide for liability against the person or entity
whose goods or services are referenced in a facsimile transmitted
by a third-party.  In the alternative, Lands' End seeks partial
summary judgment on the treble damages claim, because Lands' End
alleges that it did not act in a "knowing or willful" manner.

On review, the Court says it will not grant summary judgment on the
basis of Article 3 standing and prudential standing.  The Court
disagrees with Lands' End's contention that "because Gorss was
determined not to opt out, Gorss was not harmed by a fax that
included no opt out language."  Gorss Motels asserts that it is
undisputed it received the three Faxes at issue, so it has
standing, and the courts "lack the authority to create prudential
barriers to Plaintiff's congressionally granted right to pursue
[its] action."  The Court agrees with Gorss Motels' contention
that, whether or not it is a "professional plaintiff" "has no
bearing on whether [Lands' End] can be held liable under the TCPA."


As to TCPA Liability, the Court notes that Gorss Motels did not
rescind the permission provided in the 2014 Franchise Agreement for
Wyndham affiliates to contact it.  The document was signed and
executed by Gorss Motels, and authorized contact by facsimile,
making the Faxes here solicited.  Because the Faxes were solicited,
no opt-out language was required on any of them. And because the
Faxes were solicited, Lands' End did not violate the TCPA.
Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Gorss Motels's TCPA claim
against Lands' End.

Because the sole federal claim - the TCPA claim - has been
dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over the remaining state law claim.

Accordingly, Lands' End's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED,
the Court rules.  The Clerk of the Court is requested to close the
case.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/wgyl72v from Leagle.com.

Gorss Motels Inc., a Connecticut corporation, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons,
Plaintiff, represented by Aytan Y. Bellin
aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com - Bellin & Associates LLC, Brian J.
Wanca - bwanca@andersonwanca.com - Anderson & Wanca, pro hac vice &
Ryan Michael Kelly - rkelly@andersonwanca.com - Anderson & Wanca.

Land's End, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation, Defendant, represented
by Christopher L. Jefford  -cjefford@bonnerkiernan.com - Bonner,
Kiernan, Trebach & Crociata.


LOGOMARK INC: Appeals Court Upholds Arbitration in Richard
----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division Three
issued an Opinion affirming a district court order granting
Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration in the appellate case
captioned TERRI RICHARD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOGOMARK,
INC., Defendant and Respondent, Case No. G056662 (Cal. App.).

Plaintiff Terri Richard filed the lawsuit as a putative class
action against her former employer, Logomark, Inc., primarily for
alleged wage and hour violations.  

The trial court concluded Richard was bound by an arbitration
agreement which included a class action waiver, dismissed the class
claims without prejudice, and ordered the case stayed pending
arbitration.  Richard filed the instant appeal, arguing the case
was appealable under the "death knell" doctrine and asserting that
she never consented to arbitration, and any agreement was
unconscionable.

On review, the Appellate Court concludes that the case is
appealable, but finds that Richard's substantive claims are without
merit.  Although two separate documents pertained to arbitration,
one which she signed and one she did not, there was substantial
evidence that she received both of them.  As to her claims of
unconscionability, Richard neglected to offer any argument at all
about why any arbitration agreement was procedurally
unconscionable, and therefore the Appellate Court finds no
unconscionability as a whole.

Accordingly, the Appellate Court affirms the trial court's order.

A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's January 2020 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/uq2vsfa from Leagle.com.

Protection Law Group, Heather Davis  -
heather@protectionlawgroup.com - Amir Nayebdadash -
amir@protectionlawgroup.com - and Priscilla Gamino -
priscilla@protectionlawgroup.com - for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Jason A. Weiss  -
jweiss@sheppardmullin.com - and Jason M. Guyser -
jguyser@sheppardmullin.com - for Defendant and Respondent.


LONGFIN CORP: Oct. 1 Opt-Out Deadline Set in Securities Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE LONGFIN CORP. SECURITIES CLASS ACTION LITIGATION

Lead Case No.: 1:18-cv-2933-DLC

CLASS ACTION

SUMMARY NOTICE OF CLASS CERTIFICATION

This Notice is addressed to the members of the following Class of
Persons:

ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
LONGFIN'S CLASS A COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD FROM DECEMBER 13,
2017 THROUGH APRIL 6, 2018, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"), AND
WERE INJURED THEREBY.

Your Rights May Be Affected

This Action was filed on April 3, 2018, and was brought by
Plaintiffs Mohammad A. Malik and Karthik Reddy ("Plaintiffs")
against Defendants Longfin Corp., Venkat S. Meenavalli, Vivek Kumar
Ratakinda, and Suresh Tammineedi ("Defendants"). This Action was
also brought against Network 1, Andy Altahawi, and Dorababu
Penumarthi, who are no longer Defendants in this Action.

Plaintiffs allege that between December 13, 2017 through April 6,
2018 (the "Class Period"), Defendants perpetrated a securities
fraud that included false statements and insider trading. The
alleged scheme included (1) the Defendants improperly obtaining a
listing for Longfin Stock on the NASDAQ stock exchange, (2) the
Defendants manipulating the price of Longfin Stock after that
listing by making false and misleading statements about Longfin's
acquisition of Ziddu.com, and after the Longfin Stock price rose in
response to this news, (3) the Defendants wrongfully profiting from
that inflated stock price by illegally selling their own Longfin
Stock between December 13, 2017 and March 22, 2018. The price of
Longfin Stock dropped precipitously when the Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") announced that it was investigating
Longfin.

On May 14, 2020, the Court ordered that this Action be certified as
a class action, that Mohammad A. Malik be appointed Class
Representative, and that Levi & Korsinsky, LLP be appointed Class
Counsel, and that this Summary Notice be sent to all members of the
Class.

The Court will exclude from the Class all members of the Class who
wish to be excluded. To be excluded from the Class, each member
must make a written request to be excluded. Such a request must
contain the following information: (i) your name; (ii) your
address; (iii) your telephone number; (iv) a statement confirming
that you want to opt out of the class; (v) the number of Longfin
shares you purchased and sold during the Class Period; and (vi) the
name and case number of this Action, "In Re Longfin Corp.
Securities Class Action Litigation, Lead Case No.:
1:18-cv-2933-DLC." All requests for exclusion must be sent to the
following address: Longfin Securities Litigation, c/o Epiq, P.O.
Box 3207, Portland, OR 97208-3207. Exclusion requests must be
postmarked no later than October 1, 2020. Subject to the Court's
discretion, this will be the only opportunity a Class member will
have to be excluded from the Class.

Additional information about this Class Action, including a copy of
the full Court-ordered Notice, can be found at
www.LongfinSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by writing to Longfin
Securities Litigation, c/o Epiq, P.O. Box 3207, Portland, OR
97208-3207.

For further information, you may contact class counsel:

Donald J. Enright
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 524-4290

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
[GN]


MICHIGAN: Schiff Hardin Represents Period Equity in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiff Hardin is providing pro bono representation to Period
Equity, the country's first law and policy organization dedicated
to making menstrual products affordable, safe, and accessible to
those in need, in a class action lawsuit against the State of
Michigan and its Department of Treasury for sex-based
discrimination in taxing menstrual products.

Filed days before the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment, the
lawsuit alleges that Michigan's collection of sales and use taxes
on the purchase of menstrual products, which are deemed medical
necessities, is in violation of equal protection under the Equal
Protection Clauses of the United States and Michigan Constitutions.
Schiff Hardin is also representing the three Michigan women who are
the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit: Clare Pfeiffer, Emily Beggs,
and Wei Ho.

The lawsuit is part of a national campaign Period Equity launched
last year called "Tax Free. Period." to eliminate the "tampon tax"
– the sales tax that 30 states charge on menstrual products.

The Schiff Hardin pro bono team includes Joanne Faycurry,  Elise
Yu, and Michael Showalter. [GN]


MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Court Sets Bench Trial in Schuman to Feb 2021
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California issued an order
converting the jury trial in the case captioned PETER SCHUMAN, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-05544-HSG. (N.D. Cal.) to a 10-day bench
trial, beginning on February 8, 2021, at 8:30 a.m.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Plaintiffs
allege that their former employer Atmel Corporation and Atmel's
merger partner Microchip Technology, Inc., which acquired Atmel in
April 2016, failed to honor the terms of their employee severance
agreements under the Atmel Corporation U.S. Severance Guarantee
Benefit Program (Atmel Plan).

Plaintiffs moved to certify a single class, defined as:

All former U.S.-based employees of defendant Atmel Corporation who
were employed as of the April 4, 2016 closing date of the
Atmel-Microchip merger and who were terminated by defendant
Microchip Technology Incorporated without cause between April 4,
2016 and March 19, 2017.

The Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in
order dated February 24, 2020, a full-text copy of which is
available at https://tinyurl.com/swnzyx8 from Leagle.com.

Peter Schuman & William Coplin, Plaintiffs, represented by Cliff
Michael Palefsky , McGuinn Hillsman & Palefsky, 535 Pacific Avenue,
San Francisco, CA 94133, Michael Rubin- mrubin@altber.com -
Altshuler Berzon LLP, Andrew Edward Kushner -
akushner@altshulerberzon.com - Altshuler Berzon LLP, William
Bernard Reilly , Law Office of William Reilly, 369 Pine Street,
Suite 820 San Francisco, CA 94104 & Keith A. Ehrman , McGuinn,
Hillsman & Palefsky, 535 Pacific Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94133

Microchip Technology Incorporated, Atmel Corporation & Atmel
Corporation U.S. Severance Guarantee Benefit Program, Defendants,
represented by Mark E. Schmidtke - mark.schmidtke@ogletree.com -
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak, Stewart, P.C., pro hac vice,
Elizabeth M. Soveranez -elizabeth.soveranez@ogletree.com -
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Erika L. Leonard -
erika.leonard@ogletree.com - Ogletree Deakins Law Firm, pro hac
vice, Kristina Holmstrom - kristina.holmstrom@ogletree.com -
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak, Stewart, P.C., pro hac vice, Mark
Gerard Kisicki - mark.kisicki@ogletree.com - Ogletree Deakins Nash
Smoak & Stewart P.C. & Sean Patrick Nalty  -
sean.nalty@ogletreedeakins.com - Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
Stewart, P.C.

Microchip Technology Incorporated & Atmel Corporation,
Counter-claimants, represented by Mark E. Schmidtke , Ogletree,
Deakins, Nash, Smoak, Stewart, P.C., Elizabeth M. Soveranez ,
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Mark Gerard Kisicki
, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart P.C. & Sean Patrick Nalty ,
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Flam Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------------------
YITZCHOK FLAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NATIONWIDE CREDIT, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No.
1:20-cv-03857 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 21, 2020), is brought against the
Defendants for their alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff has a debt that was allegedly incurred to a creditor,
American Express.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff received a collection
letter on July 4, 2020, from Defendant NCI, whom American Express
contracted to collect the alleged debt. However, the Defendant made
an offer to the Plaintiff by stating that upon payment and
fulfillment of the conditions listed in the collection letter, the
consumer will be approved for a new card, when the Defendant can
reject the Plaintiff's application based on their own arbitrary
determination.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant's collection letter is
deceptive, misleading, and unfair by using a "bait and switch"
approach to persuade the Plaintiff to pay full balance in the hopes
of obtaining a new card.

Nationwide Credit, Inc., is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Tel: (201) 282-6500
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com


NESTLE: Seeks Dismissal of Candy Box "Slack Fill" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that candy
companies are asking a federal judge to throw out a lawsuit that
complains there is too much air in packages of Raisinets and other
candies in boxes sold in movie theaters.

Nestle and Ferrara Candy Company filed a motion to dismiss Aug. 6
in an effort to cut off claims from nine customers in seven
different states. The case is one of many that complain about
"slack fill"--the amount of air in a package.

"(T)he label clearly states the amount of candy in the box through
several federally mandated objective statements," the motion says.

"Nevertheless, plaintiffs claim they simply had no idea the candy
boxes could have empty space and that the boxes should have been
full."

The motion makes the following arguments:

-The New Jersey federal court doesn't have jurisdiction over the
two non-New Jersey defendants;

-Plaintiffs can't claim they were unaware of the existence of slack
fill in packaged foods and can't argue a reasonable consumer would
rely on the shape and size of a box when guessing how much candy
was in it, rather than paying attention to the other size claims
made;

-The plaintiffs fail to allege any injury; and

-The lawsuit alleges fraud and is subject to heightened pleading
requirements that the plaintiffs didn't meet, such as when or where
they bought the candy.

"None of the plaintiffs come close to alleging the requisite injury
or ascertainable loss," says the motion, written by lawyers at
Mayer Brown.

"Plaintiffs' failure to allege facts supporting injury or an
ascertainable loss is no oversight. Plaintiffs are unable to do so
because the concession style boxed candy that plaintiffs purchased
is the lowest price per ounce pack for these products available in
the marketplace (in most stores the products sell for $.99) and
there is no allegation (nor could there be) that the Products are
more expensive than competitor concession boxed candy."

Among the other products at issue in the lawsuit are Butterfinger
Bites, Buncha Crunch, Sno Caps, Gobstoppers and Nerds. [GN]


NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Court Tosses Travel Insurance Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that the Eleventh Circuit found on Aug. 10 that a
lower court correctly tossed a proposed class action alleging
Norwegian Cruise Lines deceptively sold travel insurance, holding
that the customers' claims are barred by the insurance contracts'
arbitration provision and class action waivers. [GN]


NPAS SOLUTIONS: Class Claims in Rennick Dismissed Without Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Otis Wright of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California has approved a dismissal stipulation in the
case captioned JENNIFER RENNICK, Plaintiff, v. NPAS SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-02495-ODW(KSx), (C.D. Cal.).

In an April 23, 2020 Order and pursuant to the parties' joint
stipulation, the Court dismissed the Rennick action with prejudice
as to all individual claims asserted by Plaintiff against
Defendant, and without prejudice as to the class action claims
asserted in the lawsuit.  Each party shall bear its own costs and
fees.

Under the lawsuit, Rennick alleged that NPAS, a debt collector,
called her multiple times on her cellular phone using an automatic
telephone dialing system without her express consent, in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).  Rennick alleged
that she received calls on her cellular phone in which NPAS left
prerecorded and artificial voice messages on her voicemail about a
debt owed to Havasu Regional Medical Center.  Rennick alleged that
she has never visited, has no prior relationship with, and
maintains no debt with Havasu Regional Medical Center.
Additionally, Rennick alleges that these prerecorded and artificial
voice messages were left using an automatic telephone dialing
system.  

Rennick brought TCPA claims on behalf of a class defined as:  All
persons within the United States who: (1) received a telephone call
from Defendant or its agents; (2) on his or her cellular telephone
number (3) through the use of any automatic telephone dialing
systems or artificial or prerecorded voice message as set forth in
47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1)(A)(3) (4) without prior express consent
(5) within four years prior to the filing of the Complaint through
the date of final approval.

Previously, in a January 2020 Order available at
https://tinyurl.com/rujg8uc from Leagle.com, the Court denied NPAS'
Motion to Strike Class Allegations.

Jennifer Rennick, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alexis M. Wood -
alexis@consumersadvocates.com - Law Offices of Ronald A Marron
APLC, Kas L. Gallucci - kas@consumersadvocates.com - Ronald A
Marron Law Offices APLC & Ronald A. Marron -
ron@consumersadvocates.com - Law Offices of Ronald A Marron APLC.

NPAS Solutions, LLC, Defendant, represented by Amanda N. Walker-
Awalker@wscllp.com - Walker Stevens Cannom Yang LLP, Jacob W. Stahl
- jwstahl@debevoise.com - Debevoise and Plimpton LLP, pro hac vice,
Maura Kathleen Monaghan - mkmonaghan@debevoise.com - Debevoise and
Plimpton LLP, pro hac vice, Megan D. Meadows -
mmeadows@spencerfane.com - Spencer Fane LLP, pro hac vice, Scott J.
Dickenson , Spencer Fane LLP, 1000 Walnut Street, Suite 1400,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106-2140,  pro hac vice & Bethany M.
Stevens - bstevens@wscllp.com - Walker Stevens Cannom LLP.


NUMEN FASHION: Fischler Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN FISCHLER, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. NUMEN FASHION LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-03893-AMD-SMG (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 24, 2020), alleges that the
Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
Web site, http://www.facecoverus.com,to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person, and
a member of a protected class of individuals under the Title III of
the Americans with Disabilities Act. Additionally, the Plaintiff is
a proficient VoiceOver screen-reader user and uses it to access the
Internet.

The Plaintiff claims that he encountered multiple access barriers
when he visited the Defendant's Web site on July 15, 2020, which
denied him the full enjoyment of the facilities, goods, and
services of the Web site and Defendant's retail operations. He
seeks a permanent injunction to cause the Defendant to change its
corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its Web site
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers.

Numen Fashion LLC is an online retailer of face masks for men and
women.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
          Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Ave., Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10017-6705
          Tel: 212-392-4772
          Emails: doug@lipskylowe.com
                  chris@lipskylowe.com


ONESPAN INC: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Oct. 19 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against OneSpan, Inc. ("OneSpan" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: OSPN)
and certain of its officers.   The class action, filed in United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, and docketed under 20-cv-04906, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased
or otherwise acquired OneSpan securities between May 9, 2018, and
August 11, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking
to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and
certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased OneSpan securities during
the class period, you have until October 19, 2020, to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com
or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

OneSpan was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois.  The Company was formerly known as VASCO Data Security
International, Inc. and changed its name to OneSpan Inc. in May
2018.  OneSpan, together with its subsidiaries, designs, develops
and markets digital solutions for identity, security, and business
productivity worldwide.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) OneSpan had inadequate
disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over
financial reporting; (ii) as a result, OneSpan overstated its
revenue relating to certain contracts with customers involving
software licenses in its financial statements spread out over the
quarters from the first quarter of 2018 to the first quarter of
2020; (iii) as a result, it was foreseeably likely that the Company
would eventually have to delay one or more scheduled earnings
releases, conference calls, and/or financial filings with the SEC;
(iv) OneSpan downplayed the negative impacts of errors in its
financial statements; (v) all the foregoing, once revealed, was
foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on the
Company's financial results and reputation; and (vi) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On August 4, 2020, during pre-market hours, OneSpan postponed its
second-quarter 2020 earnings release and conference call by one
week, attributing the delay to prior period revenue recognition
problems relating to certain software license contracts spread out
over the quarters from the first quarter of 2018 to the first
quarter of 2020.  OneSpan further stated that "[t]he net contract
assets that originated from a portion of these contracts in prior
periods were not properly accounted for in subsequent periods,
which caused overstatements of revenue."

On this news, OneSpan's common share price fell $0.46 per share, or
1.40%, to close at $32.50 per share on August 4, 2020.

Then, on August 11, 2020, during after-market hours, OneSpan
disclosed that it would not timely file its quarterly report for
the quarter ended June 30, 2020, with the SEC; reported that same
quarter year-over-year revenues had declined; and withdrew its
full-year 2020 earnings guidance, which the Company had affirmed
one quarter earlier.

On this news, OneSpan's common share price fell $12.36 per share,
or 39.62%, to close at $18.84 per share on August 12, 2020.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members.

         Robert S. Willoughby
         Pomerantz LLP
         E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]

ONESPAN INC: Schall Law Investigates Securities Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces that it is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
OneSpan Inc. ("OneSpan" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:OSPN) for
violations of the securities laws.

The investigation focuses on whether the Company issued false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information
pertinent to investors. OneSpan admitted on August 11, 2020, that
it would fail to file its quarterly report for the period ending
June 30, 2020, in a timely manner. The Company also admitted that
it had overstated revenues in the past. Based on this news, shares
of OneSpan fell by nearly 40% on August 12, 2020.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation. [GN]


PAUL HESSE: Winnipeg Man Files Class Action in Manitoba
-------------------------------------------------------
Dean Pritchard, writing for Winnipeg Free Press, reports that a
Winnipeg man has filed a class-action lawsuit against suspended
immigration lawyer Paul Hesse, who is accused of abusing his
position to solicit investments for businesses tied to himself and
a former romantic partner.

Haokuang Tan is the lead plaintiff in a statement of claim filed in
Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench.

Pitblado Lawe, Hesse's former law firm, is also named as a
defendant in the lawsuit.

The class action has yet to be certified by a court.

"This is the first step in a process that will take some time,"
Tan's lawyer, Ken Zaifman, said on Aug. 10.

The lawsuit alleges Hesse persuaded Tan in March 2019 to invest
$350,000 in a numbered Manitoba company, telling Tan the investment
was safe and guaranteed and was a necessary requirement if his
immigration application was to succeed.

"Unknown to (Tan), the company had been incorporated by the
defendants just one month earlier," the lawsuit alleges, with Hesse
representing both the company and its sole director, former
romantic partner Patrick Maxwell.

"None of the funds were used for the benefit of the class member,"
the lawsuit alleges.

According to the lawsuit, the proposed class-action lawsuit would
include anyone who retained Hesse, invested money in a Canadian
company and suffered a financial loss.

Hesse "held himself out as being knowledgeable, skilled and
experienced in the area of immigration law," alleges the lawsuit.
"The plaintiff and the class were vulnerable to Hesse's exercise of
discretion or power as a result of the inequality levels of
sophistication and because of language barriers.

The proposed class-action is the fourth lawsuit to be filed against
Hesse since he was terminated as a partner at Pitblado Law in June
2019.

Brandon resident Ashraf Azer sued Hesse last December, seeking
repayment of a $200,000 investment Hesse allegedly encouraged him
to make.

Hesse is also being sued by former clients Xiaomei and Xuefeng
Zhang, who allege a $200,000 loan to Hesse has not been repaid, as
well as former Manitoba lieutenant-governor Philip Lee, who alleges
Hesse defaulted on a $60,000 loan issued through Lee's company last
year.

None of the allegations has been proven in court. [GN]


PEANUT PATCH: Web Site Is Inaccessible to Blind, Monegro Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
FRANKIE MONEGRO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. THE PEANUT PATCH, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-06784
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 24, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its
alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the
New York City Human Rights Law relating to its Web site.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires reading software to read website content using his
computer.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping
experience similar to that of a sighted individual when he visited
the Defendant's Web site, http://www.feridies.com/,on multiple
occasions to make a purchase, the last occurring in August 2020.
The alleges that the Web site lack of a variety of features and
accommodations, which effectively barred him from being able to
determine what specific products were offered for sale.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant's unlawful policy
constitute willful intentional discrimination against the Plaintiff
and the Class members on the basis of disability in the full and
equal enjoyment of the enjoyment of the products, services,
facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or
opportunities of its Web site.

The Peanut Patch, Inc., is a food products supply company that owns
and operates the Web site.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David P. Force, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Tel: (201) 282-6500
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com


PERRIGO CO: Mislabels Acetaminophen for Infants, McFall Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHANDLER McFALL and KAILEY McDONALD, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. PERRIGO COMPANY, and WALMART INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-07752 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 25, 2020),
alleges that the Defendants violated California's False and
Misleading Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and Unfair
Competition Law by deceptively labeling all Equate brand
acetaminophen suspension liquids for distribution in Walmart retail
stores, including Equate Infant's Pain & Fever Acetaminophen
Product.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' packaging for their
Infants' Product exploits parents' and caregivers' fear of giving
their children an improper (and possibly fatal) dosage or
formulation. The Defendants do this by designing its packaging to
mislead a parent into thinking that the Infants' Product is
specially-formulated, or otherwise possesses some unique medicinal
quality, to make it specifically appropriate for infants as opposed
to older children. The front of a box of the Infants' Product
contains representations, which are likely to deceive consumers,
including the Plaintiffs, into believing that the Infants' Product
is specially formulated for infants or otherwise unique for
infants.

In reality, the medicine contained in a bottle of Infants' Product
contains the same active ingredient and formulation (i.e. 160 mg
per 5 mL of acetaminophen) that is contained in a bottle of the
Defendants' Children's Pain & Fever Acetaminophen Oral Suspension.
Thus, there is no difference in the medicine sold in the Infants'
Product and the Children's Product. But the Defendants do not
disclose this important information anywhere on the Infants'
Product packaging (though the front of the box does explicitly
compare the Product to name-brand Infants' Tylenol).

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants deceive consumers,
including the Plaintiffs, into buying the deceptively-labeled
Infants' Products for infants, which cost significantly more than
the Children's Products, even though both Products are
identically-formulated and contain the same amount of acetaminophen
in the same dosage amounts.

Perrigo Company is a manufacturer of private label over-the-counter
pharmaceuticals with principal place of business in Allegan,
Michigan.

Walmart Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
          Sara D. Avila, Esq.
          Marc A. Castaneda, Esq.
          MILSTEIN JACKSON FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP
          10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 396-9600
          Facsimile: (310) 396-9635
          E-mail: gwade@mjfwlaw.com
                  savila@mjfwlaw.com
                  mcastaneda@mjfwlaw.com

               - and -

          Hank Bates, Esq.
          David Slade, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          519 W. 7th Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 312-8500
          Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
          E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com
                  dslade@cbplaw.com

               - and -

          Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
          Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 389-0600
          Facsimile: (612) 389-0610
          E-mail: mweiner@pswlaw.com
                  jbourne@pswlaw.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

               - and -

          Rachel Dapeer
          DAPEER LAW, P.A.
          300 S. Biscayne Blvd., #2704
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 610-5523
          E-mail: Rachel@dapeer.com

               - and -

          Andrew Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


PETER HERMAN: Florida Supreme Ct. Remands Atty. Misconduct Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Florida issued an Opinion remanding to the
Referee the case captioned THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant v. PETER G.
HERMAN, Respondent, Case No. SC17-2050 (Fla.).

The Supreme Court has for review a referee's report recommending
that the Respondent, Peter G. Herman, be found guilty of
professional misconduct and suspended from the practice of law for
18 months. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction. The Supreme Court
remands this case to the referee for further proceedings and
reconsideration in light of this opinion and for the filing of an
amended report.

This case arises entirely out of Mr. Herman's personal bankruptcy
proceeding. More specifically, the case is about certain final
disclosures that he allegedly failed to make in that proceeding.
The disclosures at issue relate to bonus compensation that he hoped
to receive after filing his Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition.

In November 2017, The Florida Bar (Bar) filed a complaint with this
Court alleging that Mr. Herman "had an obligation to be forthright"
in his bankruptcy financial disclosure forms and that he failed to
live up to that obligation. The complaint alleged that his conduct
violated certain Rules Regulating the Florida Bar (Bar Rules). This
Court referred the Bar's complaint to a referee for a hearing and
recommendation, and the referee made certain findings of fact.

Background

In December 2011, CIB Marine Capital, LLC (CIB) obtained a
deficiency judgment of approximately $4.5 million against Mr.
Herman, based upon the nonpayment of a loan that he personally
guaranteed for Esquire Ventures, LLC, in connection with a real
estate investment that failed in 2007. CIB Marine Capital, LLC v.
Esquire Ventures, LLC, No. 2009CA010465 (Fla. 19th Cir. Ct. Dec. 9,
2011). CIB immediately pursued collection proceedings against Mr.
Herman on the judgment. Then, on February 18, 2012, Mr. Herman
filed a petition for Chapter 7 bankruptcy as a debtor because he
did not have the funds available to satisfy the judgment that had
been levied against him. In re Herman, 495 B.R. 555 (Bankr. S.D.
Fla. 2013).

When Herman initiated his bankruptcy proceeding, he was employed as
a "director" with Tripp Scott, P.A. Prior to filing for bankruptcy,
he served as co-lead counsel, along with another Tripp Scott
attorney, in two high-value contingency cases. The plaintiffs in
those cases prevailed. Under the governing fee agreements, Tripp
Scott received approximately $10 million in combined legal fees.
The law firm received the fees after Mr. Herman filed his
bankruptcy petition, but before March 20, 2012, the date Mr. Herman
filed the financial disclosure schedules at issue in this case.
Ultimately, the compensation committee did not allocate bonuses
from the fees until August 2012, and his bonus was $2.7 million.
However, in light of his ongoing bankruptcy proceeding, those funds
were placed in trust.

During Herman's bankruptcy proceeding, CIB objected to the petition
for discharge, alleging that Herman had: (1) intentionally
concealed prepetition assets; (2) failed to disclose prepetition
transfers of assets; and (3) made false oaths in connection
therewith. Relevant to this case, CIB claimed that Herman
intentionally failed to disclose his anticipated bonus from the $10
million fee. In June 2013, the bankruptcy court held a trial on
CIB's and the bankruptcy trustee's objection to Herman's bankruptcy
discharge.

At the conclusion of that trial, the bankruptcy court entered a
71-page order denying Mr. Herman's petition for discharge. The
court concluded that he had deliberately concealed his expected
bonus share of the $10 million fee and that he had done so with the
intent to hinder, delay, or defraud his creditors.

In his Report and Recommendation, the referee recommended that Mr.
Herman be found guilty of violating the Bar rules charged in the
complaint. The referee found that, by failing to disclose his
expected bonus from Tripp Scott's $10 million fee, Herman
intentionally misled the bankruptcy trustee and Herman's creditors.
The referee noted that he based this finding not just on the court
orders from Herman's bankruptcy proceeding, but also on the
evidence and testimony presented at the hearing in this case. The
referee rejected Herman's advice of counsel defense, concluding:
"First and arguably foremost, reliance on advice of counsel is not
available as a defense in a Bar discipline proceeding." As a
sanction, the referee recommended that Herman be suspended for 18
months.

Conclusion

To sum up, the Supreme Court holds that, under the circumstances
here, Mr. Herman is entitled to present an advice of counsel
defense to rebut the charge that he was intentionally dishonest in
the schedules to his personal bankruptcy petition. Earlier in this
opinion, the Court has described the nature of that defense and the
preconditions to its assertion. Here the referee declined to
consider Mr. Herman's advice of counsel defense at all, and the
referee relied significantly (though not exclusively) on a
bankruptcy court order that also did not consider the defense and
that the court decided under a lower standard of proof than the
clear and convincing evidence standard that governs in a Bar
discipline case. Of course, though Mr. Herman bears a burden of
production to come forward with the evidence necessary to support
his advice of counsel defense, the ultimate burden of proof always
remains on the Bar.

The Supreme Court remands this matter to the referee for further
proceedings and reconsideration and for the filing of an amended
report. The referee shall file an amended report within 90 days
from the date of this opinion.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's June 18, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ydey77f7 from Leagle.com.

Joshua E. Doyle, Executive Director, in Tallahassee, Florida;
Patricia Ann Toro Savitz, Staff Counsel, and Joi L. Pearsall , Bar
Counsel, The Florida Bar, in Sunrise, Florida, for Complainant.

David B. Rothman and Jeanne T. Melendez of Rothman & Associates,
P.A., in Miami, Florida, for Respondent.


PETROCHEM INSULATION: Court Narrows Claims in Mauia Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas Hixon of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted in part and denied in part
Defendant's Amended Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned IAFETA
MAUIA, Plaintiff, v. PETROCHEM INSULATION, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 18-cv-01815-TSH (N.D. Cal.).

The putative class action involves alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by
Defendant Petrochem Insulation, Inc. while employing Plaintiff
Iafeta Mauia and others on oil platforms on the Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS).

Mauia worked for Petrochem as an hourly Onsite Project Manager and
Superintendent of scaffolding projects on oil platforms off the
coast of California.  He worked for Petrochem until around March
2016.  On February 20, 2018, he filed an action against Petrochem
in state court, which Petrochem removed to federal court.

In his Third Amended Complaint, Mauia alleges five causes of action
against Petrochem related to his work on the platforms:
(1) Petrochem failed to provide meal periods as required by
California law and therefore is liable for meal period premiums
under California Labor Code section 226.7; (2) It failed to provide
rest periods as required by California law and therefore is liable
for rest period premiums under California Labor Code section 226.7;
(3) It willfully failed to pay overtime, double-time, and meal and
rest period premium wages under California law, which failure
constitutes unfair business practices under the California Business
and Professions Code section 17200; (4) It did not pay immediately
all meal or rest period premium wages earned and unpaid upon
discharge, and that such failure was willful, and (5) It willfully
and in bad faith did not pay proper overtime
rates for overtime work, in violation of section 207 of the FLSA,
by not including the reasonable cost of meals and lodging when
calculating overtime earnings.

Petrochem moved to dismiss all claims.

While the present case has been pending, the U.S. Supreme Court
issued an opinion addressing whether federal law or California law
applies to wage and hour claims made by employees who work on
drilling platforms on the OCS. Parker Drilling Mgmt. Servs. v.
Newton, 139 S.Ct. 1881 (2019). That case is especially pertinent
here, as it clarified the standard for determining when state law
applies on the OCS (and overturned the Ninth Circuit's decision on
that issue). The case involved a former employee, Newton, who had
worked on drilling platforms off the California coast. Newton filed
a class action, which included claims premised on California's
minimum-wage and overtime laws. The issue before the Supreme Court
was whether California law could be adopted since the claims arose
out of work on the OCS.  The Supreme Court found that Newton's
claims premised on the adoption of California law requiring payment
for time spent on standby failed because federal law already
addressed that issue. The Court also found that Newton's claims
relying on the adoption of the California minimum wage failed
because the FLSA already provides for a minimum wage.

The Court finds the FLSA does not address the issues that form the
basis of Mauia's meal period claim and break period claim.  As
such, California law is applicable.

Plaintiff's claim for unfair competition under the California
Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200, is
derivative of and predicated on his allegations that Petrochem
failed to provide lawful meal and rest periods.  Because Mauia's
meal and rest break claims survive, this argument is moot, the
Court opines.

Petrochem argues that Mauia's final wages claim fails for two
reasons: (1) federal law already addresses the timing of the
payment of wages; and (2) the claim is wholly derivative of Mauia's
meal and rest break claims.  Petrochem's second reason fails right
away, as the Court has found Mauia's meal and rest break claims are
viable.  The Court turns to Petrochem's first reason.  To this, the
Court notes that the FLSA, as interpreted by the Ninth Circuit,
sufficiently addresses the issue of when an employer must pay
wages, including final wages, to an employee. California final-wage
law is not adopted.  Mauia's final-wage claim is dismissed with
prejudice, the Court opines.

Mauia asserts his FLSA claim on behalf of what he calls a
collective of each and every current and former hourly employees of
Petrochem, who, at any time within three years from the date of
filing of this lawsuit worked on over 40 hours in a single workweek
on an oil platforms off the any [sic] coast of the United States.
Mauia asserts that Petrochem's violations of the FLSA were willful
and in bad faith.  Petrochem asserts that Mauia's FLSA claim is
untimely and thus barred by the statute of limitations.

An action under the FLSA may be commenced within two years after
the cause of action accrued, and every such action shall be forever
barred unless commenced within two years after the cause of action
accrued, except that a cause of action arising out of a willful
violation may be commenced within three years after the cause of
action accrued.

Here, Mauia belatedly filed a written consent form, thus attempting
to properly commence an FLSA action, on January 15, 2020, the day
before the hearing on Petrochem's Motion to Dismiss and nearly four
years after the end of his employment in March 2016, the latest his
claim could have accrued.  Accordingly, Mauia did not even assert
his FLSA claim until approximately six months after the statute of
limitations had expired.  And in fact, Mauia does not contest that
he asserted his FLSA claim outside the statute of limitations.  

Mauia's FLSA claim is time-barred, the Court opines.

In sum, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant
Petrochem's Motion to Dismiss.  Plaintiff's Fourth and Fifth Causes
of Action are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/tceye35 from Leagle.com.

Iafeta Mauia, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Clayton Ellison  -
andrew@strausslawyers.com - Palay Law Firm, Aris Edmund Karakalos -
aris@strausslawyers.com - Strauss and Strauss, APC & Michael
Anthony Strauss - mike@strausslawyers.com - Strauss & Strauss,
APC.

Petrochem Insulation, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kent Joseph
Sprinkle - ksprinkle@cdflaborlaw.com - Carothers DiSante &
Freudenberger LLP, Sylvia Jihae Kim , McGuire Woods LLP, Rachel L.
Capler , Carothers DiSante & Freudenberger LLP & Teresa Wang Ghali,
Carothers DiSante & Freudenberger LLP.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following
publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in the
following companies during the dates listed are encouraged to
contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment.
Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any
recovery.

Pilgrim's Pride Corporation (NASDAQ:PPC)

Investors Affected: February 9, 2017 - June 3, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company and its executives
had participated in an illegal antitrust conspiracy to fix prices
and rig bids from at least as early as 2012 and continuing through
at least early 2017; (2) the Company received competitive
advantages, which persisted during the Class Period, from its
anticompetitive conduct; and (3) as a result, Defendants'
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
lacked a reasonable basis.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/pilgrims-pride-corporation-loss-submission-form/?id=8466&from=1

Ideanomics, Inc. (NASDAQ:IDEX)

Investors Affected: March 20, 2020 - June 25, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Ideanomics, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Ideanomics' Mobile Energy Global Division in
Qingdao, China (the "MEG Center") was not "a one million square
foot EV expo center" as the Company had stated in press releases;
(ii) the Company had been using doctored or altered photographs of
the purported MEG Center in Qingdao; (iii) the Company's electric
vehicle business in China was not performing nearly as strongly as
Ideanomics had represented; and (iv) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/ideanomics-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=8466&from=1

Brookdale Senior Living Inc. (NYSE:BKD)

Investors Affected: August 10, 2016 - April 29, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Brookdale Senior Living Inc. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Brookdale's financial
performance was sustained by, among other things, the Company's
purposeful understaffing of its senior living communities; (ii) the
foregoing conduct subjected Brookdale to an increased risk of
litigation and, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a
material negative impact on the Company's financial results and
reputation; (iii) as a result, the Company's financial results were
unsustainable; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/brookdale-senior-living-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=8466&from=1

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]


REGAL CINEMAS: Faces Amara TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Text Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
PHILIP AMARA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. REGAL CINEMAS, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00381 (E.D.
Tenn., Aug. 25, 2020), is brought against Defendant for its alleged
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff asserts that beginning in July 2019, he received
numerous text messages to his *2415 Number from the Defendant
advertising its goods and services without his "prior express
written consent." The Defendant allegedly transmitted unsolicited
text message advertisements via an automated fashion and without
human intervention.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's privacy has been
invaded and intruded upon his seclusion upon receipt of the
Defendant's unsolicited text message advertisements every time his
phone alerts him whenever he receives a text messages.

Regal Cinemas, Inc., operates one of the largest and most
geographically diverse chain of movie theaters in the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          Lisa A. White, Esq.
          Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
          William A. Ladnier, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Tel: (865) 247-0080
          Fax: (865) 522-0049
          Emails: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  jonathan@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  will@gregcolemanlaw.com

                - and –

          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 1140
          Miami, FL 33131
          Tel: (305) 357-2107
          Fax: (305) 200-8801
          Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com


RENE FRENCH: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Diaz Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ADELFA DIAZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. RENE FRENCH CLEANERS, INC. (D/B/A RENE FRENCH
CLEANERS), RENE FRENCH CLEANERS II INC. (D/B/A RENE FRENCH
CLEANERS), DANIEL LEE, and BYENG WOON LEE, Case No. 1:20-cv-03848
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 21, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for
their alleged unlawful employment policy and practices that violate
the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants a laundry attendant from
June 2015 until February 18, 2020. The Plaintiff asserts these
claims:

     -- Defendants failed to appropriately pay the Plaintiff her
        lawful minimum wage, spread of hours pay, and overtime
        compensation as required by federal and state laws for
        all the hours worked in excess of 40 hours a week;

     -- Defendants failed to maintain accurate and complete
        timesheets and payroll records;

     -- Defendants required Plaintiff to sign a document that
        reflected inaccurate or false hours worked;

     -- Defendants failed to provide employees the required
        postings or notices to employees regarding the applicable
        wage and hour requirements of the FLSA and NYLL; and

     -- Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff and other
        employees with accurate wage statements at the time of
        their payment of wages.

Rene French Cleaners Inc., doing business as Rene French Cleaners,
and Rene French Cleaners II Inc., doing business as Rene French
Cleaners, offer dry cleaning services. Daniel Lee and Byeng Woon
Lee own and operate the Corporate Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd St., Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Tel: (212) 317-1200
          Fax: (212) 317-1620


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Salinas, Et Al. Dismissed From Blakely Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VICKI BLAKELY, STEVEN LAWSON, CHRISTY MITCHELL, LESLIE
WILLIAMS, JAMES ROLLAND, JAYNELLIS SALINAS, KATHLEEN JONES, ANNIE
BLUITT, SAMUEL CARTER, & KEVIN GREIF, on, behalf, of, themselves,
and, all, others, similarly, situated, Plaintiff, v. SANTANDER
CONSUMER USA INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01647-WBS-EFB (E.D.
Cal.), Judge William B. Shubb of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division, entered orders
dismissing the individual claims of Plaintiffs Jaynellis Salinas,
Samuel Carter and James Rolland against Santander Consumer, and any
claims the mentioned Plaintiffs assert on behalf of the absent
putative class members.

The dismissal is by virtue of the parties' stipulated agreement.
Each party will bear its own attorneys' fees and costs associated
with the case.

The Orders pertaining to the dismissal are available at
https://is.gd/mpfzlm and https://is.gd/t8I8K8 from Leagle.com.

Previously, in January 2020, the Court entered a Protective Order
in the Blakely case, a copy of which is available at
https://tinyurl.com/sgueako from Leagle.com.

Vicki Blakely, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Steven Lawson, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Christy Mitchell, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Leslie Williams, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, James Rolland, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Jaynellis
Salinas, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Kathleen Jones, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Annie Bluitt, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Samuel Carter, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated & Kevin Greif, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Benjamin P. Tryk - ben@tryklaw.com - Tryk Law, PC & Wesley W.
Barnett  - wbarnett@davisnorris.com - Davis & Norris, LLP, pro hac
vice.

Santander Consumer USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Anthony Q.
Le  -ale@mcguirewoods.com - McGuireWoods, LLP, Benjamin J. Sitter
- bsitter@mcguirewoods.com - McGuireWoods LLP, Jamie D. Wells -
jwells@mcguirewoods.com - McguireWoods LLP & K. Issac deVyver -
kdevyver@mcguirewoods.com - McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice.


SIMMONS BANK: Fails to Obtain Dismissal of Walkingstick Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Roseann Ketchmark of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the
case captioned DANNY L. WALKINGSTICK, WHITNYE A FORT, Plaintiffs,
v. SIMMONS BANK, Defendant, Case No. 6:19-03184-CV-RK., (W.D.
Mo.).

Plaintiff commenced the putative class action for breach of
contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
and for unjust enrichment.

The case arises out of allegations that Simmons charged overdraft
fees on transactions, which did not overdraw Plaintiffs' accounts.
Plaintiffs had or have checking accounts with Simmons and opted
into Simmons' standard overdraft practices. Pursuant to the terms
and conditions (the "Deposit Agreement") and the fee schedule,
Simmons charged a $35 per item overdraft fee for transactions that
overdrew an account.  At the heart of the case, is how Simmons
calculated a consumer's balance in determining when a customer's
account was overdrawn.  Plaintiffs claim the Deposit Agreement
required Simmons to use a ledger balance method to calculate the
balance of Plaintiffs' accounts in determining whether and
overdraft fee would apply.  Specifically, in the Second Amended
Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Plaintiff Walkingstick, was
assessed a $35 overdraft fee on November 1, 2018, even though "his
account . . . was not even negative after that ATM transaction."
Plaintiffs similarly allege that overdraft fees were charged to
Plaintiff Fort on eight different occasions, even though the
transactions did not "cause the balance on her statement to go
negative after the transaction."

Simmons, on the other hand, contends the contract provides for the
use of the available balance method.  Simmons moves to dismiss each
of Plaintiffs' claims for failure to state a claim.

In arguing that all claims should be dismissed, Simmons contends
that Plaintiffs failed to plead compliance with the notice and cure
provision of the Deposit Agreement and that Plaintiffs failed to
state a claim on each of their three claims.  

* Notice and Cure Provision

Simmons first argues Plaintiffs failed to plead compliance with the
notice and cure provision of the Deposit Agreement.

Plaintiffs allege that they complained to the bank about the
overdraft fees being charged.  Plaintiffs also argue in their
response that the notice and cure provision is inapplicable to the
overdraft fees imposed by Simmons.  Plaintiffs reason that the
provision applies only to errors, not the intentional imposition of
fees by Simmons.   

Simmons, on the other hand, argues that the plain language of the
contract provides that a failure to timely report errors precludes
plaintiff from asserting a claim against Simmons.  Simmons also
argues that Plaintiffs' complaints to the bank do not satisfy the
Deposit Agreement's requirement to provide notice at a designated
phone number or address.

Defendant has not persuaded the Court how the notice and cure
provision unequivocally precludes Plaintiff's claims.  Rather, the
parties' arguments on this question are dependent on the
interpretation and application of the Deposit Agreement.  While
there may or may not be ambiguity, at this juncture, the Court is
unable to find that Plaintiffs' claims fail as a matter of law.

Therefore, Simmons Motion to Dismiss will be denied on this ground,
the Court holds.

* Failure to State a Claim for Breach of Contract

Simmons' next three arguments pertain to Plaintiffs' individual
claims.  Under Arkansas law, the elements for breach of contract
are: the existence of a valid and enforceable contract between the
plaintiff and defendant, the obligation of defendant thereunder, a
violation by the defendant, and damages resulting to plaintiff from
the breach.  

Here, Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled a claim for breach of
contract.  First, the parties do not contest the existence of a
valid contract, and Plaintiffs have pleaded the existence of the
contract at issue in this case.  Second, Plaintiffs pleaded Simmons
breached, or violated, the contract by charging overdraft fees on
transactions that did not overdraw the accounts.   

Plaintiffs have pleaded Simmons breached the contract by charging
overdraft fees when accounts were not actually overdrawn, and that
Plaintiffs were damaged as a result.  Accepting that allegation as
true for purposes of this motion, Plaintiffs have stated a claim
for breach of contract.  Therefore, Simmons' Motion to Dismiss will
be denied on this ground, the Court holds.

* Failure to State a Claim for Breach of the Implied Covenant of
  Good Faith and Fair Dealing

In this case, Plaintiffs have pled their claim for breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing as a separate
count.  While Defendants assert that Plaintiffs' claim for breach
of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a stand alone
claim, the Court in Tannehill allowed the claim to proceed where
the claim was pleaded in an almost identical manner as the one in
this case.  While the allegations of the violation of the implied
covenant are not a separate claim, they survive as part of the
breach of contract claim.  Therefore, Simmons' Motion to Dismiss
will be denied on this ground, the Court further holds.

* Failure to State a Claim for Unjust Enrichment

Pursuant to Arkansas law, where the parties have an enforceable
contract that fully addresses a subject, they must proceed on that
contract in resolving their differences.  But where the contract
fails on some basis, or does not fully address a subject then the
parties' contract is no bar to an unjust-enrichment claim for
restitution.  If the contract does not address every issue, then
Plaintiffs may have a valid claim for unjust enrichment. Therefore,
Simmons' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claim for unjust enrichment
will be denied, the Court notes.

Accordingly, and after careful consideration, Simmons' motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim is denied, the Court rules.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/tyro7e8 from Leagle.com.

Danny L Walkingstick & Whitnye A Fort, Plaintiffs, represented by
Christopher D. Jennings , 610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300,
Little Rock, AR 72201, pro hac vice, J. Gerard Stranch, IV ,
Branstetter, Stranch and Jennings, PLLC, The Freedom Center223 Rosa
L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200Nashville, TN 37203, pro hac vice,
Jeffrey D. Kaliel , Kaliel PLLC, 1875 Connecticut Ave NW, 10th
Floor, Washington D.C. 20009, pro hac vice, Lisa M. La Fornara  -
LLAFORNARA@COHENANDMALAD.COM -  One Indiana Square, pro hac vice,
Lynn A. Toops  - LTOOPS@COHENANDMALAD.COM - Cohen & Malad LLP, pro
hac vice, Martin F. Schubert, I - martinfschubert@gmail.com -
Branstetter Stranch & Jennings PLLC, pro hac vice, Sophia Goren
Gold , Kaliel PLLC, 1875 Connecticut Ave NW, 10th Floor, Washington
D.C. 20009, pro hac vice, Vess A. Miller -
VMILLER@COHENANDMALAD.COM- One Indiana Square, pro hac vice &
Ashlea Schwarz - Ashlea@PaulLLP.com - Paul LLP.

Simmons Bank, Defendant, represented by Debra Bogo-Ernst -
dernst@mayerbrown.com - Mayer Brown, LLP, pro hac vice, Jason C.
Smith - jcsmith@spencerfane.com - Spencer Fane LLP & Rodney H.
Nichols - rnichols@spencerfane.com Spencer Fane LLP.


STAAR SURGICAL: Federman & Sherwood Announces Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on August 19, 2020, a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California against STAAR Surgical Company
(NASDAQ: STAA). The complaint alleges violations of federal
securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of
issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the
market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price during the Class Period, which is February 26, 2020 through
August 10, 2020.

To learn how to participate in this action, please visit
https://www.federmanlaw.com/blog/federman-sherwood-announces-the-filing-of-a-securities-class-action-lawsuit-against-staar-surgical-company/

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all STAAR Surgical
Company shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class
Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described above.
You may move the Court no later than October 19, 2020 to serve as a
lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order to do so,
you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights, please contact:

        Robin Hester
        Federman & Sherwood
        10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
        Oklahoma City, OK 73120
        Email to: rkh@federmanlaw.com [GN]

TRUE WORLD: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Conrado Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
GILBERTO J. CONRADO, and other similarly situated individuals v.
TRUE WORLD FOODS MIAMI LLC and CHIRIKA KUROIWA, individually, Case
No. 1:20-cv-23517-MGC (S.D. Fla., Aug. 24, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages, in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from January 2, 2001,
to July 9, 2020, as a warehouse employee and delivery driver at the
Defendants' facilities located at 11205 NW, 36th Avenue, in Miami,
Florida.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked 70 weeks with a
minimum of 57 working hours, but he was paid a salary of
approximately $1,251.70 weekly regardless of the number of hours
worked. The Defendant allegedly failed to pay the Plaintiff
overtime hours at the rate of time and one-half his regular rate
for every hour that he worked more than 40. Moreover, Plaintiff was
placed on a temporary leave of absence on April 27, 2020, and was
discharged from his employment due to discriminatory reasons on
July 9, 2020.

True World Foods Miami LLC is an importer, wholesaler, and
distributor of fresh and frozen seafood, fresh produce, groceries,
and other Japanese/Asian food specialties. Chirika Kuroiwa is the
officer and manager of Defendant Corporation, True World
Foods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Tel: (305) 446-1500
          Fax: (305) 446-1502
          Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


UNITED INDUSTRIES: $2.5M Graves Suit Settlement Gets Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for Central District of California
granted final approval of a class action settlement in the case
captioned MICHAEL GRAVES, KEITH GREN, and MICHAEL WHEALEN, on
behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the
general public, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED INDUSTRIES CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS-SKx (C.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Gregory Arthur filed this putative class action alleging
violations of consumer protection laws against Defendant.

The Settlement Agreement provides that UIC will pay $2,500,000.00
into a settlement fund. This fund will be used, among other things,
to pay authorized claims to the Settlement Class Members, to pay
the costs of settlement administration and notice to the Class
Members, to pay Class Counsel's fees and expenses, and to pay
incentive awards to the named Plaintiffs. For Authorized Claimants,
UIC will provide $6.25 in cash from the Settlement Fund for each
Claim submitted by a household, with a limit of four (4) Claims per
household (total payable per household in no event to exceed $25,
unless distribution is increased pro rata). The settlement provides
for a pro rata reduction if the claims exceed the amount in the
settlement fund or a pro rata increase if the settlement fund is
not exhausted. If after all accepted Claims (plus other authorized
fees, costs and expenses) are paid and money remains in the
Settlement Fund after pro rata distribution to Authorized
Claimants, any remaining settlement funds thereafter will be
awarded cy pres to the National Advertising Division of the Better
Business Bureau.

In addition to monetary relief, UIC agrees to the following
injunctive relief: If, with respect to any Product manufactured by
UIC after June 1, 2020, UIC elects to state on its Product label
that such Product "Makes Up to ____ Gallons" of end-use herbicide,
Defendant shall include on such labeling, mixing directions that
are acceptable to EPA-equivalent agencies of the State(s) in which
the Product is registered for sale (such acceptability being deemed
by virtue of such agency(ies) registration of such Product). The
ultimate timing and content of any label changes shall be at the
sole discretion of UIC.

Each of the named Plaintiffs have suffered the same injuries as the
absent class members because each purchased a Spectracide(R)
Concentrate product, for personal and household use, in reliance on
the Makes Up To ____ gallons statement on the front of the label
which they took to mean would, in fact, make up to the advertised
amount of gallons when used as directed for general weed control.

Class Counsel have also vigorously represented the Class and have
no conflicts of interest. The Settlement was negotiated by counsel
with extensive experience in consumer class action litigation.
Through the discovery process, Class Counsel obtained sufficient
information and documents to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses
of the case.  

The Court finds that Class Counsel and the Class Representatives
have been diligent in their representation of the class.

Class Counsel has fully addressed the reasonableness of the fee
request in Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and
Incentive Awards that was filed on January 6, 2020. Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h), the Court orders that Class
Counsel is entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in
connection with the action in the amount of $625,000.00, to be paid
at the time and in the matter provided in the Settlement Agreement.


Class Counsel's fee request is also reasonable under the lodestar
method. Class Counsel's total lodestar in this action equals
$545,052.50. Accordingly, the $625,000.00 fee award results in a
positive multiplier of 1.146.  

Based on the declaration submitted by Class Counsel in support of
the Fee Motion, the Court finds that Class Counsel have incurred
out-of-pocket litigation expenses (paid and un-reimbursed) in the
amount of $32,090.63. Accordingly, the Court further awards Class
Counsel $32,090.63 in litigation costs, to be paid at the time and
manner provided in the Settlement Agreement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 24, 2020 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/wun55zd from
Leagle.com.

Michael Graves, on behalf of himself, all others similarly, and the
general public & Keith Gren, on behalf of himself, all others
similarly, and the general public, Plaintiffs, represented by
Lilach Halperin -lilach@consumersadvocates.com - Law Offices of
Ronald A Marron APLC, Ronald A. Marron - ron@consumersadvocates.com
- Law Offices of Ronald A Marron APLC, David Elliot , The Elliot
Firm, 3200 Fourth Avenue, Suite 207 San Diego, CA 92103 & Michael
T. Houchin - mike@consumersadvocates.con - Law Offices of Ronald A
Marron.

Michael Whealen, Plaintiff, represented by Michael T. Houchin , Law
Offices of Ronald A Marron & Ronald A. Marron , Law Offices of
Ronald A Marron APLC.

United Industries Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Ronie M. Schmelz -ronie.schmelz@tuckerellis.com -
Tucker and Ellis LLP.

UNITED STATES: Class of Student Borrowers Certified in Vara Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a
Memorandum and Order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification and Motion for Judgment in the case captioned DIANA
VARA, AMANDA WILSON, NOEMY SANTIAGO, KENNYA CABRERA, and INDRANI
MANOO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
ELISABETH P. DEVOS, in her official capacity as Secretary of the
United States Department of Education, and THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Case No. 19-12175-LTS (D. Mass.).

In this putative class action arising under the Higher Education
Act ("HEA"), the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), and the
Declaratory Judgment Act ("DJA"), the Plaintiffs challenge the
action taken by the Department of Education ("Education") and its
secretary, Elisabeth P. DeVos, concerning thousands of federal
student loans taken out to pay for the cost of attendance at
Everest Institute ("Everest"), a for-profit postsecondary school
that was operated by Corinthian Colleges, Inc. ("Corinthian").

In 2015, Corinthian, a publicly traded company that operated
postsecondary schools across the country, closed its schools and
filed for bankruptcy. Corinthian's demise followed "numerous
investigations for misconduct," including a multi-year
investigation led by Education that resulted in a $26,665,000 fine
for falsification of job placement rates at Corinthian campuses in
California. After Corinthian's collapse, Education received a
"flood of borrower defense claims submitted by Corinthian students
stemming from the school's misconduct."

The Plaintiffs are former Everest students, who seek to set aside
what they characterize as Education's constructive denial of an
application for student loan discharge that the Massachusetts
Attorney General's Office ("AGO") submitted on their behalf in
2015. The Plaintiffs contend that Education's failure to render a
reasoned decision on the merits of the AGO's application was
"arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in
accordance with law" and "without observance of procedure required
by law" in violation of the APA. Further, the Plaintiffs argue that
the AGO's application, which included extensive factual and legal
findings and invoked Education's borrower defense regulation, 34
C.F.R. Section 685.206(c) (eff. until Oct. 16, 2018), entitled the
Plaintiffs to full relief from their federal student loan
obligations.

On November 13, 2019, Named Plaintiffs Diana Vara and Amanda Wilson
moved to certify this lawsuit as a class action, a motion that was
later supplemented after Named Plaintiffs Noemy Santiago, Kennya
Cabrera, and Indrani Manoo entered the case. On January 22, 2020,
the parties stipulated to a factual record to govern this dispute.
Subsequently, the Plaintiffs moved for judgment on the record, and
the Defendants opposed both Motions.

Conclusion

The Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements for certification,
thus, their motion for class certification is ALLOWED. This class
is CERTIFIED:

     All individuals who borrowed a federal student loan to pay
     the cost of attendance for the 7,241 students identified in
     Exhibit 4 to the DTR Application who have not yet had their
     federal student loans completely discharged due to a
     successful borrower defense claim, have not yet received a
     refund of sums already collected, and have not yet received
     a favorable decision as to a borrower defense application.

Named Plaintiffs Kennya Cabrera, Indrani Manoo, Noemy Santiago,
Diana Vara, and Amanda Wilson are APPOINTED as class
representatives. The Plaintiffs' counsel from the Harvard Legal
Services Center's Project on Predatory Student Lending are
APPOINTED as class counsel.

The Court concludes that: (1) the Application for Defense to
Repayment ("DTR Application") was a valid borrower defense
application on behalf of all individuals, who took out federal
student loans to pay for the cost of attendance for students listed
in Exhibit 4, including those who took out Parent PLUS loans; (2)
the Defendants constructively denied the DTR Application without
rendering a reasoned decision, thus, violating the APA's
prohibition on arbitrary and capricious agency action; and (3) the
Plaintiffs have established that they are entitled full loan
discharges and a favorable borrower defense decision pursuant to 34
C.F.R. Section 685.206(c)(1) (eff. until Oct. 16, 2018).
Accordingly, the Court:

   (1) ALLOWS the Plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment;

   (2) DECLARES that the DTR Application was a valid borrower
       defense to repayment application submitted on behalf of
       all individuals who took out federal student loans to pay
       for the cost of attendance for students listed in
       Exhibit 4;

   (3) SETS ASIDE the Defendants' constructive denial of the DTR
       Application for borrower defense relief submitted on
       behalf of all individuals, who took out federal student
       loans to pay for the cost of attendance for students
       listed in Exhibit 4;

   (4) DECLARES that the Plaintiffs have established a right to
       borrower defense relief for all individuals, who took out
       federal student loans to pay for the cost of attendance
       for students listed in Exhibit 4;

   (5) DECLARES that the Plaintiffs are entitled to full loan
       discharges pursuant to the agency's settled course of
       adjudication;

   (6) REMANDS this matter to the Secretary to render a reasoned
       decision not inconsistent with this Order;

   (7) ORDERS the Secretary to issue her reasoned decision within
       60 days of the issuance of this Order or such further time
       allowed by the Court; and

   (8) RETAINS jurisdiction of this matter in the event of an
       appeal from or challenge to the administrative decision
       ordered by paragraph 6.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 25, 2020 Memorandum
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9mfakb9 from
Leagle.com.


VASTA PLATFORM: Pomerantz Law Firm Investigates Investors' Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Vasta Platform Limited ("Vasta" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: VSTA).
Such investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980.

The investigation concerns whether Vasta and certain of its
officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other
unlawful business practices.

On or around July 30, 2020, Vasta conducted its initial public
offering ("IPO"), selling 18,575,492 of its Class A common shares
priced at $19.00 per share.  Then, on August 20, 2020, Vasta issued
a press release announcing the Company's financial results for the
second quarter and first half of 2020.  Among other results, Vasta
announced a second-quarter net loss of 54.9 million reais and
revenue of 120.23 million reais, representing a revenue decline of
12.9% from the year-ago quarter.  Vasta also advised investors that
adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and
amortization ("EBITDA"), excluding non-recurring effects, was
negative by 1.7 million reais in the second quarter, and that
"[t]he different seasonality in revenue recognition seen in 2020 on
account of a greater concentration of invoices at the start of the
commercial cycle (4Q and 1Q) ended up having a negative impact on
the basis of comparison against the same period last year."  The
Company further advised that negative EBITDA of 10.9 million reais
in the second quarter was "due to the extraordinary effects seen in
the period, such as the different seasonality of revenue together
with the impact of Covid-19 on the operation, as well as the
inventory adjustment and higher marketing expenses."

On this news, Vasta's common share price fell $1.63 per share, or
8.81%, to close at $16.88 per share on August 21, 2020,
representing an 11.16% decline from the IPO price.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com.

         Robert S. Willoughby
         Pomerantz LLP
         Tel No: 888-476-6529 ext. 7980
         E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]

VAXART INC: Schall Law Announces Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Vaxart, Inc.
("Vaxart" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:VXRT) for violations of 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between June 25,
2020 and July 25, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before October 23, 2020.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Vaxart engaged in a fraudulent scheme to
artificially inflate its stock price with false information related
to the Company's alleged COVID-19 vaccine. The Company announced
via press release that "Vaxart's COVID-19 Vaccine Selected for the
U.S. Government's Operation Warp Speed," which caused a sharp
increase in its share price. The New York Times revealed on July
25, 2020, that "Vaxart is not among the companies selected to
receive significant financial support from Warp Speed," exposing
the Company's scheme and driving its share price lower. Based on
these facts, the Company's public statements were false and
materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market
learned the truth about Vaxart, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. [GN]

VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Aug. 16 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

Pilgrim's Pride Corporation (NASDAQ:PPC)

PPC Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 9, 2017
- June 3, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 4, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/pilgrims-pride-corporation-information-request-form?prid=8596&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company and its
executives had participated in an illegal antitrust conspiracy to
fix prices and rig bids from at least as early as 2012 and
continuing through at least early 2017; (2) the Company received
competitive advantages, which persisted during the Class Period,
from its anticompetitive conduct; and (3) as a result, Defendants'
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
lacked a reasonable basis.

Velocity Financial, Inc. (NYSE:VEL)

This lawsuit is on behalf of investors who purchased VEL stocks
pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and
Prospectus, as amended, issued in connection with Velocity's
January 2020 initial public offering.

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 28, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/velocity-financial-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8596&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, defendants failed to disclose
that, at the time of Velocity's initial public offering (the
"IPO"), the Company's non-performing loans had dramatically
increased in size from the figures provided in the Registration
Statement and Prospectus that Velocity had issued in connection
with the IPO. Further, defendants failed to provide any information
to investors regarding the potential impact of the novel
coronavirus on Velocity's business and operations, despite the fact
that the international spread of the virus had already been
confirmed at the time of the IPO. The failure to disclose the
substantial and growing proportion of the Company's loans that were
non-performing and/or on non-accrual status as of the IPO rendered
the statements contained in the Registration Statement and
Prospectus regarding the quality of the Company's loan portfolio
and underwriting practices materially misleading.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
https://www.zlk.com [GN]


VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Rosen Law Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Velocity Financial, Inc. (NYSE:
VEL) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public
offering conducted in January 2020 (the "IPO" or "Offering") of the
important September 28, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in the
securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Velocity Financial investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Velocity Financial class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1867.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, at the time of the IPO, the Company's
non-performing loans had dramatically increased in size from the
figures provided in the Offering Materials, as measured by both the
amount of unpaid principal balance and as a percentage of the
Company's overall loan portfolio. In addition, defendants failed to
provide any information to investors regarding the potential impact
of the novel coronavirus on Velocity's business and operations,
despite the fact that the international spread of the virus had
already been confirmed at the time of the IPO. The failure to
disclose the substantial and growing proportion of the Company's
loans that were non-performing and/or on non-accrual status as of
the IPO rendered the statements contained in the Offering Materials
regarding the quality of the Company's loan portfolio and
underwriting practices materially misleading. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September
28, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1867.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.


         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 cases@rosenlegal.com [GN]

WELLS FARGO: Clay Gatens Announces Cy Pres Awards Recipients
------------------------------------------------------------
Local attorney Clay Gatens of Gatens Green Weidenbach, PLLC on Aug.
11 announced the distribution of $835,300.40 to recipients of the
Cy Pres awards resulting from the Class Action Settlement Rhodes v.
Wells Fargo N.A. in which Mr. Gatens served as lead Plaintiff's
counsel.

On December 19, 2018 the US District Court of Eastern Washington
granted final approval of the $26.3 million dollar class action
settlement entered into between Plaintiff and Wells Fargo. The case
was one of several Gatens pursued involving homeowners whose locks
were changed by lenders and mortgage servicers prior to
foreclosure, claiming the properties were abandoned.

Four non-profit organizations evenly split the nearly one million
dollars in Cy Pres awards that remained undistributed to class
members from the common fund settlement that Mr. Gatens achieved
for class members in the case.  The Cy Pres recipients are
Northwest Justice Project, Chelan-Douglas County Volunteer Attorney
Services, Rebuilding Together Seattle, and Housing Hope –
Everett.  Each organization received $208,825.10.  The latter two
organizations were designated by Wells Fargo under the terms of the
settlement.

When a class action settles with a common fund settlement there are
often settlement funds that do not get claimed by class members.
These funds are then designated to non-profit "Cy Pres" recipients.
Chelan-Douglas County Volunteer Attorney Services is one such Cy
Pres recipient and has received $208,825.10 in funds as a result of
the lawsuit and settlement.

"A gift of this size is a game changer for CDCVAS and offers
stability for civil legal aid in uncertain times," shared Eloise
Barshes, Executive Director at Chelan-Douglas County Volunteer
Services. "I can assure you, it will be thoughtfully and
responsibly allocated to ensure our services and program continue
to meet the needs of our community for years to come."

"This case resulted in a significant victory for over 4,000
distressed Washington homeowners who had locks changed on their
homes prior to the completion of a lawful foreclosure," explained
Mr. Gatens of Gatens Green Weidenbach. "I am extremely proud that
Chelan-Douglas County Volunteer Attorney Services and Northwest
Justice Project will be able to use these Cy Pres funds to support
and carry-forward the good work that they do in our local community
and region."

Clay Gatens, recently opened the firm Gatens Green Weidenbach, PLLC
in North Central Washington, alongside Lindsey Weidenbach and
Michelle Green. Gatens Green Weidenbach, PLLC offers professional
legal services in North Central Washington and beyond. They focus
their practice in land use, real estate, business law, commercial
civil litigation, and class actions. For more information on the
firm, visit their website at www.ggw-law.com or contact them at
(509) 888-2144 or contact@ggw-law.com. [GN]


WILMINGTON TRUST: Faces Alvarez ERISA Suit Over HAI Stock Losses
----------------------------------------------------------------
CINDY ALVAREZ, on behalf of Healthcare Appraisers, Inc. ESOP, and
on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated v.
WILMINGTON TRUST, N.A., as successor to Wilmington Trust Retirement
and Institutional Services Company, Case No. 1:20-cv-01115-UNA (D.
Del., Aug. 25, 2020), accuses the Defendant of breaching its
fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 by paying more than fair market value for HAI stock.

The Plaintiff was employed by Healthcare Appraisers, Inc. (HAI)
from April 14, 2014, through July 1, 2020, and has been a
participant of the Plan.

HAI is business appraisal firm specializing in healthcare firm
appraisals.

According to the complaint, HAI adopted the Plan under the meaning
of ERISA effective January 1, 2014, which is a pension plan that
was designed to invest primarily in the employer securities of HAI.
Additionally, the Plan is an individual account plan under which a
separate individual account was established for each participant,
including the Plaintiff.

The Defendant was appointed by HAI or the Selling Shareholders as
Trustee of the Plan, which had sole and exclusive authority to
negotiate and approve ESOP transaction on behalf of the Plan,
including the price the Plan paid for HAI stock. The Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendant did not perform due diligence in the
course of the ESOP Transaction because it failed to receive a
discount for lack of control causing the Plan to pay more than fair
market value for HAI stock.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant violated ERISA by causing
the Plan to engage in prohibited transactions, which caused losses
to the Plan, and breach its fiduciary duty to undertake an
appropriate and independent investigation of the fair market value
of HAI stock in August 2014.

Wilmington Trust is a trust company and was the Trustee of the Plan
at the time of the ESOP Transaction.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David A. Felice, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          Red Clay Center at Little Falls
          2961 Centerville Road, Suite 302
          Wilmington, DE 19808
          Tel: (302) 504-6333
          Fax: (302) 504-6334
          Email: dfelice@baileyglasser.com

                - and –

          Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
          Ryan T. Jenny, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          1055 Thomas Jefferson St., NW, Suite 540
          Washington, DC 20007
          Tel: (202) 463-2101
          Fax: (202) 463-2103
          Emails: gporter@baileyglasser.com
                  rjenny@baileyglasser.com



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***