---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, September 14, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 184

                            Headlines

ABIOMED INC: Amended Complaint in Consolidated Suit Due Sept. 17
ABLE RIGGING: Gemini Sues Over $718K Balance in Construction Work
ACLARIS THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Nix Fulcher Consolidated Suit Pending
ALLSTAR PRODUCTS: Romero Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
ALTERYX INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action Filing

ALTERYX INC: Labaton Sucharow Alerts of Class Action Filing
AMAZON: Faces PFAS Class Action in California
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Class Cert. Bid in NY Securities Suit Pending
AMERICAN BAIL: Seeks Dismissal of Bail Price-Fixing Class Action
AMERICAN CAMPUS: Files Motion to Dismiss Class Action

AMERICAN CRAFTS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Paguada Says
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action Filing
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of Oct. 19 Deadline
AMERICAN ENTERTAINERS: Brimage Sues Over Improperly Paid Dancers
AMNEAL PHARMA: Appeal from Dismissal of Pension Fund Suit Ongoing

AMNEAL PHARMA: Must Face Cambridge Retirement System's Suit
ANAPLAN INC: Federman & Sherwood Alerts of Class Action Filing
ANAPLAN INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action
ARKANSAS: Court Denies Prelim. Injunction in Frazier Inmates Suit
ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Wong Class Settlement Hearing Set for Sept. 17

AUSTRALIA: Farmers to Launch Class Action Over Failed Paradise Dam
AYRO INC: Has Not Yet Paid $45,000 as Counsel Fees
BAIDU INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action Filing
BANK OF NEW YORK: Investor Suit Over Stanford Ponzi Scheme Ongoing
BARTERSIAN CORP: Romero Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation

BAUSCH HEALTH: Settlement in Valeant Pharma Suit Awaits Final Okay
BAUSCH HEALTH: Timber Hill Putative Class Action Ongoing
BAYER AG: Kahn Swick Reminds of Sept. 14 Motion Deadline
BELLICUM PHARMA: Deadline to Appeal Kakkar Case Dismissal Expires
BETTERDOCTOR INC: Fromer Chiropractic Sues Over Unsolicited Ads

BIODELIVERY SCIENCES: Drachman Putative Class Suit in Del. Ongoing
BIOGEN INC: Breaches Duty as 401(K) Plan Fiduciary, Gamble Says
BLINK CHARGING: Faces Vittoria Suit Over Decline in Stock Price
BREWSTER TRAVEL: Faces Class Action Over Fatal Bus Crush
BRISTOL-MYERS: Bid for Class Cert. in Suit Against Celgene Pending

BRISTOL-MYERS: Bid to Nix Amended CheckMate-026 Class Suit Pending
BRISTOL-MYERS: Continues to Defend Abilify Product Suits
BRISTOL-MYERS: Fairness & Final Approval Hearing Set for Sept. 30
BRUNELLO CUCINELLI: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, Brooks Claims
BURGER KING: Vegan Whopper Class Action Suit Tossed

BURWELL INDUSTRIES: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, Angeles Says
CABOT OIL: Kahn Swick Reminds of Oct. 13 Motion Deadline
CALIFORNIA: Faces Acosta Suit Alleging Violations of Labor Code
CAMPING WORLD: Geis Suit to Be Dismissed Following Accord
CAMPING WORLD: IUOE Suit to Be Dismissed Following Accord

CAMPING WORLD: Settlement in Ronge Suit Wins Final Approval
CANAAN INC: Lemieux Securities Suit Moved From Oregon to S.D.N.Y.
CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Court Issues Overtime Class Action Ruling
CAPITAL CENTER: Campbell FLSA Suit Seeks Overtime Wages for MLOs
CENTURYLINK INC: Deal in Sales Practices Suit Awaits Court OK

CENTURYLINK INC: Dismissal Order in Houser Suit Appealed
CHARLOTTE'S WEB: Faces Mislabeling Action Over Cannabidiol Products
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Underpays CSR Employees, Barron Claims
CHRISTY DAWN: Fischler Files ADA Class Suit in E.D. New York
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Rye Ridge Seeks Payment for COVID-19 Losses

CITIGUARD INC: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Rodriguez Suit Alleges
CITIZENS WATCH: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Paguada Claims
CLERMONT YORK: Motion to Dismiss Filed in Schneier Class Suit
CLOROX: Faces Class Action Over Splash-Less Bleach
COATZINGO BAKERY: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Rodriguez Says

COCRYSTAL PHARMA: Term Sheets Inked to Settle Pepe Case
COLORADO: Ruiz Employment Suit vs. DOC Removed to D. Colorado
COMMERCIAL MAINTENANCE: Chavez Seeks Overtime Pay for Landscapers
CONCIERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss Moshell Suit Pending
CONDUENT INC: ERS Puerto Rico Elec. Power Authority Suit Ongoing

COOKWARE COMPANY: Judge Tosses Most Claims in Sticky Pan Suit
CRONOS GROUP: Defends Putative Class Action in Canada
CRONOS GROUP: Putative Class Suits Underway in E.D.N.Y.
CUDAHY PLACE: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Harwell-Payne Says
CUPERTINO ELECTRIC: Wittbecker Suit Removed to N.D. California

CURALEAF INC: Brooks Class Suit Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Calls
CVS HEALTH: Bid to Consolidate Analog Insulin Suits Pending
CVS HEALTH: Continues to Defend LTC Business Unit-Related Suits
CYTOMX THERAPEUTICS: Defends CX-072 and CX-2009 Related Suit
DAP PRODUCTS: Crystal Clear Sealant's Label Deceptive, Ehlis Says

DAVID LAWRENCE: Sosa Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
DAVID LEKACH: Parra Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Awaits Court Decision in Bid to Dismiss Suit
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Labor Lawsuits vs. Futuredontics Still Ongoing
DENVER, CO: Court Issues TRO in Abay Suit vs. Denver Police Dept.

DEUTSCHE BANK: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 14 Motion Deadline
DEUTSCHE BANK: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Sept. 14 Bid Deadline
DEVA CONCEPTS: Bell Suit Moved From W.D. Missouri to S.D.N.Y.
DIXIE GROUP: Continues to Defend Johnson Class Suit in Georgia
EASTMAN KODAK: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Class Action

EASTMAN KODAK: Schall Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
EDDIE BAUER: Court Decertifies Class in Heredia Labor Suit
ELEVATE CREDIT: Rise Credit Unit Faces Class Suit in Washington
EMERALD HOLDING: Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan Closed
ENDO INT'L: Awaits Court Approval of Makris Class Settlement

ENVESTNET INC: Faces Data Security Class Action
ESSENTIAL UTILITIES: Discovery Ongoing in Suit Over Water Advisory
EVERSOURCE ENERGY: Faces Corcoran Suit Alleging ERISA Violations
EXPEDIA INC: Mahoney WCPA Class Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
FACEBOOK INC: Sponsored Stories Class Action Move to Next Phase

FAT BRANDS: Rojany Suit Underway in California State Court
FAT BRANDS: Settlement Reached in Vignola Suit
FBI: Seyfarth Shaw Attys. Discuss Ruling in Female Employees' Suit
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Kahn Swick Reminds of Sept. 28 Motion Deadline
FITBIT INC: Dismissal of Calif. Securities Suit Under Appeal

FITBIT INC: Fee Award in Sleep Tracking Device Suit Appealed
FORD MOTOR: Claims in Amended Weidman Brake Defect Suit Narrowed
FUNKO INC: Continues to Defend Kanugonda Class Suit
FUNKO INC: Ferreira & Nahas Putative Class Suits Consolidated
FUNKO INC: Wins Dismissal of Suit in King County, Washington

GENERALI US: Oglevee Sues Over Failure to Honor Travel Insurance
GLOBAL INTIMATES: Romero Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
GLOBAL TELLINK: Dismissal of Alexander's 4th Amended Suit Upheld
GOHEALTH INC: Wolf Haldenstein Investigates Securities Claims
GRACO CHILDREN'S: Kids' Booster Seats Are Not Safe, Chavez Claims

GREAT DAMES HOLDING: Faces Zanca ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
GREEN DOT: Koffsmon Class Suit in California Ongoing
GROUPON INC: Defending Securities Fraud Class Suit in Illinois
HAWAII: Union Mulls Class Suit Over Handling of COVID-19 Pandemic
HAXTON MASONRY: Bid for Partial Summary Judgment in Jimenez Granted

HEALTHPEAK PROPERTIES: Boynton Beach Class Suit Ongoing
HECLA MINING: Continues to Defend S.D.N.Y. Class Actions
HETERO USA: J M Sues Over Unlawful Delay of Generic Bystolic
HILLS BANCORPORATION: Talks in Overdraft Fees Litig. Underway
HOMETOWN AMERICA: Breaches Landlord-Tenant Contract, Gable Claims

HUMANA INC: Illegally Sends Unsolicited Fax Ads, Ryoo Dental Says
IBI ARMORED: Carrasco Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
IGNITE USA: Court Narrows Claims in Mirza Fraud Suit
INSPERITY INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 21 Motion Deadline
INSPERITY INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 21 Motion Deadline

INSPERITY INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Sept. 21 Motion Deadline
INTER-STATE OIL: Payne & Fears Attorneys Discuss Court Rulings
INTERNATIONAL MONEY: Settlement in Sawyer Suit Awaits Court OK
INVENTHELP: Berger Montague to Handle Consumer Class Action
IVERIC BIO: Discovery Ongoing in New York Consolidated Class Suit

JACK IN THE BOX: Settlement in Gessele Suit Wins Final Approval
JACK IN THE BOX: Settlement in Marquez Suit Wins Final Approval
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Plaintiffs Allowed to Amend Suit for 5th Time
JUD KUHN CHEVROLET: Class Suit Arbitration Ruling in Grant Reversed
KAM FUNG WONG: Underpays Poultry Workers, Munoz FLSA Suit Claims

KEN'S FOODS: Must Pay Class Action Lawyers Nearly $400,000
KIA: Faces Class Action in Quebec Over Defective Panoramic Sunroofs
KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORT: Approval of Burnell Accord Under Appeal
KNOW STYLE INC: Romero Sues in New York Alleging Violation of ADA
LENOVO US: MacKay Sues Over Defect in Laptops' Monitor Display

LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Initial Discovery in Smith Suit Ongoing
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Iwanski Class Suit vs. FPP Underway
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Still Faces Consolidated Litigation on COI Rates
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Unit Still Faces Class Action by TVPX ARS
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Vida Longevity Fund Suit vs. Unit Still Ongoing

LINEAGE CELL: Bid to Dismiss Ross Suit Pending
LIVENT CORP: Suits Over 2018 IPO Underway in Pennsylvania
MACY'S: Faces Class Action Over Facial Recognition Technology
MAESTRO CONSULTING: Roberson BIPA Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS: Denies RMTs & ARMs OT Pay, Braham Says

MASHBURN LLC: Romero Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
MAXIM INTEGRATED: Burns Shareholder Suit Balks at Sale to Analog
MAYFLOWER BOUTIQUE: Chavez Files ADA Class Suit in E.D. New York
MCDERMOTT INT'L: Rosen Law Reminds of Sept. 16 Motion Deadline
MEGA HEALTHCARE: Consolidated Class Suit in New York Ongoing

MEI PHARMA: Faces Bahat Class Suit Over 18% Drop in Share Price
MERCK & CO: Fails to Warn About Zostavax's Risk, Wolfstone Says
MERIT MEDICAL: Consolidated Securities Class Suit in Cal. Ongoing
MID-CENTURY INSURANCE: Cammies Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Bids to Nix Water Contamination Suits Pending

MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Delaware Securities Suit Temporarily Stayed
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Shareholder Class Suit in Georgia Ongoing
MONSANTO: Securities Class Action Won't Be Included in MDL Docket
MORGAN STANLEY: Faces Behar Suit in New York Over Data Breach
MULE INC: Faces Tatum-Rios Suit in New York Over Violation of ADA

NAKED JUICE: Coconut Juice Label Is Deceptive, Harrisingh Claims
NATERA INC: TCPA Class Suit in California Ongoing
NATIONAL VISION: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit vs. FirstSight Pending
NATIONWIDE SECURITY: Azambuya Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Calls
NCAA: Fails to Protect Athlete From Brain Injuries, Bernard Says

NCAA: Fails to Protect Athletes From Injuries, Abercrombie Claims
NETFLIX INC: Sued by New Boston City for Not Paying Franchise Tax
NEWELL BRANDS: Appeal in Securities Class Suit Still Pending
NEWELL BRANDS: Continues to Defend Oklahoma Firefighters Suit
NORTONLIFELOCK INC: Court Approves Avila Case Settlement

NORTONLIFELOCK INC: Trial in Cal. Securities Suit in June 2021
NUC USA: Web Site Is Inaccessible to Blind Users, Angeles Alleges
ON DECK CAPITAL: Sabatini Securities Suit Questions Sale to Enova
OTTLITE TECHNOLOGIES: Romero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PACKERS SANITATION: Faces Torres Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

PALMETTO MOON: Romero Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
PARSONS XTREME: Romero Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
PENNSYLVANIA: Faces James Suit vs. SEPTA Alleging Personal Injury
PENSKE TRUCK: Court Tosses Zamora Wage & Hour Class Suit
PEPPERIDGE FARM: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Carpenter Alleges

PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Class Suits Related to Zantac
PFIZER INC: Lipitor-Related Antitrust Suits Ongoing
PFIZER INC: Settlement in Hormone Therapy Suit Paid in Full
PFIZER INC: Suit Over Array BioPharma's NRAS Trials Pending
PFIZER INC: Wyeth Still Defends Class Suit Over Effexor XR Sales

PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY: Grant & Eisenhofer Files Class Actions
PILOT TRAVELING: Can Compel Arbitration in Drasal Labor Suit
PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Judge Tosses Securities Class Action
POST HOLDINGS: Still Faces Egg Products Suit by Opt-Out Plaintiffs
PRIMO WATER OPERATIONS: Romero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

PROAMPAC INTERMEDIATE: Magalhaes Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
PROGENITY INC: Faces Soe Suit Over Misleading IPO Statements
PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Hsu Class Action Ongoing
PURDUE PHARMA: Montpelier Schools to Join Opioid Class Action
RABOBANK NA: Legal Fees Motion in Recovery Fund Suit Partly Granted

RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Mistreats UTC Plan Members, Darnis Claims
RECKITT BENCKISER: Angeles Sues Over Neuriva's Deceptive Labels
RENT-A-CENTER WEST: Sanchez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
RIBBON COMMUNICATIONS: Bid to Dismiss Miller Class Suit Pending
ROBERT GOLDFARB: Liable for 401(k) Plan Losses, Ferguson Alleges

SAM'S CLUB: Asks Judge to Compel Arbitration in Membership Suit
SCWORX CORP: Facing Suits Over COVID-19 Rapid Test Kits
SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss Agar Class Suit Pending
SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss Kelley Class Suit Pending
SERVISFIRST BANK: Court Dismisses PPP Agent Fee Class Action

SILICON VALLEY BANK: Fails to Properly Pay OT Wages, Meguro Says
SILVERTIP COMPLETION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Rodgers Claims
SIMPSON STRONG-TIE: Court Dismissed First Amended Cooper Suit
SOUTH AFRICA: Class Action Mulled Against SARS
SOUTHERN CORROSION: Misclassifies Employees, Antoine Suit Claims

SP PLUS: Marzette BIPA Suit Moved From Cir. Ct. to N.D. Illinois
SPARTAN COMPANIES: Hernandez Suit Moved From D.N.M. to W.D. Texas
STAAR SURGICAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Oct. 19 Deadline
STAAR SURGICAL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Oct. 19 Motion Deadline
STAAR SURGICAL: Zhang Sues Over Drop in Securities' Market Value

T&S RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Duran Says
TBC RETAIL: Fails to Pay Mechanics' Overtime Wages, Schultz Says
TEVA PHARMA: Settlement in Provigil(R) Suit Wins Final Approval
THERMON GROUP: Litig. Over THS Heating Elements Ongoing in Quebec
TRIBORO WATER: Sosa Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA/NYLL

TRUSTMARK CORP: Investors' Appeal Remains Pending
TURTLE BEACH: Settlement in VTBH Merger Suit Wins Final Approval
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Aussie Law Firm's Class Suit Ongoing
ULTRA PETROLEUM: Subramanian Sues Execs Over Stock Price Decline
UMG: Declaratory Judgment Useful for Some Artists, Judge Rules

UNITED SPECIALTY: Refuses to Reimburse Losses, Tourgee Suit Says
UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over H-4 EAD Visas
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Class Action Seeks Spring Tuition Fee Refund
UNUM GROUP: Loomis Sues Over Claims Examiners' Unpaid OT Wages
VALVOLINE LLC: Armour Claims Discrimination Against Black Workers

VAXART INC: Hagens Berman Alerts of Class Action Filing
VAXART INC: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
VAXART INC: Wolf Haldenstein Alerts of Class Action Filing
VELOCITY FINC'L: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 28 Bid Deadline
VERNON E & I: Salas Sues to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA, NYLL

VIACOMCBS INC: Bid to Dismiss CalPERS Suit Pending
VIACOMCBS INC: Bid to Dismiss CBS Merger-Related Suit Pending
VIACOMCBS INC: Bid to Dismiss Construction Laborers Suit Pending
VIVINT SOLAR: Silverberg Suit Challenges $3.2-Bil. Sale to Sunrun
VOLKSWAGEN: Class Action Over Defective Sunroofs Dismissed

VOYA FINANCIAL: Advance Trust COI Class Suit in Colorado Ongoing
VOYA FINANCIAL: Advance Trust COI Class Suit in Minn. Ongoing
VOYA FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Barnes COI Litigation
WALGREENS: Faces Pain Patient Discrimination Class Action
WALMART: Settles Meat Overcharge Class Action for $9.5MM

WB STUDIO: Ettedgui Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
WELLS FARGO: Changes Mortgage Maturity Dates, Class Action Claims
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Dismissal Order in Wage & Hour Suit Appealed
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Labor-Related Class Litigation Ongoing
WESTERN EXPRESS: Sanders Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages

WINS FINANCE: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 23 Motion Deadline
YAYYO INC: Defends Rung Securities Class Action
YAYYO INC: Defends Vanbecelaere Securities Class Suit
YERBA MATE: Troyer Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. California
YOUNG LIVING: Penhall Suit Moved From S.D. California to D. Utah

ZINUS INC: Fails to Disclose Fiberglass in Mattresses, Daida Says
ZUFFA LLC: Sosa Sues in New York Over Disabilities Act Violation
ZYNGA INC: Awaits Ruling on Arbitration Bid in Chaudhri Case
ZYNGA INC: Awaits Ruling on Arbitration Bid in Johnson-Thomas Case
ZYNGA INC: Awaits Ruling on Arbitration Bid in Martinez-Petro Case

ZYNGA INC: Continues to Defend Oeste Class Action in Maryland
[*] Big Aus. Litigation Funders Welcome New Class Action Regulation
[*] Hardwick Accuses MP of Blatantly Defamatory Social Media Post
[*] Judicial Panel May Consolidate BI Claims into Class Action
[*] Mass. Judge Pauses CBD Supplement Product Class Action

[*] Securities Class Actions Cause Increase in D&O Premiums

                            *********

ABIOMED INC: Amended Complaint in Consolidated Suit Due Sept. 17
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abiomed, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the company and the lead plaintiff in a class
action lawsuit have stipulated that an amended consolidated
complaint must be filed by the lead plaintiff by September 17,
2020.

On or about August 6, 2019, the Company received a securities class
action complaint filed on behalf of a single shareholder in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY"),
on behalf of himself and persons or entities that purchased or
acquired the Company's securities between January 31, 2019 through
July 31, 2019.

On October 7, 2019, a similar purported class action complaint was
filed by a different shareholder on behalf of himself and persons
or entities that purchased or acquired the Company's securities
between November 1, 2018 and July 31, 2019.  

Also, on October 7, 2019, four shareholders filed applications to
be appointed lead plaintiff and for their counsel to be appointed
lead counsel for the class. Two of those shareholders also filed
motions to consolidate the two cases and two of the shareholders
have withdrawn their applications to be lead plaintiff.

The complaints allege that the Company violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act, in connection with
allegedly misleading disclosures made by the Company regarding its
financial condition and results of operations.

The Company has reviewed and not yet responded to the complaints.

The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and
plans to defend itself vigorously.

On June 28, 2020, the Court issued an order consolidating the two
cases and appointed Local 705 International Brotherhood of
Teamsters Pension Fund as the lead plaintiff and the Labaton
Sucharow firm as lead counsel.  

The Company and the lead plaintiff have stipulated that an amended
consolidated complaint will be filed by the lead plaintiff by
September 17, 2020.  

The Company then intends to respond to that complaint.

Abiomed, Inc. is a provider of mechanical circulatory support
devices and offers a continuum of care in heart recovery to heart
failure patients. The Company develops, manufactures and markets
proprietary products that are designed to enable the heart to rest,
heal and recover by improving blood flow and/or performing
thepumping function of the heart. The Company's products are used
in the cardiac catheterization lab, or cath lab, by interventional
cardiologists and in the heart surgery suite by heart surgeons for
patients who are in need of hemodynamic support prophylactically or
emergently before, during or after angioplasty or heart surgery
procedures. The company is based on Danvers, Masachussetts.


ABLE RIGGING: Gemini Sues Over $718K Balance in Construction Work
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GEMINI MACHINE WORKS, INC., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ABLE RIGGING CONTRACTORS, INC., STEVEN
LAGANAS, and STEVEN CHIRONIS, Case No. 654122/2020 (N.Y. Sup., Aug.
28, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for breach of
contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and diversion of lien
law trust funds relating to an unpaid balance of $718,485 for
construction work provided by the Plaintiff.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay the
Plaintiff in full for the construction of a derrick crane system
and its components in connection with the improvement of a real
property known as 10 Columbus Circle, in New York City. The
Plaintiff says it fully and completely performed all its
obligations under its agreement with the Defendant. Gemini issued
progress invoices and issued its final invoice for the work on
August 31, 2019. Final payment under the agreement for the work
became due on September 30, 2019. As of September 30, 2019, there
was an unpaid balance of at least $718,485 and the Defendant
refused to pay despite due demand from the Plaintiff.

Gemini Machine Works, Inc., is a metal fabrication company with its
principal place of business located at 1606-13 Street, Nisku, in
Alberta, Canada.

Able Rigging Contractors, Inc., is a full-service rigging,
machinery moving, transportation and warehousing company with a
principal place of business located at 1050 Grand Boulevard, in
Deer Park, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:       

         Brian H. Fischkin, Esq.
         OLSHAN FROME WOLOSKY LLP
         1325 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY 10019
         Telephone: (212)451-2300


ACLARIS THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Nix Fulcher Consolidated Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the consolidated
Rosi v. Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc., et al. and Fulcher v. Aclaris
Therapeutics, Inc., et al. suits, is still pending.

On July 30, 2019, plaintiff Linda Rosi, or Rosi, filed a putative
class action complaint captioned Rosi v. Aclaris Therapeutics,
Inc., et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against the company and certain of its executive
officers.  

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by, among other things, failing to disclose an
alleged likelihood that regulators would scrutinize advertising
materials related to ESKATA and find that the materials minimized
the risks or overstated the efficacy of the product.  

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of
Rosi and all other persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired our securities between May 8, 2018 and June 20, 2019.

On September 5, 2019, an additional plaintiff, Robert Fulcher, or
Fulcher, filed a substantially identical putative class action
complaint captioned Fulcher v. Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc., et al.
in the same court against the same defendants.

On November 6, 2019, the court consolidated the Rosi and Fulcher
actions, or together, the Consolidated Securities Action, and
appointed Fulcher "lead plaintiff" for the putative class.

On January 24, 2020, Fulcher filed a consolidated amended complaint
in the Consolidated Securities Action, naming two additional
executive officers as defendants, extending the putative class
period to August 12, 2019, and adding allegations concerning, among
other things, alleged statements and omissions throughout the
putative class period concerning ESKATA's risks, tolerability and
effectiveness.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on April 17, 2020. Fulcher filed an opposition to the
defendants' motion on June 15, 2020, and the defendants filed a
reply to such opposition on August 4, 2020. The motion remains
under judicial consideration.

Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc. operates as a pharmaceutical company.
The Company deals in identifying, developing, and commercialization
of drugs and therapies to meet needs in dermatology, medical, and
immunology sectors. Aclaris Therapeutics serves patients in the
United States. The company is based in Wayne, Pennsylvania.


ALLSTAR PRODUCTS: Romero Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allstar Products
Group, LLC. The case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Allstar Products
Group, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-07185 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 3, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Allstar Marketing Group, LLC, was founded in 1999. The Company's
line of business includes the retail sale of merchandise by
telephone, by house-to-house canvas, or from trucks or wagons.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (929) 575-4175
          Fax: (929) 575-4195
          Email: joseph@cml.legal


ALTERYX INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action Filing
--------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Alteryx, Inc. (NYSE: AYX).
Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff.  Additional information about each case
can be found at the link provided.

Alteryx, Inc. (NYSE: AYX)

Class Period: March 6, 2020 to August 6, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020

On August 6, 2020, the Company announced in a press release its
second quarter 2020 financial results, and disappointing growth
projections for the third quarter and full year 2020. Therein,
Alteryx stated that, for the third quarter, it expected revenue "to
be in the range of $111.0 million to $115.0 million, an increase of
7% to 11% year-over-year." Moreover, for fiscal year 2020, the
Company expected revenue "to be in the range of $460.0 million to
$465.0 million, an increase of 10% to 11% year-over-year."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $47.62, or over 28%,
to close at $121.38 per share on August 7, 2020, thereby injuring
investors. The stock price continued to decline over the next
trading session by $12.15, or 10%, to close at $109.23 per share on
August 10, 2020, representing a cumulative decline of $59.77, or
35%.

The complaint, filed on August 20, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
the Company was unable to close large deals within the quarter and
deals were pushed out to subsequent quarters or downsized; (2)
that, as a result, Alteryx increasingly relied on adoption licenses
to attract new customers; (3) that, as a result and due to the
nature of adoption licenses, the Company's revenue was reasonably
likely to decline; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

For more information on the Alteryx securities class action case go
to: https://bespc.com/AYX-2

                About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York and California. The firm represents
individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities,
derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal
courts across the country. For more information about the firm,
please visit www.bespc.com.  Attorney advertising.  Prior results
do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contact Information:

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]


ALTERYX INC: Labaton Sucharow Alerts of Class Action Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow, a nationally ranked shareholder rights litigation
firm, on Aug. 26 announced 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.

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.

If you are a current or past shareholder, option or derivative
holder of Alteryx and wish to learn more or discuss the issues
surrounding the investigation, please contact David J. Schwartz
using the toll-free number (800) 321-0476 or via email at
recover@labaton.com or at dschwartz@labaton.com

                         About the Firm

Labaton Sucharow LLP is one of the world's leading complex
litigation firms representing clients in securities, antitrust,
corporate governance and shareholder rights, and consumer
cybersecurity and data privacy litigation. Labaton Sucharow has
been recognized for its excellence by the courts and peers, and it
is consistently ranked in leading industry publications. Offices
are located in New York, NY, Wilmington, DE, and Washington, D.C.
More information about Labaton Sucharow is available at
http://www.labaton.com.[GN]


AMAZON: Faces PFAS Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------
Daniel Fisher, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that plaintiff
lawyers, having tried and failed to assemble class actions over
Teflon pans and dental floss, are now targeting disposable plates
and bowls with PFAS litigation.

A trio of lawsuits pending in California against Amazon, Kroger and
other companies claim consumers were misled by claims that
disposable eating items were "compostable." While the products
might break down over time, the lawsuits claim, they contained
durable PFAS compounds that last for decades in the ground.

The lawsuits are seeking class action status on behalf of consumers
who were allegedly defrauded under California's liberal consumer
protection statutes. By making consumer protection claims, the
lawyers hope to bypass difficulties in assembling class actions on
behalf of people who were supposedly injured by exposure to PFAS.

The chemicals have been linked (though some aren't buying the
science) to several diseases including kidney and testicular
cancers, but personal injury claims present individualized
questions that rarely suit themselves for class treatment.

"What we're seeing is an approach that doesn't depend upon health
effects," said Thomas Waskom, a partner Hunton Andrews Kurth in
Richmond, Va. who defends companies in toxic tort litigation. When
there's no requirement the plaintiff prove a health-related claim,
Waskom said, "it makes the burden so much lower."

Plaintiff lawyers tried to assemble a series of class actions
against DuPont over nonstick Teflon pans more than a decade ago but
the effort floundered after a judge rejected certification on a
number of grounds including the fact it was difficult to determine
who owned the products and whether they relied upon DuPont's
statements when they bought them.

A lawsuit against Procter & Gamble over its Oral B dental floss
also fizzled last year after a judge granted the company's motion
to dismiss. Plaintiff lawyers seized upon an article in the Journal
of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology suggesting
dental floss containing PFAS could have been the source of the
chemical in blood samples taken from pregnant mothers involved in
another study.

As with the latest cases, the plaintiff sued under California's
consumer protection statutes and said he wouldn't have bought P&G's
Oral B floss had he known it had PFAS. The only problem was P&G
said there is no PFAS in the floss and the article only suggested
floss might contain the chemical, without offering any evidence to
back up the claim.

Lawyers have had much more success suing companies on behalf of
people who were exposed to PFAS in groundwater and some have even
suggested the ubiquitous chemical could be "the next asbestos."
Virtually everyone in the U.S. has traces of the chemical in their
body because it was used in everything from nonstick pans to
firefighting foam and persists in the environment for decades
without breaking down.

DuPont settled an early case in 2004 on terms that included funding
a study of some 69,000 residents in West Virginia to uncover
effects of PFAS. That study found statistical association with six
diseases including testicular and kidney cancer, ulcerative
colitis, thyroid disease and high cholesterol. Lawyers have since
used those findings to mount other lawsuits, including a proposed
class action on behalf of every adult in America. A motion for
class certification is pending before a federal judge in Ohio in
that case, Hardwick v. 3M.

With the disposable serving dish litigation, plaintiff lawyers hope
they've figured out a way to sue over PFAS without getting dragged
into a dispute over whether the chemicals are dangerous or injured
anyone in the class, Waskom said.

"They don't have to go through the process of showing there is a
risk," he said. [GN]


AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Class Cert. Bid in NY Securities Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the motion for class certification
in the consolidated putative class action suit before the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York is pending.

On January 12, 2018 and January 19, 2018, two putative federal
securities class actions, captioned Hawaii Structural Ironworkers
Pension Trust Fund v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00299-AJN (the "Hawaii Action"), and Nichols v.
AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-00510-AJN (the "Nichols Action," and together with the
Hawaii Action, the "Actions"), respectively, were filed against the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

The Actions, which name certain of the Company's officers and
directors and, in the case of the Hawaii Action, the underwriters
of the Company's February 8, 2017 secondary public offering, as
defendants, assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") with respect
to alleged material misstatements and omissions in the registration
statement for the secondary public offering and in certain other
public disclosures.

On May 30, 2018, the court consolidated the Actions.

On January 22, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended
Class Action Complaint. On September 23, 2019, the court granted
the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part.

On March 2, 2020, plaintiffs moved to certify the purported class
and on July 22, 2020, defendants filed a brief opposing plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries,
involved in the theatrical exhibition business. The company owns,
operates, or has interests in theatres. The company was founded in
1920 and is headquartered in Leawood, Kansas. AMC Entertainment
Holdings, Inc. is a subsidiary of Dalian Wanda Group Co., Ltd.


AMERICAN BAIL: Seeks Dismissal of Bail Price-Fixing Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
bail industry players asked a federal judge to toss out allegations
that they conspired to fix bail bonds prices in California, arguing
at a hearing on Aug. 26 that a consumer class cannot back up claims
that they overpaid for bail bonds because bail agents and industry
groups misled them about rebates.

While bail is a refundable way of ensuring defendants show up for
their court dates, people who purchase bail bonds, typically
defendants' loved ones, must forfeit the steep premiums bail
agencies tack on to the bonds to make their businesses profitable.

An antitrust class action brought in 2019 says 28 bail industry
players, including trade associations, two bail agencies, and
surety companies who underwrite bail bonds, plotted to submit
uniform premium rates of 10% to the California Department of
Insurance and concealed bail agents' ability to offer rebates by
suggesting on their websites that rebating is "wrong, unavailable
or illegal."

For example, a 10% premium on a bond set at $40,000 means the bail
would cost the purchaser $4,000.

U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar dismissed federal Sherman Act
antitrust claims against the defendants in April, finding the
state-regulated industry immune under the McCarran-Ferguson Act,
but he allowed state law claims to stand.

Attorney John Hamill with DLA Piper which represents two of the
surety companies said on Aug. 26 that the class' amended lawsuit is
"essentially a cut and paste job" that fails to specifically allege
a conspiracy between individual companies.

"There are not even any factual allegations as to how someone
joined a conspiracy," he said, "The implication is defendants
automatically entered a conspiracy just by selling bonds."

The plaintiffs rely in part on allegations that trade associations
agreed at industry meetings to fix premium rates and discourage
rebating.

Representing the American Bail Coalition, attorney Nicole Healy
with Ropers Majeski said the plaintiffs identified only two
meetings in 16 years attended by only a handful of the defendants.
Healy said plaintiffs presented no evidence that any agreements
were finalized at those meetings, one of which occurred nine months
after the class action was initially filed.

"So what? Trade associations have members and promote the industry.
That's not a factual allegation that supports a conspiracy," Healy
said. "The mere fact that they can be misused by antitrust
conspirators doesn't mean that it did happen."

Attorney Yaman Salahi with Lieff Cabraser who represents bond
purchasers, said plaintiffs are not required to show specificity at
this point.

"Here it is correct that we don't have as much information about
these closed door meetings," he said.

While trade association meetings are just one factor to support
their case, Salahi said it is further bolstered by statements made
by bail industry executives "inviting the industry to collude and
refrain from price competition."

The plaintiffs point to a statement by American Surety Co.
President and CEO William B. Carmichael.

"I can safely predict that if left unchecked, rampant premium
discounting will result in the end of the bail bond business as we
know it, to be replaced by a new model that properly reflects the
proper balance of risk and reward. Simple economics dictates it,"
Carmichael wrote in 2005. "I urge all of us to recognize the
serious nature of the threats to our industry and work collectively
to repel them. Leaving profit on the table, in the form of
discounts or uncollected accounts receivable, is a fool's game."

Tigar did not tip his hand as to how he would rule, but he had a
few questions for Blake Zollar, who represents bail agencies
All-Pro and Two Jinn Inc., operating as Aladdin Bail Bonds.

Zollar said the plaintiffs' amended lawsuit does not allege that
bail agents refused to provide rebates or misled named plaintiffs
Shonetta Crain and Kira Serna into believing no rebates were
available.

"Instead plaintiffs ask the court to infer vague agreements among
all the defendants to 'discourage and suppress rebating,'" said
Zollar, a partner with Koning Zollar LLP.

Tigar jumped in when Zollar said statements on bail agents'
websites that they are required to charge rates filed with the CDI
are "an accurate statement of the law."

Tigar said while those statements may be literally true, it could
still be misleading for the average consumer.

"I'm not sure it accurately reflects the experience of the larger
unsophisticated consumer who walks into bail bondsman to purchase a
bond. What you mean is they are required to set the rates charged
by the CDI and they have the flexibility to offer rebates, but I
don't know that the consumer who walks in the door would see it
that way," Tigar said.

"They would just think about price. When they read or they hear
that 'we are required to charge a rate set by the CDI,' I think a
reasonable person would think the price is fixed. Even though you
and I both know that's not true."

Tigar asked both parties to submit a response to a finding of an
adequately-pleaded conspiracy but insufficiently specific
allegations as to certain defendants, in light of his recent order
lifting a stay of discovery. This will essentially allow the
plaintiffs to amend their case a third time. [GN]


AMERICAN CAMPUS: Files Motion to Dismiss Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Karla Ray, writing for WFTV.com, reports that some students at the
University of Central Florida who opted for remote classes this
semester are still stuck with apartment leases signed before the
pandemic.

We told you back in the spring about how local lawmakers took
off-campus apartment complexes to task for forcing students to pay,
even after the campus was shut down.

Some parents claim those complexes are refusing to work with them
as they are now facing a full year of rent payments.

When UCF and other state universities shut down after spring break
last semester, students living in on-campus dormitories got a
portion of their money back. Those who lived in off-campus
apartments were out of luck.

"I don't think she should be locked into a lease," UCF parent Lisa
Stanley said. Stanley's daughter did not want to be on television,
but she's one of the thousands of students who opted for remote
classes this semester.

She is sandwiched between two leases for two apartments she didn't
use. The first is from the end of last semester at the University
House apartments, which sent her a letter demanding hundreds of
dollars in past-due rent. This semester, she was set to move into
Knightshade, formerly The Retreat, where she signed a year-long
lease before the pandemic.

"The housing fills up, and if you want to get a nicer place to
stay, you need to do it early," Stanley explained.  "So right after
February, we secured the housing for the upcoming year."

Stanley said Knightshade offered to put her unit on a sublet list,
but if it doesn't rent, she is still on the hook for payment.

9 Investigates reached out to the owners of Knightshade, and we are
still waiting to hear back.

A University House spokesperson told Eyewitness News it is more
than 90% occupied today, with additional residents moving in soon.
The spokesperson said the complex has worked cooperatively with any
contracted residents whose plans changed, and have already been
able to help find replacement residents for approximately
three-quarters of those who no longer wanted their spaces in the
community. According to University House, the apartment is
continuing efforts to mitigate any loss from those residents still
seeking to terminate their contracts rather than move in.

A class-action lawsuit shows the Stanley family is not alone.

Parents of other UCF students are suing a different corporate
complex owner, which owns the Plaza on University, for "placing
profit over safety," and "continuing to demand payment from
students who have rightly returned home."

Attorneys for American Campus Communities, which owns the Plaza at
University, filed a motion to dismiss the class-action lawsuit. In
the filing, it wrote, "Specifically, the Complaint should be
dismissed because: (1) Plaintiffs' apartment complexes with ACC
remain open and accessible and were designated as an essential
service throughout the pandemic; (2) Plaintiffs have operative
lease and guaranty agreements that remain in force, and bar this
action as per State of Florida tenant/landlord law no different
than any other multi-family lease agreement; and (3) school
closures have no bearing on the validity of those agreements and
obligations of the parties under same, no different than an
employer's actions would have on the tenant of any existing
multi-family apartment lease."

State Rep. Carlos Guillermo-Smith first asked Gov. Ron DeSantis to
issue an executive order allowing students at Florida's
universities to break their off-campus leases in April, but nothing
was ever enacted.

"Everything has changed, and yet there's very little wiggle room
that these corporate landlords are giving them so that they can
move on with their lives, and not have to pay thousands and
thousands of dollars in outstanding rent for an apartment they
don't live in," Guillermo-Smith said.

Stanley worries the overdue rent from last semester will be sent to
collections, as the past-due rent letter indicates, even though the
apartment was empty. [GN]


AMERICAN CRAFTS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Paguada Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
DILENIA PAGUADA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AMERICAN CRAFTS, L.C., Case No. 1:20-cv-06369-AJN
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 12, 2020), alleges violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, http://www.americancrafts.com/,is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of
the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

American Crafts, L.C., manufactures pen, gel and markers. The
Company provides tools and accessories, cards and envelopes,
albums, ribbon, stickers, cutup trimmer, adhesives, gifts and
papers. American Crafts serves customers in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
          10826 64th Avenue, Second Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Telephone: (929) 324-0717
          E-mail: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of American Electric Power
Company, Inc. ("AEP) (NYSE: AEP). Stockholders have until the
deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff.
Additional information about each case can be found at the link
provided.

American Electric Power Company, Inc. ("AEP") (NYSE: AEP)

Class Period: November 2, 2016 and July 24, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020

On July 25, 2020, the Columbus Dispatch published an article titled
"Columbus utility giant AEP funded dark money spending in HB 6
campaign," reporting on the Company's actions in connection with
"campaigns now at the center of a racketeering and bribery case . .
. ."

On this news, shares of AEP shares fell $4.79 per share, or over
5%, to close at $83.26 per share on July 27, 2020, the next trading
day.

The complaint, filed on August 20, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company covertly
participated in the "the largest public corruption case in Ohio
history"; (2) the Company secretly funneled substantial funds to
Ohio political organizations and politicians to bribe politicians
to pass Ohio House Bill 6, which benefited the Company and its
coal-fired generation assets; (3) the Company partially funded a
massive, misleading advertising campaign in support of HB6 and in
opposition to a ballot initiative to repeal HB6 by passing
substantial sums through a web of dark money entities and front
companies in order to conceal the Company's involvement; (4) the
Company aided in subverting a citizens' ballot initiative to repeal
HB6; (5) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' Class Period
statements regarding the Company's regulatory and legislative
efforts were materially false and misleading; (6) as a result of
the foregoing, the Company would face increased scrutiny; (7) the
Company was subject to undisclosed risk of reputational, legal and
financial harm; (8) the bribery scheme would jeopardize the
benefits the Company sought by HB6; (9) as opposed to the Company's
repeated public statements regarding a move to clean energy, it
sought a dirty energy bailout; (10) as opposed 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 (11) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

For more information on the AEP securities class action case go to:
https://bespc.com/AEP

                About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York and California. The firm represents
individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities,
derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal
courts across the country. For more information about the firm,
please visit www.bespc.com.  Attorney advertising.  Prior results
do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of Oct. 19 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadlines in the securities class action lawsuit involving
American Electric Power, Inc.:

American Electric Power, Inc. (AEP)

Class Period: 11/2/2016 - 7/24/2020

Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: October 19, 2020

SECURITIES FRAUD

To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-aep/

If you purchased shares of the company and would like to discuss
your legal rights 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, via email
(Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

                           About KSF

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.

Contact:

Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN]


AMERICAN ENTERTAINERS: Brimage Sues Over Improperly Paid Dancers
----------------------------------------------------------------
KAYLA BRIMAGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AMERICAN ENTERTAINERS, LLC d/b/a THE GENTLEMEN'S
PLAYGROUND and GURNAM KHERA, Case No. 4:20-cv-00169-BO (E.D.N.C.,
Sept. 2, 2020), arises from the Defendants' failure to compensate
the Plaintiff and other exotic dancers appropriate minimum and
overtime wages.

The lawsuit is also brought for unlawful tip deductions in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina
Wage and Hour Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an exotic dancer at
Gentlemen's Playground strip club located in Rocky Mount, North
Carolina, from April 2018 through July 2019.

American Entertainers, LLC, doing business as The Gentlemen's
Playground, is a strip club operator in Rocky Mount, North
Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Joshua M. Krasner, Esq.
         BARRETT LAW OFFICES, PLLC
         5 West Hargett Street, Suite 910
         Raleigh, NC 27601
         Telephone: (919) 999-2799
         E-mail: jkrasner@barrettlawoffices.com

                - and –

         Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
         ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
         8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
         Silver Spring, MD 20910
         Telephone: (301) 587-9373
         E-mail: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com


AMNEAL PHARMA: Appeal from Dismissal of Pension Fund Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the appeal taken by lead plaintiff
New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City,
Inc. Pension Fund from the district court's orders dismissing its
securities class action is ongoing.

On April 17, 2017, lead plaintiff New York Hotel Trades Council &
Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund filed an
amended class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated against Impax and four current or former
Impax officers alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 (Fleming v.
Impax Laboratories Inc., et al., No. 4:16-cv-6557-HSG).

Plaintiff asserts claims regarding alleged misrepresentations about
three generic drugs. Its principal claim alleges that Impax
concealed that it colluded with competitor Lannett Corp. to fix the
price of generic drug digoxin, and that its digoxin profits stemmed
from this collusive pricing.

Plaintiff also alleges that Impax concealed from the market
anticipated erosion in the price of generic drug diclofenac and
that Impax overstated the value of budesonide, a generic drug that
it acquired from Teva. On June 1, 2017, Impax filed its motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.

On September 7, 2018, the Court granted Impax's motion, dismissing
plaintiff's claims without prejudice and with leave to amend the
complaint. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint October 26,
2018. Impax filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
on December 6, 2018; plaintiffs’ opposition thereto was filed on
January 17, 2019; and Impax's reply in support of its motion to
dismiss was filed on February 7, 2019. A hearing before the Court
on the motion to dismiss took place on May 2, 2019. On August 12,
2019, the Court entered an order granting Impax's motion,
dismissing plaintiff's second amended complaint with prejudice.  

On September 5, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from both
dismissal orders with the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit. Plaintiff's opening brief was filed with the Ninth
Circuit on February 14, 2020, Impax's answering brief was filed on
May 15, 2020, and plaintiff filed its reply brief on August 4,
2020.

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and
therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and
Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
based in Bridgewater, New Jersey.


AMNEAL PHARMA: Must Face Cambridge Retirement System's Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the class
action suit initiated by Cambridge Retirement System has been
denied.

On December 18, 2019, Cambridge Retirement System filed a class
action complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Somerset
County, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated against
the Company and fourteen current or former officers alleging
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 (Cambridge Retirement System v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
et al., No. SOM-L-1701-19).

Plaintiff principally alleges that the amended registration
statement and prospectus issued on May 7, 2018 in connection with
the Amneal/Impax business combination was materially false and/or
misleading, insofar as it purportedly failed to disclose that
Amneal was an active participant in an alleged antitrust conspiracy
with several other pharmaceutical manufacturers to fix generic drug
prices, and that this secret collusion improperly bolstered
Amneal's financial results reflected in the registration statement.
Plaintiff seeks, among other things, certification of a class and
unspecified compensatory and/or recessionary damages.

On March 31, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. Oral argument on the motion to dismiss was held
telephonically on July 14, 2020 and, on July 15, 2020, the court
entered an order denying the motion.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the
claims asserted with respect to the litigation. However, any
adverse outcome could negatively affect the Company and could have
a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations,
cash flows and/or overall financial condition.  

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and
therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and
Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
based in Bridgewater, New Jersey.


ANAPLAN INC: Federman & Sherwood Alerts of Class Action Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood on Aug. 26 disclosed that on August 24, 2020, a
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California against Anaplan, Inc.
(NYSE: PLAN). 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 November 21, 2019 through
February 26, 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-anaplan-inc/.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Anaplan, Inc.
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 Friday, October 23, 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
Or, visit the firm's website at www.federmanlaw.com [GN]


ANAPLAN INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Aug. 26
disclosed that it has first filed a class action lawsuit on behalf
of purchasers of the securities of Anaplan Inc. (NYSE: PLAN)
between November 21, 2019 and February 26, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Anaplan
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Anaplan class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1935.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
to investors that: (1) the Company was undergoing sales
organization and execution challenges; (2) these organizational
challenges were causing the Company to miss on closing very
important large deals; and (3) as a result, Anaplan's financial
guidance for "calculated billings growth" was baseless and
unattainable. Further, while in possession of this material
non-public information, Anaplan insiders dumped approximately $30
million worth of Anaplan stock at artificially inflated prices.

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
23, 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-1935.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.

Contact Information:
      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
      lrosen@rosenlegal.com
      pkim@rosenlegal.com
      cases@rosenlegal.com
      www.rosenlegal.com [GN]


ARKANSAS: Court Denies Prelim. Injunction in Frazier Inmates Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NICHOLAS FRAZIER, Plaintiff, v. WENDY KELLEY, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-00434-KGB (E.D. Ark.), Judge Kristine
G. Baker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Arkansas, Central Division, denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary injunction.

Plaintiffs are Nicholas Frazier, Alvin Hampton, Marvin Kent,
Michael Kouri, Jonathan Neeley, Alfred Nickson, Harold "Scott"
Otwell, Trinidad Serrato, Robert Stiggers, Victor Williams, and
John Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated.

Defendants are Wendy Kelley, Secretary of the Arkansas Department
of Corrections ("DOC"); Dexter Payne, Division of Correction
Director, Arkansas Department of Corrections ("ADC"); Jerry
Bradshaw, Division of Community Correction Director, Arkansas
Department of Corrections ("ADCC"); Asa Hutchinson, Governor of
Arkansas; Benny Magness, Chairman of Arkansas Board of Corrections
("ABC"); Bobby Glover, Vice Chairman of ABC; John Felts, Member of
ABC; William "Dubs" Byers, Member of ABC; and Whitney Gass, Member
of ABC, all in their official capacities.

The Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint and petition for writ
of habeas corpus on April 21, 2020.  They allege that conditions in
ADC facilities create a serious risk of COVID-19-related infection,
disease, and death.  They claim that the spread of COVID-19 in ADC
facilities jeopardizes the public health of surrounding
communities, especially black communities.  They assert that the
Defendants have intentionally failed to adopt and implement
adequate policies and procedures to prevent and mitigate the spread
of COVID-19.

The Plaintiffs assert three causes of action: (1) violation of the
Eighth Amendment brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 on
behalf of all plaintiffs; (2) violation of the Eighth Amendment
brought by a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
Section 2241 on behalf of the proposed high risk subclass; and (3)
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), on behalf
of the proposed disability subclass.

The Plaintiffs also filed the instant emergency motion for
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction on April 21,
2020.  In that motion, the Plaintiffs urged the Court to grant
immediate relief to protect them against the substantial risk of
COVID-19 infection, illness, and death while incarcerated in ADC
facilities.  They assert that they are entitled to a preliminary
injunction because they are substantially likely to succeed on the
merits of their claim that the Defendants' failure to take steps to
address the imminent risk caused by COVID-19 constitutes deliberate
indifference in violation of their Eighth Amendment rights.

The Plaintiffs further assert that the Defendants have violated,
and will continue to violate, the ADA by failing to provide the
Plaintiffs with disabilities with reasonable accommodations that
would allow them to have safe housing while serving their prison
sentence that does not place them at substantial risk of COVID-19
infection, illness, or death by virtue of their disability.  The
Plaintiffs maintain that the Defendants are aware of the
substantial risk posed by the virus and the recommended steps
issued by the Centers for Disease Control ("CDC") to prevent its
spread but have failed to take steps to protect them.  They assert
that they and putative class members are also entitled to relief
because they will suffer irreparable harm absent relief and that
traditional legal remedies will not adequately protect their
rights.

The Plaintiffs are individuals incarcerated in facilities operated
by the Arkansas Department of Corrections (ADC).  Based on the
allegations in their complaint, each named plaintiff faces a
heightened risk of death or serious injury if exposed to COVID-19
due to a chronic medical condition, a disability, or both.  They
seek relief on behalf of themselves and a class consisting of
people who are currently incarcerated, or will be in the future, in
an ADC detention facility during the duration of the COVID-19
pandemic.

The Plaintiffs also propose two subclasses:

  (1) high risk subclass, defined as:  People in the custody of an

      ADC facility aged 50 or over and/or who have serious
      underlying medical conditions that put them at particular
risk
      of serious harm or death from COVID-19, including but not
      limited to people with respiratory conditions such as chronic

      lung disease or asthma; people with heart disease or other
      heart conditions; people who are immunocompromised as a
result
      of cancer, HIV/AIDS, or for any other reason; people with
      chronic liver or kidney disease, or renal failure (including

      hepatitis and dialysis patients); people with diabetes,
      epilepsy, hypertension, blood disorders (including sickle
cell
      disease), or an inherited metabolic disorder; people who have

      had or are at risk of a stroke; and people with any condition

      specifically identified by the Center for Disease Control
      (CDC), currently or in the future, as increasing their risk
of
      contracting, having severe illness, and/or dying from
      COVID-19.

  (2) disability subclass, defined as:  People in custody who
suffer
      from a disability that substantially limits one or more of
      their major life activities and who are at increased risk of

      contracting, becoming severely ill from, and/or dying from
      COVID-19 due to their disability or any medical treatment
      necessary to treat their disability.

The Plaintiffs request in their pending motion that the Court grant
preliminary injunctive relief and appoint a special master or an
expert under Federal Rule of Evidence 706 to take certain actions
and to make recommendations to the Court regarding a number of
issues.  They also request a preliminary injunction requiring the
Defendants to take 26 specific actions with respect to COVID-19.
After the preliminary injunction hearing, the Plaintiffs proposed
an alternative preliminary injunction for the Court's
consideration.

Judge Baker determines that, for reasons unrelated to the
Plaintiffs' class allegations, the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated
that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their Eighth
Amendment and ADA claims.  The Judge finds that there is no
indication before the Court that the analysis of the Plaintiffs'
Eighth Amendment habeas claims should be different from the
analysis the Court applies to their Eighth Amendment claims brought
pursuant to Section 1983.  The Judge acknowledges that the
Plaintiffs' proposed high risk subclass are the intended Plaintiffs
for the habeas claims.  Under habeas or Section 1983, the
Plaintiffs challenge the same alleged conduct by the Defendants and
maintain that it violates the Eighth Amendment.  The Judge
determines the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated at this early stage
of the litigation that they are likely to succeed on the merits of
their Eighth Amendment claims.

Judge Baker has also considered all record evidence related to the
grievance process, the Plaintiffs' grievances, and exhaustion.  At
this stage, the Defendants have not demonstrated on the record
evidence currently before the Court that they are likely to succeed
in establishing the affirmative defense that each named Plaintiff
failed to exhaust his claims pursuant to the PLRA such that the
Court need not reach the merits of the Plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment
claims brought pursuant to Section 1983 and their ADA claims.  On
this record, the Judge determines that genuine issues of material
fact remain in dispute as to whether the administrative remedies
offered by the Defendants are "unavailable" or "not capable of use"
as interpreted by the Supreme Court.  Further, the Judge concludes
that, at least at this stage of the proceeding, there are disputes
regarding whether and to what extent the Plaintiffs filed
grievances, exhausted grievances, and the ADC's administrative
remedies were available to the Plaintiffs.

Further, Judge Baker determines that, regardless of the merits of
the Plaintiffs' claims subject to the PLRA, the PLRA prevents the
Court from granting temporary release or transferring to home
confinement members of the proposed disability subclass who bring
Title II ADA claims seeking such relief.  As stated, the PLRA
governs the Plaintiffs' ADA claims.  Accordingly, regardless of the
merits of the Plaintiffs' ADA claims, under the PLRA, the Judge may
not at this time issue any prisoner release order sought by the
Plaintiffs on behalf of the disability subclass in the instant
motion.

Having reviewed all of the record evidence before the Court, at
this stage of the litigation, Judge Baker concludes that the
Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the
subjective prong of their Eighth Amendment claims.  The Judge has
considered all arguments raised by the parties in reaching its
determination and addresses specific issues.

Finally, the public interest in the case cuts both ways.  In the
Plaintiffs' favor, the public interest is served by protecting the
Plaintiffs and the putative class members from COVID-19 and its
possible consequences.  Further, minimizing the spread of COVID-19
both within DOC facilities and among communities surrounding and
interacting with those facilities serves the public interest.
Efforts to stop the spread of COVID-19 and promote public health
appear to be in the public interest.  In the Defendants' favor, the
public interest also commands respect for federalism and comity.
These factors dictate that the Court should approach intrusion into
the core activities of the state's prison system with caution.

For all these reasons, Judge Baker denied the Plaintiffs' request
for a preliminary injunction and, at this stage of the proceeding,
declined to address matters related to the Plaintiffs' class
allegations.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 19, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/aP1nYf from Leagle.com.


ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Wong Class Settlement Hearing Set for Sept. 17
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arlo Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that a hearing on the motion for preliminary
approval of a class action settlement in Wong v. Arlo Technologies,
Inc. et al., No. 19-CV-00372, is scheduled for September 17, 2020.

Beginning on December 11, 2018, purported stockholders of Arlo
Technologies, Inc. filed six putative securities class action
complaints in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa
Clara, and one complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company and certain of
its executives and directors.

Some of these actions also name as defendants the underwriters in
the Company's initial public offering ("IPO") and NETGEAR, Inc.
("NETGEAR"). The actions pending in state court are Aversa v. Arlo
Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 18CV339231, filed Dec. 11, 2018;
Pham v. Arlo Technologies, Inc. et al., No. 19CV340741, filed
January 9, 2019; Patel v. Arlo Technologies, Inc., No. 19CV340758,
filed January 10, 2019; Perros v. NetGear, Inc., No. 19CV342071,
filed February 1, 2019; Vardanian v. Arlo Technologies, Inc., No.
19CV342318, filed February 8, 2019; and Hill v. Arlo Technologies,
Inc. et al., No. 19CV343033, filed February 22, 2019. On April 26,
2019, the state court consolidated these actions as In re Arlo
Technologies, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, No. 18CV339231 (the
"State Action"). The action pending in federal court is Wong v.
Arlo Technologies, Inc. et al., No. 19-CV-00372 (the "Federal
Action").

The plaintiffs in the State Action filed a consolidated complaint
on May 1, 2019. The consolidated complaint generally alleges that
the Company failed to adequately disclose quality control problems
and adverse sales trends ahead of its IPO, violating the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary
damages and other relief on behalf of investors who purchased
Company common stock issued pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO
offering documents.

On June 21, 2019, the court stayed the State Action pending
resolution of the Federal Action, given the substantial overlap
between the claims. The court has set a case management conference
for December 18, 2020, so the parties can provide an update
regarding the status of the Federal Action.

In the Federal Action, the court appointed a shareholder named
Matis Nayman to serve as lead plaintiff and the law firm of Keller
Lenkner LLC as lead counsel. On June 7, 2019, plaintiff filed an
amended complaint, which alleged that defendants violated the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, by failing to adequately disclose quality
control problems and adverse sales trends surrounding the Company's
IPO.

The amended complaint also named as defendants the underwriters in
the IPO and NETGEAR, Inc. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on August 6, 2019, and the court granted that
motion on December 19, 2019, while giving plaintiff leave to amend.


On February 13, 2020, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint.
On the same day, the parties asked the court to stay the case to
allow for plaintiff to file a motion for preliminary approval of a
class-wide settlement. On February 14, 2020, the court stayed the
case. On June 12, 2020, plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of a class action settlement. A hearing on the
motion is scheduled for September 17, 2020.

Arlo Technologies, Inc. provides smart connected devices to monitor
the environments in real-time with a Wi-Fi or a cellular network
Internet connection in the Americas, Europe, the Middle-East and
Africa, and the Asia Pacific regions. Arlo Technologies, Inc. was
incorporated in 2018 and is headquartered in San Jose, California.


AUSTRALIA: Farmers to Launch Class Action Over Failed Paradise Dam
------------------------------------------------------------------
Queensland Country Life reports that frustrated Bundaberg farmers
are in the process of launching a class action against the
Queensland Government over the failure of Paradise Dam.

Bundaberg lawyer Tom Marland, Marland Law, said the class action
focused on the alleged negligent management of Paradise Dam and
deceptive and misleading conduct by the Queensland Government.

Mr Marland said the application was currently being drafted, which
would be filed with the Supreme Court in the next few weeks.

The farmers have also engaged class action expert Douglas Campbell
QC, and barristers Matthew Donovan and Justin Byrne to progress the
class action.

Mr Marland said farmers would allege the State Government was aware
of the potential deficiencies with the dam as early as 2005 and
after floods in 2011 and 2013, failed to take reasonable steps to
repair those deficiencies.

"Despite knowledge of deficiencies to the dam and potential risks
of failure, the State Government through a government owned
corporation, SunWater, continued to market and sell water from the
dam up to September 2019 when it was announced that 100,000ML would
be released from the dam and its capacity reduced to 42pc," Mr
Marland said.

"Sunwater undertook a public expression of interest process in
September 2018 where it offered water for sale at a discount of up
to 50pc of the market value of water being traded from the dam."

Mr Marland said a report commissioned last year revealed the
Bundaberg community would suffer a $2.4 billion loss over a 30 year
period.

"We consider that the losses incurred will be much more significant
than first estimates which did not include the reduction in
property values associated with the reduction in water security in
the Burnett system and also the loss of production from reduced
allocations," Mr Marland said.

"Impacts are already being felt in the Bundaberg community with
this year's water allocations being slashed to 70 per cent with the
dam at 41pc.

"The whole region is still drought declared. Allocations could be
zero per cent next year if we don't get good rain over summer."

Mr Marland said the pain endured by the Bundaberg community during
the 2013 floods was used a way to scare people into thinking that
the dam was unsafe, diverting attention from the government's own
negligence and mismanagement.

LNP Natural Resources Shadow Minister Dale Last said it was a
disgrace that $100 million was being spent to reduce the height of
the spillway by 6m in the middle of a major drought.

"Wide Bay Burnett farmers have been treated with contempt and the
economic security of the region has been put at risk by the
Palaszczuk Government," Mr Last said.

"Tearing down dams in the middle of a drought shows there is no
economic plan for the Wide Bay and doesn't care about our
farmers."

Mr Last said the LNP would repair Paradise Dam, directing SunWater
to work with international expert Dr Paul Rizzo on the design of
the stabilisers. That recognised the work Dr Rizzo has carried out
on Bagnell Dam in Missouri, which impounds Lake of the Ozarks, the
largest man-made lake in the US, he said.

More upstream and downstream water storage options, would also be
investigated. [GN]


AYRO INC: Has Not Yet Paid $45,000 as Counsel Fees
--------------------------------------------------
AYRO, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2020, that the company has not yet paid the $45,000 as payment for
counsel fees.

On May 28, 2020, pursuant to the previously announced Agreement and
Plan of Merger, dated December 19, 2019 (the "Merger Agreement"),
by and among AYRO, Inc., a Delaware corporation previously known as
DropCar, Inc., ABC Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a
wholly owned subsidiary of the Company ("Merger Sub"), and AYRO
Operating Company, a Delaware corporation previously known as AYRO,
Inc. ("AYRO Operating"), Merger Sub was merged with and into AYRO
Operating, with AYRO Operating continuing after the merger as the
surviving entity and a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company (the
"Merger").

DropCar was a defendant in a class action lawsuit which resulted in
a judgement entered into whereby the Company is required to pay
legal fees in the amount of $45,000 to the plaintiff's counsel.

As of June 30, 2020, the balance due remains $45,000.

This amount was included in the $186,000 of prefunded liabilities
assumed by AYRO in the Merger

Ayro, Inc. designs transportation equipment. The Company
manufactures electrical locomotives such as vehicles for logistics
industry. Ayro serves customers in the United States. The company
is based in Round Rock, Texas.


BAIDU INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action Filing
------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Baidu, Inc. (NASDAQ: BIDU).
Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff.  Additional information about each case
can be found at the link provided.

Baidu, Inc. (NASDAQ: BIDU)

Class Period: April 8, 2016 to August 13, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020

Baidu is the majority owner of iQIYI, Inc. ("iQIYI").  On April 7,
2020, Wolfpack Research released a report detailing, among other
things, how iQIYI had misled investors and failed to disclose
pertinent information generally and in its Registration Statement,
including: (i) iQIYI overstating its user numbers; (ii) iQIYI
inflating its revenues; (iii) iQIYI inflating expenses and prices
of assets to conceal its revenue inflation; and (iv) iQIYI
misleading financial reporting creating the appearance of a cash
generative company.

On this news, Baidu's ADS price fell $4.46 per ADS, or 4%, to close
at $97.33 per ADS on April 8, 2020.

On August 13, 2020, iQIYI announced that the U.S. Securities &
Exchange Commission sought "the production of certain financial and
operating records dating from January 1, 2018, as well as documents
related to certain acquisitions and investments that were
identified in a report issued by short-seller firm Wolfpack
Research in April 2020."

On this news, Baidu's ADS price fell $7.83 per ADS, or 6%, to close
at $116.74 per ADS on August 14, 2020.

The complaint, filed on August 19, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Baidu misrepresented the
financial and business condition of iQIYI; (2) iQIYI had inadequate
controls; and (3) as a result, defendants' public statements were
materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the Baidu securities class action case go
to: https://bespc.com/BIDU

                About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York and California. The firm represents
individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities,
derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal
courts across the country. For more information about the firm,
please visit www.bespc.com.  Attorney advertising.  Prior results
do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contact Information:

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P .C.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq .
Marion Passmore, Esq .
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]


BANK OF NEW YORK: Investor Suit Over Stanford Ponzi Scheme Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to
defend suits over Stanford Ponzi Scheme.

In late December 2005, Pershing LLC ("Pershing") became a clearing
firm for Stanford Group Co. ("SGC"), a registered broker-dealer
that was part of a group of entities ultimately controlled by R.
Allen Stanford ("Stanford").

Stanford International Bank ("SIB"), also controlled by Stanford,
issued certificates of deposit ("CDs"). Some investors allegedly
wired funds from their SGC accounts to purchase CDs. In 2009, the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") charged Stanford with
operating a Ponzi scheme in connection with the sale of CDs, and
SGC was placed into receivership.

Alleged purchasers of CDs have filed two putative class action
proceedings against Pershing: one in November 2009 in Texas federal
court, and one in May 2016 in New Jersey federal court.

Thirteen lawsuits have been filed against Pershing in Louisiana,
Florida and New Jersey federal courts in January 2010, January and
February 2015, October 2015 and May 2016.

The purchasers allege that Pershing, as SGC's clearing firm,
assisted Stanford in a fraudulent scheme and assert contractual,
statutory and common law claims.

In March 2019, a group of investors filed a putative class action
against The Bank of New York Mellon in New Jersey federal court,
making the same allegations as in the prior actions brought against
Pershing.

All of the cases that have been brought in federal court against
Pershing and the case brought against The Bank of New York Mellon
have been consolidated in Texas federal court for discovery
purposes.

On Dec. 19, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
affirmed the dismissal of six individual federal lawsuits brought
under Florida law, which will also apply to four other similarly
situated cases.

On March 18, 2020, the plaintiffs in those lawsuits filed a
Petition for Writ of Certiorari seeking permission to appeal to the
United States Supreme Court.

Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. ("FINRA") arbitration
proceedings also have been initiated by alleged purchasers
asserting similar claims.

The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation provides a range of
financial products and services to institutions, corporations, and
high net worth individuals in the United States and
internationally. The company operates through two segments,
Investment Management and Investment Services. The Bank of New York
Mellon Corporation was founded in 1784 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.


BARTERSIAN CORP: Romero Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bartesian Corp. The
case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Bartesian Corp., Case No. 1:20-cv-07184
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 3, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Bartesian (bartesian.com) offers cocktails through its
single-server cocktail maker. Bartesian creates bar-quality
cocktails on demand, providing a way to serve cocktails at
home.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (929) 575-4175
          Fax: (929) 575-4195
          Email: joseph@cml.legal


BAUSCH HEALTH: Settlement in Valeant Pharma Suit Awaits Final Okay
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the Company has reached a deal to
settle, subject to final court approval, the consolidated
securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey (In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 15-cv-07658).

In October 2015, four putative securities class actions were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against
the Company and certain current or former officers and directors.

The allegations related to, among other things, allegedly false and
misleading statements and/or failures to disclose information about
the Company's business and prospects, including relating to drug
pricing, the Company's use of specialty pharmacies, and the
Company's relationship with Philidor.

On May 31, 2016, the court entered an order consolidating the four
actions under the caption In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 15-cv-07658.

On December 16, 2019, the Company, the current or former officers
and directors, ValueAct, and the underwriters announced that they
agreed to resolve the securities action for $1,210 million, subject
to final court approval. Once approved by the court, the settlement
will resolve and discharge all claims against the Company in the
class action. As part of the settlement, the Company and the other
settling defendants admitted no liability as to the claims against
it and deny all allegations of wrongdoing.

On January 27, 2020 the court preliminarily approved the
settlement. A final settlement approval hearing was held on May 27,
2020 and the settlement remains subject to final court approval.

In order to qualify for a settlement payment all persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the Company
securities during the class period must have submitted a proof of
claim and release form by May 6, 2020.

The settlement payment is being paid in accordance with the payment
schedule outlined in the settlement agreement.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.


BAUSCH HEALTH: Timber Hill Putative Class Action Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a
putative class action suit entitled, Timber Hill LLC, v. Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al.

On June 6, 2018, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company
and certain current or former officers and directors.

This action, captioned Timber Hill LLC, v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc., et al., (Case No. 18-cv-10246) ("Timber
Hill"), asserts securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act on behalf of a putative class of persons
who purchased call options or sold put options on the Company's
common stock during the period January 4, 2013 through August 11,
2016.

On June 11, 2018, this action was consolidated with In re Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Securities Litigation, (Case
No. 15-cv-07658). On January 14, 2019, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Timber Hill complaint. Briefing on that
motion was completed on February 13, 2019.

On August 15, 2019, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the
Timber Hill action, holding that this complaint was a legal nullity
as a result of the June 11, 2018 consolidation order.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.


BAYER AG: Kahn Swick Reminds of Sept. 14 Motion Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadlines in the securities class action lawsuit involving
Bayer Aktiengesellschaft (BAYRY).

Bayer Aktiengesellschaft (BAYRY)

Class Period: 5/23/2016 - 3/19/2019

Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: September 14, 2020

SECURITIES FRAUD

To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/otc-bayry/

If you purchased shares of the company and would like to discuss
your legal rights 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, via email
(Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

                           About KSF

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.

Contact:

  Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
  Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
  lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
  1-877-515-1850
  1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
  New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN]


BELLICUM PHARMA: Deadline to Appeal Kakkar Case Dismissal Expires
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the deadline for the plaintiffs to
appeal the written order of dismissal issued in Nipun Kakkar v.
Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Rick Fair and Alan Musso, has
expired.

On May 29, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas, Houston Division granted the Company's motion to dismiss
with prejudice in the purported class action complaint filed on
February 6, 2018 against the Company and certain of its current and
former employees, captioned Nipun Kakkar v. Bellicum
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Rick Fair and Alan Musso.

As previously reported, the complaint alleged that the Company and
members of its management violated federal securities laws by
making allegedly false and misleading statements.

The court's written order dismissed the case in its entirety with
prejudice, resulting in a termination of all claims.

The deadline for the plaintiffs to appeal has expired.

Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a clinical stage biopharmaceutical
company, focuses on discovering and developing novel cellular
immunotherapies for the treatment of hematological cancers, solid
tumors, and orphan inherited blood disorders in the United States
and internationally. Bellicum was founded in 2004 and is
headquartered in Houston, Texas.


BETTERDOCTOR INC: Fromer Chiropractic Sues Over Unsolicited Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC B. FROMER CHIROPRACTIC, INC., a California corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons v. BETTERDOCTOR, INC., a Delaware
corporation, and QUEST ANALYTICS, L.L.C., a Delaware limited
liability company, Case No. 3:20-cv-06131 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 31,
2020), challenges the Defendant's practice of sending unsolicited
advertisements by facsimile in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff receive an unsolicited
facsimile on August 31, 2016, from Defendant BetterDoctor seeking
to have the Plaintiff use its services to verify provider
information. Allegedly, the August 31 fax is part of the
Defendant's overall marketing campaign to make its products and
services more desirable to consumers by growing its network of
providers. Moreover, the Plaintiff did not provide the Defendant
"prior express invitation or permission" to either BetterDoctor or
Quest Analytics to send the August 31 fax, which does not contain
any type of opt-out language.

BetterDoctor, Inc., is a health data company that updates provider
directories on behalf of health plans. Quest Analytics, L.L.C.,
designs and develops healthcare software.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          S. Chandler Visher, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF S. CHANDLER VISHER
          268 Bush St., #4500
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Tel: (415) 901-0500
          Fax: (415) 901-0504
          Email: chandler@visherlaw.com


BIODELIVERY SCIENCES: Drachman Putative Class Suit in Del. Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit entitled, Drachman v.
BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
2019-0728-AGB (Del. Ch.).

On September 11, 2019, two purported stockholders of the Company
filed a putative class action against the Company and its directors
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned
Drachman v. BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 2019-0728-AGB (Del. Ch.) (the "Complaint").

The Complaint alleges that the Amendments did not receive the
requisite vote of stockholders at the 2018 Annual Meeting and
asserts claims for violation of the Delaware General Corporation
Law, breach of fiduciary duties, and declaratory judgment.

The Complaint seeks, inter alia, a declaration that the Amendments
were not validly approved and invalidation of the Amendments,
including altering the one-year terms of all directors duly elected
at the 2018 and 2019 Annual Meetings to three-year terms.

The Complaint also seeks costs and disbursements, including
attorneys' fees.

On July 1, 2020, the Company filed its response to the Complaint
and denied the claims asserted therein.

The Company intends to defend against the litigation vigorously.

BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., a specialty
pharmaceutical company, engages in the development and
commercialization of pharmaceutical products in the United States
and internationally. It was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in
Raleigh, North Carolina.


BIOGEN INC: Breaches Duty as 401(K) Plan Fiduciary, Gamble Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH GAMBLE, individually and as a representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, on behalf of the BIOGEN 401(K) SAVINGS
PLAN v. BIOGEN INC.; the BIOGEN 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN COMMITTEE; and
DOES No. 1-10, Whose Names Are Currently Unknown, Case No.
1:20-cv-11625 (D. Mass., Aug. 31, 2020), is brought against the
Defendants for breaching their fiduciary duty under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant Biogen and former
participant in the Plan under 29 U.S.C. Section 1002(7).

According to the complaint, the Defendants maintain the Plan that
are qualified as tax-deferred vehicles and become the primary form
of retirement savings in the U.S. in which participants direct the
investment of their contributions into various investment options
offered by the Plan.

Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have severely breached their
fiduciary duties of prudence and/or loyalty to the Plan because
they failed to disclose the expenses and risk of the Plan's
investment options to participants; allowed unreasonable expenses
to be charged to participants; and selected, retained, and/or
otherwise ratified high-cost and poorly-performing investments,
instead of offering more prudent alternative investments. As a
result of the Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties, the Plan
has suffered losses and damages.

Biogen, Inc., is a biotechnology company that focuses its
scientific research in the field of neuroscience.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
          101 Federal Street, 19th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Tel: (617) 573-5118
          Fax: (800) 922-4851
          Email: psheehan@whatleykallas.com

                - and –

          James E. Miller, Esq.
          Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          65 Main Street
          Chester, CT 06412
          Tel: (860) 526-1100
          Fax: (866) 300-7367
          Emails: jmiller@sfmslaw.com
                  lrubinow@sfmslaw.com

                - and –

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          Michael P. Ols, Esq.
          Alec J. Berin, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Tel: (610) 891-9880
          Fax: (866) 300-7367
          Emails: jshah@sfmslaw.com
                  aberin@sfmslaw.com

                - and –

          Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          1401 Dove Street, Suite 510
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Tel: (323) 510-4060
          Fax: (866) 300-7367
          Email: ktang@sfmslaw.com


BLINK CHARGING: Faces Vittoria Suit Over Decline in Stock Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gina F. Vittoria, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BLINK CHARGING CO., MICHAEL D. FARKAS, and
MICHAEL P. RAMA, Case No. 1:20-cv-23643-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 1,
2020), asserts claims for violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 due to the materially false and misleading statements the
Defendants made, which resulted in Blink's stock price to decline.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all investors, who purchased or
otherwise acquired Blink Charging Co. securities between March 6,
2020, and August 19, 2020, inclusive.

Recently, Blink has touted the purported growth of its EV (electric
vehicle) charging network, asserting that "drivers can easily
charge at any of [Blink's] 15,000 charging stations." Over the last
several months, Blink's stock price has climbed from trading
between approximately $1.40 to $3.12 per share, to an intraday high
of $14.58 per share on July 30, 2020.

On August 19, 2020, analyst Culper Research published a report
entitled "Blink Charging Co. (BLNK): You Won't Miss It." Culper
continued to detail that of the 242 stations its investigators
visited in the Atlanta, Chicago, Miami, and San Diego metro areas,
twenty three times (9.5% of total), Blink's map claimed that there
were chargers on site, but Culper's investigators were either
unable to locate the chargers or locate all of the chargers
claimed.

The Culper report included photos, from multiple locations, of
Blink chargers that were severely damaged, inaccessible, and/or
non-functional. The report also included details of interviews with
parking attendants and other locals who described the lack of use
and/or other issues experienced with the Blink chargers. Also on
August 19, 2020, analyst Mariner Research Group published another
report that was highly critical of Blink. Mariner wrote that
Blink's "revenue growth has significantly seriously lagged the EV
industry--yet CEO Farkas made

BREWSTER TRAVEL: Faces Class Action Over Fatal Bus Crush
--------------------------------------------------------
Bill Graveland, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that a
class-action lawsuit alleging the defendants acted recklessly and
unreasonably has been filed against the operators of a tour bus
involved in a fatal rollover at Jasper National Park's Columbia
Icefield.

Three people were killed and 14 others suffered life-threatening
injuries on July 18 when the red-and-white, all-terrain Ice
Explorer lost control while carrying passengers on the road to the
Athabasca Glacier.

The bus rolled about 50 metres down a moraine embankment before
coming to rest on its roof. The bus was carrying 27 people.

Named in the statement of claim filed in Calgary are Brewster
Travel Canada Inc., Viad Corp, Glacier Park Inc., Brewster Inc.,
Brewster Tours, Banff-Jasper Collection Holding Corp. and the
unidentified driver of the coach.

"The defendants knew or ought to have known that there was a
significant risk to the plaintiff and class members and that the
accident was a reasonably foreseeable result of failing to take
adequate measures to prevent such incidents," reads the claim.

"The accident was caused solely by the negligence, gross
negligence, or intent of the defendants."

None of the allegations has been proven in court.

A spokeswoman for Pursuit, the company that runs the Columbia
Icefield tours, said it couldn't comment on pending litigation.

"We continue to actively support a transparent and multi-agency
investigation into the cause of this tragic accident. The results
of this investigation, once completed, will be shared with the
public," Tanya Otis said in an email.

The lead plaintiff is Devon Ernest, 22, from North Battleford,
Sask., who was on the tour with his girlfriend, Dionne Durocher of
Canoe Narrows, Sask., and his cousin Winnie Ernest.

Durocher died at the scene.

"I'm not doing so good. I'm just trying to hold on," Ernest told
The Canadian Press.

He suffered a concussion, a fractured wrist and lacerations to his
head and hands.

"Someone was at fault. Someone or something could have been
changed," Ernest said.

"I don't know how this happened."

Ernest said the driver gave limited safety instructions before the
bus took off. He said she pointed out the rear exit and how to open
windows.

Rick Mallett, a litigation lawyer with James H. Brown and
Associates in Edmonton, said in an interview, that the accident
should never have happened.

"It's such a tragic outcome for the people that were there for a
fun time, especially during this whole COVID situation," Mallett
said.

"It went so terribly wrong, so we took a look at it right away."

The class action, which so far includes 10 of the 27 people on the
bus, must be approved by a judge if it is to go ahead.

It notes there were no seatbelts on the coach and alleges the
driver appears to have lost control when going down a steep
incline.

"The operator of the tour bus, the defendant Jane Doe, attempted to
brake, but was unable to reduce the speed of the tour bus. The tour
bus lost traction with the road. The front right tires then
approached the embankment and then went over the embankment," reads
the statement of claim.

"The tour bus went over the side of the embankment and rolled over
four to six times, with at least two rotations occurring in the
air, before coming to a stop on its roof."

The statement alleges the defendants failed to enact protective
measures to prevent the accident.

"The defendants acted recklessly and unreasonably in failing to
take reasonable steps to ensure that the tour bus and road were
properly maintained, the operator of the tour bus was qualified and
taking proper precaution and due care when operating the tour bus,
and that the tour bus itself was properly maintained and in
suitable mechanical condition."

Mallett said the RCMP have checked out the bus at a secure location
and his law firm will have a mechanic and an accident
reconstructionist look at it.

"Was there driver error? What about the mechanical issues? What
about the general design of the tour itself and the embankment the
tour bus went over?" he said.

The Columbia Icefield is one of the largest non-polar icefields in
the world. It spills down from the mountains about 100 kilometres
south of Jasper.

Otis said in her email that the buses would not operate for the
rest of the 2020 season. [GN]


BRISTOL-MYERS: Bid for Class Cert. in Suit Against Celgene Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the motion for class certification
in the consolidated putative class action suit filed against
Celgene is pending.

On November 20, 2019, the company (BMS) completed the Celgene
acquisition. The acquisition is expected to further position BMS as
a leading biopharmaceutical company for sustained innovation and
long-term growth and to address the needs of patients with cancer,
inflammatory, immunologic or cardiovascular diseases through
high-value innovative medicines and leading scientific
capabilities.

Beginning in March 2018, two putative class actions were filed
against Celgene and certain of its officers in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Celgene Securities Class
Action").

The complaints allege that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making misstatements and/or omissions concerning
(1) trials of GED-0301, (2) Celgene's 2020 outlook and projected
sales of Otezla, and (3) the new drug application for Zeposia
(ozanimod).

The Court consolidated the two actions and appointed a lead
plaintiff, lead counsel, and co-liaison counsel for the putative
class.

In February 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiff's amended complaint in full.

In December 2019, the Court denied the motion to dismiss in part
and granted the motion to dismiss in part (including all claims
arising from alleged misstatements regarding GED-0301).

Although the Court gave the plaintiff leave to re-plead the
dismissed claims, it elected not to do so, and the dismissed claims
are now dismissed with prejudice. No trial date has been scheduled
for the claims that survived the Court's order.

In May 2020, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification.
In June 2020, the defendants filed their opposition to the
plaintiff's motion for class certification.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company discovers, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells biopharmaceutical
products worldwide. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company was founded in
1887 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Bid to Nix Amended CheckMate-026 Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the amended
complaint in the class action suit related to CheckMate-026
clinical trial is pending.

Since February 2018, two separate putative class action complaints
were filed in the U.S. District for the Northern District of
California and in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against the company (BMS), BMS's Chief Executive
Officer, Giovanni Caforio, BMS's Chief Financial Officer at the
time, Charles A. Bancroft and certain former and current executives
of BMS.

The case in California has been voluntarily dismissed.

The remaining complaint alleges violations of securities laws for
BMS's disclosures related to the CheckMate-026 clinical trial in
lung cancer.

In September 2019, the Court granted BMS's motion to dismiss, but
allowed the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint.

In October 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. BMS has
moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

In June 2020, an oral argument on BMS's motion to dismiss was
held.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company discovers, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells biopharmaceutical
products worldwide. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company was founded in
1887 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Continues to Defend Abilify Product Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the company and Otsuka
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd continue to defend class action suits in
Quebec and Ontario related to Abilify.

Out of the ten cases, only three are active (the class actions in
Quebec and Ontario and one individual injury claim). Both class
actions have now been certified and will proceed separately.

The company (BMS) and Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd (Otsuka) are
co-defendants in product liability litigation related to Abilify.

Plaintiffs allege Abilify caused them to engage in compulsive
gambling and other impulse control disorders. There have been over
2,500 cases filed in state and federal courts and additional cases
are pending in Canada.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the
federal court cases for pretrial purposes in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Florida.

In February 2019, BMS and Otsuka entered into a master settlement
agreement establishing a proposed settlement program to resolve all
Abilify compulsivity claims filed as of January 28, 2019 in the MDL
as well as various state courts, including California and New
Jersey.

To date, approximately 2,700 cases, comprising approximately 3,900
plaintiffs, have been dismissed based on participation in the
settlement program or failure to comply with settlement related
court orders.

In the U.S., approximately 138 cases remain pending on behalf of
218 plaintiffs, who either chose not to participate in the
settlement program or filed their claims after the settlement
cut-off date. There are ten cases pending in Canada (four class
actions, six individual injury claims).

Out of the ten cases, only three are active (the class actions in
Quebec and Ontario and one individual injury claim). Both class
actions have now been certified and will proceed separately.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company discovers, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells biopharmaceutical
products worldwide. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company was founded in
1887 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Fairness & Final Approval Hearing Set for Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that a settlement and a hearing on
fairness and final approval in the consolidated antitrust class
action against the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary, Celgene,
related to Thalomid and Revlimid, has been scheduled for September
30, 2020.

Beginning in November 2014, certain putative class action lawsuits
were filed against Celgene in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey alleging that Celgene violated various
antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair competition laws by (a)
allegedly securing an exclusive supply contract for the alleged
purpose of preventing a generic manufacturer from securing its own
supply of thalidomide active pharmaceutical ingredient, (b)
allegedly refusing to sell samples of Thalomid and Revlimid brand
drugs to various generic manufacturers for the alleged purpose of
bioequivalence testing necessary for aNDAs to be submitted to the
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval to market
generic versions of these products, (c) allegedly bringing
unjustified patent infringement lawsuits in order to allegedly
delay approval for proposed generic versions of Thalomid and
Revlimid, and/or (d) allegedly entering into settlements of patent
infringement lawsuits with certain generic manufacturers that
allegedly have had anticompetitive effects.

The plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and putative classes of
third-party payers, are seeking injunctive relief and damages.

The various lawsuits were consolidated into a master action for all
purposes. In October 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
certification of two damages classes under the laws of thirteen
states and the District of Columbia and a nationwide injunction
class.

Celgene filed an opposition to the plaintiffs' motion and a motion
for judgment on the pleadings dismissing all state law claims where
the plaintiffs no longer seek to represent a class.

In October 2018, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and Celgene's motion for judgment on the pleadings.
In December 2018, the plaintiffs filed a new motion for class
certification, which Celgene opposed.

In July 2019, the parties reached a settlement under which all the
putative class plaintiff claims would be dismissed with prejudice.
In December 2019, after certain third-party payors who were members
of the settlement class refused to release their potential claims
and participate in the settlement, Celgene exercised its right to
terminate the settlement agreement.

In March 2020, Celgene reached a revised settlement with the class
plaintiffs.

In May 2020, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement and a
hearing on fairness and final approval is scheduled for September
30, 2020.

That settlement does not resolve the claims of certain entities
that opted out of the first settlement.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company discovers, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells biopharmaceutical
products worldwide. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company was founded in
1887 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


BRUNELLO CUCINELLI: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, Brooks Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BRUNELLO CUCINELLI, USA, INC., a New York corporation,
and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-01736-MCE-DB (E.D.
Cal., Aug. 28, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for their
alleged unlawful policy and practice of having a blind-inaccessible
Web Site, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990 and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer. The Plaintiff claims that she encountered multiple access
barriers during her numerous visits to the Defendant's Web site,
https://shop.brunellocucinelli.com/en-us/, which denied her full
and equal access and enjoyment to the facilities, goods, and
services offered to the public.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination for allegedly constructing and
maintaining a Web site that is inaccessible to visually-impaired
individuals, and for failing to take actions to correct these
access barriers.

Brunello Cucinelli, USA, Inc., operates brick and mortar stores and
its Web site.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thiago Coelho, Esq.
          Bobby Saadian, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Tel: (213) 381-9988
          Fax: (213) 381-9989
          Emails: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  ada@wilshirelawfirm.com


BURGER KING: Vegan Whopper Class Action Suit Tossed
---------------------------------------------------
Ryan Fournier, Esq., Alexandre Gapihan, Esq., and Robert G.
Hibbert, Esq., of  Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, in an article for
Lexology, report that in an order issued on July 20, Judge Raag
Singhal of the US District Court for the Southern District of
Florida dismissed a class action lawsuit that claimed Burger King
Corporation's advertising deceived customers by making a
"presumption" that its plant-based "Impossible Whopper" patties
would be cooked on different grills than those used to cook meats.
Williams v. Burger King Corp., Case No. 1:19-cv-24755 (S.D. Fla.
July 20, 2020).

Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged to have been "duped" into
believing that Burger King cooked its Impossible Whopper patties on
dedicated grills due to the patties being marketed as "0% beef and
100% Whopper." The plaintiffs had previously argued that Burger
King marketed the Impossible Whopper as vegan, but then dropped
that claim given that Burger King's advertising did not expressly
mention that the Impossible Whopper was in fact vegan.

In dismissing the plaintiffs' breach of contract claim, Judge
Singhal held that Burger King's promotional material did not
mislead customers about cooking methods and that it did not imply
that its plant-based patties would be grilled separately from meat
products. In the order, Judge Singhal used Burger King's famous
slogan to justify his conclusion: "Plaintiffs could have 'Had it
[their] way' by requesting a different cooking method, thereby
altering the terms of the contract." He added that "Burger King
promised a non-meat patty and delivered with the 'Impossible
Whopper.'"

While Judge Singhal dismissed the breach of contract claim without
prejudice, he permanently dismissed a claim for unjust enrichment
because "the existence of a contractual relationship between the
parties typically precludes an unjust enrichment claim arising out
of a contract." Judge Singhal also dismissed claims under consumer
fraud laws, holding that the plaintiffs could not have had an
"objectively reasonable belief" that the Impossible Whopper patties
were cooked any differently than other burgers unless specifically
requested when placing an order. Judge Singhal also found that the
plaintiffs could not bring a class action suit because their claims
were too individualized to support class certifications.

In the end, this was a key win for restaurants and marketers of
plant-based meat alternatives, which have been the subject of
recent popular and regulatory attention. At least in a restaurant
setting, if a customer wants a plant-based meat alternative cooked
on a separate surface from other meat products, they need to speak
up—and not assume that plant-based meat alternatives are
processed and prepared (or do not share equipment) with meat
products.

The court agreed with Burger King that it never promised consumers
it would cook the Impossible Whopper on a separate surface, and the
plaintiffs "could not have had an objectively reasonable belief
that it would unless specifically requested by a patron when
placing an order." [GN]


BURWELL INDUSTRIES: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, Angeles Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JENISA ANGELES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. BURWELL INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-07099
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 1, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired people.

Because the Defendant's Web site, http://www.margotelena.com/,is
not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it
violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person and
a member of a protected class of individuals under the ADA. The
access barriers that the Plaintiff encountered have caused a denial
of her full and equal access multiple times in the past, and now
deter her on a regular basis from accessing the Defendant's Web
site in the future.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

Burwell Industries, Inc., is a fragrance and skincare 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
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com


CABOT OIL: Kahn Swick Reminds of Oct. 13 Motion Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadlines in the securities class action lawsuit involving
Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation:

Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation (COG)

Class Period: 10/23/2015 - 6/12/2020

Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: October 13, 2020

SECURITIES FRAUD

To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-cog/

If you purchased shares of the company and would like to discuss
your legal rights 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, via email
(Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

                           About KSF

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.

Contact:

Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN]


CALIFORNIA: Faces Acosta Suit Alleging Violations of Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, et al. The case is styled as Allison Acosta, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, and the general
public v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
RESOURCES; BETTY T. YEE, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS STATE
CONTROLLER OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; Case No. CGC20586403 (Cal.
Super., San Francisco Cty., Sept. 3, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Labor Code.

California, a western U.S. state, stretches from the Mexican border
along the Pacific for nearly 900 miles. Its terrain includes
cliff-lined beaches, redwood forest, the Sierra Nevada Mountains,
Central Valley farmland and the Mojave Desert.

The Plaintiff is represented by Patrick James Sagafi Jahanwhalen,
Esq.[BN]


CAMPING WORLD: Geis Suit to Be Dismissed Following Accord
---------------------------------------------------------
Camping World Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the company expects to file a
joint stipulation of dismissal of the case, Daniel Geis v. Camping
World Holdings, Inc., et al., in light of the settlement agreement
in the Ronge v. Camping World Holdings, Inc. et al. case.

On February 22, 2019, a putative class action complaint styled
Daniel Geis v. Camping World Holdings, Inc., et al. was filed in
the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, on
behalf of all purchasers of Camping World Class A common stock in
and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering on
October 6, 2016 ("Geis Complaint").

The Geis Complaint names as defendants the Company, certain of its
officers and directors, and the underwriters of the offering, and
alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 based on allegedly materially misleading
statements or omissions of material facts necessary to make certain
statements not misleading.

The Geis Complaint seeks compensatory damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and any other
and further relief the court deems just and proper.

On April 19, 2019, the Company, along with the other defendants,
moved to dismiss this action. The parties argued the merits of
defendants' motion to dismiss before the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, Chancery Division on August 20, 2019. On August
26, 2019, the Court stayed the Geis Complaint pending resolution of
the motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint that is pending in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

The Geis plaintiff became a plaintiff in Ronge, and the Geis
putative class's claims were duplicative of certain claims in the
Ronge case described above, and thus were included in the
settlement agreement that the Ronge court approved on August 5,
2020.

The Company expects to file a joint stipulation of dismissal of the
Geis complaint in light of the settlement agreement in the Ronge
case.

Camping World Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as
an outdoor and camping retailer. The company operates through three
segments: Consumer Services and Plans, Dealership, and Retail.
Camping World Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is
headquartered in Lincolnshire, Illinois.


CAMPING WORLD: IUOE Suit to Be Dismissed Following Accord
---------------------------------------------------------
Camping World Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that Company expects to file a joint
stipulation of dismissal with the named plaintiff in Union of
Operating Engineers Benefit Funds of Eastern Pennsylvania and
Delaware v. Camping World Holdings Inc., et al. in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York in light of the settlement agreement
in the Ronge v. Camping World Holdings, Inc. et al. case.

On December 12, 2018, a putative class action complaint styled
International Union of Operating Engineers Benefit Funds of Eastern
Pennsylvania and Delaware v. Camping World Holdings Inc., et al.
was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York
County, on behalf of all purchasers of Camping World Class A common
stock issued pursuant and/or traceable to a secondary offering of
such securities in October 2017 ("IUOE Complaint").

The IUOE Complaint names as defendants the Company, and certain of
its officers and directors, among others, and alleges violations of
Sections 11, 12(a), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on
allegedly materially misleading statements or omissions of material
facts necessary to make certain statements not misleading and seeks
compensatory damages, including prejudgment and post-judgement
interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and any equitable or
injunctive relief the court deems just and proper, including
rescission.

On February 28, 2019, the Company, along with the other defendants,
moved to dismiss this action. The parties argued the merits of
defendants' motion to dismiss before the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, Commercial Division, on September 6, 2019. The Court
granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss on April
22, 2020.

On July 13, 2020, the parties entered into a confidential
settlement agreement resolving the named plaintiff's claims. The
putative class's claims were duplicative of certain claims in the
Ronge v. Camping World Holdings, Inc. et al. case, and thus were
included in the settlement agreement that the Ronge court approved
at the Settlement Hearing on August 5, 2020.

The Company expects to file a joint stipulation of dismissal with
the named plaintiff in the Supreme Court of the State of New York
in light of the settlement agreement in the Ronge case.

Camping World Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as
an outdoor and camping retailer. The company operates through three
segments: Consumer Services and Plans, Dealership, and Retail.
Camping World Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is
headquartered in Lincolnshire, Illinois.


CAMPING WORLD: Settlement in Ronge Suit Wins Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
Camping World Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that a court has granted final approval
to the class action settlement in the consolidated Ronge v. Camping
World Holdings, Inc. et al. suit and the case has been dismissed
with prejudice.

On October 19, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit, captioned Ronge v. Camping World
Holdings, Inc. et al., in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against the Company, certain of its
officers and directors, and Crestview Partners II GP, L.P. and
Crestview Advisors, L.L.C. (the "Ronge Complaint").

On October 25, 2018, a different purported stockholder of the
Company filed a putative class action lawsuit, captioned Strougo v.
Camping World Holdings, Inc. et al., in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company,
certain of its officers and directors, and Crestview Partners II
GP, L.P. and Crestview Advisors, L.L.C. (the "Strougo Complaint").

The Ronge and Strougo Complaints were consolidated and lead
plaintiffs (the "Ronge Lead Plaintiffs") appointed by the court.

On February 27, 2019, the Ronge lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint against the Company, certain of its
officers, directors, Crestview Partners II GP, L.P. and Crestview
Advisors, L.L.C., and the underwriters of the May and October 2017
secondary offerings of the Company's Class A common stock (the
"Consolidated Complaint").

The Consolidated Complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as well as Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, based on allegedly materially misleading statements or
omissions of material facts necessary to make certain statements
not misleading related to the business, operations, and management
of the Company.

Additionally, it alleges that certain of the Company's officers and
directors, Crestview Partners II GP, L.P., and Crestview Advisors,
L.L.C. violated Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
by allegedly acting as controlling persons of the Company.

The lawsuit brings claims on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of the Company's Class A common stock between March 8,
2017 and August 7, 2018, and seeks compensatory damages,
rescission, attorneys' fees and costs, and any equitable or
injunctive relief the court deems just and proper.

On May 17, 2019, the Company, along with the other defendants,
moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint. On March 12, 2020,
Ronge Lead Plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint,
adding those allegations contained in the Daniel Geis v. Camping
World Holdings, Inc., et al.  complaint.

On March 13, Ronge Lead Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement, which the Court
granted on April 7, 2020. On August 5, 2020, the Court granted
final approval of the class action settlement and the case was
dismissed with prejudice.

The settlement is expected to be paid directly by the Company's
applicable insurance policies.

Camping World Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as
an outdoor and camping retailer. The company operates through three
segments: Consumer Services and Plans, Dealership, and Retail.
Camping World Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is
headquartered in Lincolnshire, Illinois.


CANAAN INC: Lemieux Securities Suit Moved From Oregon to S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled PHILIPPE LEMIEUX, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CANAAN INC., NANGENG ZHANG, JIAXUAN
LI, JIANPING KONG, QIFENG SUN, QUANFU HONG, CITIGROUP GLOBAL
MARKETS INC., CHINA RENAISSANCE SECURITIES (HONG KONG) LIMITED, CMB
INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL LIMITED, GALAXY DIGITAL ADVISORS LLC, HUATAI
FINANCIAL HOLDINGS (HONG KONG) LIMITED, TIGER BROKERS (NZ) LIMITED,
HAITONG INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES COMPANY LIMITED, and VIEWTRADE
SECURITIES, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00356, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on September 2, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-07139-AT to the proceeding.

The case alleges that the Defendants made materially false and
misleading reports in their Registration Statement with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission concerning an initial public
offering (IPO) in violation of sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act.

Canaan Inc. is a manufacturer of Bitcoin mining machines with its
head office located at 29 Jiefang East Road, Jianggan District, in
Hangzhou, China. CMB International Capital Limited is an investment
banking services company headquartered in Hong Kong, China. Huatai
Financial Holdings (Hong Kong) Limited is a brokerage company
headquartered in Hong Kong, China. Haitong International Securities
Company Limited is a stock brokerage firm and investment bank based
in Hong Kong, China.

Citigroup Global Markets Inc., China Renaissance Securities (Hong
Kong) Limited and Galaxy Digital Advisors LLC are financial
services companies with business offices in New York. ViewTrade
Securities, Inc., is a brokerage company headquartered in Boca
Raton, Florida. Tiger Brokers (NZ) Limited is a financial services
company headquartered in Auckland, New Zealand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          

         Jeffrey S. Ratliff, Esq.
         RANSOM, GILBERTSON, MARTIN & RATLIFF LLP
         8401 NE Halsey Street Suite 208
         Portland, OR 97220
         Telephone: (503) 226-3664

                - and –

         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         THE ROSEN LAW FIREI, P.A.
         Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
         275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 686-1060
         Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
         E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 lrosen@rosenlegal.com


CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Court Issues Overtime Class Action Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Bernise Carolino, writing for Law Times, reports that the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice has issued a further ruling in a class
action suit filed against a bank for unpaid overtime compensation,
breach of employment contracts and unjust enrichment.

In Fresco v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 2020 ONSC 4288,
the Superior Court, which had earlier made a finding of liability
on the part of the bank for its breach of overtime obligations
under federal labour law and for its system-wide unlawful overtime
policies and hours-of-work recording practices which had impeded
the class members' otherwise compensable overtime claims, now
delved into the issues of damages.

The court found unjust enrichment on the part of the bank for
failing to compensate some of the class members for all of their
hours worked, but said that this finding did not add much in terms
of remedies, considering that the case fundamentally hinges upon
damages for breach of employment contracts. Thus, while the court
did not award restitutionary relief for unjust enrichment, it did
state that the class members were entitled to damages for breaches
of their employment contracts.

The court rejected the claim for punitive damages because it did
not find that the bank's actions were malicious, oppressive,
high-handed or indicative of bad faith. The court did, however,
certify an additional common issue as to aggregate damages, the
amount of which would be determined during a further hearing. The
bank will be ordered to furnish the needed time-stamped data, while
the plaintiff's expert will review this data and complete a
proposed damages report.

The class, represented by plaintiff Dara Fresco, consists of about
31,000 current and former customer service representatives,
financial service representatives and associates, assistant branch
managers and other front-line workers in the bank's retail branches
across the country. Roy O'Connor LLP, Sotos LLP and Goldblatt
Partners LLP acted as class counsel.

"This is an excellent decision for the Class Members and employees
generally, and some good news for employees at a time when good
news for employees and everyone else is in short supply," said lead
class counsel David O'Connor, Louis Sokolov and Steven Barrett.
"This was a long, hard fought battle against one of Canada's
largest and most profitable corporations." [GN]


CAPITAL CENTER: Campbell FLSA Suit Seeks Overtime Wages for MLOs
----------------------------------------------------------------
TONYA CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CAPITAL CENTER LLC (d/b/a CapCenter), Case No.
3:20-cv-00694 (E.D. Va., Sept. 2, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's failure to compensate the Plaintiff and other mortgage
loan officers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a workweek, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a mortgage loan
officer from July 3, 2019, to June 12, 2020.

Capital Center LLC, doing business as CapCenter, sells mortgage
loans, realty, and related products with its principal place of
business located in Glen Allen, Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Timothy Coffield, Esq.
         COFFIELD PLC
         106-F Melbourne Park Circle
         Charlottesville, VA 22901
         Telephone: (434) 218-3133
         Facsimile: (434) 321-1636
         E-mail: tc@coffieldlaw.com

                - and –

         Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
         CURWOOD LAW FIRM, PLC
         530 E. Main Street, Suite 710
         Richmond, VA 23219
         Telephone: (804) 788-0808
         Facsimile: (804) 767-6777
         E-mail: ccurwood@curwoodlaw.com


CENTURYLINK INC: Deal in Sales Practices Suit Awaits Court OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that subject to confirmatory discovery and court
approval, the company had agreed to settle the consumer putative
class actions for payments of $15.5 million to compensate class
members and of up to $3.5 million for administrative costs.

In June 2017, a former employee filed an employment lawsuit against
the company claiming that she was wrongfully terminated for
alleging that the company charged some of its retail customers for
products and services they did not authorize. Starting shortly
thereafter and continuing since then and based in part on the
allegations made by the former employee, several legal proceedings
have been filed.

In June 2017, McLeod v. CenturyLink, a putative consumer class
action, was filed against the company in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California alleging that the company
charged some of its retail customers for products and services they
did not authorize.

Other complaints asserting similar claims were filed in other
federal and state courts. The lawsuits assert claims including
fraud, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. Also in June
2017, Craig. v. CenturyLink, Inc., et al., a putative securities
investor class action, was filed in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, alleging that we failed to disclose
material information regarding improper sales practices, and
asserting federal securities law claims. A number of other cases
asserting similar claims have also been filed.

Beginning June 2017, the company also received several shareholder
derivative demands addressing related topics. In August 2017, the
Board of Directors formed a special litigation committee of outside
directors to address the allegations of impropriety contained in
the shareholder derivative demands.

In April 2018, the special litigation committee concluded its
review of the derivative demands and declined to take further
action. Since then, derivative cases were filed in Louisiana state
court in the Fourth Judicial District Court for the Parish of
Ouachita and in federal court in Louisiana and Minnesota. These
cases have been brought on behalf of CenturyLink against certain
current and former officers and directors of the Company and seek
damages for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

The consumer putative class actions, the securities investor
putative class actions, and the federal derivative actions have
been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings as
In Re: CenturyLink Sales Practices and Securities Litigation.

Subject to confirmatory discovery and court approval, the company
had agreed to settle the consumer putative class actions for
payments of $15.5 million to compensate class members and of up to
$3.5 million for administrative costs.

In the second quarter of 2019, the company accrued for these
obligations, and a portion of the administrative costs has been
expended in 2020. Certain class members may elect to opt out of the
class settlement and pursue the resolution of their individual
claims against us on these issues through various dispute
resolution processes, including individual arbitration. One law
firm claims to represent more than 22,000 potential class members.


CenturyLink said, "To the extent that a substantial number of class
members meet the contractual requirements to arbitrate, elect to
opt out of the settlement (or otherwise successfully exclude their
individual claims), and actually pursue arbitrations, the Company
could incur a material amount of filing and other arbitrations fees
in relation to the administration of those claims."

CenturyLink, Inc. provides various communications services to
residential, business, wholesale, and governmental customers in
theUnited States and internationally. The company operates in two
segments, Business and Consumer. CenturyLink, Inc. was founded in
1968 and is based in Monroe, Louisiana.

CENTURYLINK INC: Dismissal Order in Houser Suit Appealed
--------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the plaintiffs in the putative shareholder
class action suit entitled, Houser et al. v. CenturyLink, et al.
have taken an appeal from the court decision dismissing the
complaint, and the appeal is pending.

CenturyLink and certain CenturyLink board members and officers were
named as defendants in a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
filed on June 12, 2018 in the Boulder County District Court of the
state of Colorado, captioned Houser et al. v. CenturyLink, et al.

The complaint asserts claims on behalf of a putative class of
former Level 3 shareholders who became CenturyLink shareholders as
a result of our acquisition of Level 3.

It alleges that the proxy statement provided to the Level 3
shareholders failed to disclose various material information of
several kinds, including information about strategic revenue,
customer loss rates, and customer account issues, among other
items.

The complaint seeks damages, costs and fees, rescission, rescissory
damages, and other equitable relief.

In May 2020, the court dismissed the complaint. Plaintiffs appealed
that decision, and the appeal is pending.

CenturyLink, Inc. provides various communications services to
residential, business, wholesale, and governmental customers in the
United States and internationally. The company operates in two
segments, Business and Consumer. CenturyLink, Inc. was founded in
1968 and is based in Monroe, Louisiana.

CHARLOTTE'S WEB: Faces Mislabeling Action Over Cannabidiol Products
-------------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that cannabidiol
products sold by Charlotte's Web Inc. are actually illegal, says a
new class action intended to stop the company.

Plaintiff Rasunae Moqeet filed a lawsuit Aug. 6 in Los Angeles
federal court against Charlotte's Web, which makes CBD oils,
capsules and gummies. Those products are mislabeled, the suit
says.

"All of Defendant's products are mislabeled as dietary supplements
and/or contain the illegal dietary ingredient CBD," the suit says.
"Every product contains a supplement facts section on the back of
the container which is reserved for dietary supplements and
explicitly state 'Dietary Supplement' on the front of the
packaging. The FDA has stated that CBD may not be labeled as a
dietary ingredient or legally be contained within a dietary
supplement."

The firms pushing the case are Barbar, Mansour & Suciu; Shub Law
Firm; Greg Coleman Law; and Bursor & Fisher. [GN]



CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Underpays CSR Employees, Barron Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHANNON BARRON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-04442-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio, Aug. 28, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as customer service
representatives at its customer service center in Dublin, Ohio,
from October 2008 through July 30, 2020.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to count as "hours
worked" those unpaid work that he and other similarly-situated
employees were required by the Defendant to perform before clocking
in each day, including starting and logging into the Defendant's
computer systems, numerous software applications, and phone system.
She insists that this pre-clocking in activities is an integral and
indispensable part of other principal activities performed by her
and other similarly-situated employees.

As a result of the Defendant's refusal to pay the Plaintiff and
other similarly-situated employees for all hours worked, the
Defendant knowingly and willfully failed to pay them overtime
compensation in violation of the FLSA and the OMFWSA, according to
the complaint. Additionally, the Defendant also failed to make,
keep and preserve records of the unpaid work performed by the
Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees before clocking in
each day.

Charter Communications LLC operates customer service centers
throughout the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Fradin, Esq.
          8 N. Court St., Suite 403
          Athens, OH 45701
          Tel: 847-986-5889
          Fax: 847-673-1228
          Email: mike@fradinlaw.com

                - and –

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          4580 Stephen Circle, NW Suite 201
          Canton, OH 44718
          Tel: (330) 470-4428
          Fax: (330) 754-1430
          Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com


CHRISTY DAWN: Fischler Files ADA Class Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Christy Dawn, LLC.
The case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Christy Dawn, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-04132 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 3, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Christy Dawn, LLC, designs and markets apparel and accessories. The
Company offers dresses, jumpsuits, tops, denim, bottoms, sandals,
and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170-1830
          Phone: (212) 764-7171
          Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Rye Ridge Seeks Payment for COVID-19 Losses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RYE RIDGE CORP., a New York corporation, dba Rye Ridge Deli,
HAROMAR, INC., a Connecticut corporation, dba Rye Ridge Deli, on
behalf themselves and all others similarly situated v. THE
CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio corporation, Case No.
1:20-cv-07132-LGS (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 1, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's denial of the Plaintiffs' claims for business losses
following suspension of operations due to COVID-19.

The Plaintiffs purchased insurance policies from the Defendant that
included business interruption insurance coverage and dutifully
paid its premiums and complied with all other elements of its
agreements with the Defendant. The Plaintiffs understandably
believed their "business interruption" insurance would protect
their businesses in the unlikely event that they ever forced or
ordered to close or reduce operations in connection with a pandemic
or any other Covered Cause of Loss.

According to the complaint, the denial actions of the Defendant
were part of a premeditated strategy to deny all claims related to
COVID-19 and the "shelter in place" orders. They were untethered to
the facts of the claims, which the Defendant did not adequately
investigate, or the specific coverage provided by the Delis'
policies, and were, therefore, illegal. Further, the Defendant's
rejection of the Plaintiffs' claims was part of a policy by the
Defendant to limit its losses during this pandemic, notwithstanding
that the policies provide coverage for losses due to loss of use of
property and from COVID-19 orders issued by civil authorities
(among other coverage).

The Defendant's wrongful denials of the Plaintiffs' claims were not
isolated incidents, according to the complaint. Rather, the
Defendant has engaged in the same misconduct, alleged in the
complaint with respect to the Plaintiffs, in connection with claims
submitted by numerous of the Defendant's insureds, who have
suffered losses related to the Coronavirus pandemic and submitted
claims, which were categorically denied.

Rye Ridge Delicatessens are a set of family-owned eateries
operating in the Tri-State area for more than fifty years.

The Cincinnati Insurance Company is an insurance company writing
insurance policies and doing business in the State of
Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David S. Stellings, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
          E-mail: dstellings@lchb.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Nelson, Esq.
          Fabrice N. Vincent, Esq.
          Jacob H. Polin, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: rnelson@lchb.com
                  fvincent@lchb.com
                  jpolin@lchb.com

               - and -

          Alexandra L. Foote, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALEXANDRA L. FOOTE, P.C.
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (786) 408-8083
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: alexandra@afootelaw.com


CITIGUARD INC: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Rodriguez Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN L. RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself, all aggrieved employees,
and the State of CA as Private Attorneys General v. CITIGUARD,
INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
20STCV33127 (Cal. Sup., Aug. 31, 2020), arises from the Defendants'
alleged unlawful employment practices in violation of the Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant Citiguard as an hourly-paid and
non-exempt security guard for 3.5 years until January 2020.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to reimburse for
required business expenses; pay wages, including overtime and
penalty wages; provide rest breaks and uninterrupted meal breaks
and second meal breaks; timely pay all wages owed; and provide
accurate itemized wage statements.

The Plaintiff states that he complied with all the procedural
requirements of Labor Code Section 2699.3 and notified the Labor
and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) via e-mail regarding the
Defendants' violations. However, the LWDA did not respond to the
Plaintiff's Notice within the statutory timeframe.

Citiguard, Inc., provides 24/7 armed or unarmed security guard
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
          KOUL LAW FIRM
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Tel: (213) 761-5484
          Fax: (818) 561-3938
          Email: nazo@koullaw.com

                - and –

          Sahag Majarian, II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
          18250 Ventura Blvd.
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Tel: (818) 609-0807
          Fax: (818) 609-0892
          Email: Sahagii@aol.com


CITIZENS WATCH: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Paguada Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
DILENIA PAGUADA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CITIZENS WATCH COMPANY OF AMERICA, Case No.
1:20-cv-06371 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2020), alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, http://www.bulova.com/,is not fully or equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff, a visually-impaired person,
seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's
corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the
Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

Citizens Watch Company of America provides apparel products. The
Company offers watch products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
          10826 64th Avenue, Second Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Telephone: (929) 324-0717
          E-mail: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


CLERMONT YORK: Motion to Dismiss Filed in Schneier Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, Queens County, in the case styled TOBI RUBINSTEIN
SCHNEIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CLERMONT YORK ASSOCIATES LLC, Case No. 705937/2020, on
August 31, 2020.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Rent
Stabilization Law by overcharging the rent of the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated tenants in the class action captioned as
Gerard v. Clermont York Associates LLC in New York, Case No.
101101150/2010, who have opted out of the proposed settlement in
May 2019.

The Plaintiff and other opt-out tenants allege that the Defendant
continues to deprive them with the present class of rights afforded
under the Rent Stabilization Law. Despite receipt of real estate
tax benefits under the New York City's J-51 program, the apartments
of the Plaintiff and other opt-out members of the Gerard class
action continue to be treated by the Defendant as if they are
deregulated apartments.

Clermont York Associates LLC is an apartment rental business with
offices located at 7 Penn Plaza, in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:             
  
         Felipe E. Orner, Esq.
         72-29 137th Street
         Flushing, NY 11367
         Telephone: (718) 575-9600


CLOROX: Faces Class Action Over Splash-Less Bleach
--------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Clorox's
thicker, gel-like bleach isn't strong enough to disinfect surfaces,
a new class action lawsuit alleges.

The lawsuit from attorneys at Levinson Stockton, Wright Law Office
and Telfer Faherty was filed Aug. 14 in California federal court.
It says the company has misled consumers into thinking it is just
as effective as its regular liquid product.

"Today more than ever consumers are turning to the iconic Clorox
name for help," the suit says. "The COVID-19 pandemic is an ongoing
global pandemic of coronavirus disease which causes severe acute
respiratory syndrome."

By adding ingredients to thicken its Splash-Less formula, Clorox
weakened the concentration of sodium hypochlorite to a level that
only whitens and doesn't sanitize, the suit says.

"Confusion between the products by consumers has become more common
amid the coronavirus pandemic," the suit says. "Customers have
claimed the ‘very similar' designs have led to repeated purchases
of the wrong formula."

The suit includes a photo of a label that says Splash-Less bleach
is "not for sanitization or disinfection. To sanitize and
disinfect, use Clorox Regular Bleach." [GN]


COATZINGO BAKERY: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Rodriguez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
YESSICA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. COATZINGO BAKERY & MEXICAN PRODUCTS CORP.
(d/b/a COATZINGO BAKERY), RUFINO ZAPATA, and MELITON ZAPATA, Case
No. 1:20-cv-03633 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 12, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation,
to authorize and permit meal and rest periods, to provide accurate
wage statements, and to reimburse necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as staff.

Coatzingo Bakery & Mexican Products Corp. owned, operated, or
controlled a Mexican bakery, located in Jackson Heights, New York,
under the name Coatzingo Bakery.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COCRYSTAL PHARMA: Term Sheets Inked to Settle Pepe Case
-------------------------------------------------------
Cocrystal Pharma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the company has negotiated and executed term
sheets with respect to the proposed settlement of the class action
initiated by Anthony Pepe.

On September 20, 2018, Anthony Pepe, individually and on behalf of
a class, filed with the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey a complaint against the Company, certain
current and former executive officers and directors of the Company
and the other defendants named therein for violation of Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The class consists of the persons and entities who purchased the
Company's common stock during the period from September 23, 2013
through September 7, 2018. Pepe also alleges violation of other
sections of the Exchange Act by the defendants named in the
complaint other than the Company.

Pepe seeks damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs.

On January 16, 2019, Ms. Susan Church, a stockholder of the
Company, filed with the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington a derivative suit against certain
current and former executive officers and directors of the Company
alleging breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, waste of
corporate assets, and violations of the rules governing proxy
solicitation.

Church seeks, among other things, money damages, disgorgement of
profits from alleged wrongful conduct, including cash bonuses,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys'
fees, expert fees and other costs.

In June 2020, the Company negotiated and executed term sheets with
respect to the proposed settlement of the class action and the
derivative lawsuit discussed above.

The term sheets are subject to approval by the court.

As of June 30, 2020, the Company agreed to pay $450,000 for its
share of the total proposed class action settlement and as for the
derivative lawsuit agreed to make certain corporate governance
changes.

Cocrystal Pharma, Inc., a clinical stage biotechnology company,
engages in discovering and developing various novel antiviral
therapeutics that target the replication machinery of hepatitis
viruses, influenza viruses, and noroviruses. Cocrystal Pharma, Inc.
was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Tucker, Georgia.


COLORADO: Ruiz Employment Suit vs. DOC Removed to D. Colorado
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as STEVE RUIZ and ADAM MOREHEAD, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; DAVID JOHNSON and DEAN WILLIAMS, in
their official capacity, Case No. 2020CV31723, was removed from the
Colorado State District Court for the City and County of Denver to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on August 31,
2020.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Colorado assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-02643 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Colorado Department of Corrections is the principal state
government department that operates the state prisons,
headquartered in Colorado Springs, Colorado.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          

         Heather K. Kelly, Esq.
         RALPH L. CARR COLORADO JUDICIAL CENTER
         1300 Broadway, 10th Floor
         Denver, CO 80203
         Telephone: (720) 508-6593
         E-mail: heather.kelly@coag.gov


COMMERCIAL MAINTENANCE: Chavez Seeks Overtime Pay for Landscapers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ENRIQUE CHAVEZ, JOSEPH ARES, SERGIO CHAVEZ, and ISKANDER OLIVARES,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, known
and unknown v. COMMERCIAL MAINTENANCE SERVICE, TOM MARTINEZ, and
ALEX MARTINEZ, Case No. 1:20-cv-05200 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 2, 2020),
arises from the Defendants' failure to compensate the Plaintiffs
and other landscapers and laborers overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Chicago
Minimum Wage Ordinance.

Plaintiffs Enrique Chavez and Joseph Ares were hired by the
Defendants as landscapers and laborers until August 2020.
Plaintiffs Sergio Chavez and Iskander Olivares have been employed
by the Defendants as landscapers and laborers from approximately
2016 and 2019, respectively, to the present.

Commercial Maintenance Service (CMS) is a commercial landscaping
and construction company located at 200 W. Madison St., in Chicago,
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         John William Billhorn, Esq.
         BILLHORN LAW FIRM
         53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 401
         Chicago, IL 60604
         Telephone: (312) 853-1450


CONCIERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss Moshell Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sasol Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2020, that the company's motion to dismiss the putative class
action suit initiated by Chad Lindsey Moshell remains pending.

On February 5, 2020, the US law firm Pomerantz LLP announced that
it had filed a putative securities class action complaint on behalf
of shareholder Chad Lindsey Moshell and other shareholders who
purchased Sasol securities from 10 March 2015 to 13 January 2020,
against Sasol Limited and five of its current and former executive
directors in the United States District Court, Southern District of
New York.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and claims, among other things, that: (i) Sasol had
conducted insufficient due diligence into, and failed to account
for multiple issues with, the LCCP, including as to the true cost
of the project; (ii) construction and operation of the LCCP was
consequently plagued by control weaknesses, delays, rising costs,
and technical issues; (iii) these issues were exacerbated by
Sasol's top-level management, who engaged in improper and unethical
behaviour with respect to financial reporting for the LCCP and the
project's oversight; (iv) all the foregoing was reasonably likely
to render the LCCP significantly more expensive than disclosed and
negatively impact the company's financial results; and (v) as a
result, certain of the company's public statements were materially
false and misleading during the class period.

On 4 May 2020, Mr. David Cohen was appointed as lead plaintiff and
filed an amended complaint on 4 June 2020.

Sasol and the individual defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on 2
July 2020. The lead plaintiff has not specified the quantum of any
alleged damages.

Sasol said, "Any impact of the class action complaint cannot be
reasonably estimated at this point in time but it cannot be
excluded that it may have a material adverse effect on our
business, operating results, cash flows and financial condition."

Sasol Limited is an integrated energy and chemicals company. The
Company mines coal in South Africa and produce natural gas and
condensate in Mozambique, oil in Gabon and shale gas in Canada.


CONDUENT INC: ERS Puerto Rico Elec. Power Authority Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Conduent Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative
class action suit entitled, Employees' Retirement System of the
Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority et al v. Conduent Inc. et al.


On March 8, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit alleging
violations of certain federal securities laws in connection with
the company's statements and alleged omissions regarding its
financial guidance and business and operations was filed against
the company, its former Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief
Financial Officer in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

The complaint seeks certification of a class of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired our securities from February 21,
2018 through November 6, 2018, and also seeks unspecified monetary
damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.

The company moved to dismiss the class action complaint in its
entirety.

In June 2020, the court denied the motion to dismiss and allowed
the claims to proceed.

Conduent said, "We intend to defend the litigation vigorously. The
Company maintains insurance that may cover any costs arising out of
this litigation up to the insurance limits, and subject to meeting
certain deductibles and to other terms and conditions thereof. The
Company is not able to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of
this proceeding or reasonably provide an estimate or range of
estimate of the possible outcome or loss, if any, in excess of
currently recorded reserves."

Conduent Incorporated is a business process services company. The
Company provides business process services with expertise in
transaction-intensive processing, analytics and automation. The
company is based in Florham Park, New Jersey.


COOKWARE COMPANY: Judge Tosses Most Claims in Sticky Pan Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that with only a
single claim left, a proposed class action lawsuit over the
stickiness of an as-seen-on-TV frying pan is limping off to
Florida.

New York federal judge Louis Stanton, after dismissing all claims
except those on behalf of Florida residents, asked the parties in
the case to show cause why the case shouldn't be send to that
state. Three weeks passed and no one responded, so on July 9 it
transferred the case to Florida's Middle District.

The lawsuit claims the $20 Blue Diamond Enhanced Ceramic Non-Stick
Pan disappointed each of the three times Elena Lamb, who lives in
Florida, used it. In fighting the case, The Cookware Company noted
that it gave customers a money-back or replacement warranty, but
Lamb instead chose to throw the pan away and file a class action.

"That warranty is an express contract concerning the subject matter
of Lamb's claims, providing her with an adequate legal remedy,"
Judge Louis Stanton wrote.

On June 15, Stanton dismissed most of Lamb's claims. They were:

-Breach of express warranty;

-Breach of implied warranty of merchantability;

-Injunctive relief;

-Violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; and

-Unjust enrichment.

However, Lamb adequately pled her claim under the Florida Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Stanton wrote.

"The complaint alleges that Cookware represented to Lamb (and other
consumers in Florida and throughout the United States) on the Blue
Diamond pan's packaging label that the pan is non-stick," Stanton
wrote.

"Such statements are likely to mislead a reasonable consumer into
believing that the pan is non-stick and that food will not stick to
it during the cooking process."

Lamb's legal team includes Morgan & Morgan of Tampa, the law firm
that recently took at least $12 million in taxpayer-funded
forgivable loans while increasing its television spending. [GN]


CRONOS GROUP: Defends Putative Class Action in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------
Cronos Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the company is a defendant in a putative class
action suit filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in
Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

On June 3, 2020, an alleged shareholder filed a Statement of Claim
in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Ontario,
Canada, seeking, among other things, an order certifying the action
as a class action on behalf of a putative class of shareholders and
damages of an unspecified amount.

The Statement of Claim names the Company, its Chief Executive
Officer, Chief Financial Officer, former Chief Financial Officer
and Chief Commercial Officer, and current and former members of its
Board of Directors as defendants and alleges breaches of the
Ontario Securities Act, oppression under the Ontario Business
Corporations Act and common law misrepresentation.

The Statement of Claim generally alleges that certain of the
Company's prior public statements about revenues and internal
controls were misrepresentations based on the Company's March 2,
2020 disclosure that the Audit Committee of its Board of Directors
was conducting a review of the appropriateness of revenue
recognized in connection with certain bulk resin purchases and
sales of products through the wholesale channel, and the Company's
subsequent restatements.

The Statement of Claim does not quantify its damage request.

The Company and the other named defendants have not yet filed a
response to the Statement of Claim.

Cronos Group Inc. is an innovative global cannabinoid company with
international production and distribution across five continents.
The company is committed to building disruptive intellectual
property by advancing cannabis research, technology and product
development and are building an iconic brand portfolio. The company
is based in Ontario Canada.


CRONOS GROUP: Putative Class Suits Underway in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------
Cronos Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend two putative
class action suits in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.

On March 11 and 12, 2020, two alleged shareholders of the Company
separately filed two putative class action complaints in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the
Company and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
against all defendants, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against the individual defendants.

The complaints generally allege that certain of the Company's prior
public statements about revenues and internal controls were
incorrect based on the Company's March 2, 2020, disclosure that the
Audit Committee of its Board of Directors was conducting a review
of the appropriateness of revenue recognized in connection with
certain bulk resin purchases and sales of products through the
wholesale channel.

The complaints do not quantify a damage request.

Defendants have not yet responded to the complaints.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Cronos Group Inc. is an innovative global cannabinoid company with
international production and distribution across five continents.
The company is committed to building disruptive intellectual
property by advancing cannabis research, technology and product
development and are building an iconic brand portfolio. The company
is based in Ontario Canada.


CUDAHY PLACE: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Harwell-Payne Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLETTA HARWELL-PAYNE, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. CUDAHY PLACE SENIOR LIVING, LLC & MATTHEWS
SENIOR HOUSING, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00804 (W.D. Wis.,
Aug. 31, 2020), arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay
minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and Wisconsin Law.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a certified nurse's
assistant at their Cudahy Place. The Plaintiff asserts these
claims:

   -- Defendants automatically deducted a half-hour lunch from
      her checks throughout the entirety of her employment period
      despite not receiving an uninterrupted 30-minute lunch
      because she was being called back to work during her meal
      break;

   -- Defendants failed to pay commissions and training pay to
      employees who have successfully recruited new clients to
      move into the facility and trained new employees as per
      policy;

   -- Defendants inappropriately determined Plaintiff's recorded
      start times by rounding her punch times rather than
      rounding when she actually started working earlier; and

   -- Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff accurate overtime wages
      for all of her actual hours worked over 40 per week because
      Defendants failed to compute overtime pay using all
      compensation that Plaintiff received as well as all
      compensation she should have but did not receive, such as
      her commission pay and training pay.

Cudahy Place Senior Living LLC and Matthews Senior Housing LLC
offer care for seniors in an environment that feels like home.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yingtao Ho, Esq.
          THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM S.C.
          310 W. Wisconsin Ave., Suite 100MW
          Milwaukee, WI 53203
          Tel: 414-271-4500
          Fax: 414-271-6308
          Email: yh@previant.com


CUPERTINO ELECTRIC: Wittbecker Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as ROY WITTBECKER, on behalf of himself, and all
others similarly situated v. CUPERTINO ELECTRIC, INC. and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20CV368613, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, Santa Clara County, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
September 2, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-06217 to the proceeding.

The case alleges that the Defendants failed to provide legally
compliant disclosure and authorization forms to the Plaintiff and
the Class in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and
failed to provide the required meal and rest periods, failed to pay
vacation and hourly wages, failed to provide accurate written wage
statements, and failed to timely pay all final wages in violation
of California Labor Code.

Cupertino Electric, Inc., is an electrical engineering and
construction company headquartered in San Jose, California.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:             
  
         Marlene S. Muraco, Esq.
         Adam J. Fiss, Esq.
         Erik Christensen, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
         50 W. San Fernando, 7th Floor
         San Jose, CA 95113-2431
         Telephone: (408) 998-4150
         Facsimile: (408) 288-5686


CURALEAF INC: Brooks Class Suit Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
KATHERINE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CURALEAF, INC., Case No. 1:20-CV-06323-JSR
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 12, 2020), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice
of making unsolicited calls.

Curaleaf, Inc., operates as a biotechnology company. The Company
offers cannabinoid medicines formulated to exacting dosing and
standardization specifications and vaporizer drug delivery system
for smokeless and single-dose administration, as well as engages in
cultivating, manufacturing, dispensing, and laboratory testing
cannabinoid medicines.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Siddartha Rao, Esq.
          ROMANO LAW, PLLC
          55 Broad St., 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 865-9848
          E-mail: Sid@romanolaw.com

               - and -

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNIAN LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com


CVS HEALTH: Bid to Consolidate Analog Insulin Suits Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that motions to consolidate the putative class
action suits entitled, Rochester Drug Cooperative, Inc. v. Eli
Lilly and Co., et al. FWK Holdings, LLC v. Novo Nordisk, et al. and
Value Drug Company v. Eli Lilly & Co., et al. are pending.

This putative class action was filed in March 2020 against
Caremark, other pharmacy benefit managements (PBMs) and the
manufacturers of analog insulin products on behalf of purported
classes of direct purchasers of these products.

The complaint alleges violations of The Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and claims that rebate agreements
between the drug manufacturers and PBMs caused the direct
purchasers to pay inflated prices for these drug products.

Two nearly identical cases were separately filed in the same court
(FWK Holdings, LLC v. Novo Nordisk, et al. and Value Drug Company
v. Eli Lilly & Co., et al.), and motions to consolidate those
lawsuits with this case are pending.

The Company is defending itself against these claims.

CVS Health Corporation, incorporated on August 22, 1996, together
with its subsidiaries, is an integrated pharmacy healthcare
company. The Company provides pharmacy care for the senior
community through Omnicare, Inc. (Omnicare) and Omnicare's
long-term care (LTC) operations, which include distribution of
pharmaceuticals, related pharmacy consulting and other ancillary
services to chronic care facilities and other care settings. It
operates through three segments: Pharmacy Services, Retail/LTC
andCorporate. The company is based in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.


CVS HEALTH: Continues to Defend LTC Business Unit-Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend putative class
action suits related to the Company's LTC business unit, which
allegedly injured investors who acquired CVS Health securities
between February 9, 2016 and February 20, 2019.

Between February and August 2019, six class action complaints were
filed by putative plaintiffs against the Company and certain
current and former officers and directors: Anarkat v. CVS Health
Corp., et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode
Island); Labourers' Pension Fund of Central and Eastern Canada v.
CVS Health Corp., et al. (New York Supreme Court); City of Warren
Police and Fire Retirement Sys. v. CVS Health Corp., et. al. (Rhode
Island Superior Court); Cambria Co. Employees Retirement Sys. v.
CVS Health Corp., et al. (New York Supreme Court); Freundlich v.
CVS Health Corp., et al. (Rhode Island Superior Court); and
Waterford Twp. Police & Fire Retirement Sys. v. CVS Health Corp.,
et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island).

The plaintiffs in these cases assert a variety of causes of action
under federal securities laws that are premised on allegations that
the defendants made certain omissions and misrepresentations
relating to the performance of the Company's LTC business unit,
which allegedly injured investors who acquired CVS Health
securities between February 9, 2016 and February 20, 2019.

The Freundlich case also alleges that defendants misrepresented
anticipated synergies of the acquisition of Aetna (the "Aetna
Acquisition").

Plaintiffs in the Freundlich and the City of Warren cases have
filed a consolidated complaint that combines their allegations. The
Labourers' Pension Fund and Cambria County cases have been
consolidated into a single action based on the Labourers' Pension
Fund complaint.

The Company is defending itself against these claims.

CVS Health Corporation, incorporated on August 22, 1996, together
with its subsidiaries, is an integrated pharmacy healthcare
company. The Company provides pharmacy care for the senior
community through Omnicare, Inc. (Omnicare) and Omnicare's
long-term care (LTC) operations, which include distribution of
pharmaceuticals, related pharmacy consulting and other ancillary
services to chronic care facilities and other care settings. It
operates through three segments: Pharmacy Services, Retail/LTC
andCorporate. The company is based in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.


CYTOMX THERAPEUTICS: Defends CX-072 and CX-2009 Related Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
CytomX Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that the company is a defendant in a putative
securities class action suit related to the product candidates
CX-072 and CX-2009.

On May 21, 2020, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California naming as defendants the Company and three current and
former officers.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making false and misleading statements
and omissions of material fact related to the product candidates
CX-072 and CX-2009.

The plaintiff seeks to represent all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired CytomX securities between May 17, 2018, and May
13, 2020.

The plaintiff seeks damages and interest, and an award of costs,
including attorneys' fees.  

The Company believes the plaintiff's claims are without merit and
has not recorded any amount for claims associated with this lawsuit
as of June 30, 2020.

CytomX Therapeutics, Inc. operates as an oncology-focused
biopharmaceutical company. The Company focuses on developing
probody therapeutics for the treatment of cancer. CytomX
Therapeutics serves pharmaceutical industries throughout the United
States. The company is based in South San Francisco, California.


DAP PRODUCTS: Crystal Clear Sealant's Label Deceptive, Ehlis Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON EHLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DAP PRODUCTS, INC., Case No. 0:20-cv-01872 (D. Minn.,
Aug. 31, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for unfair or
deceptive trade practices, breach of express warranty, breach of
implied warranty, unjust enrichment and for violation of
Minnesota's Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, Uniform Deceptive
Trade Practices Act, Unlawful Trade Practices Act, and
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated consumers, alleges that the Defendant is engaged in false
and deceptive labeling, advertising, and marketing of DAP 3.0
Crystal Clear Kitchen, Bathroom and Plumbing Sealant. The Plaintiff
contends that the Defendant advertised and labeled the product as
crystal clear but, in reality, it turns yellow within several weeks
to months of its application. Despite numerous complaints about the
product's discoloration, the Defendant continues to market and
represent the sealant as clear, the Plaintiff adds.

As a result of the Defendant's deceptive practices, the Plaintiff
and Class members have been injured, according to the complaint.
Had the Defendant disclosed the true quality and coloration
characteristics of the DAP Clear Sealant, they would not have
purchased the sealant, or else would not have been willing to pay
as much for the sealant.

DAP Products, Inc., is a manufacturer of latex caulks, silicone
sealants, adhesives, insulating foams, and patch and repair
products. The Company is headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:             
  
         Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
         Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
         David A. Goodwin, Esq.
         Kaitlyn L. Dennis, Esq.
         GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
         Canadian Pacific Plaza
         120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Telephone: (612) 333-8844
         E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                 dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
                 dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
                 kdennis@gustafsongluek.com

                - and –

         Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
         Michael J. Laird, Esq.
         ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
         1100 IDS Center
         80 South 8th Street
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Telephone: (612) 341-0400
         E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
                 michael.laird@zimmreed.com


DAVID LAWRENCE: Sosa Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against David Lawrence
Holdings, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Yony Sosa, On Behalf of
Himself and All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. David Lawrence
Holdings, LLC, Feigenbaum Holdings, Ltd., Case No. 1:20-cv-07221
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 3, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: nyjg@aol.com


DAVID LEKACH: Parra Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as MAYELA ALEJANDRA PARRA SANCHEZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DAVID LEKACH,
Case No. 2020-001879-CC-24, was removed from the Florida Circuit
Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
August 28, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-23608 to the proceeding.

The case is brought over unpaid wages and for retaliation claims
asserted under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida Minimum
Wage Act.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:             
  
         Jonathan A. Beckerman, Esq.
         Miguel A. Morel, Esq.
         Christopher T. Perre, Esq.
         LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
         110 SE 6th Street, Suite 2600
         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
         Telephone: (954) 728-1280
         Facsimile: (954) 728-1282
         E-mail: Jonathan.Beckerman@lewisbrisbois.com
                 Miguel.Morel@lewisbrisbois.com
                 Christopher.Perre@lewisbrisbois.com


DENTSPLY SIRONA: Awaits Court Decision in Bid to Dismiss Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dentsply Sirona Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the company is still awaiting the decision of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on its
motion to dismiss the putative class action suit.

On December 19, 2018, a related putative class action was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
against the Company and certain individual defendants (the "Federal
Class Action"). The plaintiff makes similar allegations and asserts
the same claims as those asserted in the State Court Class Action.


In addition, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated
U.S. securities laws by making false and misleading statements in
quarterly and annual reports and other public statements between
February 20, 2014, and August 7, 2018.

The plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of a putative class
consisting of (a) all purchasers of the Company's stock during the
period February 20, 2014 through August 7, 2018 and (b) former
shareholders of Sirona who exchanged their shares of Sirona stock
for shares of the Company's stock in the Merger.

The Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint was served on
August 15, 2019. Briefing was completed on October 21, 2019 and the
Company is awaiting the decision of the Court.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Dentsply Sirona Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
various dental and oral health products, and other consumable
healthcare products primarily for the professional dental market
worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Technologies &
Equipment; and Consumables. The company was formerly known as
DENTSPLY International Inc. and changed its name to DENTSPLY SIRONA
Inc. in February 2016. DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc. was founded in 1899 and
is headquartered in York, Pennsylvania.


DENTSPLY SIRONA: Labor Lawsuits vs. Futuredontics Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dentsply Sirona Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend putative class
action suits initiated by Henry Olivares, Rachael Clarke, Calethia
Holt and Kendra Cato.

On January 25, 2018, Futuredontics, Inc., a former wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company, received service of a purported class
action lawsuit brought by Henry Olivares and other similarly
situated individuals in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles.

In January 2019, an amended complaint was filed adding another
named plaintiff, Rachael Clarke, and various claims. The plaintiff
class alleges several violations of the California wage and hours
laws, including, but not limited to, failure to provide rest and
meal breaks and the failure to pay overtime. The parties have
engaged in written and other discovery.

On February 5, 2019, Plaintiff Calethia Holt (represented by the
same counsel as Mr. Olivares and Ms. Clarke) filed a separate
representative action in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging a
single violation of the Private Attorneys' General Act that is
based on the same underlying claims as the Olivares/Clarke lawsuit.


On April 5, 2019, Plaintiff Kendra Cato filed a similar action in
Los Angeles Superior Court alleging a single violation of the
Private Attorneys' General Act that is based on the same underlying
claims as the Olivares/Clarke lawsuit.

The parties intend to participate in a mediation later in 2020 and
the case will be stayed until that time.

The Company continues to vigorously defend against these matters.

Dentsply Sirona Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
various dental and oral health products, and other consumable
healthcare products primarily for the professional dental market
worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Technologies &
Equipment; and Consumables. The company was formerly known as
DENTSPLY International Inc. and changed its name to DENTSPLY SIRONA
Inc. in February 2016. DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc. was founded in 1899 and
is headquartered in York, Pennsylvania.


DENVER, CO: Court Issues TRO in Abay Suit vs. Denver Police Dept.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AGAZI ABAY, GABRIEL THORN, AMY SCHNEIDER, and MICHAEL
McDANIEL, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF DENVER, Defendant, Civil Action
No. 20-cv-01616-RBJ (D. Colo.), Judge R. Brooke Jackson of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado granted in part the
named Plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order.

On May 28, 2020, citizens of Denver, Colorado, joined a nationwide
expression of outrage at the death of George Floyd and other acts
of violence perpetrated by police officers against the African
American community.  Though much of the demonstrations have
remained peaceful, violence and destruction has occurred at the
hands of citizens and police officers alike.

The Plaintiffs challenge the Denver Police Department's ("DPD") use
of chemical agents (including mace/oleoresin capsicum spray or
mist/pepper spray/pepper gas, tear gas, skunk, inert smoke, pepper
pellets, xylyl bromide) and rubber projectiles on protestors
participating in these demonstrations.  They sue on behalf of
themselves and similarly situated individuals, alleging that during
these demonstrations the Denver police have in some instances
violated their First Amendment right to free speech and their
Fourth Amendment right against excessive force by using pepper
spray, pepper balls, rubber bullets, flashbang grenades, and tear
gas to punish the Plaintiffs for demonstrating against police
brutality.

The Court has reviewed video evidence of numerous incidents in
which officers used pepper-spray on individual demonstrators who
appeared to be standing peacefully, some of whom were speaking to
or yelling at the officers, none of whom appeared to be engaging in
violence or destructive behavior.  The Plaintiffs cite video
evidence of officers using projectiles on several journalists in
the process of documenting the scene.  They cite video evidence in
which a projectile struck and knocked out a peaceful protestor.
After a "medic" protestor attempts to rescue the unconscious
protestor the medic is subsequently shot with projectiles.

The Plaintiffs further cite video evidence of four incidents in
which police projectiles struck the eyes of peaceful demonstrators,
in some cases resulting in facial fractures, in some cases
resulting in permanent loss of vision.  Finally, they cite video
evidence of three incidents in which officers threw tear gas or
shot pepper balls into peaceful crowds.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's use of such force has
resulted in injuries including loss of vision, fractured bones
requiring surgery, deep lacerations, loss of eyes, ruptured
testicles.  They further allege that officers have targeted
peaceful protestors, journalists, and protest "medics" and have
retaliated against demonstrators for engaging in demonstrations,
and sometimes for expressing anti-law enforcement.  The Plaintiffs
allege that the use of force against peaceful protestors and others
is sometimes intentional and that officers target projectiles at
demonstrators' heads and groins.

The Plaintiffs filed a complaint in Denver District Court on June
4, 2020.  The Defendant removed to the Colorado District Court.
The Plaintiffs' complaint alleges two causes of action premised on
42 U.S.C. Section 1983.  First, they allege that the Defendant
violated their Fourth Amendment right against excessive force.
Second, they allege that the Defendant violated their First
Amendment right to free speech.  

The matter is before the court on the Plaintiffs' request for a TRO
to enjoin defendant the City and County of Denver -- specifically
the DPD and the police officers from other local jurisdictions from
whom Denver has requested assistance in responding to the protests
that have arisen following the George Floyd incident in Minneapolis
-- from using chemical agents or certain physical force against
individuals engaged in demonstration activities, documentation of
the demonstration and police activities, or the treatment of
injured demonstrators.

In issuing the relief, Judge Jackson does not seek to prevent
officers from protecting themselves or their community.  The Judge
seeks to balance citizens' constitutional rights against officers'
ability to do their job.  However, the time is past to rely solely
on the good faith and discretion of the DPD and its colleagues from
other jurisdictions.  The Judge believes in everything that
Commander Phelan testified during the hearing about the duty of the
police to protect the rights of citizens who demonstrate and
protest.  However, the DPD has failed in its duty to police its
own.

For these reasons, Judge Jackson granted in part the Plaintiffs'
motion for a temporary restraining order.  The Judge temporarily
enjoined the City and County of Denver, and specifically the DPD
and the officers from other jurisdictions who are assisting Denver
Police Officers, from employing chemical weapons or projectiles of
any kind against persons engaging in peaceful protests or
demonstrations.  To be better assure that the idealistic order is
carried out, the Judge temporarily enjoined the DPD and the
officers from other jurisdictions working with DPD officers from
using chemical weapons or projectiles unless an on-scene supervisor
at the rank of Captain or above specifically authorizes such use of
force in response to specific acts of violence or destruction of
property that the command officer has personally witnessed.

The Judge further ordered that Kinetic Impact Projectiles ("KIPs")
and all other non- or less-lethal projectiles may never be
discharged to target the head, pelvis, or back.  KIPs and all other
non- or less-lethal projectiles will not be shot indiscriminately
into a crowd.

The Non-Denver officers will not use any demonstration of force or
weapon beyond what Denver itself authorizes for its own officers.
Any non-Denver officer permitted to or directed to be deployed to
the demonstrations will be considered an agent of Denver such that
Denver will ensure such officer is limiting their use of force to
that authorized by the Defendant.

All officers deployed to the demonstrations or engaged in the
demonstrations must have their body-worn cameras recording at all
times, and they may not intentionally obstruct the camera or
recording.

Chemical agents or irritants (including pepper spray and tear gas)
may only be used after an order to disperse is issued.

Any and all orders to disperse must be followed with adequate time
for the intended audience to comply, and officers must leave room
for safe egress.  If it appears that the intended audience was
unable to hear the order, the order must be repeated prior to the
use of chemical agents or irritants.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 5, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/CUJw3y from Leagle.com.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 14 Motion Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Deutsche Bank
Aktiengesellschaft (NYSE: DB).
Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case
can be found at the link provided.

Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft (NYSE: DB)

Class Period: November 7, 2017 to July 6, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 14, 2020

On May 13, 2020, media outlets reported that the U.S. Federal
Reserve had sharply criticized Deutsche Bank's U.S. operations in
an internal audit. The audit reportedly found that Deutsche Bank
had failed to address multiple concerns identified years earlier,
including concerns related to the bank's anti-money laundering
("AML") and other control procedures.

On this news, the value of Deutsche Bank's ordinary shares fell
$0.31 per share, or 4.49%, to close at $6.60 per share on May 13,
2020.

Then, on July 7, 2020, the Federal Reserve's criticism of Deutsche
Bank's failure to address its AML and other issues was reaffirmed
when the New York State Department of Financial Services fined the
bank $150 million for neglecting to flag numerous questionable
transactions from accounts associated with sex-offender Jeffrey
Epstein and with two correspondent banks, Danske Estonia and FBME
Bank, both of which were the subjects of prior scandals involving
financial misconduct.

On this news, the value of Deutsche Bank's ordinary shares fell
$0.13 per share, or 1.31%, to close at $9.82 per share on July 7,
2020

The complaint, filed on July 15, 2020, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the bank's business, operational, and
compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Deutsche
Bank had failed to remediate deficiencies related to AML, its
disclosure controls, and procedures and internal control over
financial reporting, and its U.S. operations' troubled condition;
(ii) as a result, the bank failed to properly monitor customers
that the bank itself deemed to be high risk; (iii) the foregoing,
once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material negative
impact on the bank's financial results and reputation; and (iv) as
a result, the bank's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the Deutsche Bank class action go to:
https://bespc.com/DB

               About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York and California. The firm represents
individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities,
derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal
courts across the country. For more information about the firm,
please visit www.bespc.com.  Attorney advertising.  Prior results
do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contact Information:

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]


DEUTSCHE BANK: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Sept. 14 Bid Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Deutsche Bank
Aktiengesellschaft ("Deutsche Bank" or the "Bank") (NYSE: DB) and
certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired Deutsche Bank securities between
November 7, 2017, and July 6, 2020, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by
visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/db.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Deutsche Bank had failed to remediate
deficiencies related to AML, its disclosure controls, procedures,
and internal control over financial reporting, and its U.S.
operations' troubled condition; (2) as a result, the Bank failed to
properly monitor customers that the Bank itself deemed to be high
risk, including, among others, the convicted sex offender Jeffrey
Epstein ("Epstein") and two correspondent banks, Danske Estonia and
FBME Bank, which were both the subjects of prior scandals involving
financial misconduct; (3) the foregoing, once revealed, was
foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on the Bank's
financial results and reputation; and (4) as a result, the Bank's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On May 13, 2020, media outlets reported that the Federal Reserve
had sharply criticized Deutsche Bank's U.S. operations in an
internal audit. The audit reportedly found that Deutsche Bank had
failed to address multiple concerns identified years earlier,
including concerns related to the Bank's AML and other control
procedures. Following this news, the value of Deutsche Bank's
ordinary shares fell $0.31 per share, or 4.49%, to close at $6.60
per share on May 13, 2020.

Then, on July 7, 2020, the Federal Reserve's criticism of Deutsche
Bank's failure to address its AML and other issues was reaffirmed
when the New York State Department of Financial Services fined the
Bank $150 million for neglecting to flag numerous questionable
transactions from accounts associated with Epstein and with two
correspondent banks, Danske Estonia and FBME Bank, both of which
were the subjects of prior scandals involving financial misconduct.
Following this news, the value of Deutsche Bank's ordinary shares
fell $0.13 per share, or 1.31%, to close at $9.82 per share on July
7, 2020.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/db or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Deutsche
Bank you have until September 14, 2020 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.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.

Contact:

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]


DEVA CONCEPTS: Bell Suit Moved From W.D. Missouri to S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as JULIE BELL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. DEVA CONCEPTS, LLC, d/b/a DEVACURL,
Case No. 4:20-cv-00541, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Missouri to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on September 2, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-07136-UA to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged false and deceptive
advertising, labeling, and marketing of DevaCurl hair products.

Deva Concepts, LLC, d/b/a DevaCurl, is a manufacturer of hair care
products.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          

         Robert H. Bernstein, Esq.
         GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
         500 Campus Drive, Suite 400
         Florham Park, NJ 07932
         Telephone: (973) 360-7900
         E-mail: bernsteinrob@gtlaw.com


DIXIE GROUP: Continues to Defend Johnson Class Suit in Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Dixie Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 27, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action
suit entitled, Jarrod Johnson v. 3M Company, et al., Civil Action
No. 19-CV-02448-JFL-003.

The lawsuit in Georgia was originally filed on November 26, 2019
and is presented as a class action lawsuit by and on behalf of a
class of persons who obtain drinking water from the City of Rome,
Georgia and the Floyd County Water Department (and similarly
situated persons) (generally, for these purposes, residents of
Floyd County) (styled Jarrod Johnson v. 3M Company, et al., Civil
Action No. 19-CV-02448-JFL-003) (the "Class Action Lawsuit").

On January 10, 2020, the Class Action Lawsuit was removed to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
Rome Division (styled Jarrod Johnson v. 3M Company, et al Civil
Action No. 4:20-CV-0008-AT).

The plaintiffs in this case allege their damages include without
limitation the surcharges incurred for the costs of partially
filtering the chemicals from their drinking water.

The Complaint requests a jury trial and asserts damages unspecified
in amount, in addition to requests for injunctive relief.

The Company has filed a response to the Complaint, intends to
defend the matter vigorously, and is unable to estimate its
potential exposure, if any, at this time.

The Dixie Group, Inc. manufactures, markets, and sells floor
covering products for residential and commercial applications
primarily in the United States. The company was founded in 1920 and
is based in Dalton, Georgia.


EASTMAN KODAK: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP (www.kaplanfox.com) has filed a class
action suit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Eastman Kodak Company ("Kodak" or the
"Company") (NYSE: KODK) and James V. Continenza ("Continenza"),
Executive Chairman of Kodak ("Defendants").

The Complaint alleges that Defendants violated 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, and is brought by plaintiffs on behalf of all persons
and entities who purchased or sold the publicly traded securities
of Kodak from July 27, 2020 through August 11, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), and were damaged thereby.

If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the court
no later than October 13, 2020 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the
proposed Class.  You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff in
order to share in any possible recovery.

The complaint alleges that on July 27, 2020 according to The Wall
Street Journal, Kodak released information to local reporters in
Rochester, New York with no embargo time on the news advisory
regarding a new manufacturing initiative that "could change the
course of history for Rochester and the American people."  On July
27, 2020, Kodak's shares increased in price by nearly 25% on
unusually heavy trading volume of over 1.645 million shares to
close at $2.62 per share.

The complaint also alleges that on July 27, 2020, unknown to
investors, Kodak granted its Executive Chairman and CEO, Defendant
Continenza, 1.75 million stock options at a conversion price of
between $3.03 and $12 per share.

Then, on July 28, 2020, before the market opened, the Company
announced that it was selected to receive a $765 million
transformative loan from the U.S. International Development Finance
Corporation ("DFC") under the Defense Production Act to produce
pharmaceutical materials, including ingredients for COVID-19 drugs
(the "$765 million DFC Loan" or "Loan").  Among other things, the
Company announced that "Kodak is expanding its traditional product
line to support the national response to COVID-19 by bolstering
domestic production and supply chains of key strategic resources"
and "DFC's loan will accelerate Kodak's time to market by
supporting startup costs needed to repurpose and expand the
company's existing facilities in Rochester, New York and St. Paul,
Minnesota, including by incorporating continuous manufacturing and
advanced technology capabilities."  These statements and others
made by the Defendants represented to investors that the $765
million Loan from the government was a done deal.

In reaction to the July 28, 2020 news that Kodak was forming a new
business unit to produce essential pharmaceutical components funded
by the $765 million DFC loan, Kodak's shares soared, reaching an
intra-day high of $11.80 per share, 350% greater than the closing
price the prior trading day, and closed at $7.94 per share on
unusually heavy trading volume of over 284 million shares, about
203% higher than the closing price of $2.62 per share on July 27,
2020.

Then, on July 29, 2020 before the market opened, Defendant
Continenza was interviewed on CNBC's Squawk Box during which he
touted the loan and the Company's shift to producing the
ingredients for COVID-19 drugs.  Among other things, Defendant
Continenza stated that he was "very comfortable that we can bank on
[the loan]," that Kodak's new business unit based on the $765
million DFC Loan would be profitable, that the Loan had been a
"tight-kept secret" up until July 28, 2020, and that he had no
explanation for the surge in trading volume from about 74,000 on
Friday, July 24, 2020 to more than 1.64 million on Monday,
July 27, 2020.

In reaction to Defendant Continenza's July 29, 2020 statements
touting the Loan and the fact that investors can "bank on it,"
Kodak's shares skyrocketed further, reaching an intra-day high of
$60 per share on July 29, 2020 on unusually heavy trading volume of
over 276 million shares, and closed up $25.26 per share at $33.20
per share, 318% greater than the closing price of $7.94 per share
on July 28, 2020.  

The complaint alleges that the Defendants' statements throughout
the Class Period were materially false and/or misleading, and
failed to disclose that (1) prior to the formal announcement of the
Loan and during what should have been a black-out period for
insider stock activity, Defendant Continenza was granted 1.75
million options and other insiders were engaging in
suspiciously-timed transactions based on material non-public
information, (2) the Defendants had improperly leaked the
information to the market on July 27, 2020 before the official
announcement and actively engaged in a cover-up scheme, (3) the
status and likelihood of the $765 million DFC Loan was
misrepresented to the market for many reasons, particularly given
the Company's wrongful behavior in terms of secretly granting
options to Defendant Continenza and other insider transactions
while in possession of material non-public information, as well as
improperly leaking the news and engaging in a cover up scheme of
these facts, and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
statements about Kodak's business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

According to the complaint, the truth came to light through a
series of partial revelations starting with the publication of an
article by The Wall Street Journal after the market closed on July
29, 2020 reporting that Kodak had leaked news of the $765 million
DFC Loan to certain media outlets on July 27, 2020, after which the
Company sought to cover up its mistake by secretly attempting to
retract those stories.  Following the after-market July 29 news,
Kodak's stock price declined more than 10% during trading on July
30, 2020 and then declined by approximately 27% on July 31, 2020 to
close at $21.85 per share.

Further, the complaint alleges that following reports over the
weekend of August 1-2, 2020, that Defendant Continenza had secretly
been granted 1.75 million options on July 27, 2020, just prior to
the announcement of the loan, Kodak's stock price fell 31.6% to
close at $14.94 per share on August 3, 2020.

Further, following reports on August 4, 2020, that Senator
Elizabeth Warren had asked U.S. regulators to examine alleged
insider trading and disclosure violations prior to Kodak's July 28,
2020 announcement of the $765 million DFC Loan, as well as other
news that the SEC had already started investigating Kodak, Kodak's
shares fell $0.54 per share, about 3.6%, to close at $14.40 per
share on August 4, 2020.

Further, on August 7, 2020, before the market opened, Kodak
announced that its Board had opened an internal review of the
disclosure of the $765 million DFC Loan, after which Kodak's shares
fell 7.6% to close at $14.88 per share on August 7, 2020.

The complaint also alleges that on August 7, 2020, after the market
closed, the DFC issued a tweet indicating that the $765 million
Loan to Kodak had been put on hold in light of the allegations of
wrongdoing.  On August 10, 2020, the first trading day following
the news, Kodak's shares fell by $4.15 per share, nearly 28%, to
close at $10.73 per share.  Kodak's shares continued to decline the
next trading day, falling by 6.7% to close at $10.01 per share on
August 11, 2020.

Finally, the complaint alleges that on August 11, 2020, after the
market closed, in connection with the Company's release of its
financial results for the second quarter, Kodak held a conference
call during which Defendant Continenza repeatedly referred to the
Loan as a "potential loan", in stark contrast to his statements on
July 29, 2020 that the Loan was effectively a done deal.  Following
this news, Kodak's shares declined farther by an additional 2.9% to
close at $9.72 per share on August 12, 2020.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of the proposed Class
and are represented by Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
(www.kaplanfox.com).  Our firm, with offices in New York, Oakland,
Los Angeles, Chicago, and New Jersey, has decades of experience in
prosecuting investor class actions and actions involving violations
of the Federal securities laws.

If you have any questions about this Notice, the action, your
rights, or your interests, or would like a copy of the complaint,
please e-mail pmayer@kaplanfox.com or call (646) 315-9003, or
contact the attorneys below:

Frederic S. Fox
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
New York, New York 10022
(646) 315-9003
E-mail: ffox@kaplanfox.com

Donald R. Hall
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
New York, New York 10022
(646) 315-9003
E-mail: dhall@kaplanfox.com [GN]


EASTMAN KODAK: Schall Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
-------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Aug. 25 announced the filing of a class-action lawsuit against
Eastman Kodak Company ("Kodak" or "the Company") (NYSE:KODK) 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 July 27,
2020 and August 7, 2020, inclusive (the ''Class Period''), are
encouraged to contact the firm before October 13, 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. Kodak failed to disclose that it had
granted insiders stocks options worth millions just before the
public announcement of a $765 million loan from the U.S.
International Development Finance Corporation to develop medicines
to treat COVID-19, an announcement which the Company knew would
immediately increase the value of its shares. Kodak insiders also
purchased tens of thousands of shares before the announcement,
acting on the news before it went public. Based on these facts, the
Company's public statements were false and materially misleading.
When the market learned the truth about Kodak, 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.
310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com
www.schallfirm.com [GN]


EDDIE BAUER: Court Decertifies Class in Heredia Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEPHANIE HEREDIA, Plaintiff, v. EDDIE BAUER LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-06236-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth Labson
Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, (1) terminated as moot the
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Against the Certified
Class, (2) granted the Defendant's Motion for Decertification, and
(3) denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Modify Class Definition.

The matter is a wage and hour class action against the well-known
outdoor lifestyle brand Eddie Bauer, alleging that the company
failed to compensate its hourly employees for time spent undergoing
off-the-clock "exit inspections" of employees' personal belongings
before leaving the store.  Plaintiff Heredia worked as a sales
associate at an Eddie Bauer retail store in Gilroy, California from
November 2013 to March 2016.  During that time, she alleges that
she was required to undergo inspections of her personal
belongings—otherwise known as "bag checks" or "security
inspections" -- whenever she left the store.

On Jan. 10, 2018, the Court certified a class of all current and
former non-exempt retail store employees who were employed by
Defendant in the State of California at any time from Sept. 28,
2012 through the present.

Before the Court are three related motions: (1) Defendant's Motion
for Summary Judgment, (2) the Defendant's Motion for
Decertification, and (3) the Plaintiff's Motion to Modify Class
Definition.

Judge Freeman finds that the Plaintiff's Motion to Modify Class
Definition appropriate for disposition without oral argument.
Accordingly, the Judge vacated the hearing set for Jan. 23, 2020.

Eddie Bauer has challenged the certified class in two motions: (1)
Motion for Summary Judgment Against the Certified Class and (2)
Motion for Decertification.  Heredia opposes both motions and has
filed her own motion seeking to modify the class definition.

Judge Freeman agrees with Eddie Bauer -- and Heredia concedes --
that the certified class cannot be maintained based on the current
record, because the class members did not experience a uniform
policy of off-the-clock exit inspections.  The record now shows
that some class members (the majority) experienced exit inspections
on the clock and some class members (the minority) experienced exit
inspections off the clock.  It is impossible to know, without
individualized inquiries, which employees have undergone exit
inspections off the clock and were subjected to uncompensated time.
She also finds that the question of whether all class members were
subject to off-the-clock exit inspections resulting in
uncompensated time cannot be resolved in one stroke.  Finally, the
Judge agrees with Eddie Bauer that the conflicting evidence
regarding on and off the clock exit inspections warrants
decertification.

Based on the current record, the class as certified does not
satisfy the Rule 23 requirements.  Thus, the Defendant's Motion for
Decertification will be granted.

At a December 2019 hearing, Heredia moved the Court to strike the
evidence submitted in Eddie Bauer's reply in support of its Motion
for Decertification, namely the Supplemental Declaration of Mike
Barnes.  The Judge has not considered or relied on Mr. Barnes'
declaration and thus will terminate the Plaintiff's motion to
strike as moot.

In connection with her opposition to Eddie Bauer's Motion for
Decertification, Heredia filed a request for judicial notice of (1)
Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins' Order Granting Plaintiff
Eric Chavez's Motion for Class Certification in Chavez v. Converse,
Inc., and (2) The Order After Hearing on March 18, 2016 in the
matter of Diller v. Under Armour Retail, Inc. et al.  Eddie Bauer
does not oppose Heredia's request for judicial notice.  Courts may
properly take judicial notice of "matters of public record" that
are not "subject to reasonable dispute."  

The Judge finds that the requested documents are properly subject
to judicial notice.  Judge Freeman will grant Heredia's request for
judicial notice of the stated documents.

In its Motion for Summary Judgment Against the Certified Class,
Eddie Bauer relied on Mr. Crandall's "time and motion" study and
class member depositions to argue that the certified class cannot
meet its burden to show that all class members were subject to exit
inspections off the clock.   Eddie Bauer further argued that the
time spent off the clock was not 'regular' because the majority of
exit inspections occurred while still on the clock, and the
minority of exit inspections off the clock were still merely
seconds of time -- which, according to Eddie Bauer, is not
compensable under California Supreme Court's decision in Troester
v. Starbucks Corp., as modified on denial of reh'g.

The Judge finds that the certified class against which Eddie Bauer
sought summary judgment is now decertified.  Thus, all issues
presented in Eddie Bauer's motion for summary judgment are resolved
and the motion will be terminated as moot.

Finally, Heredia seeks to modify the class definition (1) in her
opposition to Eddie Bauer's Motion for Decertification and (2) in a
Motion to Modify Class Definition.  She proposes to redefine the
class period to end on Dec. 31, 2016 (instead of through the
present).  Her proposal is premised on her allegation that "around
the beginning of 2017" and in response to the filing of the lawsuit
in September 2016, Eddie Bauer changed its practice (but not its
written policy) to require bag checks to be conducted on the clock.
See

The Judge finds that Heredia does not offer any direct evidence of
this alleged change in practice but instead relies on certain
deposition testimony and two emails from an Eddie Bauer executive
(emphasizing that bag checks must be done on the clock) to argue
that a change may be inferred.  For the purposes of deciding the
Plaintiff's Motion to Modify Class Definition, the Judge need not
(and does not) decide whether, in fact, Eddie Bauer's practice
regarding exit inspection changed.  This is because even if Eddie
Bauer's bag check practices changed as Heredia suggests, Heredia's
proposed redefined class period suffers from the same deficiencies,
albeit to a lesser degree, as the class originally certified.  For
these reasons, the Plaintiff's Motion to Modify Class Definition
will be denied.

In light of the foregoing, Judge Freeman granted the Defendant's
Motion for Decertification.  With the class decertified, the Judge
terminated as moot the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
Against the Certified Class.  Additionally, Judge Freeman denied
the Plaintiff's Motion to Modify Class Definition.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/e949hk from Leagle.com.

Stephanie Heredia, as an individual and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Kristen Michelle
Agnew -- kagnew@diversitylaw.com -- Diversity Law Group, APC,
Larry W. Lee -- lwlee@diversitylaw.com -- Diversity Law Group,
P.C. & William Lucas Marder -- bill@polarislawgroup.com --
Polaris Law Group, LLP.

Eddie Bauer LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant,
represented by Jonathan Douglas Meer, -- jmeer@seyfarth.com --
Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Michael Afar -- mafar@seyfarth.com --
Seyfarth Shaw LLP.


ELEVATE CREDIT: Rise Credit Unit Faces Class Suit in Washington
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elevate Credit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that Rise Credit Service of Texas, LLC d/b/a Rise,
Opportunity Financial, LLC, a company wholly owned subsidiary, is
facing a class action suit in Washington State.

On January 27, 2020, Sopheary Sanh filed a class action complaint
in the Western District Court in the state of Washington against
Rise Credit Service of Texas, LLC d/b/a Rise, Opportunity
Financial, LLC and Applied Data Finance, LLC d/b/a Personify
Financial.

The Plaintiff in the case claims that Rise and others are engaged
in "predatory lending practices that target financially vulnerable
consumers" and have violated Washington's Consumer Protection Act
by engaging in unfair or deceptive practices, and seeks class
certification, injunctive relief to prevent solicitation of
consumers to apply for loans, monetary damages and other
appropriate relief, including an award of costs, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees.

Elevate disagrees that it has violated the above referenced law and
it intends to vigorously defend its position.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Elevate Credit, Inc. provide online credit solutions to consumers
and banks in the United States (the "US") and the United Kingdom
(the "UK") who are not well-served by traditional bank products and
who are looking for better options than payday loans, title loans,
pawn and storefront installment loans. The company is based in
Forth Worth, Texas.


EMERALD HOLDING: Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan Closed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Emerald Holding, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that the Court has entered an
order closing the putative class action suit entitled, Steamfitters
Local 449 Pension Plan v. Gilis et al., C.A. No. 2020-0522-JRS.  

On June 26, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Emerald
Holding, Inc. and its directors, under the caption Steamfitters
Local 449 Pension Plan v. Gilis et al., C.A. No. 2020-0522-JRS.  

The complaint alleged that the disclosures made in Emerald's Form
S-3 Registration Statement filed with the SEC on June 19, 2020,
regarding the rights offering described therein, omitted certain
material information.

The Action sought, among other forms of relief, an injunction
against the rights offering.  

On July 2, 2020, Emerald issued a Form 8-K containing supplemental
disclosures that mooted the allegations in the Action and stating
Emerald's belief that such disclosures were not legally required or
material.  

On July 17, 2020, the Court entered an order dismissing the Action
as moot and retaining jurisdiction solely for the purpose of
adjudicating the anticipated application of plaintiff's counsel for
an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.  

Emerald subsequently agreed to pay  $390,000 in attorneys' fees and
expenses to plaintiff's counsel in full satisfaction of the claim
for attorneys' fees and expenses in the Action.  

On August 6, 2020, the Court entered an order closing the case,
subject to Emerald filing an affidavit with the Court confirming
that this notice has been issued.  

In entering the order, the Court was not asked to review, and did
not pass judgment on, the payment of the attorneys' fees and
expenses or their reasonableness.

Emerald Holding, Inc. organizes business to business trade shows.
The Company operates live events, as well as offers other marketing
services, including digital media and print publications. Emerald
Expositions Events serves sports, technology, jewelry,
construction, and other sectors in the United States. The company
is based in San Juan Capistrano, California.


ENDO INT'L: Awaits Court Approval of Makris Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the parties in the case, Phaedra A. Makris v.
Endo International plc, Rajiv Kanishka Liyanaarchchie de Silva and
Suketu P. Upadhyay, have reached a settlement in principle, which
has been submitted for court approval.

In April 2017, a putative class action entitled Phaedra A. Makris
v. Endo International plc, Rajiv Kanishka Liyanaarchchie de Silva
and Suketu P. Upadhyay was filed in the Superior Court of Justice
in Ontario, Canada by an individual shareholder on behalf of
herself and similarly-situated Canadian-based investors who
purchased Endo's securities between January 11 and May 5, 2016.

The statement of claim sought class certification, declaratory
relief, damages, interest and costs based on alleged violations of
the Ontario Securities Act arising out of alleged negligent
misrepresentations concerning the Company's revenues, profit
margins and earnings per share; its receipt of a subpoena from the
state of Connecticut regarding doxycycline hyclate, amitriptyline
hydrochloride, doxazosin mesylate, methotrexate sodium and
oxybutynin chloride; and the erosion of the Company's U.S. generic
pharmaceuticals business.

In January 2019, plaintiff amended her statement of claim to add a
claim on behalf of herself and similarly-situated Canadian
investors who purchased Endo's securities between January 11, 2016
and June 8, 2017, based on our decision to voluntarily remove
reformulated OPANA(R) ER from the market.

In April 2020, the parties reached a settlement in principle, which
has been submitted for court approval.

The amount of the settlement is not material to the Company and is
expected to be funded by the Company's insurers.

Endo International plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company,
manufactures and sells generic and branded pharmaceuticals in the
United States, Canada, and internationally. The company operates
through three segments: U.S. Generic Pharmaceuticals, U.S. Branded
Pharmaceuticals, and International Pharmaceuticals. Endo
International plc was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in
Dublin, Ireland.


ENVESTNET INC: Faces Data Security Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Peter Hayes, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Envestnet Inc.
and its subsidiary, financial data aggregator Yodlee Inc., are
facing a proposed class action over the alleged failure to
safeguard customer data, including sharing it in unencrypted
files.

The proposed class members are at "significant risk of fraud and
identity theft," due to Yodlee's failure to take even the most
basic steps to protect this highly sensitive data, such as
requiring a password to open the files, the complaint filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
alleges. [GN]


ESSENTIAL UTILITIES: Discovery Ongoing in Suit Over Water Advisory
------------------------------------------------------------------
Essential Utilities, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the putative
class action suit related to the "do not consume" water advisory.

During a portion of 2019, the Company initiated a do not consume
advisory for some of its water customers in one division served by
the Company's Illinois subsidiary.  Although the Company had
determined that it is reasonably possible that a fine or penalty
may be incurred, it cannot estimate the possible range of loss at
this time and no liability has been accrued for these future costs.


In addition, on September 3, 2019, two individuals, on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated, commenced an action
against the Company's Illinois subsidiary in the State court in
Will County, Illinois related to this do not consume advisory.  

The complaint seeks class action certification, attorney's fees,
and "damages, including, but not limited to, out of pocket damages,
and discomfort, aggravation, and annoyance" based upon the water
provided by the Company's subsidiary to a discrete service area in
University Park Illinois.  

The complaint contains allegations of damages as a result of
supplied water that exceeded the standards established by the
federal Lead and Copper Rule. The complaint is in the discovery
phase and class certification has not been granted.  

The Company plans to vigorously defend against this claim.  A claim
for the expenses incurred related to such claim has been submitted
to the Company's insurance carrier for potential recovery of a
portion of these costs, and subsequent to June 30, 2020, on August
3, 2020, the Company received $2,874 in insurance proceeds.  

The Company continues to assess the potential loss contingency on
this matter.  

Essential Utilities said, "While the final outcome of this claim
cannot be predicted with certainty, and unfavorable outcomes could
negatively impact the Company, at this time in the opinion of
management, the final resolution of this matter is not expected to
have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position,
results of operations or cash flows."  

Essential Utilities, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, is the
holding company for regulated utilities providing water,
wastewater, or natural gas services to what we estimate to be
almost five million people in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, Illinois,
North Carolina, New Jersey, Indiana, Virginia, West Virginia, and
Kentucky under the Aqua and Peoples brands.


EVERSOURCE ENERGY: Faces Corcoran Suit Alleging ERISA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL CORCORAN; CUMALT T. GRAY; KRISTINE T. TORRANCE; and MICHAEL J.
HUSHION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EVERSOURCE ENERGY SERVICE COMPANY; THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF EVERSOURCE ENERGY SERVICE COMPANY; and THE INVESTMENT
MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE, Case No 3:20-cv-01154 (D. Conn., Aug. 11,
2020), alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974.

According to the complaint, at all times during August 11, 2014,
through the date of judgment ("Class Period"), the Eversource 401k
Plan (the "Plan") had at least $2.7 billion dollars in assets under
management. At the end of 2017 and 2018, the Plan had over $3.2
billion dollars and $3.0 billion dollars, respectively, in assets
under management that were/are entrusted to the care of the Plan's
fiduciaries. The Plan's assets under management qualify it as a
jumbo plan in the defined contribution plan marketplace, and among
the largest plans in the U.S. As a jumbo plan, the Plan had
substantial bargaining power regarding the fees and expenses that
were charged against participants' investments.

The Defendants, however, did not try to reduce the Plan's expenses
or exercise appropriate judgment to scrutinize each investment
option that was offered in the Plan to ensure it was prudent, the
Plaintiffs allege.

Eversource Energy is a public utility holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, provides electric service to customers in
Connecticut, New Hampshire, and western Massachusetts. Eversource
Energy also distributes natural gas throughout Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Jeffrey Hellman, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY HELLMAN, LLC
         195 Church Street, 10th Floor
         New Haven, CT 06510
         Telephone: (203) 691-8762
         Facsimile: (203) 823-4401
         E-mail: jeff@jeffhallmanlaw.com

              - and -

         Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
         CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
         2933 North Front Street
         Harrisburg, PA 17110
         Telephone: (717) 233-4101
         Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
         E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com

              - and -

         Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
         CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
         312 Old Lancaster Road
         Merion Station, PA 19066
         Telephone: (610) 890-0200
         Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
         E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com


EXPEDIA INC: Mahoney WCPA Class Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as DANIEL MAHONEY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. EXPEDIA, INC., Case No.
20-2-11848-6 SEA, was removed from the Superior Court of Washington
for King County to the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington on August 28, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-01296-TSZ to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Washington Consumer Protection Act by failing to provide refunds to
its customers, including the Plaintiff, for cancelled flights in
the spring of 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Expedia, Inc., is an online travel company with its principal place
of business located in Seattle, Washington.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:             
  
         Brendan T. Mangan, Esq.
         Zana Bugaighis, Esq.
         DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
         920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
         Seattle, WA 98104-1610
         Telephone: (206) 622-3150
         Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
         E-mail: brendanmangan@dwt.com
                 zanabugahighs@dwt.com


FACEBOOK INC: Sponsored Stories Class Action Move to Next Phase
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Gibson, writing for Castanet, reports that a lawsuit launched
against Facebook by a British Columbia woman is progressing to the
next phase according to one of the lawyers representing the
class-action lawsuit.

Deborah Douez claims the social media giant used her image and
those of others without their knowledge in a "sponsored stories"
advertising campaign that ran between January 2011 and May 2014,
but has now been discontinued.

The program worked along the lines of an 'influencer campaign,' and
if someone liked a product under the program, Facebook generated a
news feed endorsement using the person's name, profile and photo.
But they neglected to tell the person their image was being used.

The case has already been expanded to include residents of
Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador who claim
their images were used without their knowledge during the
campaign.

"The case has been certified, but now we have to get the actual
hearing of the case on merit. At this point there have not been any
decisions on the merit of the claim," Christopher Rhone, partner at
Branch MacMaster LLP, tells Castanet.

A new round of notification emails were sent out. If you or someone
you know received one it means there is a possibility that your
account may have been used in the program.

"The purpose of the latest round of emails is to give people
notified the opportunity to 'opt-out' of the class action
lawsuit."

Rhone says people don't need to do anything if they receive and
email notification unless they want to op-out of the lawsuit. "If
somebody feels they have suffered some massive damage, they may
want to commence their own lawsuit."

The lawsuit has been a long time in the making but has been
approved for trial in 2021.

"In our view Facebook has breached the privacy act of those noted
provinces . . . by using the names and portraits of the class
members of their own users in a sponsored story marketing tool
without seeking and receiving the appropriate consent," Rhone
added.

"The idea I guess behind it was, if your friends are endorsing a
product or service, that's actually better than some celebrity or
some unknown person on TV." [GN]


FAT BRANDS: Rojany Suit Underway in California State Court
----------------------------------------------------------
FAT Brands Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 28, 2020, that the hearing on plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification in Rojany v. FAT Brands, Inc., was set for September
10, 2020.

Eric Rojany, et al. v. FAT Brands Inc., et al., Superior Court of
California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC708539, and
Daniel Alden, et al. v. FAT Brands Inc., et al., Superior Court of
California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC716017.

On June 7, 2018, FAT Brands, Inc., Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe,
James Neuhauser, Edward H. Rensi, Marc L. Holtzman, Squire Junger,
Silvia Kessel, Jeff Lotman, Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc., and
Tripoint Global Equities, LLC (collectively, the "Original
Defendants") were named as defendants in a putative securities
class action lawsuit entitled Rojany v. FAT Brands, Inc., Case No.
BC708539, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles.

On July 31, 2018, the Rojany Case was designated as complex,
pursuant to Rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court and
assigned the matter to the Complex Litigation Program. On August 2,
2018, the Original Defendants were named defendants in a second
putative class action lawsuit, Alden v. FAT Brands, Case No.
BC716017 (the "Alden Case"), filed in the same court.

On September 17, 2018, the Rojany and Alden Cases were consolidated
under the Rojany Case number. On October 10, 2018, plaintiffs Eric
Rojany, Daniel Alden, Christopher Hazelton-Harrington and Byron
Marin filed a First Amended Consolidated Complaint against FAT
Brands, Inc., Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, James Neuhauser, Edward
H. Rensi, Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc., and Tripoint Global
Equities, LLC (collectively, "Defendants"), thereby removing Marc
L. Holtzman, Squire Junger, Silvia Kessel and Jeff Lotman as
defendants.

On November 13, 2018, Defendants filed a Demurrer to First Amended
Consolidated Complaint. On January 25, 2019, the Court sustained
Defendants' Demurrer to First Amended Consolidated Complaint with
Leave to Amend in Part.

Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint on
February 25, 2019. On March 27, 2019, Defendants filed a Demurrer
to the Second Amended Consolidated Complaint. On July 31, 2019, the
Court sustained Defendants' Demurrer to the Second Amended
Complaint in Part, narrowing the scope of the case. Defendants
filed their Answer to the Second Amended Consolidated Complaint on
November 12, 2019.

On January 29, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class
Certification. Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is fully
briefed.

Defendants dispute Plaintiffs' allegations and will continue to
vigorously defend themselves in this litigation.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

FAT Brands Inc., a multi-brand franchising company, acquires,
markets, and develops fast casual and casual dining restaurant
concepts. The company was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in
Beverly Hills, California. FAT Brands Inc. is a subsidiary of Fog
Cutter Capital Group Inc.


FAT BRANDS: Settlement Reached in Vignola Suit
----------------------------------------------
FAT Brands Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 28, 2020, that the parties in Adam Vignola, et al. v. FAT
Brands Inc., et al., United States District Court for the Central
District of California, Case No. 2:18-cv-07469, reached an
agreement in principle to settle the matter.

On August 24, 2018, the Original Defendants were named as
defendants in a putative securities class action lawsuit entitled
Vignola v. FAT Brands, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-07469-PSG-PLA, in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.

On October 23, 2018, Charles Jordan and David Kovacs (collectively,
"Lead Plaintiffs") moved to be appointed lead plaintiffs, and the
Court granted Lead Plaintiffs' motion on November 16, 2018. On
January 15, 2019, Lead Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class
Action Complaint against the Original Defendants.

The allegations and claims for relief asserted in Vignola are
substantively identical to those asserted in the the Eric Rojany,
et al. v. FAT Brands Inc., et al., Superior Court of California for
the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC708539.

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss First Amended Class Action
Complaint, or, in the Alternative, to Stay the Action In Favor of a
Prior Pending Action. On June 14, 2019, the Court denied
Defendants' motion to stay but granted Defendants' motion to
dismiss the First Amended Class Action Complaint, with Leave to
Amend. Lead Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class Action
Complaint on August 5, 2019.

On September 9, 2019, Defendants' filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Second Amended Class Action Complaint. On December 17, 2019, the
Court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended
Class Action Complaint in Part, Without Leave to Amend. The
allegations remaining in Vignola are substantively identical to
those remaining in the Rojany Case.

Defendants filed their Answer to the Second Amended Class Action
Complaint on January 14, 2020. On December 27, 2019, Lead
Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification. By order entered
March 16, 2020, the Court denied Lead Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.

By order entered April 1, 2020, the Court set various deadlines for
the case, including a fact discovery cut-off of December 29, 2020,
expert discovery cut-off of February 23, 2021 and trial date of
March 30, 2021.

On July 16, 2020, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle this case, pursuant to which lead plaintiffs will dismiss
their claims against defendants with prejudice in exchange for a
payment by or on behalf of defendants of $75,000.

The parties are in the process of documenting this settlement.

The Company is obligated to indemnify its officers and directors to
the extent permitted by applicable law in connection with the above
actions, and has insurance for such individuals, to the extent of
the limits of the applicable insurance policies and subject to
potential reservations of rights.

The Company is also obligated to indemnify Tripoint Global
Equities, LLC under certain conditions relating to the Rojany and
Vignola matters. These proceedings are ongoing and the Company is
unable to predict the ultimate outcome of these matters.

FAT Brands said, "There can be no assurance that the defendants
will be successful in defending against these actions."

FAT Brands Inc., a multi-brand franchising company, acquires,
markets, and develops fast casual and casual dining restaurant
concepts. The company was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in
Beverly Hills, California. FAT Brands Inc. is a subsidiary of Fog
Cutter Capital Group Inc.


FBI: Seyfarth Shaw Attys. Discuss Ruling in Female Employees' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Maatman, Jr., Esq. and Jennifer Riley, Esq., of Seyfarth
Shaw LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that following a
familiar fact pattern, after a named Plaintiff filed a putative
class action in Bird, et al. v. Barr, No. 19-CV-1581 (D.D.C. July
23, 2020), she complained that the defendant employer retaliated
against her for bringing suit by, among other things, threatening
to terminate her employment and failing to provide her meaningful
assignments.  Plaintiff, however, took the complaint a step further
and moved the district court for an order enjoining Defendant from
retaliating against any named Plaintiff, or any witnesses, for
participating in the action.  The district court entered an order
soundly rejecting the motion and holding that it lacked
jurisdiction to enter injunctive relief unrelated to the claims
pending in the lawsuit.  The ruling is a nice addition to the
defense arsenals of employers facing workplace class actions.  As
the district court explained, Plaintiffs may not file a claim
alleging, for example, sex-based discrimination and then parlay
that claim into a request for preliminary injunctive relief that
prevents potential retaliatory acts by Defendant, where those acts
do not relate to the alleged conduct that gave rise to Plaintiffs'
underlying claims.

Factual Background

Plaintiffs, current and former female employees of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), filed a putative class action
alleging that they suffered sex-based discrimination during their
enrollment in the FBI Academy's Basic Field Training Course.  Four
months after filing suit, Plaintiffs filed a motion to enjoin the
FBI from retaliating against them, or any other potential
witnesses, due to their participation in the action.  Id. at 1.

In support of their motion, Plaintiffs claimed that supervisors in
the FBI's Phoenix, Arizona Division retaliated against Plaintiff
Weasley by, among other things, threatening to terminate her,
failing to give her meaningful assignments, and denying her
requests for reasonable accommodations for her disability.  Id.

Plaintiffs asserted that they needed preliminary injunctive relief
to protect them from irreparable harm to their jobs and their
health and "to protect the judicial process from the chilling
impact of Defendant's retaliation bordering on constructive
discharge against a named plaintiff, which would deter anyone else
from coming forward to join this putative class action or from
offering truthful testimony."  Id. at 2.  The Court denied the
motion holding that Plaintiffs fundamentally misapprehended the
purpose and function of a preliminary injunction.

The Court's Opinion

At the outset, the Court noted that Plaintiffs premised their
motion on a "fundamental misunderstanding of how preliminary
injunctions function in a civil action filed in federal court."
Id. at*2.  The Court explained that a preliminary injunction is
appropriate to grant intermediate relief "of the same character as
that which may be granted finally."  Id.  in other words, a proper
motion for a preliminary injunction seeks to enjoin "the action
that the complaint alleges is unlawful" prior to the completion of
the litigation.  Id.

The Court explained that a preliminary injunction is "not a generic
means by which a plaintiff can obtain auxiliary forms of relief
that may be helpful to them while they litigate unrelated claims."
Id. at 3.  To the contrary, a district court only possesses the
power to afford preliminary injunctive relief that is related to
the claims at issue in the litigation and, to get such
extraordinary relief, plaintiffs must satisfy well-established
criteria, including by showing a likelihood of success on the
merits and that they will suffer irreparable harm absent an
injunction.

Here, the Court found that the "disconnect" between the underlying
claims and the alleged basis for preliminary relief "could not be
more evident."  Id.  In their complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that
the FBI authorized, or engaged in, sex-discrimination while
Plaintiffs attended the FBI training academy.  Id. at *3-4.  In the
motion, however, Plaintiffs sought an injunction "to protect all of
the name plaintiffs" from potential reprisals for participating in
the legal action.  Id. at 4.

Thus, without a connection between the claim and requested
injunction, the Court concluded that "there is simply no
jurisdictional basis for the Court to grant preliminary relief."
Id. at 2-3.  Even if such connection had existed, however,
Plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence of the "well-worn"
preliminary injunction factors.  In particular, Plaintiffs failed
to provide any factual basis for concluding that every named
Plaintiff actually was entitled to preliminary injunctive relief.
Id. at 5.

Instead, the Court noted that Plaintiffs appeared to request
injunctive relief "by association" – i.e., based on the actions
of a handful of supervisors in the Phoenix Division against
Plaintiff Wesley and one witness.  The Court found no allegations
in the complaint, or the motion for preliminary injunction, that
the FBI engaged in a pattern or practice of retaliatory conduct on
a nationwide scale.  It seems that Plaintiffs merely wanted to
"send a message" that Plaintiffs and witnesses were protected in
order to preserve future participants' willingness to participate
in the litigation.  Id.

Implications

The Court chastised Plaintiffs for attempting to use the
preliminary injunction device to "send a message" in order to
preserve future participants' willingness to participate in the
litigation and provided a roadmap for future litigants to address
any actual widespread retaliation.  The Court explained that, if
the Plaintiffs had allegations and evidence that Defendant engaged
in a wide-spread practice of retaliating against them (or their
potential witnesses) for filing or participating in the action, it
could grant Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint and make
those legal claims part of the action and, if Plaintiffs then could
demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of such
retaliation claims and that they would face irreparable injury
without an injunction, the Court would have "both subject-matter
jurisdiction and ample justification" to issue a preliminary
injunction.  The ruling is a nice addition to the toolkits of
employers facing workplace class actions.  The ruling clearly
delineates the limits of when and how Plaintiffs can seek
injunctive relief and provides an apt illustration of the
shortcomings of an unsupported maneuver to extend isolated
allegations into nationwide relief. [GN]


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Kahn Swick Reminds of Sept. 28 Motion Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadlines in the securities class action lawsuit involving
FirstEnergy Corp:

FirstEnergy Corp. (FE)

Class Period: 2/21/2017 - 7/21/2020

Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: September 28, 2020

SECURITIES FRAUD

To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-fe/

If you purchased shares of the company and would like to discuss
your legal rights 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, via email
(Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

                           About KSF

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.

Contact:

Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN]


FITBIT INC: Dismissal of Calif. Securities Suit Under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Fitbit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 4,
2020, that the plaintiffs in the consolidated putative securities
class action have taken an appeal from the judgment of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss.

On November 1, 2018, a putative securities class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act")
arising out of alleged materially false and misleading statements
about the Company's guidance for the fourth quarter of 2016 and
full fiscal year 2016 that was provided during the third and fourth
quarters of 2016.

On November 15, 2018, a second putative securities class action was
filed in the same court alleging similar claims against the same
defendants.

On April 25, 2019, the two actions were consolidated, and a
consolidated amended class action complaint was filed on June 24,
2019.

The consolidated complaint also alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act against the Company and certain
officers relating to the Company’s 2016 guidance, on behalf of a
putative class of stockholders who purchased Fitbit stock from
August 2, 2016 through January 30, 2017. Plaintiffs seek class
certification, unspecified compensatory damages, and reasonable
costs and expenses including attorneys' fees.

On August 23, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. On March
23, 2020, the court granted the motion to dismiss with leave to
amend. On April 28, 2020, the court entered judgment after
plaintiffs indicated that they did not intend to file an amended
complaint.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the judgment to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on May 27, 2020.

Fitbit, Inc., incorporated on March 26, 2007, is a provider of
health and fitness devices. The Company's platform combines
connected health and fitness devices with software and services,
including an online dashboard and mobile applications, data
analytics, motivational and social tools, personalized insights and
virtual coaching through customized fitness plans and interactive
workouts. Its platform includes family of wearable connected health
and fitness trackers. The company is based in San Francisco,
California.


FITBIT INC: Fee Award in Sleep Tracking Device Suit Appealed
------------------------------------------------------------
Fitbit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended July 4, 2020, that the company has taken an appeal from a
court order awarding $6.9 million in attorneys' fees and $0.2
million in costs in the Sleep Tracking Device-related suit.

On May 8, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleging that the sleep tracking function available in
certain trackers does not perform as advertised.

Plaintiffs sought class certification, restitution, unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, and reasonable costs and
expenses including attorneys' fees.

On January 31, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
granted on November 20, 2017. On April 20, 2017, the Company filed
a motion for summary judgment, which the court denied on December
8, 2017.

The parties subsequently agreed to a settlement, and on August 1,
2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the
class action settlement.

At the hearing on September 13, 2018, the court denied preliminary
settlement approval without prejudice and ordered revised
settlement papers be filed. On November 29, 2018, the court granted
preliminary settlement approval and the final approval hearing was
scheduled for August 1, 2019.

On May 10, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a request for attorneys' fees
and expenses. The Company opposed that request. At the hearing on
August 1, 2019, the court asked the parties to submit a re-notice
plan in order to achieve a higher claims rate. On the fee request,
the court offered the plaintiffs alternative conditions, and on
August 18, 2019, the plaintiffs filed their fee election, opting
for a 90% reduction of challenged fees and expenses.

The re-notice plan was approved on October 16, 2019, and the
re-notice resulted in approximately 80,000 more claims, for a total
of approximately 141,000 claims. The court granted final approval
of the settlement on February 6, 2020, in an amount that is not
material to the Company. On March 20, 2020, the court ruled on
plaintiffs’ request for attorneys' fees and costs and awarded
$6.9 million in attorneys' fees and $0.2 million in costs.

On April 20, 2020, the Company filed a notice of appeal.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Fitbit, Inc., incorporated on March 26, 2007, is a provider of
health and fitness devices. The Company's platform combines
connected health and fitness devices with software and services,
including an online dashboard and mobile applications, data
analytics, motivational and social tools, personalized insights and
virtual coaching through customized fitness plans and interactive
workouts. Its platform includes family of wearable connected health
and fitness trackers. The company is based in San Francisco,
California.


FORD MOTOR: Claims in Amended Weidman Brake Defect Suit Narrowed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PAUL WEIDMAN, JOYCE BONASERA THOMAS LEANDRO; JEAN
LOUISE THUOTTE SR.; ANDRES SANCHEZ; SETH GINGSBERGL JASON BUSH;
STEVE MITCHELL; RAUL VALENTIN, ERICA GOMEZ, PERRY BURTON, TERESA
PERRY, and ROY NAASZ, MARTY COBB; PATRICK HUFF; ANTHONY
TAURIANINEN; CARSON ADAMS; THOMAS GROCE; RICHARD EPPERSON; AMANDA
GOLLOTT; and ROY WILLIAM WILBURN, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-12719 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Gershwin A.
Drain of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint ("FACCAC").

On Aug. 30, 2018, the Plaintiffs brought the instant action against
Defendant Ford, alleging that each Plaintiff had purchased a Ford
F-150 with a defective front brake master cylinder that places it
at risk of suddenly and unexpectedly losing braking ability.  On
July 10, 2019, the Court entered an Opinion and Order granting in
part and denying in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Consolidated Class Action Complaint.  The Court's July 10, 2019
Opinion and Order dismissed all of the Plaintiffs' express and
implied warranty of merchantability claims, unjust enrichment
claims, and claim under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

On July 24, 2019, the Court received a proposed stipulated order
regarding the Plaintiffs' filing of an Amended Complaint and the
Defendant's Response.  In their proposed stipulation, the
Plaintiffs indicated that they sought to amend their allegations in
order to add named Plaintiffs from additional states and to
re-plead certain claims, including the factual allegations
underlying those claims.  Rather than enter the parties' proposed
stipulated order, the Court scheduled and held a status conference
in the matter on July 31, 2019.  Thereafter, it entered an Order
allowing the Plaintiffs to file an Amended Class Action Complaint
by Aug. 14, 2019.  The Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Class
Action Complaint on Aug. 14, 2019.

The Plaintiffs' core allegation remains unchanged, specifically,
that their 2014 through 2018 Ford F-150 trucks contain a defective
front brake master cylinder that place them at risk of suddenly and
unexpectedly losing braking ability.  In addition to the six
Plaintiffs from five states (Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia
and Texas), who brought the prior complaint, the FACCAC identifies
nine new Plaintiffs from those five states: Joyce Bonasera, Thomas
Leandro and Jean Louise Thuotte (California), Jason Bush and Steve
Mitchell (Florida), Marty Cobb and Patrick Huff (Georgia), Richard
Epperson and Amanda Gollett (Texas).  The Plaintiffs have also
added six plaintiffs from new states: Andres Sanchez (Colorado),
Seth Ginsberg (Connecticut), Anthony Tauriainen (Michigan), Carson
Adams (New York), Thomas Groce (South Carolina), and Roy William
Wilburn (West Virigina).

The Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class of all purchasers
and lessees of 2013-18 Ford F-150s in the United States, and
separate state classes for vehicles purchased or leased in Alabama,
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, New
York, South Carolina, Texas and West Virginia.

Now before the Court is the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss First
Amended Complaint.  The Plaintiffs filed a reply to the Motion and
the Defendants filed a counterreply.

The Defendant first argues that the Plaintiffs are precluded from
repleading their express warranty claims because these claims were
dismissed with prejudice in the Court's July 10, 2019 Opinion and
Order.  Judge Drain notes that the Court's July 10, 2019 Opinion
and Order was silent as to whether the dismissal was without or
with prejudice because it is well settled that unless stated
otherwise in a dismissal order, a dismissal under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is an adjudication on the merits.  As
such, the Plaintiffs are not permitted to re-plead their dismissed
claims.  Thus, Counts 3 and 25 of the First Amended Complaint are
dismissed.

The Defendant further argues that none of the new Plaintiffs have
alleged facts showing that Ford breached the limited warranty.
They also argue that the new Plaintiffs' express warranty claims
fail because none of them have alleged that they provided the
Defendant with the individualized pre-suit notice required by the
applicable states' laws.

Judge Drain finds that Texas Plaintiffs Epperson and Gollott's
claims require dismissal because they rely on the same inadequate
notice that this Court already rejected for Texas Plaintiff Perry.
New Plaintiffs Sanchez's, Ginsberg's, Adams's, Groce's and
Willburn's claims are likewise deficient because none alleges that
they ever notified a dealership or Defendant of the alleged breach
of the limited warranty.  The First Amended Complaint merely
alleges that Weidman and Naasz, the Plaintiffs from Alabama and
California, provided Ford with notice of the alleged defect "on
behalf of the other Class members."  However, notice is inadequate
if it is provided by someone other than the Plaintiff.  For all of
these reasons, Counts 8, 13, 36, 41, and 46 are also dismissed.

The Court has already dismissed the implied warranty of
merchantability claims as to Weidman, Burton, Perry and Naasz in
its prior decision.  Similar to the previously dismissed express
warranty claims, these implied warranty of merchantability claims
were dismissed with prejudice, and the Plaintiffs may not reassert
them.  Even if the Court's decision was not a merits-based
decision, these claims are still deficient due to lack of pre-suit
notice, lack of privity and lack of any allegations that the
vehicles are inoperable or unusable.  Counts 4, 21, 26 and 32 are
dismissed.

Similar to the dismissed claims asserted by the original
Plaintiffs, all of the implied warranty of merchantability claims
asserted by the new Plaintiffs (Sanchez (CO), Ginsberg (CT), Cobb,
Huff (GA), Epperson, Gollott (TX), Leandro, Bonasera, Thuotte (CA),
Adams (NY), Groce (SC), WIllburn (W. Va.), and Taurianen (MI)) fail
because the FACCAC lacks factual allegations that the alleged
master cylinder defect renders their vehicles unmerchantable.
Therefore, Counts 4, 9, 14, 21, 26, 31, 32, 37, 42, 47, and 51 are
dismissed.

Because the Plaintiffs have failed to allege any viable warranty
claims under the applicable states' laws, their MMWA claim fails.
Count I is dismissed.

The Defendant argues that the statutory fraud claims brought by
Plaintiff Wilburn (West Virginia) and Plaintiffs Burton, Huff and
Cobb (Georgia) must be dismissed because they failed to submit a
demand letter prior to filing this action as required by West
Virginia's and Georgia's fair business practice laws.  The Judge
has already concluded that original Georgia Plaintiff Burton
satisfied the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act's notice
requirement because Georgia law permits notice from one consumer
expressing intent to bring representative claims on behalf of all
putative claimants, named or otherwise.  As such, Counts 20 and 45
are not subject to dismissal based on a failure to provide pre-suit
notice.

The First Amended Complaint alleges that Ford knew of the Brake
System Defect since 2011 or earlier.  The Court previously held
that the Plaintiffs' allegations show that Ford had pre-sale
knowledge of the defect through "pre-release evaluation and
testing; repair data, replacement parts sales data; early consumer
complaints made directly to Ford, collected by NHTSA, testing done
in response to those complaints, aggregate data from Ford dealers;
and other internal sources.  The same knowledge allegations of
Bonasera and Cobb are likewise sufficient.  The Defendant is not
entitled to dismissal of these fraud-based claims based on a
failure to allege Ford's pre-suit knowledge of the master cylinder
defect.

Finally, the Court previously dismissed the original Plaintiffs'
unjust enrichment claims under Alabama, California, Florida,
Georgia and Texas law.  The Plaintiffs have reasserted these claims
only to preserve them for appeal.  However, they have alleged
identical unjust enrichment claims in five new states (CO, CT, NY,
SC and WV).  These claims are also subject to dismissal because
Ford's limited warranty covers the same subject matter as these
unjust enrichment claims and the warranty claims offer an adequate
remedy at law.  Counts 6, 11, 16, 19, 23, 28, 34, 39, 44 and 49 are
likewise dismissed.

Based the foregoing, Judge Drain granted in part and denied in part
the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint.
Counts 1, 3-4, 6, 8-9, 11, 13-14, 16, 19, 21, 23, 25-26, 28, 31-32,
34, 36-37, 39, 41-42, 44, 46-47, 49 and 51 are dismissed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/NG7GO5 from Leagle.com.

Paul Weidman, Raul Valentin, Erica Gomez, Perry Burton & Teresa
Perry, Plaintiffs, represented by Mark P. Chalos, Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann & Bernstein, Adam J. Levitt -- alevitt@dlcfirm.com --
DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Daniel R. Ferri -- dferri@dlcfirm.com
-- DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, H. Clay Barnett, III --
Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com -- Beasley Allen Law Firm, John E.
Tangren -- jtangren@dlcfirm.com -- DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC,
Melvin B. Hollowell , The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Sharon S.
Almonrode -- ssa@millerlawpc.com -- The Miller Law Firm, P.C., W.
Daniel Miles, III -- Dee.Miles@Beasleyallen.com -- BEASLEY ALLEN
CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES PC, William Kalas, The Miller Law
Firm,
P.C. & E. Powell Miller -- epm@millerlawpc.com -- The Miller Law
Firm.

Roy Naasz, consolidated from 18-13165, Plaintiff, represented by
Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, E. Powell Miller, The
Miller Law Firm, Mark P. Chalos, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein, Sharon S. Almonrode, The Miller Law Firm, P.C., W.
Daniel Miles, III, BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES PC &
William Kalas, The Miller Law Firm, P.C.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Randall William
Edwards -- redwards@omm.com -- O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Scott
Michael Hammack -- shammack@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP &
Stephanie A. Douglas -- douglas@bsplaw.com -- Bush Seyferth &
Paige.


FUNKO INC: Continues to Defend Kanugonda Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Funko, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2020, that  the company continues to defend a class action suit
entitled, Kanugonda v. Funko, Inc. et al.

On June 4, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit entitled Kanugonda
v. Funko, Inc. et al. was filed in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington against the Company, certain
of its officers and directors, and certain other defendants. On
January 4, 2019, a lead plaintiff was appointed in that case.

On April 30, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
against the previously named defendants. The parties to the federal
action, now captioned Berkelhammer v. Funko, Inc. et al., have
agreed to a stay of that action pending developments in the state
case.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Funko, Inc., a pop culture consumer products company, designs,
sources, and distributes licensed pop culture products in the
United States, China, Vietnam, and the United Kingdom. Funko, Inc.
was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Everett, Washington.


FUNKO INC: Ferreira & Nahas Putative Class Suits Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
Funko, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2020, that the putative class action suits entitled, Ferreira v.
Funko, Inc. et al. and Nahas v. Funko, Inc. et al., have been
consolidated.

On March 10, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California against the Company and
certain of its officers, entitled Ferreira v. Funko, Inc. et al.

The complaint alleges that the Company and officers violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the "Exchange Act"), as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by making allegedly materially misleading statements in
the Company's October 31, 2019 announcement of third quarter 2019
financial results and third quarter 2019 Form 10-Q, as well as by
omitting material facts necessary to make the statements made
therein not misleading.

The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Two additional complaints making substantially similar allegations,
Nahas v. Funko, Inc. et al. and Dachev v. Funko, Inc. et al.—were
filed April 3, 2020 in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California and April 9, 2020 in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington,
respectively.

On June 11, 2020, the Central District of California actions were
consolidated for all purposes into one action, and a lead plaintiff
and lead counsel were appointed pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act. Lead plaintiff filed the consolidated
complaint on July 31, 2020, and the Company intends to move to
dismiss the consolidated action. On June 25, 2020, the Dachev
action was voluntarily dismissed.

Funko, Inc., a pop culture consumer products company, designs,
sources, and distributes licensed pop culture products in the
United States, China, Vietnam, and the United Kingdom. Funko, Inc.
was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Everett, Washington.


FUNKO INC: Wins Dismissal of Suit in King County, Washington
------------------------------------------------------------
Funko, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2020, that the Superior Court of Washington in and for King County
has dismissed the consolidated action with prejudice.

On November 16, 2017, a purported stockholder of the Company filed
a putative class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of Washington
in and for King County against the Company, certain of its officers
and directors, and the underwriters of its IPO, entitled Robert
Lowinger v. Funko, Inc., et al.

In January and March 2018, five additional putative class action
lawsuits were filed in Washington state court, four in the Superior
Court of Washington in and for King County and one in the Superior
Court of Washington in and for Snohomish County. Two of the King
County lawsuits, Surratt v. Funko, Inc. et al. (filed on January
16, 2018) and Baskin v. Funko, Inc. et al. (filed on January 30,
2018), were filed against the Company and certain of its officers
and directors.

The other two King County lawsuits, The Ronald and Maxine Linde
Foundation v. Funko, Inc. et al. (filed on January 18, 2018) and
Lovewell v. Funko, Inc. et al. (filed on March 27, 2018), were
filed against the Company, certain of its officers and directors,
entities affiliated with ACON Funko Investors, L.L.C. ("ACON"),
Fundamental Capital, LLC and Funko International, LLC
(collectively, "Fundamental") and certain other defendants. The
Snohomish County lawsuit, Berkelhammer v. Funko, Inc. et al. (filed
on March 13, 2018), was filed against the Company, certain of the
Company’s officers and directors, and ACON.

On May 8, 2018, the Berkelhammer action was voluntarily dismissed,
and on May 15, 2018 a substantially similar action was filed by the
same plaintiff in the Superior Court of Washington in and for King
County. On April 2, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit entitled
Jacobs v. Funko, Inc. et al. was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington against the
Company, certain of its officers and directors, and certain other
defendants.

On May 21, 2018, the Jacobs action was voluntarily dismissed, and
on June 12, 2018 a substantially similar action was filed by the
same plaintiff in the Superior Court of Washington in and for King
County.

On July 2, 2018, all of the suits were ordered consolidated for all
purposes into one action under the title In re Funko, Inc.
Securities Litigation in the Superior Court of Washington in and
for King County.

On August 1, 2018, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, ACON,
Fundamental, and certain other defendants. On October 1, 2018, the
Company moved to dismiss the action. The motion was fully briefed
as of November 30, 2018 and oral argument on the motion was held on
May 3, 2019. On August 2, 2019, the Superior Court of Washington in
and for King County dismissed the consolidated action, allowing
plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint.

The Court found, inter alia, that "Funko's statements regarding its
financial disclosures were not materially false or misleading" and
that "plaintiffs have not shown that Funko's 'opinion statements'
were false or that such statements were not simply corporate
optimism or puffery."

On October 3, 2019, plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated
complaint. The Company moved to dismiss that complaint on December
5, 2019. The motion was fully briefed as of March 17, 2020, and
oral argument on the motion was held on May 15, 2020.

On August 5, 2020, the Superior Court of Washington in and for King
County dismissed the consolidated action with prejudice.

Funko, Inc., a pop culture consumer products company, designs,
sources, and distributes licensed pop culture products in the
United States, China, Vietnam, and the United Kingdom. Funko, Inc.
was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Everett, Washington.


GENERALI US: Oglevee Sues Over Failure to Honor Travel Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA OGLEVEE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. GENERALI US BRANCH, and GENERALI GLOBAL ASSISTANCE,
INC. d/b/a CSA TRAVEL PROTECTION, Case No. 2:20-cv-01277-DSC (W.D.
Pa., Aug. 28, 2020), arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of
insurance contract.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has paid and/or obtained
a travel protection insurance policy from the Defendants when she
booked a travel to Key West, Florida, on July 2, 2019. Because of
Covid-19 pandemic and governmental orders and guidance issued, the
Plaintiff was forced to cancel her trip. However, the Defendants
failed and refused to honor their contractual obligations to
reimburse her for the costs incurred due to the cancellation of her
trip.

Generali Global Assistance, Inc., is an insurance company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
          1133 Penn Ave., 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Tel: (412) 322-9243
          Fax: (412) 231-0246
          Emails: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
                  kiverson@carlsonlynch.com
                  ncolella@carlsonlynch.com


GLOBAL INTIMATES: Romero Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Global Intimates LLC.
The case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Global Intimates LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-07188 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 3, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Global Intimates LLC (trade name Leonisa USA) is in the Lingerie
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (929) 575-4175
          Fax: (929) 575-4195
          Email: joseph@cml.legal


GLOBAL TELLINK: Dismissal of Alexander's 4th Amended Suit Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELIZABETH R. ALEXANDER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated; JOHN P. ALEXANDER, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated; MARY SESSUMS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; SANDRA
GLASSMIRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated; JAI GIBSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; SHARON JOSEPH, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated; PATRICIA BROUSSARD,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GLOBAL TEL LINK CORPORATION; CHRISTOPHER
EPPS; SAM WAGGONER, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 19-60287 (5th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the
district court's dismissal of the inmates' fourth amended complaint
with prejudice.

The Plaintiff-appellants are inmates of the Mississippi Department
of Corrections and their family members.  Plaintiffs allege they
were charged illegally inflated fees to use inmate telephone
services administered by Defendant-appellee Defendant-appellee
Global Tel Link ("GTL").  Their lawsuit follows on the heels of the
criminal convictions of Defendant-appellees Christopher Epps and
Sam Waggoner, who orchestrated a kickback scheme to give GTL a
monopoly over the MDOC's prison telephone services, which, the
inmates allege, GTL used to inflate telephone fees illegally.

The case involves a bribery scheme effected by Christopher Epps,
the former head of the Mississippi Department of Corrections
("MDOC"), and Waggoner, a former consultant to Defendant-appellee
GTL.  In 2005, the MDOC contracted with GTL to manage inmate phone
services. The contract has been renewed several times with no
competing bids.

The complaint alleges that in exchange for payments from Waggoner,
Epps "turned a blind eye" to GTL's imposition of excessive, illegal
fees on the inmates, allowing GTL to inflate its profits at the
inmates' expense.  It was the result of an agreement Waggoner had
made with Epps to pay him kickbacks to ensure GTL kept the
phone-service contract.  Waggoner's payments to Epps were as much
as $3,400 per month and totaled over $300,000.  In 2015, Epps and
Waggoner pleaded guilty in federal court for their roles in the
scheme.

In 2017, the inmates brought the putative class-action suit against
Waggoner, Epps, GTL, and other since-dismissed parties, alleging
racketeering, among other things.  The complaint was amended twice
before GTL moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.  The
district court granted the motion, holding the inmates had failed
to show how the fees actually charged were inconsistent with fees
approved by the MDOC and tariffs approved by the Mississippi Public
Service Commission ("PSC").  The dismissal was without prejudice.

The inmates filed a third amended complaint, which identified
various fees that concededly are present in the tariffs governing
the rates and fees GTL may charge and alleged they were charged
these fees in a manner not approved by the tariffs.  But the third
amended complaint failed again to identify a single instance in
which one Plaintiff was charged a fee in a manner not approved by
the PSC.  The district court again dismissed without prejudice and
granted leave to file a final complaint, encouraging the inmates to
avoid the pitfalls of shotgun pleadings.

The inmates then filed the now-operative fourth amended complaint,
bringing several causes of action.  The complaint details a total
of seven assessments it claims GTL misapplied.  It admits that six
of these assessments were authorized by a PSC tariff but alleges
GTL misapplied the assessments and therefore exceeded the tariff.
As to the seventh assessment, the complaint alleges only that it
was outside the scope of any rate structure or tariff schedule
approved by MDOC or the PSC.

As the district court noted, the complaint fails to identify a
single instance in which one Plaintiff was charged a fee in a
manner not approved by the PSC.  Instead, the complaint alleges
generally that the fees were assessed against "every customer" or
on "every call," as the case may be.  In other words, the complaint
does not allege that GTL imposed an unauthorized fee on any
specific date or with regard to any specific inmate or any specific
call.  The complaint alleges GTL never provided its customers with
detailed bills and never provided its customers with any
itemization of any bill.  But it contains no allegations regarding
any efforts to obtain itemized bills or any other information
regarding GTL's rates.  As the district court observed, at no point
have the Plaintiffs suggested that they even attempted to acquire
the information.

The district court dismissed the fourth amended complaint, finding
again that the inmates had failed to plead specific facts
sufficient to overcome the filed-rate doctrine.  It also rejected
the inmates' argument that they could not be expected to provide
such detailed allegations because GTL failed to give its customers
itemized bills, noting that none of the complaints had detailed any
efforts taken to secure itemized bills or otherwise determine which
fees were being applied to which calls or inmates.  Having given
the inmates two previous opportunities to correct these
deficiencies, the district court dismissed the fourth amended
complaint with prejudice.  The inmates timely appealed.

The bulk of the inmates' argument on appeal is that the assessments
were the products of bribery and fraud.  But the filed-rate
doctrine ignores the culpability of the Defendant's conduct.  The
inmates give no reason to think Epps' and Waggoner's conduct should
constitute an exception to the rule.

The inmates also argue they should be excused from usual pleading
standards because GTL exclusively controls the billing and
collections records at issue in the case, and they are not public
records.  In other contexts, the Court has taken into account a
plaintiff's "limited access to crucial information" in deciding
whether to affirm a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.  But the Court has
emphasized that in those contexts, the Plaintiffs alleged they were
"unable to obtain plan documents even after good-faith efforts to
do so."  The fourth amended complaint contains no allegations
regarding any efforts to obtain specific information regarding
GTL's billing practices.

In sum, the Fifth Circuit holds that the district court correctly
decided that the fourth amended complaint fails to plead adequately
that the inmates were charged in excess of government-approved
rates.  The inmates' allegations are threadbare and lack the
specificity required to overcome dismissal.  Accordingly, the
complaint fails to demonstrate a legal right to have been charged a
lower rate than the inmates actually were charged.  Because Section
1964(c) requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that he has been
injured in his business or property by the conduct constituting the
violation, the complaint fails to state a civil RICO claim.  The
Fifth Circuit affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Fifth Circuit's June 5, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/bPGz8T from Leagle.com.


GOHEALTH INC: Wolf Haldenstein Investigates Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP is investigating
potential claims against GoHealth, Inc. ("GoHealth" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: GOCO) for violations of federal securities
laws.

On or about July 15, 2019, GoHealth sold about 43.5 million shares
of stock in its initial public stock offering (the "IPO"), at
$21.00 a share raising nearly $914 million in new capital.

On August 19, 2020, GoHealth, in its first quarterly earnings
report following the IPO, announced it incurred a 2Q net loss of
$22.9 million after posting net income of $15.3 million in the
prior-year period.

Shares of the Company's stock are presently trading at $14.26 per
share, almost 50% below its recent IPO price.

All investors who purchased shares of GoHealth, Inc. and incurred
losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. Please
contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an
investor in the shares of GoHealth, Inc.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country.  The firm
has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego.  The reputation and expertise of this firm
in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.

If you wish to discuss this possible action or have any questions
regarding your rights and interests in this potential case, please
immediately contact Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735
or via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com.

Contact:

  Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
  Kevin Cooper, Esq.
  Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
  Email: gstone@whafh.com, kcooper@whafh.com
         or classmember@whafh.com
  Tel: (800)575-0735 or (212)545-4774 [GN]


GRACO CHILDREN'S: Kids' Booster Seats Are Not Safe, Chavez Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
REJENNA CHAVEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GRACO CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS, INC.; and NEWELL BRANDS DTC,
INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-03302-LMM (N.D. Ga., Aug. 10, 2020), is
brought against the Defendants for their misleading marketing and
sale of poorly-designed, mislabeled, and defective booster seats to
the Plaintiff and other consumers.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants'
marketing of their Graco's TurboBooster Highback Car Seat and
Graco's AFFIX Youth Booster Seat (together "Booster Seats") as safe
for children weighing less than 40 pounds and providing protection
against side-impact accidents is dangerously false and misleading,
as the product is not safe for children weighing under 40 pounds
and does not provide appreciable safety to children from
side-impacts.

The Booster Seats are inherently unsafe and unfit for their
advertised and intended use, according to the complaint. Use of the
Booster Seats poses serious safety risks that has led to many
documented injuries of children, who were seated in Graco's Booster
Seats in side-impact crashes.

Graco Children's Products Inc. manufactures and markets juvenile
products. The Company offers infant strollers, portable play yards,
swings, activity centers, high chairs, and other indoor and outdoor
infant products. Graco Children's Products serves consumers in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Worley, Esq.
          James M. Evangelista, Esq.
          EVANGELISTA WORLEY, LLC
          500 Sugar Mill Road, Suite 245A
          Atlanta, GA
          Telephone: (404) 205-8400
          E-mail: david@ewlawllc.com
                  jim@ewlawllc.com

               - and -

          Stacey P. Slaughter, Esq.
          Michael Pacelli, Esq.
          Austin Hurt, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          800 LaSalle Ave., Suite 2800
          Minneapolis, MN 55409
          Telephone: (612) 349-8500
          Facsimile: (612) 339-4181
          E-mail: sslaughter@robinskaplan.com
                  mpacelli@robinskaplan.com
                  ahurt@robinskaplan.com

               - and -

          Aaron Sheanin, Esq.
          2440 W El Camino Real #100
          Mountain View, CA 94040
          Telephone: (650) 784-4040
          Facsimile: (650) 784-4041
          E-mail: asheanin@robinskaplan.com

               - and -

          Samuel J. Strauss
          TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
          613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: 608 237 1775
          Facsimile: 608 509 4423
          E-mail: Sam@turkestrauss.com


GREAT DAMES HOLDING: Faces Zanca ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Great Dames Holding,
Inc. The case is styled as Debra Zanca, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Great Dames Holding, Inc., Case
No. 1:20-cv-07223 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 3, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Great Dames, Inc., is a social venture that provides opportunities
and services for smart and accomplished women to engage their
individual and collective power to help others.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (929) 575-4175
          Fax: (929) 575-4195
          Email: joseph@cml.legal


GREEN DOT: Koffsmon Class Suit in California Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Green Dot Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend Koffsmon v.
Green Dot Corp., et al., No. 19-cv-10701-DDP-E, in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.

On December 18, 2019, an alleged class action entitled Koffsmon v.
Green Dot Corp., et al., No. 19-cv-10701-DDP-E, was filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, against the company and two of its officers.

The suit asserts purported claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act for allegedly misleading statements regarding the
company's business strategy.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants made statements that were
misleading because they allegedly failed to disclose details
regarding the company's customer acquisition strategy and its
impact on the company's financial performance.

The suit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of our
securities between May 9, 2018 and November 7, 2019, and seeks
compensatory damages, fees and costs.

On February 18, 2020, a shareholder derivative suit and securities
class action entitled Hellman v. Streit, et al, No.
20-cv-01572-SVW-PVC was filed in United States District Court for
the Central District of California, against us and certain of our
officers and directors.

The suit avers purported breach of fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment claims, as well as claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, on the basis of the same wrongdoing
alleged in the first lawsuit described above.

The suit does not define the purported class allegedly damaged.

These cases have been related. The defendants have not yet
responded to the complaints in these matters.

Green Dot said, "Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation,
we cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of this matter.
We are unable at this time to determine whether the outcome of the
litigation would have a material impact on our results of
operations, financial condition or cash flows."

Green Dot Corporation is a provider of reloadable prepaid debit
cards and cash reload processing services in the United States. It
is also a leader in mobile technology and mobile banking with its
GoBank mobile checking account. The company is based in Pasadena,
California.


GROUPON INC: Defending Securities Fraud Class Suit in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
Groupon, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the company is a defendant in a securities
fraud class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

On April 28, 2020, a plaintiff filed a securities fraud class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois covering the time period November 4,
2019 through February 18, 2020.

The plaintiff alleges that Groupon and certain of its officers made
materially false and/or misleading statements or omissions
regarding its business, operations and prospects, specifically as
it relates to reiterating its full year guidance on November 4,
2019.

Groupon said, "We intend to vigorously defend against these
allegations, which we believe to be without merit."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Groupon, Inc., operates online local commerce marketplaces that
connect merchants to consumers by offering goods and services at a
discount in North America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and
internationally. The Company was formerly known as ThePoint.com,
Inc. and changed its name to Groupon, Inc. in October 2008. The
Company was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois. Groupon, Inc. is a subsidiary of The Point, LLC.


HAWAII: Union Mulls Class Suit Over Handling of COVID-19 Pandemic
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Nakaso, writing for Honolulu Star Advertiser, reports that the
Hawaii Government Employees Association, Hawaii's largest public
workers' union, said it's preparing a class action grievance on
behalf of all employees affected by the state's handling of the
COVID-19 pandemic, including reports that employees have been
denied telework requests.

HGEA officials voiced their "solidarity" with their UPW "brothers
and sisters" who on Aug. 25 called for the immediate removal of
Public Safety Director Nolan Espinda.

HGEA officials also criticized the state Department of Health and
called on state leaders "to take prompt action to address these
concerns in the interest of the health and safety of our entire
community."

Asked for comment on Aug. 26, Department of Public Safety
spokeswoman Toni Schwartz repeated an earlier statement in which
she said, "The Department of Public Safety will continue to engage
in on-going discussions with UPW to resolve concerns expressed by
our employees. Together, we will navigate through the unprecedented
challenges brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic impacting our state
and facilities."

HGEA officials also called for safety protocol improvements at Oahu
Community Correctional Center, the Honolulu District Court
Cellblock, Hawaii Paroling Authority and Daniel K. Inouye
International Airport.

"It is outrageous that frontline workers in correctional
institutions, the cellblock, Hawaii Paroling Authority and at our
international airport are not properly fitted with N95 face masks,
don't have clear safety protocols, and are not properly notified
when there is a positive case in their facilities," HGEA Executive
Director Randy Perreira said in a statement. "Continued attempts to
communicate with the administration have failed and with COVID-19
surging on Oahu, people's lives are at stake."

As of Aug. 26, DPS said that 57 staff and 245 inmates had tested
positive for COVID-19.

HGEA said in a statement that, "Our members have lost faith in the
leadership of PSD and the Department of Health. For months we have
been going through proper channels asking for clear, practical
guidance on basic health and safety questions and standard
operating procedures related to COVID-19 positive cases, and yet to
this day, only vague generalities and Department of Health and CDC
guidelines have been provided. Further, despite the governor's most
recent imposition of another lockdown of two weeks on Oahu, we are
getting reports of PSD employees having their telework requests
denied." [GN]


HAXTON MASONRY: Bid for Partial Summary Judgment in Jimenez Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID JIMENEZ, Plaintiff, v. HAXTON MASONRY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-07109-SVK (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge
Susan van Keulen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted the Defendant's motion for partial
summary judgment.

David Jimenez worked for Defendant Haxton Masonry Inc. as a
concrete finisher between 2013 and 2017.  The Plaintiff filed the
class action against the Defendant alleging federal Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") claims and the following California state
law claims: (i) Second Cause of Action (California Labor Code
Section 2802 - Failure to Pay Travel Expenses); (ii) Third Cause of
Action (California Labor Code Sections 510, 558, 1194, 1198 -
Failure to Pay All Wages Due); (iii) Fourth Cause of Action
(California Labor Code Sections 201-203 - Failure to Pay Wages When
Due); (iv) Fifth Cause of Action (California Labor Code Section 226
- Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Statements); (v) Sixth Cause
of Action (California Labor Code Section 2699 et seq. - Private
Attorney General Act); and Seventh Cause of Action (California
Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. - Unfair
Business Practices).  The Plaintiff asserts that these wage and
hour claims arose during work and/or travel between certain
California construction jobsites.

The Defendant's construction projects in California included work
at federal facilities.  These sites included Marine Corps Base Camp
Pendleton, Naval Base Ventura County (Point Mugu Naval Air Weapons
Station), Naval Air Station North Island (Navy Base Coronado),
Naval Base Point Loma, Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, and Marine
Corps Air Station Miramar.  The Defendant asserts that it had 31
construction projects at these sites during the relevant class
period.  It is undisputed that Plaintiff and/or the putative class
members worked at each of these sites.

The Defendant now seeks partial summary judgment on the following
California state law claims on the grounds that they arise under
the federal enclave doctrine: (i) Second Cause of Action
(California Labor Code Section 2802 - Failure to Pay Travel
Expenses): as to claims arising from work performed at Navy Base
Coronado and Naval Base Point Loma; (ii) Third Cause of Action
(California Labor Code Sections 510, 558, 1194, 1198 - Failure to
Pay All Wages Due): as to claims arising from work performed at
Navy Base Coronado and Naval Base Point Loma; (iii) Fourth Cause of
Action (California Labor Code Sections 201-203 - Failure to Pay
Wages When Due): as to claims arising from work performed at Navy
Base Coronado and Naval Base Point Loma; (iv) Fifth Cause of Action
(California Labor Code Section 226 - Failure to Provide Accurate
Itemized Statements): as to claims arising from work performed at
Camp Pendleton, Navy Base Coronado, and Naval Base Point Loma; (v)
Sixth Cause of Action (California Labor Code Section 2699 et seq. -
Private Attorney General Act): as to claims arising from work
performed at Camp Pendleton, Navy Base Coronado, Naval Base Point
Loma, Miramar, Seal Beach, and Point Mugu; and (vi) Seventh Cause
of Action (California Business and Professions Code Section 17200
et seq. - Unfair Business Practices): as to claims arising from
work performed at Camp Pendleton, Navy Base Coronado, Naval Base
Point Loma, Miramar, Seal Beach, and Point Mugu.

Upon consideration of briefs, arguments at telephonic hearing and
relevant law, Magistrate Judge van Keulen granted the Defendant's
motion for partial summary judgment.  

In support of its motion for partial summary judgment, the
Defendant submitted the declaration of Cassandra Reed, its Office
Manager and former Senior Project Administrator, Payroll
Administrator, and Contacts Administrator.  The Plaintiff objects
to page 3, lines 3-27, and page 4, lines 1-7 of Reed's declaration
(1) as inadmissible hearsay and (2) on the grounds that Reed did
not have personal knowledge of the contents of her statement.

The Magistrate Judge overruled both of the Plaintiff's objections.
The Judge is satisfied that Reed is a qualified witness within the
meaning of Rule 803(6).  The Defendant also submitted several
requests for judicial notice.  The Plaintiff did not object to any
of these documents.  Accordingly, the Defendant's requests for
judicial notice is granted.

In his opposition and again at the hearing, the Plaintiff argues
that partial summary judgment is procedurally deficient.  However,
a party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or
defense -- or the part of each claim or defense -- on which summary
judgment is sought.  The Magistrate Judge determines that the
arguments presented by the Defendant in the action address a
distinct part of each claim and therefore are sufficiently precise
to merit consideration under Rule 56.  Accordingly, the motion for
summary judgment is not procedurally deficient.

The analysis of whether a claim is barred by the federal enclave
doctrine requires three inquiries: (1) whether the site is a
federal enclave and when it became one; (2) whether the claim
arises from the federal enclave; and (3) whether the claim existed
before the enclave was created.

The Magistrate Judge must first determine whether the sites in
question are federal enclaves, and, if so, when they became
enclaves.  The Judge finds that there is no dispute of material
fact that the six sites are federal enclaves and were established
as such in the years identified.  The Judge also finds no dispute
of material fact that any state law claim arising on these enclaves
and based on a state law post-dating the day the enclave was
established is barred by the federal enclave doctrine.  And because
the Plaintiff's claims stem from work performed on federal
enclaves, they are barred by the federal enclave doctrine.

Finally, the Plaintiff argues that if federal enclave law applies
to his claims, his claim under California Labor Code Section 2802
should survive because it is based on the common law claim of
unjust enrichment.  The Plaintiff, citing Mersnick v. USProtect
Corp., argues that a claim for unjust enrichment is based on common
law that predates when any of the six sites became federal
enclaves.  The Defendant differentiates Mersnick, where the
plaintiff explicitly pled unjust enrichment as a cause of action in
his complaint and argues that the Plaintiff did not include unjust
enrichment as a cause of action in the instant case.  The
Magistrate Judge agrees with the Defendant.  Accordingly, the Judge
finds that there is no dispute of material fact that the
Plaintiff's second cause of action does not survive the federal
enclave doctrine.

For the reasons set forth, Judge van Keulen granted the Defendant's
motion for partial summary judgment on the following claims: (i)
Second Cause of Action (California Labor Code Section 2802 -
Failure to Pay Travel Expenses): as to claims arising from work
performed at Navy Base Coronado and Naval Base Point Loma; (ii)
Third Cause of Action (California Labor Code Sections 510, 558,
1194, 1198 - Failure to Pay All Wages Due): as to claims arising
from work performed at Navy Base Coronado and Naval Base Point
Loma; (iii) Fourth Cause of Action (California Labor Code Sections
201-203 - Failure to Pay Wages When Due): as to claims arising from
work performed at Navy Base Coronado and Naval Base Point Loma;
(iv) Fifth Cause of Action (California Labor Code Section 226 -
Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Statements): as to claims
arising from work performed at Camp Pendleton, Navy Base Coronado,
and Naval Base Point Loma; (v) Sixth Cause of Action (California
Labor Code Section 2699 et seq. - Private Attorney General Act): as
to claims arising from work performed at Camp Pendleton, Navy Base
Coronado, Naval Base Point Loma, Miramar, Seal Beach, and Point
Mugu; and (vi) Seventh Cause of Action (California Business and
Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. - Unfair Business
Practices): as to claims arising from work performed at Camp
Pendleton, Navy Base Coronado, Naval Base Point Loma, Miramar, Seal
Beach, and Point Mugu.

The Defendant's requests for judicial notice are granted, and the
Plaintiff's objections to the Reed declaration are overruled.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 5, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/SMu0s4 from Leagle.com.


HEALTHPEAK PROPERTIES: Boynton Beach Class Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Healthpeak Properties, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a
putative class action styled, Boynton Beach Firefighters' Pension
Fund v. HCP, Inc., et al.

On May 9, 2016, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint, Boynton Beach Firefighters'
Pension Fund v. HCP, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-01106-JJH, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against
the Company, certain of its officers, HCR ManorCare, Inc.
("HCRMC"), and certain of its officers, asserting violations of the
federal securities laws.

The suit asserts claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"),
and alleges that the Company made certain false or misleading
statements relating to the value of and risks concerning its
investment in HCRMC by allegedly failing to disclose that HCRMC had
engaged in billing fraud, as alleged by the U.S. Department of
Justice ("DoJ") in a suit against HCRMC arising from the False
Claims Act that the DoJ voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.

The plaintiff in the class action suit demands compensatory damages
(in an unspecified amount), costs and expenses (including
attorneys' fees and expert fees), and equitable, injunctive, or
other relief as the Court deems just and proper. On November 28,
2017, the Court appointed Societe Generale Securities GmbH (SGSS
Germany) and the City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief Systems
(Birmingham) as Co-Lead Plaintiffs in the class action.

The motion to dismiss was fully briefed on May 21, 2018 and oral
arguments were held on October 23, 2018. Subsequently, on December
6, 2018, HCRMC and its officers were voluntarily dismissed from the
class action lawsuit without prejudice to such claims being
refiled. On November 22, 2019, the Court granted the motion to
dismiss.

On December 20, 2019, Co-Lead plaintiffs filed a motion to amend
the Court's judgment. Defendants' opposition brief was filed on
February 18, 2020, and Co-Lead Plaintiffs' reply brief was filed on
April 2, 2020. On May 18, 2020, Defendants filed a motion seeking
leave to file a sur-reply, on May 21, 2020, Co-Lead Plaintiffs
filed an opposition brief, and on May 28, 2020, Defendants filed a
reply in support of the motion.

Both motions have been fully briefed and remain pending with the
Court. The Company believes the suit to be without merit and
intends to vigorously defend against it.

Healthpeak Properties, Inc. formerly HCP, Inc. is a diversified
real estate investment trust that owns and develops healthcare real
estate within the United States for Life Science, Senior Housing
and Medical Office. The company is based in Irvine, California.


HECLA MINING: Continues to Defend S.D.N.Y. Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------
Hecla Mining Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action
suits pending before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

On May 24, 2019, a purported Hecla stockholder filed a putative
class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Hecla and certain of its executive
officers, one of whom is also a director. The complaint,
purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of Hecla common
stock from March 19, 2018 through and including May 8, 2019,
asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
seeks, among other things, damages and costs and expenses.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Hecla, under the authority
and control of the individual defendants, made certain material
false and misleading statements and omitted certain material
information regarding Hecla's Nevada Operations unit.

The complaint alleges that these misstatements and omissions
artificially inflated the market price of Hecla common stock during
the class period, thus purportedly harming investors.

A second suit was filed on June 19, 2019, alleging virtually
identical claims.

Hecla said, "We cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits or
estimate damages if plaintiffs were to prevail. We believe that
these claims are without merit and intend to defend them
vigorously."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Hecla Mining Company, together with its subsidiaries, discovers,
acquires, develops, and produces precious and base metal properties
worldwide. The company offers lead, zinc, and bulk flotation
concentrates to custom smelters and brokers; and unrefined gold and
silver bullion bars to precious metals traders. Hecla Mining
Company was founded in 1891 and is headquartered in Coeur d'Alene,
Idaho.


HETERO USA: J M Sues Over Unlawful Delay of Generic Bystolic
------------------------------------------------------------
J M Smith Corporation d/b/a Smith Drug Company, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated v. HETERO USA INC.; HETERO LABS
LTD.; HETERO DRUGS LTD.; TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.; TORRENT
PHARMA INC.; ALKEM LABORATORIES LTD.; INDCHEMIE HEALTH SPECIALTIES
PRIVATE LTD.; GLENMARK GENERICS INC., USA; GLENMARK GENERICS LTD.;
GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS S.A.; AMERIGEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;
AMERIGEN PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD.; WATSON LABORATORIES, INC. (NV);
WATSON LABORATORIES, INC. (DE); WATSON LABORATORIES, INC. (NY);
WATSON LABORATORIES, INC. (CT); WATSON PHARMA, INC.; WATSON
PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; ACTAVIS, INC.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES
LTD., AND TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-07110
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 1, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for
their violations of antitrust laws concerning the pharmaceutical
drug Bystolic.

The lawsuit also seeks treble damages and declaratory and
injunctive relief arising out of the Defendants' unlawful delay of
their generic substitutes for the branded drug Bystolic (nebivolol
hydrochloride), otherwise known as nebivolol hydrochloride or
nebivolol HCl, a "beta blocker" used to treat high blood pressure.

Forest Laboratories, Inc., Forest Laboratories Holdings, Ltd.,
Forest Laboratories, LLC, and Forest Laboratories Ireland Ltd. and
its successors manufacture the brand version of Bystolic, which is
one of Forest's key drugs, delivering nearly $1 billion in United
States annual sales. Although would-be generic manufacturers began
applying with the United States Food and Drug Administration to
market generic nebivolol HCl on December 17, 2011, no generic
competitor has entered or will enter until September 17, 2021.

The only material difference between generic and brand name drugs
is their price–-generics are typically at least 50-80% less
expensive when there are multiple generic competitors on the
market, according to the complaint. As a result, generics
constitute both (a) an opportunity for drug purchasers to obtain
enormous cost savings; and (b) a serious threat to the monopoly
power and profits of the manufacturer of the corresponding brand
name drug. Indeed, AB-rated generics typically take 80% or more of
the sales of a drug molecule from the brand name product within six
months of generic entry. These extremely rapid erosion rates of the
brand manufacturer's sales are due in large part to a unique
feature of the pharmaceutical industry called drug substitution
laws, which permit (and in many states require) dispensing
pharmacies to substitute available AB-rated generic drugs for a
brand drug unless the prescribing physician specifically orders
otherwise.

Acutely aware of these realities, the Defendants, who are generic
drug manufacturers, each entered into unlawful reverse-payment
deals (also known as "pay for delay" deals) with Forest, according
to the complaint. From October 2012 through November 2013,
Defendants entered into these serial deals pursuant to which each
one (1) agreed not to compete with Forest or enter the market with
its generic version of Bystolic prior to September 17, 2021, unless
another Defendant entered the market earlier; and in exchange (2)
received "side-deals," and cash payments from Forest, the precise
amounts of which have not been publicly disclosed except that, on
information and belief, they each exceed $15,000,000 in value.

The Plaintiff contends that this illegal collusion and unreasonable
restraint of trade in the market for nebivolol HCl has continued,
all at the expense of purchasers. Every month of delayed generic
competition has allowed Forest to unlawfully maintain many millions
of dollars in monopoly profits from Bystolic without generic
competition and allowed the Defendants to share in those profits by
pocketing large and unjustified payments from Forest for agreeing
to delay bringing generic nebivolol HCl to market, the Plaintiff
asserts.

The Plaintiff argues that in sum, but for the anticompetitive
reverse payments, the Defendants would have launched their generic
products earlier either: (a) at risk; (b) upon prevailing against
Forest in the underlying patent litigation; or (c) via lawful
settlement agreements providing for earlier negotiated entry dates
untainted by the delay caused by the unlawful reverse payments. Had
any of the above scenarios played out--as would have occurred
absent the unlawful reverse payments--the Plaintiff and the Class
it seeks to represent would have paid substantially less for
nebivolol HCl.

The Defendants' conspiracies violated Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act, injuring the Plaintiff and the Class of direct
purchasers it seeks to represent and causing them to pay
overcharges, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased substantial amounts nebivolol HCl directly
from Forest and others at supracompetitive prices.

Hetero USA Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce E. Gerstein, Esq.
          Joseph Opper, Esq.
          Dan Litvin, Esq.
          GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP
          88 Pine Street, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: (212) 398-0055
          Email: bgerstein@garwingerstein.com
                 jopper@garwingerstein.com
                 dlitvin@garwingerstein.com

               - and -

          Stuart E. Des Roches, Esq.
          Andrew W. Kelly, Esq.
          ODOM & DES ROCHES, LLC
          650 Poydras Street, Suite 2020
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: (504) 522-0077
          Email: stuart@odrlaw.com
                 akelly@odrlaw.com

               - and -

          Susan Segura, Esq.
          David C. Raphael, Jr., Esq.
          Erin R. Leger, Esq.
          SMITH SEGURA RAPHAEL & LEGER, LLP
          221 Ansley Blvd.
          Alexandria, LA 71303
          Phone: (318) 445-4480
          Email: ssegura@ssrllp.com
                 draphael@ssrllp.com
                 eleger@ssrllp.com

               - and -

          Russell Chorush, Esq.
          HEIM PAYNE & CHORUSH, LLP
          1111 Bagby, Suite 2100
          Houston, TX 77002
          Phone: (713) 221-2000
          Email: rchorush@hpcllp.com

               - and -

          David F. Sorensen, Esq.
          Caitlin G. Coslett, Esq.
          Daniel C. Simons, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 875-3000
          Email: dsorensen@bm.net
                 ccoslett@bm.net
                 dsimons@bm.net

               - and -

          Peter Kohn, Esq.
          Joseph T. Lukens, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          One Penn Center, Suite 1550
          1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 277-5770
          Email: pkohn@faruqilaw.com
                 jlukens@faruqilaw.com


HILLS BANCORPORATION: Talks in Overdraft Fees Litig. Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hills Bancorporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that parties in the class action suit related to
overdraft fees on debit card transactions are negotiating a
class-wide settlement and expect to reach a final agreement this
year.

On April 10, 2019, Hills Bank was sued in a class action lawsuit in
the Iowa District Court for Johnson County.  

The lawsuit seeks class action status for customers who had paid
overdraft fees on debit card transactions that were authorized into
a positive account, but settled into a negative account.  

Plaintiff contends that these overdraft fees breached the terms of
Hills Bank's account documents.  

Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages for breach of
contract.  

The Bank disputes the merits of Plaintiff's claims.

The parties are negotiating a class-wide settlement and expect to
reach a final agreement in 2020 upon which the settlement will be
recorded in the Company's financial statements.

Hills Bancorporation said, "At this stage of the proceedings,
management of the Bank does not believe that any adverse outcome or
potential loss will have a material impact on the Company's
financial statement when taken as a whole."

Hills Bancorporation is a holding company principally engaged,
through its subsidiary bank, in the business of banking. The
company is based in Hills, Iowa.


HOMETOWN AMERICA: Breaches Landlord-Tenant Contract, Gable Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD GABLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HOMETOWN AMERICA, LLC; HOMETOWN AMERICA MANAGEMENT,
LLC; CWS COMMUNITIES, LP; and ABC CORPS., Case No. 1:20-cv-12071
(D.N.J., Aug. 31, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and Truth in
Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act and for breach of
contract and unjust enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations as a
community owner in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, including
threatening the Plaintiff and other residents at Shenandoah Village
of evictions, increasing rent by 2.5% on May 1, 2020, and
withholding or eliminating virtually all amenities and services
paid for by the residents. Moreover, Hometown abandoned many of its
responsibilities as owner of the community by failing entirely to
enforce the age restrictions and pet restrictions guaranteed to the
residents and failing to maintain the infrastructure of the
community.

As a result of the Defendants' unlawful practices, the Plaintiff
says he and Class members suffered economic and non-economic
damages.

Hometown America, LLC, is a company that owns and manages
manufactured housing communities in the United States, with its
principal place of business located in Chicago, Illinois. Hometown
America Management, LLC, is an affiliate of Hometown America, LLC,
with its principal business address located in West Trenton, New
Jersey.

CWS Communities, LP is a property management company with its
principal place of business is located at 150 North Wacker Drive,
in Chicago, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:       
      
         David J. DiSabato, Esq.
         DiSABATO & CONSIDINE LLC
         196 Santiago Avenue
         Rutherford, NJ 07070
         Telephone: (201) 762-5088
         Facsimile: (973) 453-0338
         E-mail: ddisabato@disabatolaw.com


HUMANA INC: Illegally Sends Unsolicited Fax Ads, Ryoo Dental Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RYOO DENTAL, INC., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HUMANA, INC. d/b/a HUMANA EAP AND WORK-LIFE
SERVICES, Case No. 8:20-cv-01642 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 31, 2020), is
brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent an unsolicited
advertisement by using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or
other device to the Plaintiff's telephone facsimile machine at
(714) 333-1840 on June 26, 2020, without obtaining the Plaintiff's
prior express invitation or permission. The Defendant has sent
other facsimile transmissions of material advertising the quality
or commercial availability of its property, goods, or services to
the Plaintiff and to at least 40 other persons as part of a plan to
broadcast fax advertisements. Moreover, the Defendant's fax
advertisements sent to Plaintiff lacked a proper notice informing
the recipient of the ability and means to avoid future unsolicited
advertisements.

Humana, Inc., offers coordinated health care through health
maintenance organizations, preferred provider organizations,
point-of-service plans, and administrative services products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
          EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
          425 North Andrews Ave., Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Tel: 954-524-2820
          Fax: 954-524-2822
          Email: seth@eollc.com


IBI ARMORED: Carrasco Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS JORGE CARRASCO; TERRENCE T. MITCHELL; and GREGORY BRICE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IBI
ARMORED SERVICES, INC.; MICHAEL SHIELDS; and HAROLD SHIELDS,
Defendants, Case No. 1:29-cv-03611 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 11, 2020), seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as drivers.

IBI Armored Services, Inc., is a full service armored
transportation company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          155 East 44th Street, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com


IGNITE USA: Court Narrows Claims in Mirza Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the case, DOMINIQUE MIRZA and TARA LUCHETTI, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. IGNITE USA,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19 C 5836 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Charles P.
Kocoras of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, (i) denied Ignite's motion to dismiss
under Rule 12(b)(1); and (ii) granted in part and denied in part
Ignite's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).

Plaintiff Dominique Mirza is a citizen of Pennsylvania who resides
in East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.  Plaintiff Tara Luchetti is a
citizen of New York who resides in East Rochester, New York.
Defendant Ignite is an Illinois corporation with its principal
place of business in Chicago, Illinois.  It distributes reusable
beverage containers, coffee mugs, water bottles, and kids' cups
under the "Contigo" brand name.

Both Mirza and Luchetti are parents to young children.  In October
of 2018, Luchetti purchased a Contigo(R) Kids Cleanable Water
Bottle from a Target store in Penfield, New York.  In April 2019,
Mirza bought two stainless steel Contigo(R) Kids Cleanable Water
Bottles from a Target store in Pennsylvania.  At some point after
buying the water bottles, the bottles' clear silicone spout
detached, posing a choking hazard to the Plaintiffs' children.  On
Aug. 27, 2019, Ignite issued a recall for the water bottles.  The
recall offered to replace the lid on the water bottles but did not
offer purchasers any monetary relief.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class defined as all persons in
the United States who bought a Contigo(R) Kids Cleanable Water
Bottle subject to the Aug. 27, 2019 Voluntary Recall, who refused
to take part in the recall.  Furthermore, Mirza looks to represent
a subclass of members who bought the water bottles in the State of
Pennsylvania, while Luchetti seeks to represent those who purchased
the water bottles in New York.

The Plaintiffs allege that they relied and understood the name on
the water bottles' packaging, "Contigo Kids," to represent that the
bottles were safe for children to use.  They further allege that
they would not have bought the water bottles had it not been for
the label's suggestion that the product was designed for and safe
for children.  However, because the water bottles' silicone spout
detached and posed a choking hazard to children, the Plaintiffs
claim that naming the water bottles "Contigo Kids" was false and
deceptive conduct that violates several consumer protection laws.

Based on these events and allegations, the Plaintiffs filed their
initial complaint on Aug. 29, 2019.  The Complaint was amended on
Oct. 29, 2019, alleging claims for breach of implied warranty of
merchantability in Count I, unjust enrichment in Count II,
violation of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer-Protection Law ("UTPCPL") in Count III, and violation of
New York General Business Law ("GBL") Sections 349 and 350 in
Counts IV and Count V.

Ignite sought dismissal of the amended complaint under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the Plaintiffs lack
standing.  Alternatively, Ignite urges the Court to dismiss the
amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),
arguing that the Plaintiffs have not pled facts sufficient to state
claims on all five counts.

Jugde Kocoras finds that Ignite's reliance on Sugasawara v. Ford
Motor Company is misplaced.  In Sugasawara, the court found
financial injuries like the ones alleged here insufficient for
standing purposes where a recall actually restored the value of the
vehicles by fixing the defect.  But unlike plaintiffs in
Sugasawara, the Plaintiffs did not take part in the recall, and
thus the benefit of their bargain was not restored to them.  The
Judge accordingly finds that the Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient
facts to support an injury-in-fact.  Given that no other element of
standing is challenged, the Judge denies Ignite's motion to dismiss
under Rule 12(b)(1).

Ignite alternatively urges the Court to dismiss all five counts of
the Plaintiffs' amended complaint for failure to state a claim.
The Judge finds (i) that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for
breach of implied warranty under New York law; (ii) the Plaintiffs'
unjust-enrichment claim under New York law must fail not only
because they allege that Ignite engaged in wrongdoing, but also
because it is duplicative of the GBL claims; (iii) that the
Plaintiffs allege sufficient facts to state a claim based on
tortious conduct under Pennsylvania's consumer-protection law; (iv)
that the Plaintiffs allege sufficient facts to state a claim under
the UTPCPL Section 201-2(4)(xiv) and (xxi); (v) that the Plaintiffs
do not state a fraudulent omission claim under Pennsylvania law;
and (vi) the Plaintiffs fail to state a fraudulent omission claim
under New York law.

For the reasons he mentioned, Judge Kocoras denied Ignite's motion
to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1).  The Judge granted in part and
denied in part the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).  The
motion is granted as to Count I in its entirety.  The motion is
granted as to the Plaintiffs' New York claims in Count II and is
denied as to their Pennsylvania claims under that Count.  The
motion is granted as to the fraudulent omission claims in Count
III, IV, and V and is denied as to the misrepresentation and
deceptive practices claims in those counts.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 12, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://is.gd/64gAfM from Leagle.com.

Dominique Mirza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Katrina Carroll --
kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch, LLP.

Ignite USA, LLC, Defendant, represented by Joseph J. Krasovec, III
-- jkrasovec@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin LLP, Jeffrey Maxwell
Heckendorn -- mheckendorn@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin Llp &
Steven Edward Swaney -- sswaney@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin
LLP, pro hac vice.


INSPERITY INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 21 Motion Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Insperity, Inc. (NYSE: NSP).
Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff.  Additional information about each case
can be found at the link provided.

Insperity, Inc. (NYSE: NSP)

Class Period: February 11, 2019 to February 11, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 21, 2020

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 guidance and reduced its full-year 2019
guidance. Further, defendants revealed that in the second quarter
2019, Insperity had experienced an increase in large medical claim
costs, which defendants described as an anomaly which would not
impact projected cost benefit trends.

On this news, Insperity shares fell $35.74 per share, or 25
percent.

On November 4, 2019, Insperity released its third quarter 2019
financial results, which substantially missed analysts' estimates
and were materially down year-over-year. In addition, Insperity
materially reduced its full-year 2019 guidance. Defendants
attributed these results to continued large medical claim costs,
which they again attempted to describe as a mere anomaly to assuage
investor concern.

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. On this date, Insperity revealed that, for the third
quarter in a row, large medical claims had again impacted the
Company. 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. Insperity
also offered disappointingly bearish guidance for the first quarter
and full-year 2020.

On this news, Insperity shares declined by $17.44 per share, or 20
percent.

The complaint, filed on July 21, 2020, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants failed to disclose, and would continue to
omit, the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's
business, operations, and financial condition, which were known to
or recklessly disregarded by defendants: (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.

For more information on the Insperity securities class action case
go to: https://bespc.com/NSP

               About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York and California. The firm represents
individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities,
derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal
courts across the country. For more information about the firm,
please visit www.bespc.com.  Attorney advertising.  Prior results
do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]


INSPERITY INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 21 Motion Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Aug. 31 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of shareholders of Insperity
Inc.  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.

Insperity, Inc. (NYSE:NSP)

NSP Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 11, 2019
- February 11, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 21, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/insperity-inc-loss-form?prid=8929&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
Insperity, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (a) 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; (b) Insperity was experiencing an adverse
trend of large medical claims; (c) 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 (d) the foregoing issues were reasonably likely to,
and would, materially impact Insperity's financial results.

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
www.zlk.com [GN]


INSPERITY INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Sept. 21 Motion Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Insperity, Inc. (NYSE:NSP) between
February 11, 2019 and February 11, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important September 21, 2020 lead plaintiff
deadline in the case. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Insperity investors under the federal securities laws. 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
21, 2020.

To join the Insperity class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1902.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) Insperity 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; (2)
Insperity was experiencing an adverse trend of large medical
claims; (3) as a mitigating measure, Insperity would be forced to
increase the cost of its employee benefit plans, causing stunted
customer growth and reduced customer retention; and (4) the
foregoing issues were reasonably likely to, and would, materially
impact Insperity's financial results. 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
21, 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-1902.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.

Contact Information:

Laurence Rosen, 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
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]


INTER-STATE OIL: Payne & Fears Attorneys Discuss Court Rulings
--------------------------------------------------------------
Blake Dillion, Esq., Alejandro Ruiz, Esq., and Tyler Runge, Esq.,
of Payne & Fears, in an article for JDSupra discuss Key California
Employment Law Cases: July 2020.

Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, 140 S. Ct. 2049
(2020)

Summary: The ministerial exception, grounded in First Amendment's
religion clauses, barred teachers' employment discrimination claims
where teachers educated their students in the Catholic faith and
guided their students to live their lives in accordance with that
faith.

Aixtron, Inc. v. Veeco Instruments Inc., Nos. H045126, H045464,
2020 WL 4013981 (Cal. Ct. App. July 16, 2020)

Summary: Neither the Federal Arbitration Act nor the California
Arbitration Act grant an arbitrator subpoena power to order
prehearing discovery from third parties if the parties to the
arbitration did not provide for such discovery rights in their
arbitration agreement.

Facts: A worker resigned from his position with Veeco Instruments,
Inc. ("Veeco") and went to work for Aixtron, Inc. ("Aixtron"), a
competitor. Veeco then initiated an arbitration proceeding against
the worker alleging breach of contract, breach of the duty of
loyalty, and conversion, including alleged data theft. During the
discovery phase of the action, the arbitrator granted Veeco's
application for a pre-hearing discovery subpoena for Aixtron's
business records, including a demand that any computers the worker
had used be submitted for forensic examination by an agreed-upon
third-party neutral expert. Aixtron objected, but the arbitrator
granted Veeco's motion to compel. Aixtron petitioned the trial
court seeking judicial review and Veeco filed a separate petition
to enforce the arbitrator's discovery order. Veeco's petition was
granted, while Aixtron's petition was denied. Aixtron appealed both
orders.

Court's Decision: The California Court of Appeal reversed. The
court of appeal initially noted that it was unnecessary to resolve
the parties' dispute over whether the Federal Arbitration Act
("FAA") or the California Arbitration Act ("CAA") applied, because
neither statutory scheme gave the arbitrator the authority to issue
a discovery subpoena under the circumstances of this case. The
court of appeal agreed with federal precedent that the FAA did not
grant arbitrators implicit powers to order document discovery from
nonparties prior to a hearing. Similarly, the court determined that
the CAA likewise does not grant an arbitrator the authority to
issue pre-hearing discovery subpoenas, unless the parties have
provided for such authority in their agreement.

Practical Implications: Businesses should review their arbitration
agreements to ensure they provide for the type and amount of
discovery they may wish to have available to them in arbitration.
While the FAA and CAA may provide adequate discovery mechanisms,
businesses should not assume those arbitration rules give the
arbitrator the authority to issue pre-hearing discovery such as
third-party subpoenas.

Garner v. Inter-State Oil Co., No. C088374, 2020 WL 4218302 (Cal.
Ct. App. June 26, 2020), as modified (July 23, 2020)

Summary: Language of arbitration agreement that included "waiver of
all rights to a civil jury trial or participation in a civil class
action lawsuit" did not waive employee's right to pursue class
claims altogether, but rather only waived his ability to pursue
class claims in court and permitted arbitration of class claims.

Facts: Plaintiff filed a class action alleging that his employer,
Inter-State Oil Co., violated a variety of wage and hour laws. The
employer petitioned to compel arbitration of the individual claims
and sought dismissal of the class claims entirely. Plaintiff argued
that the plain language of the agreement gave him the right to
pursue his class claims in arbitration. The trial court disagreed,
holding that the language of the agreement indicated Plaintiff
waived his right to class claims across the board. It thus granted
the employer's petition to compel. Plaintiff appealed.

Court's Decision: The California Court of Appeal reversed in part,
carefully considering the plain language of the agreement. It
called out two particular sentences. The first stated that the
parties agreed to mandatory arbitration for "all claims arising out
of or related to [] employment that could be filed in a court of
law."  That sentence listed a series of claims subject to
arbitration, including class actions. Read in isolation, the court
held this sentence meant the parties agreed to arbitrate any of the
listed claims—including class actions. The second sentence stated
that the agreement served as a "waiver of all rights to a civil
jury trial or participation in a civil class action lawsuit."
Although the employer argued this provision waived all class
claims, the court of appeal interpreted "lawsuit" to mean a court
action, not an arbitration. This meant the employee actually did
not waive his right to pursue class claims if he simply arbitrated
them, only that he waived his right to bring class claims in court.


Practical Implications: Employers should closely review their
agreements to ensure that they are properly releasing the
signatories' rights to bring certain claims (such as class claims)
in any court and make clear that unreleased claims must be brought
in the appropriate forum.

Canela v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 18-16592, 2020 WL 3866577
(9th Cir. July 9, 2020)

Summary: Representative actions brought under the California
Private Attorneys General Act cannot be brought as a "class action"
under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.

Facts:  Plaintiff brought a state court action against his
employer, Costco Wholesale Corp. ("Costco"), under the California
Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). Costco removed the case to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California based on diversity jurisdiction and the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"). Costco then moved for partial
summary judgment arguing that Plaintiff lacked Article III standing
to represent absent aggrieved employees and could not represent
absent aggrieved employees under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. The district court denied Costco's motion, but
certified an interlocutory appeal raising two questions: (1)
whether, absent class certification, a PAGA plaintiff in federal
court has Article III standing to represent absent aggrieved
employees, and (2) whether a PAGA plaintiff in federal court can
represent absent aggrieved employees without qualifying for class
certification under Rule 23.

Court's Decision:  The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit did
not address either question. Instead, it held that the district
court did not have jurisdiction over the case and remanded the
action to state court. First, the court of appeals held that the
amount in controversy did not meet the statutory threshold at the
time of removal because PAGA civil penalties cannot be aggregated
for this purpose. Second, the court determined that PAGA actions
are not sufficiently similar to Rule 23 class actions to trigger
CAFA jurisdiction. CAFA relaxed the diversity requirements for a
putative "class action," or any civil action filed under Rule 23 or
a state statute or rule that closely resembles Rule 23. PAGA does
not closely resemble Rule 23 because, unlike Rule 23, PAGA contains
no requirements of numerosity, commonality, or typicality, has no
notice requirement for unnamed aggrieved employees, nor may such
employees opt out of a PAGA action. The court also noted that while
nonparty aggrieved employees are bound by the judgment with respect
to recovery of civil penalties, they retain all rights to pursue or
recover other remedies available under state or federal law. For
this reason, the PAGA claim was not, and could not have been,
brought as a "class action" under CAFA.

Practical Implications: This case further solidifies the fact that
a PAGA action, while a representative action, is not a "class
action" for purposes of federal law. Employers who prefer to
litigate in federal court may not be able to do so unless the
plaintiff makes actual class claims. [GN]


INTERNATIONAL MONEY: Settlement in Sawyer Suit Awaits Court OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
International Money Express, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the settlement in the putative
class action suit initiated by Stuart Sawyer is awaiting court
approval.

On May 30, 2019, Stuart Sawyer filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida asserting a claim under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Section 227, et seq.,
based on allegations that since May 30, 2015, the Company had sent
text messages to class members' wireless telephones without their
consent.

Following a mediation held on October 7, 2019, the Company and the
plaintiff entered into a term sheet providing the general terms for
the settlement of the action, which was memorialized in a
definitive Settlement Agreement on March 16, 2020 subject to
subsequent Court approval.

The Settlement Agreement provides for resolution of Mr. Sawyer's
TCPA claims and the claims of a class of similarly situated
individuals, as defined in the complaint, who received text
messages from the Company during the period May 30, 2015 through
October 7, 2019, and for the creation of a $3.25 million settlement
fund that will be used to pay all class member claims, class
counsel's fees and the costs of administering the settlement.

The Settlement Agreement also established procedures for the
notification of claimants and the processing of claims. The
settlement fund will be managed by a duly-appointed settlement
administrator which will be authorized to communicate with class
members, process claims and make payments from the fund in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the final
judgment in the case.

No amount of the settlement fund will revert to the Company;
instead, any unclaimed funds will be sent to a consumer advocacy
organization approved by the Court.

The remaining balance of the amount payable under the Settlement
Agreement of approximately $2.9 million is included in accrued and
other liabilities in the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of
June 30, 2020.

International Money Express, Inc., through its subsidiary, operates
as a money remittance services company in the United States, Latin
America, Mexico, Central and South America, and the Caribbean. The
company offers remittance services, including a suite of ancillary
financial processing solutions and payment services. It provides
services through sending and paying agents and company operated
stores, as well as through online and Internet-enabled mobile
devices. The company was formerly known as FinTech Acquisition
Corp. II. International Money Express, Inc. is headquartered in
Miami, Florida.


INVENTHELP: Berger Montague to Handle Consumer Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fisher, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a federal
magistrate has sided with plaintiffs firm Berger Montague over a
relative newcomer to consumer class actions, handing the
Philadelphia law firm control of a case that has produced
allegations of collusion, conspiracy and misleading advertising.

In a 10-page order issued on Aug. 24, U.S. Magistrate Judge
Patricia Dodge acknowledged attorney Julie Peshersky Plitt of Oxman
Law Group was the first to file a lawsuit against InventHelp, a
company accused of defrauding would-be inventors by charging them
for worthless patent advice. Pechersky Plitt filed the first case
against InventHelp in June 2018 after being contacted by a
disgruntled investor.

She later sought to have the case expanded into a class action,
which is when Berger Montague entered the fray. She found out about
the firm's involvement by filling out a contact form designed to
recruit potential plaintiffs.

In her ruling, Judge Dodge said the fight between law firms led to
a "highly acrimonious relationship" in which lawyers accused each
other "of misconduct, unethical behavior and a lack of
professionalism." Pechersky Plitt said Berger Montague recruited
clients with ads that neglected to spell out the firm's
involvement, using the complaint she drafted.

She also accused the Philadelphia firm of colluding with InventHelp
management, declining to name individual executives as Perchersky
Plitt had in her complaints, and engaging in settlement
negotiations even before Berger Montague filed its first
complaint.

The judge noted InventHelp supported Berger Montague's bid for
control of the litigation because it believes the litigation would
"advance in a more coordinated, expeditious and cooperative
manner." The judge praised InventHelp's "thoughtful oral argument
which provided some further insight into the present acrimony in
this case to date."

While the court didn't make any decisions about the specific
allegations each firm made against the other, the order notes
Berger Montague has more experience representing plaintiffs in
consumer class actions. Berger Montague said it has expended 2,400
hours and $39,000 so far litigating the case.

"The Court declines . . . to engage in fact finding and credibility
determinations with regard to the parties' mudslinging because in
large measure, these accusations are not relevant to the resolution
of this matter, other than reinforcing the importance of appointing
interim lead class counsel in this case," the judge wrote. "The
Court concludes that BMPC has significantly more experience
handling consumer class actions than Oxman, particularly as lead
class counsel."

In handing control to Berger Montague, the court follows a common
pattern in mass torts and class actions. Academics have noted that
this type of litigation is dominated by a small number of repeat
players who use their position at the head of the case to negotiate
settlements and divide up fees among their allies.

As a newcomer to plaintiff class actions, Oxman Law lacked the
longstanding relationships and history of sharing fees that leading
class action firms have among themselves, dampening disputes over
control.

Berger Montague's appointment as interim class counsel can be
changed later, the judge noted. [GN]


IVERIC BIO: Discovery Ongoing in New York Consolidated Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IVERIC bio, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the consolidated Frank
Micholle v. Ophthotech Corporation, et al. and Wasson v. Ophthotech
Corporation, et al. class action suits.

On January 11, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain of its current and former executive
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, captioned Frank Micholle v. Ophthotech
Corporation, et al., No. 1:17-cv-00210.

On March 9, 2017, a related putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and the same group of its current and former
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned Wasson v. Ophthotech
Corporation, et al., No. 1:17-cv-01758. These cases were
consolidated on March 13, 2018.

On June 4, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint (the "CAC"). The CAC purports to be brought on behalf of
shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock between March
2, 2015 and December 12, 2016. The CAC generally alleges that the
Company and certain of its officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading
statements concerning the results of the Company's Phase 2b trial
and the prospects of the Company's Phase 3 trials for Fovista in
combination with anti-VEGF agents for the treatment of wet
age-related macular degeneration (AMD).

The CAC seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, and other
costs.

The Company and individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
CAC on July 27, 2018. On September 18, 2019, the court issued an
order dismissing some, but not all, of the allegations in the CAC.


On November 18, 2019, the Company and the individual defendants
filed an answer to the complaint. On June 12, 2020, the lead
plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. The Company's
response is due August 11, 2020.

This case is currently in the discovery phase.

IVERIC bio, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, develops novel
therapies to treat ophthalmic diseases with a focus on age-related
and orphan retinal diseases. The company was formerly known as
Ophthotech Corporation and changed its name to IVERIC bio, Inc. in
April 2019. IVERIC bio, Inc. was founded in 2007 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


JACK IN THE BOX: Settlement in Gessele Suit Wins Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jack in the Box Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 5, 2020, that the settlement in the case, Gessele v. Jack in
the Box Inc., has obtained final court approval.

In August 2017, a former employee filed a class action lawsuit in
California state court and as a Private Attorney General Act
("PAGA") representative suit alleging that the Company failed to
provide all non-exempt California employees with compliant rest and
meal breaks, overtime pay, accurate wage statements, and final pay
upon termination of employment.

On January 29, 2020, the parties participated in voluntary
mediation and reached a tentative agreement to settle the case.

The parties have executed a settlement agreement and submitted the
settlement to the court for final approval.

The settlement was approved on July 1, 2020.

Jack in the Box Inc. operates and franchises Jack in the Box(R)
quick-service restaurants and Qdoba Mexican Eats(R) (Qdoba)
fast-casual restaurants.  JACK currently operates and franchises
2,260 Jack in the Box restaurants primarily in the western and
southern United States, including one in Guam, and 717 Qdoba
fast-casual restaurants operating primarily throughout the United
States and Canada.


JACK IN THE BOX: Settlement in Marquez Suit Wins Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jack in the Box Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 5, 2020, that the settlement in the case, Marquez v. Jack in
the Box Inc., has obtained court approval.

In August 2017, a former employee filed a class action lawsuit in
California state court and as a Private Attorney General Act
("PAGA") representative suit alleging that the Company failed to
provide all non-exempt California employees with compliant rest and
meal breaks, overtime pay, accurate wage statements, and final pay
upon termination of employment.

On January 29, 2020, the parties participated in voluntary
mediation and reached a tentative agreement to settle the case.

The parties have executed a settlement agreement and submitted the
settlement to the court for final approval.

The settlement was approved on July 1, 2020.

Jack in the Box Inc. operates and franchises Jack in the Box(R)
quick-service restaurants and Qdoba Mexican Eats(R) (Qdoba)
fast-casual restaurants.  JACK currently operates and franchises
2,260 Jack in the Box restaurants primarily in the western and
southern United States, including one in Guam, and 717 Qdoba
fast-casual restaurants operating primarily throughout the United
States and Canada.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Plaintiffs Allowed to Amend Suit for 5th Time
----------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reports that a California federal court has
permitted plaintiffs with consumer class action talcum powder
claims pending against Johnson & Johnson defendants to amend their
complaint for the fifth time, noting that it has "wide discretion"
to allow amendment and concluding that it was facilitating "the
decision on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or
technicalities."

In an Aug. 20 order, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to
amend and file a fifth amended complaint over defense objection.
[GN]


JUD KUHN CHEVROLET: Class Suit Arbitration Ruling in Grant Reversed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Reibold, Esq. -- rreibold@hsblawfirm.com -- of Haynsworth
Sinkler Boyd, P.A., in an article for JDSupra, reports that
automobile dealers and other businesses often employ arbitration
agreements in contracts with their customers. One recurring
question about these arbitration agreements is whether they permit
class action arbitration or instead only allow for individual
arbitration – especially where a particular arbitration agreement
is silent regarding class arbitration. The difference can be
significant. In a class arbitration, hundreds or thousands of
claims can be adjudicated in a single proceeding, and, if an award
results against the dealership or business, the size of the award
naturally increases dramatically.

The original position taken by South Carolina courts was that class
wide arbitration was permissible if the arbitration agreement was
silent regarding class arbitration. Bazzle v. Green Tree Fin.
Corp., 351 S.C. 244, 569 S.E.2d 349 (2002). Since the decision in
Bazzle, federal courts, including the United States Supreme Court,
have addressed this issue. South Carolina courts have also
addressed the topic in a number of unpublished decisions, which do
not constitute a binding precedent.

In Grant v. Jud Kuhn Chevrolet, South Carolina courts have now come
full circle. Grant involved a customer's claim against an
automobile dealership alleging that the dealership charged an
improper closing fee. The claim was asserted under South Carolina's
Dealer's Act, S.C. Code § 56-15-40 et seq., and the customer
sought double actual damages, treble punitive damages, and
attorney's fees. The dealership moved to compel arbitration under
an arbitration clause, which the South Carolina Court of Appeals
determined was silent regarding class arbitration. The trial court
ordered arbitration but allowed class arbitration.

The South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's
order. It held that:

* courts may not infer consent to class arbitration without some
affirmative contractual basis for concluding that the party agreed
to class arbitration;

* consent to class arbitration cannot be inferred from provisions
of the Dealers Act which authorize class action suits against
automobile dealers; and

* consent to class arbitration cannot be inferred from the
agreement's use of the American Arbitration Association to conduct
the arbitration.

Unless the customer seeks review by the South Carolina Supreme
Court, the case will now proceed as a single arbitration.

Grant is a published opinion, and therefore a binding expression of
South Carolina law. [GN]


KAM FUNG WONG: Underpays Poultry Workers, Munoz FLSA Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
HILDA MUNOZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. KAM FUNG WONG INC. (D/B/A KAM FUNG WONG INC.), AM LE
CHANG, and MICHELLE DOE, Case No. 1:20-cv-04015 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 28,
2020), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful policy of
minimizing labor costs and denying employees compensation in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a poultry worker from
March 8, 2016, until March 20, 2020, and from April 17, 2020, until
August 3, 2020.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours per week throughout her employment with the
Defendants. However, the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff any
wages for her work for approximately one week in March 2020.

The Plaintiff also asserts these claims:

     -- Defendants constantly interrupted her 30-minute meal
        break requiring her to go back and continue working;

     -- Defendants required her to sign a document, which
        misrepresented the hours that she worked per week in
        order to get paid;

     -- Defendants failed to provide her notices or other means
        regarding her overtime and wages, her rate of pay, and
        employer's regular pay day;

     -- Defendants failed to provide her accurate wage
        statements; and

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

Kam Fung Wong Inc. operates a chicken wholesale market in the
Sunset Park section of Brooklyn in New York City. Am Le Chang and
Michelle Doe possess operational control over the Defendant
Corporation, possess ownership interests, or control significant
functions of the Defendant Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Tel: (212) 317-1200
          Fax: (212) 317-1620
          Website: http://www.faillacelaw.com/


KEN'S FOODS: Must Pay Class Action Lawyers Nearly $400,000
----------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that though the
maker of Ken's salad dressings fixed the misleading claims on its
bottles before it was sued over them, they must still pay class
action lawyers nearly $400,000.

The threat of the class action lawsuit made before it was filed was
enough to require the fees, the California Court of Appeal ruled on
Aug. 21. The court decided since the Code of Civil Procedure
permits such an award to the "successful party… in any action
(that) has resulted in the enforcement of an important right
affecting the public interest," that Erikka Skinner's lawyers
should be paid by Ken's Foods.

Ken's bottles made claims that some dressings were made with
"imported olive oil," "olive oil" and "extra virgin olive oil,"
though the actual dressings contained much more vegetable oil than
olive.

Skinner's lawyers at Clarkson Law Firm and Robins Kaplan threatened
the company with a lawsuit in June 2017, asking that the company
remove those olive oil claims, establish a fund to refund its
ill-gotten gains and pay $250,000 in lawyer fees.

Ken's rejected the demands and went to a neutral case evaluation,
where a retired judge found Ken's conduct was deceptive and that
the plaintiffs stood a good chance of winning their case.

Afterward, company executives decided to remove the olive oil
claims -- a decision the plaintiffs weren't aware of when they
filed a class action in April 2018.

Months later, Ken's again rejected a settlement offer and
plaintiffs lawyers moved for a catalyst fee award. The trial court
in Santa Barbara County dismissed the lawsuit but found plaintiffs
lawyers were entitled to $387,593 in fees because their threat of
lawsuit instigated the change on the dressings.

"Ken's counters that it implemented its label changes not because
of Respondents' lawsuit but because it wanted to avoid the
experience of its competitors," Justice Martin Tangeman wrote.

"But Ken's executives admitted that Respondents' lawsuit was a
factor motivating it to implement the label changes. The trial
court credited those admissions, and we cannot substitute a
contrary view for that of the court below."

Ken's claimed the fee award would encourage frivolous litigation,
but the appeals court noted that Ken's rejected several settlement
offers, meaning the plaintiffs lawyers did not litigate the case
without justification. [GN]


KIA: Faces Class Action in Quebec Over Defective Panoramic Sunroofs
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CollisonRepairmag.com reports that a Quebec class action lawsuit is
targeting Kia over an alleged design flaw that causes the panoramic
sunroofs of several Kia models to shatter. The Canadian class
action lawsuit alleges that Kia breached its obligation of quality
warranty by selling defective vehicle models.

The affected Kia vehicles included listed in the Canadian class
action lawsuit are:

   -- 2011-2019 model year Kia Sorento vehicles
   -- 2011-2019 model year Kia Sportage vehicles
   -- 2011-2019 model year Kia Optima vehicles
   -- 2014-2019 model year Kia Cadenza vehicles
   -- 2014-2019 model year Kia Soul vehicles

The Kia sunroof class action lawsuit is seeking compensatory
damages at an amount to be determined at a later date, as well as
punitive and/or exemplary damages temporarily assessed at $1
million.

Plaintiff Marina Roy is leading the Kia sunroof class action
lawsuit after encountering several problems with her 2016 Kia
Sportage's panoramic sunroof.

The Kia class action lawsuit alleges that the automaker did not
respect its obligation of quality warranty. Additionally, the
Canada class action lawsuit argues that Kia did not respect its
conventional warranty on the vehicles at issue, because the
panoramic sunroofs on those vehicles have major defects that render
them unfit for the use for which they were intended.

The sunroof breakages in the Kia lawsuit are blamed on a design and
manufacturing defect as well as a faulty installation.

Aside from the warranty and defect charges, the Kia sunroof class
action lawsuit alleges that the automaker made false and misleading
representations to consumers about the quality and safety of its
vehicles.

The Kia sunroof class action lawsuit also alleges that Kia was
aware of the risks of breakage, especially for panoramic sunroofs,
however, failed to warn customers. [GN]


KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORT: Approval of Burnell Accord Under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that a plaintiff has taken an
appeal from the court's decision granting final approval of the
settlement in the class action suit initiated by John Burnell.

On March 22, 2010, John Burnell, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated filed a class action suit in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
against Swift Transportation Co., Inc.

The plaintiffs generally allege one or more of the following: that
the Company 1) failed to pay the California minimum wage; 2) failed
to provide proper meal and rest periods; 3) failed to timely pay
wages upon separation from employment; 4) failed to pay for all
hours worked; 5) failed to pay overtime; 6) failed to properly
reimburse work-related expenses; and 7) failed to provide accurate
wage statements.

In April 2019, the parties reached settlement of this matter.

In January 2020, the court granted final approval of the
settlement.

The plaintiff appealed the court's decision granting final approval
of the settlement.

Knight-Swift said, "The likelihood that a loss has been incurred is
probable and estimable, and the loss has accordingly been accrued
as of June 30, 2020."

Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings Inc., together with its
subsidiaries, provides truckload transportation and logistics
services in the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The company
operates through six segments: Knight Trucking, Knight Logistics,
Swift Truckload, Swift Dedicated, Swift Refrigerated, and Swift
Intermodal. The Company was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in
Phoenix, Arizona.


KNOW STYLE INC: Romero Sues in New York Alleging Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Know Style, Inc. The
case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Know Style, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-07186
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 3, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Know Style offers their customers with the current fashion of
contemporary styles and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (929) 575-4175
          Fax: (929) 575-4195
          Email: joseph@cml.legal


LENOVO US: MacKay Sues Over Defect in Laptops' Monitor Display
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY MACKAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-01149-UNA
(D. Del., Aug. 28, 2020), is brought for breach of implied
warranty, breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, and for
violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in deceptive
marketing of Lenovo Yoga 520 or the Flex 5 and Lenovo Yoga 730
laptop computers. These laptop computers are marketed by Lenovo as
2-in-1 devices with 360-degree flexibility, but contrary to this
representation, the Defendant fails to disclose that the laptops
are designed and manufactured with a common inherent defect that
over time compromises the monitor display, impairing the computer's
graphical user interface. As a result, the ability to input
information into the computer and to view program output is
dramatically reduced. Thus, the defect renders the laptops
partially or wholly unusable.

Despite being aware of the cause of the defect, Lenovo and its
representatives have often engaged in, or directed frustrated
customers to engage in, ineffective repair methods, according to
the complaint. Many customers, who attempted to exercise their
rights under the warranty were told the display issues were the
result of a software problem and were told to install or update
software, which did not fix the defect.

As a result of the Defendant's unlawful and deceptive practices,
the Plaintiff and other consumers have purchased the Flex 5 and
Yoga 730 laptops under the mistaken belief that they possessed high
quality, functional monitor displays that were capable of folding
without damaging the machine.

Lenovo (United States) Inc. is a subsidiary of computer
manufacturing company Lenovo Group Limited, with its principal
office located at 1009 Think Place, in Morrisville, North
Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:       
      
         P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
         DELEEUW LAW LLC
         1301 Walnut Green Road
         Wilmington, DE 19807
         Telephone: (302) 274-2180
         Facsimile: (302) 351-6905
         E-mail: brad@deleeuwlaw.com

                - and –

         Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
         Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
         MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
         412 H St., NE
         Washington, DC 20002
         Telephone: (202) 470-3520
         Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
         E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
                 jrathod@classlawdc.com

                - and –

         David A. Goodwin, Esq.
         Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
         Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
         Mickey L. Stevens, Esq.
         GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
         120 South Sixth Street, #2600
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Telephone: (612) 333-8844
         E-mail: dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
                 dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                 dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
                 mstevens@gustafsongluek.com

                - and –

         Kevin Landau, Esq.
         Evan Rosin, Esq.
         TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
         80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
         New York, NY 10038
         Telephone: (646) 873-7654
         Facsimile: (212) 931-0703
         E-mail: klandau@tcllaw.com
                 Erosin@tcllaw.com


LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Initial Discovery in Smith Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
LifeVantage Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2020, that initial discovery is ongoing in Smith v.
LifeVantage Corp., Case No. 3:18-cv-a35.

On January 24, 2018, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut,
entitled Smith v. LifeVantage Corp., Case No. 3:18-cv-a35 (D.
Conn., filed Jan. 24, 2018).

In this action, Plaintiffs alleged that the Company, its Chief
Executive Officer, Chief Sales Officer and Chief Marketing Officer
operated a pyramid scheme in violation of a variety of federal and
state statutes, including RICO and the Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practices Act.

On April 16, 2018, the Company filed motions with the court to
dismiss the complaint against LifeVantage, dismiss the complaint
against the Company's executives, transfer the venue of the case
from the State of Connecticut to the State of Utah, and contest
class certification. On July 23, 2018, the parties filed a
stipulation with the Court agreeing to transfer the case to the
Federal District Court for Utah.

On September 20, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in
Utah. As per the parties stipulated agreement, Plaintiff's amended
complaint dropped the RICO and Connecticut state law claims and
removed the Company's Chief Sales Officer and Chief Marketing
Officer as individual defendants (the Chief Executive Officer
remains a defendant in the case). The Plaintiffs' amended complaint
added an antitrust claim, alleging that the Company fraudulently
obtained patents for its products and is attempting to use those
patents in an anti-competitive manner.

The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint on
November 5, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a response to the Company's
Motion to Dismiss on December 17, 2018, and the Company filed a
reply brief on January 10, 2019. The Court ruled on the motion on
December 5, 2019, dismissing three of the Plaintiff's four claims,
including the antitrust claim, unjust enrichment claim, and the
securities claim for the sale of unregistered securities.

On December 19, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
which included three causes of action, including a 10(b)(5)
securities fraud claim, and renewed claims relating to the sale of
unregistered securities and unjust enrichment.

The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint
on January 28, 2020, and as of March 17, 2020, the Motion was fully
briefed by the parties.

The parties are now waiting for the court to schedule oral
argument, or the court may decide the matter on the parties' briefs
only. On May 6, 2020, the court issued a formal scheduling order to
confirm the parties' agreement on a schedule for discovery and
other litigation matters, and initial discovery has begun and will
continue per the order.

LifeVantage said, "The Company has not established a loss
contingency accrual for this lawsuit as it believes liability is
not probable or estimable, and the Company plans to vigorously
defend against this lawsuit. Nonetheless, an unfavorable resolution
of this matter could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations or financial condition."

LifeVantage Corporation engages in the identification, research,
development, and distribution of nutraceutical dietary supplements
and skin care products. The company sells its products through a
direct sales model, as well as a network of independent
distributors in the United States, Japan, Hong Kong, Australia,
Canada, Mexico, Thailand, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands,
Germany, Spain, and Taiwan. LifeVantage Corporation is
headquartered in Sandy, Utah.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Iwanski Class Suit vs. FPP Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that First Penn-Pacific Life Insurance
Company ("FPP") continues to defend a putative class action suit
entitled, Iwanski v. First Penn-Pacific Life Insurance Company
("FPP"), No. 2:18-cv-01573.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District Court, Eastern
District of Pennsylvania is a putative class action that was filed
on April 13, 2018.  

Plaintiff alleges that defendant FPP breached the terms of his life
insurance policy by deducting non-guaranteed cost of insurance
charges in excess of what is permitted by the policies.  

Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of universal life insurance
policies issued by FPP containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance
provisions that are similar to those of Plaintiff's policy and
seeks damages on their behalf.  

Breach of contract is the only cause of action asserted.  

Lincoln said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Still Faces Consolidated Litigation on COI Rates
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend
the consolidated litigation styled, In re: Lincoln National 2017
COI Rate Litigation.

In re: Lincoln National 2017 COI Rate Litigation, Master File No.
2:17-cv-04150 is a consolidated litigation matter related to
multiple putative class action filings that were consolidated by an
order of the court in March 2018.  

Plaintiffs own universal life insurance policies originally issued
by former Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL).  

Plaintiffs allege that LNL and LNC breached the terms of
policyholders' contracts by increasing non-guaranteed cost of
insurance rates beginning in 2017.  

Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of policyholders and seek
damages on their behalf.  

Lincoln said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Unit Still Faces Class Action by TVPX ARS
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that The Lincoln National Life
Insurance Company continues to defend itself against a putative
class action initiated by TVPX ARS INC.

TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth
Management, LTD. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company,
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, No. 2:18-cv-02989, is a putative class action that
was filed on July 17, 2018.  

Plaintiff alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of
insurance than permitted by the policy.  

Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable
universal life policyholders who own policies issued by LNL or its
predecessors containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions
that are similar to those of Plaintiff's policy and seeks damages
on behalf of all such policyholders.  

Lincoln said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Vida Longevity Fund Suit vs. Unit Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of
New York remains a defendant in a putative class action initiated
by Vida Longevity Fund, LP.

Vida Longevity Fund, LP v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New
York, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, No. 1:19-cv-06004, is a putative class action that was
filed on June 27, 2019.  

Plaintiff alleges that LLANY charged more for non-guaranteed cost
of insurance than was permitted by the policies.  Plaintiff seeks
to represent all current and former owners of universal life
(including variable universal life) policies who own or owned
policies issued by LLANY and its predecessors in interest that were
in force at any time on or after June 27, 2013, and which contain
non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to
those of Plaintiff's policies.  

Plaintiff also seeks to represent a sub-class of such policyholders
who own or owned 'life insurance policies issued in the State of
New York."  

Plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of the policyholder class and
sub-class.  

Lincoln said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.


LINEAGE CELL: Bid to Dismiss Ross Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------
Lineage Cell Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the
complaint in Ross v. Lineage Cell Therapeutics, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 2019-0822, is still pending.

On March 8, 2019, the company acquired Asterias Biotherapeutics,
Inc. via merger (the "Asterias Merger"). In the acquisition, each
outstanding share of Asterias common stock was converted into 0.71
Lineage common shares.

On October 14, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
challenging the Asterias Merger.

This action (captioned Ross v. Lineage Cell Therapeutics, Inc., et
al., C.A. No. 2019-0822) was filed in Delaware Chancery Court and
names Lineage, the Asterias board of directors, one member of
Lineage's board of directors, and certain stockholders of both
Lineage and Asterias as defendants.

The action was brought by a purported stockholder of Asterias, on
behalf of a putative class of Asterias stockholders, and asserts
breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting claims under
Delaware law. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the
process leading up to the Asterias Merger was conflicted, that the
Asterias Merger consideration was inadequate, and that the proxy
statement filed by Asterias with the Commission omitted certain
material information, which allegedly rendered the information
disclosed materially misleading.

The complaint seeks, among other things, that a class be certified,
the recovery of monetary damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. On
December 20, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.

On February 10, 2020, the plaintiff filed an opposition. Defendants
filed their replies on March 13, 2020. On June 23, 2020, a hearing
on the motions to dismiss occurred.

Lineage believes the allegations in the action lack merit and
intends to vigorously defend the claims asserted.

Lineage said, "It is impossible at this time to assess whether the
outcome of this proceeding will have a material adverse effect on
Lineage’s consolidated results of operations, cash flows or
financial position. Therefore, in accordance with ASC 450,
Contingencies, Lineage has not recorded any accrual for a
contingent liability associated with this legal proceeding based on
its belief that a liability, while possible, is not probable nor
estimable, and any range of potential contingent liability amounts
cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. Lineage records legal
expenses as incurred."

Lineage Cell Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology
company developing novel cell therapies for unmet medical needs.
The company's focus is to develop therapies for degenerative
retinal diseases, neurological conditions associated with
demyelination, and aiding the body in detecting and combating
cancer. The company is based in Carlsbad, California.


LIVENT CORP: Suits Over 2018 IPO Underway in Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------
Livent Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend class action
suits related to its October 2018 initial public offering (IPO).

Beginning on May 13, 2019, purported stockholders of the Company
filed putative class action complaints in the Pennsylvania Court of
Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, and in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in connection with the
Company's October 2018 IPO.

On August 20, 2019, the actions then pending in federal court were
consolidated under the caption, Nikolov v. Livent Corp., et al.,
No. 19-cv-02218. In an order entered on September 23, 2019, the
actions then pending in state court were consolidated under the
caption, In re Livent Corporation Securities Litigation, No.
2019-0501229.

The operative complaints in both the state and federal actions
assert claims against the Company and certain of its current and
former executives and directors in connection with the Company's
October 2018 IPO. The actions also name as defendants the
underwriters in the IPO and FMC Corporation, whom the Company is
generally obligated to indemnify.

The complaints allege generally that the offering documents for the
IPO failed to adequately disclose certain information related to
the Company's business and prospects, in purported violation of
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and/or 15 of the Securities Act.  

The complaints seek unspecified damages and other relief on behalf
of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Livent common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO offering
documents.

On October 11, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss the state action
in its entirety, and on November 18, 2019, defendants moved to
dismiss the federal action in its entirety. On June 29, 2020, the
state court denied the motion to dismiss the state action, while on
July 2, 2020, the federal court granted the motion to dismiss the
federal action in its entirety.

On July 7, 2020, in light of the federal court's decision,
defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the state court's
denial of the motion to dismiss the state action. Briefing on the
motion for reconsideration is complete, but the court has not yet
ruled.

On July 29, 2020, defendants filed a motion seeking permission to
appeal the state court's order denying defendant’s motion to
dismiss. The state court has not yet ruled on that motion.

Pursuant to court order, discovery in the state action is stayed
pending further order of the court. On July 31, 2020, plaintiffs in
the federal action filed a notice of appeal.

Livent said, "At this point, a range of reasonably possible losses,
if any, cannot be estimated by the Company."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Livent Corporation is a lithium company. The Company is focused on
producing performance lithium compounds. Its primary products
include battery-grade lithium hydroxide, butyllithium and high
purity lithium metal. Its produces lithium compounds for use in
applications that have specific performance requirements, including
battery-grade lithium hydroxide for use in high performance
lithium-ion batteries. The company is based in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.


MACY'S: Faces Class Action Over Facial Recognition Technology
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Channick, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that a
Chicago woman has filed a lawsuit alleging Macy's violated
Illinois' biometric privacy law by using video surveillance cameras
and facial recognition technology on its customers.

The lawsuit, which is seeking class action status, was filed in
Chicago federal court on behalf of Isela Carmean, a regular Macy's
customer whose image was likely identified--without her
consent--through a facial recognition database, the complaint
alleges.

The state's Biometric Information Privacy Act requires companies to
get permission before using technologies such as facial recognition
to identify customers.

The suit alleges Macy's isa client of technology startup Clearview
AI, which has created facial recognition software that scrapes
social media images to build a massive database capable of
identifying people through photos.

The department store chain allegedly "sends or has sent" pictures
of customers captured by store video surveillance to Clearview to
identify them and obtain their personal information, the suit
alleges.

The suit alleges Macy's is "actively profiting" off of information
gleaned from the biometric data through improved security and
marketing.

Macy's said in an email on Aug. 10 it does not comment on pending
litigation.

On its website, Clearview AI promotes its platform as "a new
research tool used by law enforcement agencies to identify
perpetrators and victims of crimes."

In February, BuzzFeed News reported it obtained leaked internal
documents from Clearview that showed Macy's, Best Buy, Kohl's and
Walmart were among more than 200 corporate clients under contract
for facial recognition services.

Clearview, which is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit, did
not respond to a request for comment.

The lawsuit alleges Macy's has run the identities of more than
6,000 customers through the Clearview database. Carmean has "such a
widespread and active social media presence" that her biometric
identifiers and personal information are contained in that
database, the lawsuit alleges.

Mike Drew, a Chicago attorney who represents Carmean, declined to
comment on the lawsuit on Aug. 10 beyond correcting his client's
name, which was misspelled in the complaint.

Biometric privacy has been a growing concern in the age of
artificial intelligence and social media. In January, Facebook
agreed to pay $550 million to Illinois users to settle a
class-action lawsuit alleging its facial tagging feature violated
their privacy rights. A federal judge upped the total settlement to
$650 million in June.

In May, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against
Clearview in Cook County Circuit Court alleging the facial
recognition startup violated the state's biometric privacy law and
embodied a privacy "nightmare" by capturing "untold quantities" of
user photos and data from the internet without consent.

Adopted in 2008, the Illinois biometric privacy law requires
companies to get written permission to collect and use biometric
information, and to publish a written policy establishing a
retention schedule for that information.

The lawsuit against Macy's is seeking $1,000 for each member of the
proposed class for every negligent violation of the biometric
privacy act and $5,000 for every intentional violation by the
department store chain, as well as punitive damages and other
costs.

It is also asking the court to order Macy's to delete the personal
information of class members from its database, and to stop its
alleged practice of using surveillance photos to get a positive
identification of customers through Clearview.

On July 22, Macy's made it mandatory that every customer wear a
mask while shopping in its stores to help prevent the spread of
COVID-19. The requirement may provide some inadvertent relief to
those with privacy concerns.

A preliminary study published July 27 by the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, a government agency, found that
commercial facial recognition algorithms failed to accurately
identify people up to 50% of the time when they were wearing
masks.

"None of these algorithms were designed to handle face masks," said
Mei Ngan, an agency computer scientist and an author of the report.
[GN]


MAESTRO CONSULTING: Roberson BIPA Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as SAROYA ROBERSON, CHRISTA HAMMOND, TONIKA
SMITH, DAPHNE WILLIAMS, IDELLA HILL, OLABISI BODUNDE, VICTORIA
BREWER, ALYSSA BENDERSKY, FELECIA WILLIAMS, ATTLA DUPREE, and
JAMEEA BOYKIN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MAESTRO CONSULTING SERVICES LLC, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A
SYMPHONY POST ACUTE NETWORK; SYMPHONY SYCAMORE LLC; SYMPHONY
HEALTHCARE LLC; SYMPHONY M.L. LLC; SYMPHONY MONARCH HOLDINGS, LLC;
SYMPHONY HMG, LLC, SYMPHONY CRESTWOOD, LLC, SYMPHONY DEERBROOK,
LLC, SYMPHONY COUNTRYSIDE, LLC, SYMPHONY BEVERLY, LLC, SYMPHONY
BRONZEVILLE PARK, LLC, SYMCARE HMG, LLC, SYMPHONY JACKSON SQUARE,
LLC, SYMPHONY OF EVANSTON HEALTHCARE, LLC, SYMPHONY LINCOLN PARK,
LLC, SYMPHONY MIDWAY, LLC, SYMPHONY PARK SOUTH, LLC, SYMPHONY SOUTH
SHORE, LLC, MONROE CORP., CALIFORNIA GARDENS CORP.; SYMPHONY OF
CALIFORNIA GARDENS, LLC; and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-100, Case No.
2017-L-00733, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court, St.
Clair County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Illinois on September 2, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-00895 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by failing to
establish, maintain, and make publicly available a biometric data
retention and deletion policy; failing to provide proper notice and
failing to obtain the proper written consent before capturing and
using Plaintiffs' biometric information; and disclosing Plaintiffs'
biometric identifiers without first obtaining proper written
consent.

Maestro Consulting Services LLC is a business management consulting
services company based in Lincolnwood, Illinois. Symphony Sycamore
LLC is a healthcare services company based in Swansea, Illinois.
Symphony Healthcare LLC is a healthcare services provider based in
Lincolnwood, Illinois. Symphony M.L. LLC is a nursing home
management company headquartered in Springfield, Illinois.

Symphony HMG, LLC is a healthcare services provider based in
Illinois. Symphony Crestwood, LLC is a provider of post-acute care
services in Crestwood, Illinois. Symphony Deerbrook, LLC is a
nursing services company based in Joliet, Illinois. Symphony
Countryside, LLC is a skilled nursing facility in Aurora, Illinois.
Symphony Beverly, LLC is a nursing home in Chicago, Illinois.
Symphony Bronzeville Park, LLC is a provider of inpatient nursing
and rehabilitative services based in Chicago, Illinois.

Symcare HMG, LLC is a nursing home owner in Illinois. Symphony
Jackson Square, LLC is a skilled nursing facility in Chicago,
Illinois. Symphony of Evanston Healthcare, LLC is an assisted
living facility in Evanston, Illinois. Symphony Lincoln Park, LLC
is an assisted living facility in Chicago, Illinois. Symphony
Midway, LLC is a provider of post-acute care services in Chicago,
Illinois.

Symphony Park South, LLC is a provider of inpatient nursing and
rehabilitative services based in Chicago, Illinois. Symphony South
Shore, LLC is a provider of rehabilitative services in Chicago,
Illinois. Monroe Corporation is a nursing home management company
in Chicago, Illinois. California Gardens Corporation is a skilled
nursing facility in Chicago, Illinois. Symphony of California
Gardens, LLC is a post-acute care and management services company
in Chicago, Illinois.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          

         Richard P. McArdle, Esq.
         Joseph A. Donado, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 460-5000
         Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
         E-mail: rmcardle@seyfarth.com
                 jdonado@seyfarth.com


MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS: Denies RMTs & ARMs OT Pay, Braham Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RUE-SCOTT BRAHAM, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS TRUST COMPANY d/b/a M&T BANK,
Case No. 516209/2020 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., Sept. 1, 2020),
alleges that the Defendant unlawfully denied exempt-classified
Relationship Manager Trainees and Associate Relationship Managers
compensation for overtime hours they worked, in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was directly employed by Defendant as an RMT from
June 2016 through February 2017, and then as an ARM from February
2017 through February 2018.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked more
than 40 hours in a workweek but was not compensated for overtime
hours worked. Throughout his employment, he worked approximately 50
hours per week, including 5 hours from home completing training
requirements remotely via computer, as an RMT, and 45 hours per
week as an ARM.

Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company, d/b/a M&T Bank, provides
financial and investment services to customers across the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
          Chauniqua D. Young, Esq.
          Sabine Jean, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
          E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com
                  cyoung@outtengolden.com
                  sjean@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Paolo C. Meireles, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          951 Yamato Rd., Suite 285
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com


MASHBURN LLC: Romero Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mashburn, LLC. The
case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Mashburn, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-07189
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 3, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Mashburn, LLC, is a specialty retailer of accessible luxury men's
and women's apparel and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (929) 575-4175
          Fax: (929) 575-4195
          Email: joseph@cml.legal


MAXIM INTEGRATED: Burns Shareholder Suit Balks at Sale to Analog
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH BURNS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS, INC., TUNC DOLUCA, WILLIAM
P. SULLIVAN, TRACY ACCARDI, JAMES R. BERGMAN, JOSEPH R. BRONSON,
ROBERT E. GRADY, MERCEDES JOHNSON, WILLIAM D. WATKINS and MARYANN
WRIGHT, Case No. 1:20-cv-07168 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 2, 2020), alleges
that the Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
filing misleading Statements in connection with the proposed
acquisition of Maxim by Analog Devices, Inc.

According to the complaint, the Defendants filed a materially
incomplete and misleading Form S-4 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the proposed acquisition of Maxim by
Analog Devices, Inc. The Defendants failed to disclose material
information to the Company's shareholders concerning: (1) the
financial projections for the Company that were prepared by the
Company and relied on by the Defendants in recommending that Maxim
shareholders vote in favor of the proposed transaction; and (2) the
summary of certain valuation analyses conducted by Maxim's
financial advisor, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC in support of its
opinion that the merger consideration is fair to shareholders, on
which the Company's board of directors relied.

The disclosure of the information prior to the special shareholder
meeting to vote on the proposed transaction is material for the
Plaintiff and other shareholders to make a fully-informed decision
regarding whether to vote in favor of the proposed transaction,
according to the complaint. Further, failure to remedy the
deficient S-4 and consummate the proposed transaction will directly
and proximately cause damages and actual economic loss to
shareholders, including the Plaintiff.

Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., is a manufacturer of a broad range
of linear and mixed-signal integrated circuits, commonly referred
to as analog circuits. The Company's principal executive offices
are located at 160 Rio Robles, in San Jose, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:    
   
         Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
         James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
         FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
         685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Telephone: (212) 983-9330
         Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
         E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                 jwilson@faruqilaw.com


MAYFLOWER BOUTIQUE: Chavez Files ADA Class Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mayflower Boutique
Hotel LLC, et al. The case is styled as Kenneth T. Chavez, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Mayflower
Boutique Hotel LLC, doing business as: Mayflower Boutique Hotel,
Crosscity Hotel LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-04124 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 3,
2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Mayflower Boutique Hotel provides air-conditioned rooms with free
WiFi, located in Queens, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell Segal, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL P.C.
          1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 208
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: (516) 415-0100
          Fax: (516) 706-6631
          Email: msegal@segallegal.com


MCDERMOTT INT'L: Rosen Law Reminds of Sept. 16 Motion Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of McDermott International, Inc.
(NYSE: MDR) (OTC: MDRIQ) between September 20, 2019 and January 23,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important September
16, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in the case. The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for McDermott investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the McDermott class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1901.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 violated the federal
securities laws by failing to disclose that they knowingly and/or
recklessly made, and caused McDermott to make, materially false and
misleading statements, and/or omit material facts regarding the
sale of Lummus Technology, an asset of McDermott. These statements
were made with the intent to conceal the acute liquidity crisis
McDermott actually faced, to provide the Company time to prepare a
prepackaged plan of reorganization with its secured lenders and
other stakeholders, and to avoid a freefall Chapter 11 filing. 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
16, 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-1901.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.

Contact Information:
      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
      lrosen@rosenlegal.com
      pkim@rosenlegal.com
      cases@rosenlegal.com
      www.rosenlegal.com [GN]


MEGA HEALTHCARE: Consolidated Class Suit in New York Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a
consolidated class action suit headed by Royce Setzer.

On November 16, 2017, a purported securities class action complaint
captioned Dror Gronich v. Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc., C.
Taylor Pickett, Robert O. Stephenson, and Daniel J. Booth was filed
against the Company and certain of its officers in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case
No. 1:17-cv-08983-NRB.  

On November 17, 2017, a second purported securities class action
complaint captioned Steve Klein v. Omega Healthcare Investors,
Inc., C. Taylor Pickett, Robert O. Stephenson, and Daniel J. Booth
was filed against the Company and the same officers in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case
No. 1:17-cv-09024-NRB.  

Thereafter, the District Court considered a series of applications
by various shareholders to be named lead plaintiff, consolidated
the two actions and designated Royce Setzer as the lead plaintiff.

Pursuant to a Scheduling Order entered by the District Court, lead
plaintiff Setzer and additional plaintiff Earl Holtzman filed a
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on May 25, 2018 (the
"Securities Class Action").

The Securities Class Action purports to be a class action brought
on behalf of shareholders who acquired the Company's securities
between May 3, 2017 and October 31, 2017. The Securities Class
Action alleges that the defendants violated the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), by making materially
false and/or misleading statements, and by failing to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects, including the financial and operating results of one
of the Company's operators, the ability of such operator to make
timely rent payments, and the impairment of certain of the
Company's leases and the uncollectibility of certain receivables.

The Securities Class Action, which purports to assert claims for
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest,
fees and expenses of attorneys and experts, and other relief.  

The Company and the officers named in the Securities Class Action
filed a Motion to Dismiss on July 17, 2018.  

On March 25, 2019, the District Court entered an order dismissing
with prejudice all claims against all defendants.  Plaintiffs
appealed the order to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit and the Court of Appeals heard oral argument on
November 13, 2019.

On August 3, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit issued a ruling reversing the District Court's order
of dismissal and remanding the case to the District Court for
further proceedings.

In addition, in the District Court, on March 26, 2020, Plaintiffs
filed a motion for an indicative ruling regarding relief from final
judgment based on allegedly newly discovered evidence and for leave
to file an amended complaint. The Company filed an opposition on
May 1, 2020.  

On August 3, 2020, after the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued
its Opinion, Plaintiffs requested that the District Court treat
this motion as solely a motion to amend.

Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. is a real estate investment trust
(REIT). The Company invests in and provides financing to the
long-term care industry. Omega operates healthcare facilities in
the United States which are operated by independent healthcare
operating companies. The company is based in Hunt Valley,
Maryland.


MEI PHARMA: Faces Bahat Class Suit Over 18% Drop in Share Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
GUY BAHAT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MEI PHARMA, INC.; DANIEL P. GOLD; and BRIAN G. DRAZBA,
Case No. 3:20-cv-01543-WQH-LL (S.D. Cal., Aug. 10, 2020), seeks to
recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 relating to the 18.27% decline in
the market value of the Company's securities.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities, other than the Defendants, who purchased or
otherwise acquired MEI Pharma securities between August 2, 2017,
and July 1, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, the
Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose that: (i) MEI Pharma had overstated Pracinostat's
potential efficacy as an acute myeloid leukemia (AML) treatment for
the target population; (ii) consequently, the Phase 3 Pracinostat
Trial was unlikely to meet its primary endpoint of overall
survival; (iii) all the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably
likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's
financial condition and prospects for Pracinostat; and (iv) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On July 2, 2020, during pre-market hours, the Defendants issued a
press release announcing that it was discontinuing the Phase 3
Pracinostat Trial. Specifically, the Company advised that an
interim futility analysis of the Phase 3 Pracinostat Trial,
undertaken by the study's Independent Data Monitoring Committee
("IDMC"), "has demonstrated it was unlikely to meet the primary
endpoint of overall survival compared to the control group," and
that "[b]ased on the outcome of the interim analysis, the decision
was made to discontinue the recruitment of patients and end the
study," which "was based on a lack of efficacy and not on safety
concerns."

Following the Defendants' announcement, the Company's stock price
fell $0.78 per share, or 18.27%, to close at $3.49 per share on
July 2, 2020.

MEI Pharma, Inc., is an oncology company focused on the clinical
development of novel therapeutics targeting cancer metabolism. The
Company's lead drug candidates have been shown in laboratory
studies to interact with specific enzyme targets resulting in
inhibition of tumor cell metabolism, a function critical for cancer
cell survival.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 405-7190
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com


MERCK & CO: Fails to Warn About Zostavax's Risk, Wolfstone Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA L. WOLFSTONE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MERCK & CO., INC. and MERCK SHARP & DOHME
CORP., Case No. 2:20-cv-04271 (E.D. Pa., Aug. 31, 2020), is brought
against the Defendants for negligence, strict liability, breach of
express warranty, breach of implied warranty, negligent
misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to properly
address and provide adequate information about the potential risk
of viral infection in the administration of Zostavax, a vaccine
developed by Merck for the prevention of shingles. The patient
information sheet, as well as the label and prescribing information
for Zostavax, did not adequately, if at all, address the risk of
viral infection or possible diseases of the nervous system.

As a result of the Defendants' failure to exercise due care in the
labeling of Zostavax and its failure to issue to consumers and/or
their healthcare providers adequate warnings as to the risk of
serious bodily injury, including viral infection, resulting from
the vaccine's use, the Plaintiff was inoculated with the vaccine
and suffered pain and developed a rash on her left eyelid. She was
diagnosed with herpes zoster.

Merck & Co., Inc., is a multinational pharmaceutical company with
its principal place of business located at 2000 Galloping Hill
Road, in Kenilworth, New Jersey. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., with its headquarters
also located in Kenilworth. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:       

         Nicole Lovett, Esq.
         Michael Goetz, Esq.
         T. Michael Morgan, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN
         201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
         Tampa, FL 33602
         Telephone: (813) 223-5505
         Facsimile: (813) 222-4737
         E-mail: NLovett@ForThePeople.com
                 MGoetz@ForThePeople.com
                 MMorgan@ForThePeople.com


MERIT MEDICAL: Consolidated Securities Class Suit in Cal. Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Merit Medical Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a
consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Merit Medical
Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation (Master File No.
8:19-cv-02326-DOC-ADS).

On December 3, 2019, the Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund
filed a complaint against Merit, its Chief Executive Officer and
its Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, individually and on behalf of
all purchasers of the company's common stock between February 26,
2019 and October 30, 2019.  

On February 24, 2020, the court appointed the City of Atlanta
Police Pension Fund, the Atlanta Firefighters' Pension Fund, and
the Employees' Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and
Parish of East Baton Rouge as Lead Plaintiffs. This action is now
captioned In re Merit Medical Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation
(Master File No. 8:19-cv-02326-DOC-ADS).  

On June 30, 2020, Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint for violations of federal securities laws against Merit,
its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, individually and on behalf of all purchasers of our
common stock between February 26, 2019 and October 30, 2019.  

The consolidated class action complaint alleges that defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks unspecified damages, costs
and attorneys' fees, and equitable relief.  

The company intends to vigorously defend against the lawsuit and
intend to file a motion to dismiss the consolidated class action on
or before August 14, 2020.  

Merit said, "We have not recorded an expense related to this matter
because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably
estimable.  Additionally, we cannot presently estimate the range of
loss, if any, that may result from the matter."

Merit Medical Systems, Inc. manufactures and markets products used
in diagnostic and interventional cardiology and radiology
procedures. The Company's primary products include inflation
devices, guide wires, thrombolytic catheters and fluid dispensing
systems, and angiography accessories, among others. Merit's
products are sold worldwide. The company is based in South Jordan,
Utah.


MID-CENTURY INSURANCE: Cammies Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Cammies Spectacular Salon, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MID-CENTURY INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. BUR L 001467 20, was removed from the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Burlington County, to the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey on Sept. 3, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-12324-RMB-JS to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Breach of Contract.

MID-Century Insurance Company provides insurance services. The
Company offers property and casualty, life, auto, business, and
other insurance products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bethany Lynne Barrese, Esq.
          SAXE DOERNBERGER & VITA, P.C.
          35 Nutmeg Drive, Suite 140
          Trumbull, CT 06611
          Phone: (203) 287-2147
          Email: blb@sdvlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jessica Klarfeld Jacobs, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          1735 Market Street, 23rd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (267) 675-4665
          Email: jessica.jacobs@hoganlovells.com


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Bids to Nix Water Contamination Suits Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 27, 2020, that the company's motions to dismiss the class
action suits related to  Perfluorinated Compounds (PFCs) remain
pending.

In September 2016, the Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of
Gadsden, Alabama (the "Gadsden Water Board") filed an individual
complaint in the Circuit Court of Etowah County, Alabama against
certain manufacturers, suppliers, and users of chemicals containing
specific Perfluorinated Compounds (PFCs), including the Company.

In May 2017, the Water Works and Sewer Board of the Town of Centre,
Alabama (the "Centre Water Board") filed a similar complaint in the
Circuit Court of Cherokee County, Alabama. The Gadsden Water Board
and the Centre Water Board both seek monetary damages and
injunctive relief claiming that their water supplies contain
excessive amounts of PFCs.

Certain defendants, including the Company, filed dispositive
motions in each case arguing that the Alabama state courts lack
personal jurisdiction over them. These motions were denied. In June
and September 2018, certain defendants, including the Company,
petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for Writs of Mandamus
directing each lower court to enter an order granting the
defendants’ dispositive motions on personal jurisdiction grounds.
The Alabama Supreme Court denied the petitions on December 20,
2019.  

Certain defendants, including the Company, filed an Application for
Rehearing with the Alabama Supreme Court asking the Court to
reconsider its December 2019 decision. The Alabama Supreme Court
denied the application for rehearing.

In December 2019, the City of Rome, Georgia ("Rome") filed a
complaint in the Superior Court of Floyd County, Georgia that is
similar to the Gadsden Water Board and Centre Water Board
complaints, again seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief
related to PFCs.  

Also in December 2019, Jarrod Johnson filed a putative class action
in the Superior Court of Floyd County, Georgia purporting to
represent all water subscribers with the Rome (Georgia) Water and
Sewer Division and/or the Floyd County (Georgia) Water Department
and seeking to recover, among other things, damages in the form of
alleged increased rates and surcharges incurred by ratepayers for
the costs associated with eliminating certain PFCs from their
drinking water.  

In January 2020, defendant 3M Company removed the class action to
federal court.

The Company has filed motions to dismiss in both of these cases.

The Company denies all liability in these matters and intends to
defend them vigorously.

Mohawk Industries, Inc. is a global flooring manufacturer that
creates products to enhance residential and commercial spaces
around the world. The company is based in Calhoun, Georgia.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Delaware Securities Suit Temporarily Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 27, 2020, that the Court has granted a temporary stay of the
litigation pending the earlier of either the close of fact
discovery or the deadline to appeal the dismissal of a related
Securities Class Action.

The Company and certain of its present and former executive
officers were named as defendants in a putative state securities
class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of
Delaware on January 30, 2020.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and 12
of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint is filed on behalf of
shareholders who purchased shares of the Company’s common stock
in Mohawk Industries Retirement Plan 1 and Mohawk Industries
Retirement Plan 2 between April 27, 2017 and July 25, 2019.

On March 27, 2020, the Court granted a temporary stay of the
litigation pending the earlier of either the close of fact
discovery or the deadline to appeal the dismissal of the related
Securities Class Action pending in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia.  

The stay may be lifted according to the terms set forth in the
Court's Order to Stay Litigation.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Mohawk Industries, Inc. is a global flooring manufacturer that
creates products to enhance residential and commercial spaces
around the world. The company is based in Calhoun, Georgia.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Shareholder Class Suit in Georgia Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 27, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative
class action suit in he United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia.

On January 3, 2020, the Company and certain of its executive
officers were named as defendants in a putative shareholder class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia (the "Securities Class Action").

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
making materially false and misleading statements and that the
officers are control persons under Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint is filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased
shares of the Company's common stock between April 28, 2017 and
July 25, 2019 ("Class Period"). On June 29, 2020, an amended
complaint was filed in the Securities Class Action against Mohawk
and its CEO Jeff Lorberbaum, based on the same claims and the same
Class Period. The amended complaint alleges that the Company (1)
engaged in fabricating revenues by attempting delivery to customers
that were closed and recognizing these attempts as sales; (2)
overproduced product to report higher operating margins and
maintained significant inventory that was not salable; and (3)
valued certain inventory improperly or improperly delivered
inventory with knowledge that it was defective and customers would
return it. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the
claims.

Mohawk Industries, Inc. is a global flooring manufacturer that
creates products to enhance residential and commercial spaces
around the world. The company is based in Calhoun, Georgia.


MONSANTO: Securities Class Action Won't Be Included in MDL Docket
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin reports that the federal court overseeing the national
multidistrict litigation docket for Roundup personal injury claims
has rejected efforts by plaintiffs in a securities class action
lawsuit against Monsanto to include the case in the coordinated
proceedings.

In a one-page order issued Aug. 10, the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California stated that the administrative
motion to relate the case to the In Re: Roundup Products Liability
Litigation was denied.

The plaintiffs of the case are the City of Grand Rapids General
Retirement System and City of Grand Rapids Police & Fire Retirement
System. [GN]


MORGAN STANLEY: Faces Behar Suit in New York Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN BEHAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY, LLC, Case No.
1:20-CV-06300-AT (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 11, 2020), is brought on behalf of
those who are harmed by a cyberattack and breach of consumers'
personally identifiable information, which had been disclosed
without authorization to unknown third parties.

The Plaintiff contends that by obtaining, collecting, using, and
deriving a benefit from the Plaintiff's and the Class Members' PII,
the Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those
individuals. The Defendant admits that the unencrypted PII that has
"left [its] possession" included PII from the account holders and
any "individual(s) associated with your account(s), including
account names and numbers (at Morgan Stanley and any linked bank
accounts), Social Security number, passport number, contact
information, date of birth, asset value and holdings data."

The missing equipment and servers contain everything unauthorized
third-parties need to illegally use Morgan Stanley's current and
former customers' PII to steal their identities and to make
fraudulent purchases, among other things, according to the
complaint. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's
failure to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity
procedures and protocols necessary to protect Plaintiff's and Class
Members' PII.

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC operates as a brokerage firm and
investment advisor. The Company buys and sells securities, such as
stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and other investment products, as well
as manages investment portfolios and financial planning services.
Morgan Stanley Smith Barney serves customers worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
          747 Chestnut Ridge Road
          Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
          Telephone: (845) 356-2570
          Facsimile: (954) 341-5531
          E-mail: memert@kgglaw.com
                  ggraifman@kgglaw.com


MULE INC: Faces Tatum-Rios Suit in New York Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mule Inc. The case is
styled as Lynette Tatum-Rios, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Mule Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-07198 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 3, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Mule, the runtime engine of Anypoint Platform, is a lightweight
Java-based enterprise service bus (ESB) and integration platform
that allows developers to connect applications together quickly and
easily, enabling them to exchange data.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170
          Phone: (212) 764-7171
          Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


NAKED JUICE: Coconut Juice Label Is Deceptive, Harrisingh Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
RUBY HARRISINGH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NAKED JUICE CO. OF GLENDORA, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-04036 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 29, 2020), is brought for negligent
misrepresentation, breaches of express warranty and implied
warranty of merchantability, fraud, unjust enrichment, and
violations of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act and New York General
Business Law.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated consumers, alleges that the Defendant is engaged in
deceptive labeling and representation of its juice beverages under
the brand Naked. The product's front label that indicates the terms
"Pure Coconut Water" and "With Other Natural Flavors" is misleading
because the product is not pure, according to the complaint. The
term "With Other Natural Flavor" refers to flavors that are from
sources other than coconut. Consumers, including the Plaintiff, are
misled because they will think the product's added flavors come
from coconuts, given the description of the product as "pure."

As a result of the Defendant's misrepresentations, the Plaintiff
and Class members purchased the product at a premium price. Had
they known the truth, they would not have bought the product or
would have paid less for them.

Naked Juice Co. of Glendora, Inc., is a manufacturer of juice
beverages with a principal place of business in Purchase, New York,
Westchester County. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:       
      
         Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
         SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 409
         Great Neck, NY 11021-5101
         Telephone: (516) 303-0552
         Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
         E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com


NATERA INC: TCPA Class Suit in California Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------
Natera, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2020, that the company continues to defend a purported class action
suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA).

On March 15, 2019, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, alleging that the plaintiff
received an unauthorized text message to her cellular telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Among other relief, the complaint seeks statutory and other
damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and costs.

On June 18, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, which was
denied.

An amended complaint was filed on April 23, 2020.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Natera, Inc., a diagnostics company, provides preconception and
prenatal genetic testing services. The company was formerly known
as Gene Security Network, Inc. and changed its name to Natera, Inc.
in 2012. Natera, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in
San Carlos, California.


NATIONAL VISION: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit vs. FirstSight Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
National Vision Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 27, 2020, that FirstSight's motion to dismiss the
class action suit before the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California is pending.

The company's subsidiary, FirstSight Vision Services, Inc.
("FirstSight"), is a defendant in a purported class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California that
alleges that FirstSight participated in arrangements that caused
the illegal delivery of eye examinations and that FirstSight
thereby violated, among other laws, the corporate practice of
optometry and the unfair competition and false advertising laws of
California.

The lawsuit was filed in 2013 and FirstSight was added as a
defendant in 2016.

In March 2017, the court granted the motion to dismiss previously
filed by FirstSight and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

The plaintiffs filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit in April 2017. In July 2018, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated in part, and reversed in
part, the district court's dismissal and remanded for further
proceedings.

In October 2018, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
with the district court, and, in November 2018, FirstSight filed a
motion to dismiss. On March 23, 2020, the district court granted
FirstSight's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.

On April 24, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint.
FirstSight filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint on
May 8, 2020.

National Vision We believe that the claims alleged are without
merit and intend to continue to defend the litigation vigorously.

National Vision Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates
as an optical retailer primarily in the United States. The company
operates in two segments, Owned & Host and Legacy. National Vision
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Duluth,
Georgia.


NATIONWIDE SECURITY: Azambuya Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL AZAMBUYA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NATIONWIDE SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC., an Oregon
Corporation, d/b/a www.mynationwidesolar.com, Case No.
1:20-cv-23597-RNS (S.D. Fla., Aug. 28, 2020), is brought against
the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant placed two prerecorded
telemarketing calls to Plaintiff's cellular telephone ending in
"7227" on May 5 and May 13, 2020, in an attempt to promote its
business and services even without the Plaintiff's prior express
written consent to receive such calls using automatic telephone
dialing system. Additionally, the Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number was registered on the National Do Not Call Registry since
September 18, 2009.

The Plaintiff asserts that he was damaged by the Defendant's
unsolicited calls.

Nationwide Security Solutions, Inc., sells and installs solar
panels.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
          EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
          425 North Andrews Ave., Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Tel: 954-524-2820
          Fax: 954-524-2822
          Email: seth@epllc.com


NCAA: Fails to Protect Athlete From Brain Injuries, Bernard Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRAD BERNARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Case No.
1:20-cv-02100-JPH-MJD (S.D. Ind., Aug. 10, 2020), seeks redress for
injuries sustained as a result of the Defendant's reckless
disregard for the health and safety of generations of Georgia
Southern University student-athletes.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that despite knowing for
decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger
of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like those the Plaintiff
experienced, the Defendant failed to implement adequate procedures
to protect the Plaintiff and other Georgia Southern football
players from the long-term dangers associated with them. It did so
knowingly and for profit, the Plaintiff contends.

As a direct result of the Defendant's acts and omissions, the
Plaintiff says he and countless former Georgia Southern football
players suffered brain and other neurocognitive injuries from
playing NCAA football.

NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal place of
business located at 700 West Washington Street, in Indianapolis,
Indiana. NCAA is not organized under the laws of any State, but is
registered as a tax-exempt organization with the Internal Revenue
Service.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554-9099
          Facsimile: (713) 554-9098
          E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com

               - and -

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: (415) 212-9300
          Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NCAA: Fails to Protect Athletes From Injuries, Abercrombie Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
COSTROMAS ABERCROMBIE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION,
Case No. 1:20-cv-02104-SEB-MPB (S.D. Ind., Aug. 10, 2020), seeks
redress for injuries sustained as a result of the Defendant's
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of
California State University, Northridge student-athletes.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that despite knowing for
decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger
of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like those the Plaintiff
experienced, the Defendant failed to implement adequate procedures
to protect the Plaintiff and other CSUN football players from the
long-term dangers associated with them. It did so knowingly and for
profit, the Plaintiff contends.

As a direct result of the Defendant's acts and omissions, the
Plaintiff says he and countless former CSUN football players
suffered brain and other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA
football.

NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal place of
business located at 700 West Washington Street, in Indianapolis,
Indiana. NCAA is not organized under the laws of any State, but is
registered as a tax-exempt organization with the Internal Revenue
Service.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554-9099
          Facsimile: (713) 554-9098
          E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com

               - and -

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: (415) 212-9300
          Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NETFLIX INC: Sued by New Boston City for Not Paying Franchise Tax
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF NEW BOSTON, TEXAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NETFLIX, INC.; and HULU, LLC, Case No.
5:20-cv-00135-RWS (E.D. Tex., Aug. 11, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants should be and are required by law to pay a franchise fee
of 5% percent of their gross revenue, as derived from their
providing video service.

The Plaintiff contends that, as video service providers, the
Defendants were required to file an application with the Public
Utility Commission of Texas for a state-issued certificate of
franchise authority ("SICFA") prior to providing video service.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to apply for and
obtain a SICFA, and are, therefore, providing video service
throughout Texas without authorization, and in contravention of the
Texas Utility Code. A SICFA would have authorized video service
providers, such as the Defendants, to use public rights-of-way, as
long as said video service provider makes a quarterly franchise
payment to each city in which it provides service. The required
franchise payment must be equal to 5% of gross revenues, received
by the franchise holder from the provision of services in that
city.

The Defendants were required to obtain a SICFA before providing
video service in New Boston, and the other Texas municipalities in
which it provides they provide their video services. The
Defendants' failure to obtain a SICFA, however, did not relieve the
Defendants of the obligation to pay a franchise fee of 5% of their
gross revenues, as derived from providing such video service in
those municipalities, the Plaintiff asserts.

Netflix Inc. is an Internet subscription service for watching
television shows and movies. Subscribers can instantly watch
unlimited television shows and movies streamed over the Internet to
their televisions, computers, and mobile devices and in the United
States, subscribers can receive standard definition DVDs and
Blu-ray Discs delivered to their homes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Austin Tighe, Esq.
          Michael Angelovich, Esq.
          NIX PATTERSON, LLP
          3600 N. Capital of Texas Hwy.
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 328-5333
          Facsimile: (512) 328-5335

               - and -

          C. Cary Patterson
          NIX PATTERSON, LLP
          2900 St. Michael Drive, 5th Floor
          Texarkana, TX 75503
          Telephone: (903) 223-3999

               - and -

          Kyle B. Davis, Esq.
          LANGDON & DAVIS
          625 Sam Houston Drive
          New Boston, TX 75570
          Telephone: (903) 628-5571
          Facsimile: (903) 628-5868
          E-mail: kdavis@ldatty.com

              - and -

          Anthony K. Bruster
          BRUSTER PLLC
          680 North Carroll Avenue, Suite 110
          Southlake, TX 76092
          Telephone: (817) 601-9564
          E-mail: akbruster@brusterpllc.com

               - and -

         Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
         Mark S. Hamill, Esq.
         Brittany E. Hartwig, Esq.
         DiCELLO LEVITT GUTZLER, LLC
         Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Telephone: (312) 214-7900
         E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
                 bhartwig@dicellolevitt.com
                 mhamill@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

         Peter Schneider, Esq.
         SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY, LLP
         3700 Buffalo Speedway, Ste. 1100
         Houston, TX 77098
         Telephone: (713)338-2560
         Facsimile: (866) 505-8036
         E-mail:pschneider@schneiderwallace.com

              - and -

         Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
         Jason H. Kim, Esq.
         SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY, LLP
         2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
         Emeryville, CA 94608
         Telephone: (415) 421-7100
         Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
         E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
                 jkim@schneiderwallace.com


NEWELL BRANDS: Appeal in Securities Class Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Newell Brands Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the appeal in the class action suit entitled,
In re Newell Brands, Inc. Securities Litigation, is still pending.

The Company and certain of its officers have been named as
defendants in two putative securities class action lawsuits, each
filed in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's common stock between February 6, 2017 and
January 24, 2018.

The first lawsuit was filed on June 21, 2018 and is captioned Bucks
County Employees Retirement Fund, Individually and on behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Newell Brands Inc., Michael B. Polk,
Ralph J. Nicoletti, and James L. Cunningham, III, Civil Action No.
2:18-cv-10878 (United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey).

The second lawsuit was filed on June 27, 2018 and is captioned
Matthew Barnett, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Newell Brands Inc., Michael B. Polk, Ralph J.
Nicoletti, and James L. Cunningham, III, Civil Action No.
2:18-cv-11132 (United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey).

On September 27, 2018, the court consolidated these two cases under
Civil Action No. 18-cv-10878 (JMV)(JBC) bearing the caption In re
Newell Brands, Inc. Securities Litigation. The court also named
Hampshire County Council Pension Fund as the lead plaintiff in the
consolidated case.

The operative complaint alleges certain violations of the
securities laws, including, among other things, that the defendants
made certain materially false and misleading statements and
omissions regarding the Company's business, operations, and
prospects between February 6, 2017 and January 24, 2018.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and
costs, among other relief, but have not specified the amount of
damages being sought. The Company intends to defend the litigation
vigorously.

On January 10, 2020, the court in In re Newell Brands Inc.
Securities Litigation entered a dismissal with prejudice after
granting the Company's motion to dismiss.

On February 7, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Newell Brands Inc. designs, manufactures, sources, and distributes
consumer and commercial products worldwide. Newell Brands Inc. was
formerly known as Newell Rubbermaid Inc. and changed its name to
Newell Brands Inc. in April 2016. The company was founded in 1903
and is based in Hoboken, New Jersey.


NEWELL BRANDS: Continues to Defend Oklahoma Firefighters Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Newell Brands Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action
suit entitled, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System
v. Newell Brands Inc., et al.

The Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors have been named as defendants in a putative securities
class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Hudson County, on behalf of all persons who acquired Company common
stock pursuant or traceable to the S-4 registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the April 2016 acquisition of
Jarden (the "Registration Statement").

The action was filed on September 6, 2018, and is captioned
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Newell
Brands Inc., et al., Civil Action No. HUD-L-003492-18.

The operative complaint alleges certain violations of the
securities laws, including, among other things, that the defendants
made certain materially false and misleading statements and
omissions in the Registration Statement regarding the Company's
financial results, trends, and metrics.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and
costs, among other relief, but has not specified the amount of
damages being sought.

The Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Newell Brands Inc. designs, manufactures, sources, and distributes
consumer and commercial products worldwide. Newell Brands Inc. was
formerly known as Newell Rubbermaid Inc. and changed its name to
Newell Brands Inc. in April 2016. The company was founded in 1903
and is based in Hoboken, New Jersey.


NORTONLIFELOCK INC: Court Approves Avila Case Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
NortonLifeLock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona has approved the settlement in Avila v.
LifeLock et al.

On August 29, 2019, the Ninth Circuit issued a mandate remanding a
securities class action lawsuit, originally filed on July 22, 2015,
against our subsidiary, LifeLock, as well as certain of LifeLock's
former officers (the "LifeLock Defendants") for further proceedings
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

The Ninth Circuit had affirmed in part and reversed in part the
August 21, 2017 decision of the District Court, which had dismissed
the case with prejudice. The complaint in the remanded action
alleges that, during a purported class period of July 30, 2014 to
July 21, 2015, a period that predates our acquisition of LifeLock,
the LifeLock Defendants made false and misleading statements in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act.

In fiscal 2020, the company settled this lawsuit and recorded a
charge of $20 million in General and administrative expenses.

The United States District Court for the District of Arizona
approved the settlement on July 21, 2020.

NortonLifeLock, Inc. engages in the provision of security, storage,
and systems management solutions. It operates through Enterprise
Security and Consumer Digital Safety segments. The Consumer Digital
Safety segment provides solutions to protect information, devices,
networks and the identities of consumers. The company is based in
Tempe, Arizona.


NORTONLIFELOCK INC: Trial in Cal. Securities Suit in June 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------
NortonLifeLock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that a trial date has been set for June 14, 2021, in
the consolidated securities class action suit pending before the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Securities class action lawsuits, which have since been
consolidated, were filed in May 2018 against the company and
certain of its former officers, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

The lead plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint alleged that,
during a purported class period of May 11, 2017 to August 2, 2018,
defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a), and that certain individuals violated
Section 20A, of the Securities Exchange Act. Defendants filed
motions to dismiss, which the Court granted in an order dated June
14, 2019.

Pursuant to that order, plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to
amend and a proposed first amended complaint on July 11, 2019. The
Court granted the motion in part on October 2, 2019 and the first
amended complaint was filed on October 11, 2019.

The Court's order dismissed certain claims against certain of our
former officers. Defendants filed answers on November 7, 2019. A
trial date has been set for June 14, 2021.

NortonLifeLock, Inc. engages in the provision of security, storage,
and systems management solutions. It operates through Enterprise
Security and Consumer Digital Safety segments. The Consumer Digital
Safety segment provides solutions to protect information, devices,
networks and the identities of consumers. The company is based in
Tempe, Arizona.


NUC USA: Web Site Is Inaccessible to Blind Users, Angeles Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JENISA ANGELES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. NUC USA, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-07096-JMF (S.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 1, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people.

Because the Defendant's Web site, http://www.shopkuvings.com/,is
not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it
violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Plaintiff
contends.

The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person and
a member of a protected class of individuals under the ADA. The
access barriers that the Plaintiff encountered have caused a denial
of her full and equal access multiple times in the past, and now
deter her on a regular basis from accessing the Defendant's Web
site in the future.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

NUC USA Inc. is a blender and juicer 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
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com


ON DECK CAPITAL: Sabatini Securities Suit Questions Sale to Enova
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Sabatini, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ON DECK CAPITAL, INC., NOAH BRESLOW, DANIEL S. HENSON,
CHANDRA DHANDAPANI, BRUCE P. NOLOP, MANOLO SANCHEZ, JANE J.
THOMPSON, RONALD F. VERNI, NEIL E. WOLFSON, ENOVA INTERNATIONAL,
INC., and ENERGY MERGER SUB, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-01166-UNA (D.
Del., Sept. 1, 2020), stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant
to which On Deck will be acquired by Enova International, Inc. and
Energy Merger Sub, Inc.,

On July 28, 2020, On Deck's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger
Agreement") with Enova. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, On Deck's stockholders will receive 0.092 shares of
Parent common stock and $0.12 in cash for each share of On Deck
common stock they own.

On August 25, 2020, the Defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff
alleges that the Registration Statement omits material information
with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the
Registration Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Registration
Statement.

The Registration Statement allegedly omits material information
regarding the Company's and Enova's financial projections, and the
analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor, Evercore
Group L.L.C.; and fails to disclose, among other things, the
circumstances under which Evercore will be paid the "additional fee
in an amount not to exceed $1 million," and whether the Defendants
intend to pay Evercore such fee.

According to the complaint, the omissions and false and misleading
statements in the Registration Statement are material in that a
reasonable stockholder will consider them important in deciding how
to vote on the Proposed Transaction. The Registration Statement is
an essential link in causing the Plaintiff and the Company's
stockholders to approve the Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff is the owner of On Deck common stock. Because of the
false and misleading statements in the Registration Statement, the
Plaintiff and the Class are threatened with irreparable harm, says
the complaint.

On Deck offers a range of term loans and lines of credit customized
for small business owners.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 295-5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
          Email: sdr@rl-legal.com
                 bdl@rl-legal.com
                 gms@rl-legal.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Phone: (484) 324-6800
          Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
          Email: rm@maniskas.com


OTTLITE TECHNOLOGIES: Romero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ottlite Technologies,
Inc. The case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Ottlite Technologies, Inc., Case
No. 1:20-cv-07206 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 3, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

OttLite Technologies, Inc., provides lighting products and
services. The Company manufactures and distributes lighting systems
such as desk and table lamps.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (929) 575-4175
          Fax: (929) 575-4195
          Email: joseph@cml.legal


PACKERS SANITATION: Faces Torres Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
LILIA TORRES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PACKERS SANITATION SERVICES, INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-00282-JRG (E.D. Tex., Aug. 28, 2020), is brought against
Defendant for its alleged failure to pay the Plaintiff and other
employees overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff began her employment with the Defendant in 2018 as a
worker on the sanitation shift at its Tyson chicken processing
plant in Carthage, Texas.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked between 60 and 70
hours per week, but she was not paid overtime wages at one and
one-half times her regular hourly rate for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a work week.

Packers Sanitation Services, Inc., provides food safety and
manufacturing sanitation services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq.
          HOMMEL LAW FIRM
          5620 Old Bullard Road, Suite 115
          Tyler, TX 75703
          Tel: 903-596-7100
          Fax: 469-533-1618
          Email: bhommel@hommelfirm.com


PALMETTO MOON: Romero Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Palmetto Moon, LLC.
The case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Palmetto Moon, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-07203 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 3, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Palmetto Moon, LLC, provides online apparel and accessories. The
Company offers shirts, t-shirts, jackets, vests, sunglasses, and
footwear for men, women, and children.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (929) 575-4175
          Fax: (929) 575-4195
          Email: joseph@cml.legal


PARSONS XTREME: Romero Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Parsons Xtreme Golf,
LLC. The case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Parsons Xtreme Golf, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-07204 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 3, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Parsons Xtreme Golf is a global sports equipment manufacturing
company that designs, markets, and sells a line of custom fitted
golf equipment products and accessories, mainly clubs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (929) 575-4175
          Fax: (929) 575-4195
          Email: joseph@cml.legal


PENNSYLVANIA: Faces James Suit vs. SEPTA Alleging Personal Injury
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SOUTHEASTERN
PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY. The case is styled as George
Anthony James, Ivonne Rivera, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Case No. 2:20-cv-04339-JDW (E.D. Pa.,
Sept. 3, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.

The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority is a
regional public transportation authority that operates bus, rapid
transit, commuter rail, light rail, and electric trolleybus
services for nearly 4 million people in five counties in and around
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert J. Mongeluzzi, Esq.
          SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY, PC
          1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Email: rjmongeluzzi@smbb.com


PENSKE TRUCK: Court Tosses Zamora Wage & Hour Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Peter J. Wozniak, Esq., and Mark Wallin, Esq., of Barnes &
Thornburg LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, report
that a California district court recently delivered a one-two punch
to a group of California workplace class action plaintiffs. The
court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand a wage and hour class
action that had been removed to federal court under the Class
Action Fairness Act (CAFA), and granted most of the defendant's
motion to dismiss the complaint (with leave to re-plead).

In Zamora, et al. v. Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P., the plaintiff
employees brought a workplace class action, asserting a claim for
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and seven separate
causes of action under California's Labor Code. The lawsuit broadly
alleged that the defendant failed to pay overtime and minimum
wages, failed to provide meal and rest breaks, failed to provide
accurate wage statements, failed to reimburse employees for certain
business expenses, and failed to pay wages when due. The plaintiffs
did not, however, "allege a specific number of total violations or
a specific amount in total damages."

The defendant removed to federal court under CAFA, and the
plaintiff sought to remand. While the plaintiffs did not allege any
specific amount on controversy, they argued that the defendant had
not established by a preponderance of the evidence that CAFA's $5
million threshold had been satisfied. The district court disagreed
with the plaintiff, and denied the motion to remand, finding that
the defendant had "shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
the [amount in controversy] exceeds $5 million." In addition, the
defendant moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, arguing
that the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim. The court agreed
in large part with the defendant, and granted most of the motion to
dismiss with leave to re-plead.

CAFA Standard

As the court explained, federal jurisdiction "exists in 'mass
action' suits," and thus a defendant can remove a case from state
court to federal court if certain requirements are met. One of
those requirements is that the amount in controversy is "in excess
of $5 million." The court's CAFA discussion was limited to the
issue of whether the defendant had "shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that the [amount in controversy] is greater than $5
million." As the court explained, when a plaintiff challenges the
amount in controversy (AIC) asserted by the defendant, "both sides
are obligated to submit proof for the court to determine, by a
preponderance of the evidence, whether the AIC has been
established."

The Defendant's Evidence In Support of CAFA Removal

In support of its removal motion, the defendant relied on a
declaration by an expert economist, Dr. Joseph Krock, who
calculated the AIC using the defendant's "weekly payroll data,
daily hours worked data, and termination data for the period from
2016 to 2020," using an assumed violation rate of 10 percent. The
court rejected the plaintiffs' attempts to strike Dr. Krock's
declaration, finding:

1. It was "procedurally proper" for the defendant to rely on Dr.
Krock's analysis "for the limited purpose of attempting to prove
the AIC." The court explained that the plaintiffs "incorrectly
conflate[d] the requirements for relying on expert testimony in a
trial with the requirements for establishing an AIC for
jurisdictional purposes."

2. The plaintiffs' arguments with regard to the foundation of Dr.
Krock's conclusions were "unconvincing." The court explained that
Dr. Krock is "an experienced and credentialed economist who
specializes in applying advanced statistical techniques to labor
and employment litigation matters, and he was provided the relevant
data in relation to this case."

3. The use of "assumed violation rates" was not by itself a basis
to strike Dr. Krock's declaration.

Ultimately, the court explained that the defendant could "rely on
the Krock Declaration to attempt to establish the AIC."

Defendant's Assumptions Were Valid

As the court explained, "violation rates" are critical to
determining the AIC in wage and hour cases. And as the court noted,
a defendant may establish AIC "by assuming the frequencies of
violations," but those assumptions "must be reasonable." According
to the court, "numerous courts have found violation rates between
25% to 60% to be reasonable based on 'pattern and practice' and
'policy and practice' allegations," such as the allegations in the
Zamora case. Dr. Krock assumed a violation rate of 10 percent,
which the court explained is "noticeably more conservative than
what is often accepted as reasonable."

Critically, the plaintiffs had not alleged or argued for any
specific AIC, but simply argued that the defendant had failed to
demonstrate the requisite AIC. The court disagreed, and denied the
plaintiffs' motion to remand, finding that the defendant had "shown
by a preponderance of the evidence that the AIC exceeds $5
million," and that "all other jurisdictional requirements [were]
satisfied."

Court's Dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Allegations

The court also agreed with most of the defendant's arguments in
support of dismissal. With regard to the plaintiffs' claims for
unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wage, and rest break violations,
the court explained that the plaintiffs' allegations failed to
satisfy the Ninth Circuit's standard, as explained in Landers v.
Quality Communications, Inc. According to the court, Landers
requires that "in order to sufficiently state claims for violations
of the California Labor Code, a plaintiff must, at a minimum, 'be
able to allege facts demonstrating that there was at least one
workweek' or one specific instance in which the defendant violated
the plaintiff's rights under the California Labor Code."

The court explained that the plaintiffs' allegations "include no
relevant facts or dates during which these alleged violations
occurred, and instead merely recite the statutory language in
conclusory manners." Thus, the court held that the allegations
"fall well within the scope of what Landers and other cases have
shown to be insufficient."

The court also dismissed the wage statement claims and the claims
for failure to pay wages at termination, finding that these claims
were dependent on the other claims the court dismissed.

The Zamora decision is a useful reminder of the standard under
which CAFA removals are analyzed by courts, and provides a useful
roadmap for the evidentiary showing necessary to support removal
under CAFA. Moreover, the Zamora decision's dismissal of the
complaint will also be welcome news for employers defending
workplace litigation in California, where complaints are often
filed with little, if any, factual development. The Zamora decision
makes clear that pleadings without relevant facts about the alleged
violations are insufficient in federal court. [GN]


PEPPERIDGE FARM: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Carpenter Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
DOUGLAS M. CARPENTER; DANIEL KLETCHECK; and CHRISTOPHER M. WALKER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
PEPPERIDGE FARM, INCORPORATED, Case No. 2:20-cv-03881 (E.D. Pa.,
Aug. 10, 2020), alleges that the Defendant failed to pay overtime
premium compensation to the Plaintiffs, in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as farm distributor.

Pepperidge Farm, Inc., provides fresh bakery products, cookies,
crackers, and frozen foods. The Company offers crackers, chips,
breakfast, fresh breads, roll frozen breads and rolls, desserts and
puff pastry, meals, and goldfish crackers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew A. Luber, Esq.
          Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
          McOMBER McOMBER & LUBER, P.C.
          39 E. Main Street
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Telephone: (856) 985-9800
          Facsimile: (856) 263-2450
          E-mail: mal@njlegal.com
                  cjk@njlegal.com

               - and -

          Simon B. Paris, Esq.
          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, P.C.
          1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-8282
          Facsimile: (215) 496-0999
          E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
                  phoward@smbb.com


PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Class Suits Related to Zantac
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2020, that the company continues to defend class action suits
related to Zantac.

A number of lawsuits have been filed against Pfizer in various
federal and state courts alleging that plaintiffs developed various
types of cancer, or face an increased risk of developing cancer,
purportedly as a result of the ingestion of Zantac.

The significant majority of these cases also name other defendants
that have historically manufactured and/or sold Zantac. Pfizer has
not sold Zantac since 2006, and only sold an over-the-counter
version of the product. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive
damages and, in some cases, treble damages, restitution or
disgorgement.

In February 2020, the federal actions were transferred for
coordinated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation
(In re Zantac/Ranitidine NDMA Litigation, MDL-2924) in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

In June 2020: (i) plaintiffs in the Multi-District Litigation filed
against Pfizer and many other defendants a consolidated consumer
class action complaint alleging, among other things, violations of
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)
statute and consumer protection statutes of all 50 states, and a
consolidated third-party payor class action complaint alleging
violation of the RICO statute and seeking reimbursement for
payments made for the prescription version of Zantac; (ii) Pfizer
received service of a Canadian class action complaint naming Pfizer
and other defendants, and seeking compensatory and punitive damages
for personal injury and economic loss, allegedly arising from the
defendants' sale of Zantac in Canada; and (iii) the State of New
Mexico filed a civil action against Pfizer and many other
defendants, alleging various state statutory and common law claims
in connection with the defendants' alleged sale of Zantac in New
Mexico.

Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare
products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various
therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines, oncology,
inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the Lyrica,
Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta, Xtandi,
Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto
AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PFIZER INC: Lipitor-Related Antitrust Suits Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2020, that the company continues to defend itself from purported
class action suits over sales of Lipitor.

Beginning in November 2011, purported class actions relating to
Lipitor were filed in various federal courts against, among others,
Pfizer, certain affiliates of Pfizer, and, in most of the actions,
Ranbaxy, Inc. (Ranbaxy) and certain affiliates of Ranbaxy.

The plaintiffs in these various actions seek to represent
nationwide, multi-state or statewide classes consisting of persons
or entities who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or
reimbursed patients for the purchase of Lipitor (or, in certain of
the actions, generic Lipitor) from any of the defendants from March
2010 until the cessation of the defendants' allegedly unlawful
conduct (the Class Period).

The plaintiffs allege delay in the launch of generic Lipitor, in
violation of federal antitrust laws and/or state antitrust,
consumer protection and various other laws, resulting from (i) the
2008 agreement pursuant to which Pfizer and Ranbaxy settled certain
patent litigation involving Lipitor, and Pfizer granted Ranbaxy a
license to sell a generic version of Lipitor in various markets
beginning on varying dates, and (ii) in certain of the actions, the
procurement and/or enforcement of certain patents for Lipitor.

Each of the actions seeks, among other things, treble damages on
behalf of the putative class for alleged price overcharges for
Lipitor (or, in certain of the actions, generic Lipitor) during the
Class Period.

In addition, individual actions have been filed against Pfizer,
Ranbaxy and certain of their affiliates, among others, that assert
claims and seek relief for the plaintiffs that are substantially
similar to the claims asserted and the relief sought in the
purported class actions described above. These various actions have
been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in a Multi-District
Litigation (In re Lipitor Antitrust Litigation MDL-2332) in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

In September 2013 and 2014, the District Court dismissed with
prejudice the claims by direct purchasers.

In October and November 2014, the District Court dismissed with
prejudice the claims of all other Multi-District Litigation
plaintiffs.

All plaintiffs have appealed the District Court's orders dismissing
their claims with prejudice to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit.

In addition, the direct purchaser class plaintiffs appealed the
order denying their motion to amend the judgment and for leave to
amend their complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit. In August 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit reversed the District Court's decisions and remanded the
claims to the District Court.

Also, in January 2013, the State of West Virginia filed an action
in West Virginia state court against Pfizer and Ranbaxy, among
others, that asserts claims and seeks relief on behalf of the State
of West Virginia and residents of that state that are substantially
similar to the claims asserted and the relief sought in the
purported class actions described above.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare
products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various
therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines,
oncology,inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the
Lyrica, Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta,
Xtandi, Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto
AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PFIZER INC: Settlement in Hormone Therapy Suit Paid in Full
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2020, that the company has paid in full the $200 million
representing the settlement in the Hormone Therapy Consumer class
action lawsuit.

A certified consumer class action was pending against Wyeth
Holdings LLC (Wyeth) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California based on the alleged off-label marketing of
its hormone therapy products.

The case was originally filed in December 2003.

The class consisted of California consumers who purchased Wyeth's
hormone-replacement products between January 1995 and January 2003
and who did not seek personal injury damages therefrom.

The class sought compensatory and punitive damages, including a
full refund of the purchase price.

In March 2020, the parties reached an agreement, and obtained
preliminary court approval, to resolve this matter for $200
million, which was paid in full in the second quarter of 2020.

Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare
products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various
therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines,
oncology,inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the
Lyrica, Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta,
Xtandi, Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto
AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PFIZER INC: Suit Over Array BioPharma's NRAS Trials Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2020, that  the company continues to defend a consolidated class
action suit related to Array BioPharma's NRAS-mutant melanoma
program.

In November 2017, two purported class actions were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado alleging that
Array, which the company acquired in July 2019 and is the company's
wholly owned subsidiary, and certain of its former officers
violated federal securities laws in connection with certain
disclosures made, or omitted, by Array regarding the NRAS-mutant
melanoma program.

In March 2018, the actions were consolidated into a single
proceeding.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare
products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various
therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines,
oncology,inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the
Lyrica, Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta,
Xtandi, Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto
AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PFIZER INC: Wyeth Still Defends Class Suit Over Effexor XR Sales
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2020, that Wyeth Holdings Corporation and its affiliates continue
to defend a class action lawsuit related to Effexor XR, which is
the extended-release formulation of Effexor.

Beginning in May 2011, actions, including purported class actions,
were filed in various federal courts against Wyeth Holdings LLC
(Wyeth) and, in certain of the actions, affiliates of Wyeth and
certain other defendants relating to Effexor XR, which is the
extended-release formulation of Effexor.

The plaintiffs in each of the class actions seek to represent a
class consisting of all persons in the U.S. and its territories who
directly purchased, indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for
the purchase of Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR from any of the
defendants from June 14, 2008 until the time the defendants’
allegedly unlawful conduct ceased.

The plaintiffs in all of the actions allege delay in the launch of
generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories, in violation of
federal antitrust laws and, in certain of the actions, the
antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws of certain
states, as the result of Wyeth fraudulently obtaining and
improperly listing certain patents for Effexor XR in the Orange
Book, enforcing certain patents for Effexor XR and entering into a
litigation settlement agreement with a generic drug manufacturer
with respect to Effexor XR. Each of the plaintiffs seeks treble
damages (for itself in the individual actions or on behalf of the
putative class in the purported class actions) for alleged price
overcharges for Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and
its territories since June 14, 2008.

All of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

In October 2014, the District Court dismissed the direct purchaser
plaintiffs' claims based on the litigation settlement agreement,
but declined to dismiss the other direct purchaser plaintiff
claims.

In January 2015, the District Court entered partial final judgments
as to all settlement agreement claims, including those asserted by
direct purchasers and end-payer plaintiffs, which plaintiffs
appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

In August 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
reversed the District Court's decisions and remanded the claims to
the District Court.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare
products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various
therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines,
oncology,inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the
Lyrica, Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta,
Xtandi, Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto
AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY: Grant & Eisenhofer Files Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Insurancenewsnet.com reports that law firm Grant & Eisenhofer has
filed a pair of class actions against 11 insurance companies who
denied coverage claims for business shutdowns due to COVID-19.

The suits were brought on behalf of a fitness center in Tennessee
and a group of Philadelphia cafés and wine and beer bars,
respectively. They were filed in U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in Philadelphia.

Defendants include Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. (PIIC), and
Allianz Global Risks US Insurance Co., as well as nine of its
domestic underwriting subsidiaries.

Grant & Eisenhofer's clients purchased insurance policies that
indemnified them for suspension of business activities and/or the
rendering of their premises as unusable -- the fate of businesses
nationwide as a result of shutdown orders imposed to limit the
spread of coronavirus.

The filings follow a lawsuit Grant & Eisenhofer brought in June
against Markel Insurance Co. for refusing to cover losses suffered
by franchisees of Anytime Fitness, a chain of gyms that was
shuttered in the wake of the pandemic.

"We continue to see small enterprises that purchased commercial
insurance policies denied compensation for the catastrophic losses
they suffered as a result of the state-imposed shutdowns of
non-essential businesses," said Grant & Eisenhofer director Adam
Gomez.

"Regarding our clients and others in similar circumstances, their
insurance companies and underwriters have shamefully evaded their
contractual responsibility to cover loss of income and other
unforeseen expenses resulting directly from suspension of
operations due to the pandemic restrictions," Gomez added. All of
these small businesses duly and timely paid their premiums. We
intend to hold their insurers -- enormous national and
international concerns -- to their side of the contracts they
signed, and to secure the financial support they paid for and
deserve."

The lawsuits seek declaratory judgments that losses suffered due to
COVID-related shutdowns are covered by the plaintiffs' insurance
policies. The suits also allege breach of contract on the part of
the insurance companies as well as breach of the duty of good faith
and fair dealing. Plaintiffs seek appropriate compensatory and
punitive damages.

The plaintiffs seek to join with similarly situated businesses in
their respective industries who have bought insurance policies
offering coverage for loss of business income, and have had such
coverage denied during the period of shutdown.

Tria Café Complaint

On Aug. 25, Grant & Eisenhofer filed suit on behalf of Tria Café,
Alaska Café, and Tria Taproom, related businesses located in
Philadelphia. Each had purchased a policy from American Automobile
Insurance Co. (AAIC) that, the complaint states, "protected
Plaintiffs against the actual loss of business income due to a
suspension of Plaintiffs' respective operations."

Eating establishments in Philadelphia were forced to close on March
17 on orders of the mayor, health commissioner, and state governor.
At their reopening on June 5, they were allowed no more than 25
customers at a time or 25% capacity, and required to operate with
an exhaustive list of restrictions to encourage social distancing
and preserve customer and employee health.

The complaint states, "Contrary to the plain language of the
Policies, and to AAIC's corresponding promises and contractual
obligations, on July 9, 2020, AAIC refused to pay for Plaintiffs'
respective losses and expenses under the terms of the Policies."

David Kwass, co-owner of the Tria Group, discussed the restaurants
and bars' reasons for spearheading litigation against these
insurers. "It's common sense that if a multinational insurer
collects premiums year after year, it can't just refuse
reimbursement to a customer who suffers business interruptions
beyond their control. What else is business interruption insurance
for? Valuing corporate profits ahead of the local folks who work in
neighborhood businesses is outrageous."

NBS Fitness Complaint

On Aug. 20 Grant & Eisenhofer filed suit on behalf of NBS Fitness,
a gym in Cordova, Tenn., east of Memphis. NBS was forced to close
on March 23 on the order of Gov. Bill Lee; since its May 4
reopening, NBS and other fitness centers in Tennessee have had to
restrict usage of their facilities to 25% occupancy and limit the
time clients spend on the premises. Gyms have also had to move
equipment to accommodate social distancing, and conduct extra
cleaning and disinfecting.

The Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co.'s denial of coverage to
NSB was arbitrary and peremptory, according to the complaint: "It
did so without performing a reasonable investigation into NBS'
claimed loss and without communicating its final denial of coverage
in writing. Rather, NBS was informed of PIIC's denial of its claim
for coverage when NBS accessed PIIC's online claim summary and
found a message stating only that the claim had been 'Closed – No
Payment.'"

Grant & Eisenhofer director Elizabeth Graham, also working on the
coverage cases, noted: "Insurance exists as a safety so that small
businesses have a fighting chance in extreme circumstances such as
we are witnessing now. For insurers to go back on their word and
cut small businesses loose when they most need help is
unconscionable. We intend to hold them accountable to their own
contracts." [GN]


PILOT TRAVELING: Can Compel Arbitration in Drasal Labor Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEVEN C. DRASAL, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PILOT TRAVELING CENTERS,
LLC, d/b/a Pilot Flying J., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00981
KWR/CG (D. N.M.), Judge Kea W. Riggs of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Mexico granted the Defendant's Motion to Compel
Arbitration.

The case is a putative class action under the New Mexico Minimum
Wage Act, alleging that Pilot Traveling failed to pay overtime
wages.  

The Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration.  The
Plaintiff's main objection appears to be that there is no valid
agreement to arbitrate, because he did not sign the arbitration
agreement.

On review, Judge Riggs finds that the Plaintiff signed the
arbitration agreement.  Notably, three documents signed by the
Plaintiff before or contemporaneously with the arbitration
agreement provided that employment was contingent upon agreeing to
the arbitration agreement.  The Plaintiff does not dispute that he
wrote his name and dated the arbitration agreement.  Accordingly,
the Judge concludes that the Plaintiff, by writing his name and
dating the document, intended to accept the arbitration agreement.

Alternatively, even if he failed to "sign" the arbitration
agreement, the Plaintiff otherwise agreed to arbitrate through his
conduct.  Specifically, the Plaintiff worked for Pilot after he
received and signed documents stating that he understood his
employment was contingent on agreeing to arbitrate.  The Judge
concludes that the Plaintiff was on notice that his employment was
contingent on accepting the mandatory arbitration agreement, and by
continuing to work for the Defendant, he manifested assent to the
arbitration agreement.  

The Defendant requested that the case be dismissed, but the
Plaintiff objected and requested that it be stayed.

For the reasons stated, Judge Riggs granted the Defendant's Motion
to Compel Arbitration.  The case is stayed pending arbitration.
The parties are directed to a status report every six months.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 10, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/8JOy98 from
Leagle.com.

Steven C. Drasal, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Edmond S. Moreland,
Jr., Moreland Verrett, PC & Daniel A. Verrett.

Pilot Travel Centers, LLC, doing business as Pilot Flying J,
Defendant, represented by Laura Renee Ackermann, Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Ryan M. Walters --
Ryan.Walters@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith,
LLP.


PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Judge Tosses Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on
July 21, 2020, Judge Charles Breyer of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a putative
class action asserting claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against an information
technology and software company, certain of its executives, and the
underwriters for the company's IPO. In re Pivotal Sec. Litig., No.
3:19-cv-3589, slip op. (N.D. Cal. July 21, 2020), ECF No. 100.
Plaintiffs alleged that the company made misleading statements in
IPO offering documents and in subsequent public statements
regarding its financial and business condition. The Court held that
plaintiffs failed to adequately allege any actionable misstatement
or omission, and further that plaintiffs failed to establish that
the alleged misstatements with respect to the Exchange Act claims
were made with scienter. However, the Court granted leave to amend
as to certain allegations.

Plaintiffs alleged that the company's public statements "repeatedly
tout[ing] the superiority and adoption of its products" were false
or misleading because they failed to disclose that the company
allegedly "was facing major problems with its sales execution and a
complex technology landscape" as well as "the industry's sentiment
[having] shifted away from [the company's] principal product, which
was incompatible with . . . the industry-standard platform." Slip
op. at 4. Ultimately, the company informed investors that it had
"closed fewer deals than . . . expected in Q1 due to sales
execution and a complex technology landscape that is lengthening
[the company's] sales cycle." Id.

With respect to the Securities Act claims, the Court first
determined that several alleged misstatements in the company's
registration statement were not alleged to have been false at the
time they were made. Id. at 9. For example, plaintiffs alleged that
the company's statement that its software was integrated with the
industry-standard platform was false because the company's leading
product was not integrated in this way. Id. at 10. The Court
concluded to the contrary that the company's statement was accurate
because the company's software contained several components, and
plaintiffs alleged only that the statement was false with respect
to one product. Id. The Court further rejected plaintiffs'
allegation that the company's statement that it worked closely with
large public cloud providers to "bring [the company's] customers'
workloads to their cloud infrastructure" was misleading because the
company allegedly competed for clients with the large providers.
Id. The Court noted that the complaint itself alleged that some
cooperation with large providers was occurring, and the company's
registration statement also disclosed that it operated in a "highly
competitive industry" and that it "currently or in the future may
compete" with large providers. Id. at 11.

The Court further rejected plaintiffs' argument that the company's
risk disclosures were misleading because certain of the risks had
already materialized at the time of the IPO, for which, the Court
emphasized, plaintiffs failed to provide anything beyond conclusory
assertions. Id. at 11. The Court also explained that various
expressions of corporate optimism in the registration
statement—including that the company's software was
"cutting-edge," "leading," and a "turnkey cloud-native platform" --
were nonactionable puffery. Id. at 12–13. Finally, while
plaintiffs argued that SEC Regulation S-K imposed a duty on the
company to disclose that it was experiencing decreased sales and
competitive disadvantages, the Court explained that plaintiffs
failed to established that any particular trend or uncertainty was
known to company management, and that various risks complained of,
such as product obsolescence, were in fact adequately disclosed.
Id. at 13–15.

With respect to the Exchange Act claims, plaintiffs alleged the
company made misstatements in the course of four financial earnings
calls and one investor conference and listed more than forty
alleged misleading statements within excerpted transcripts of those
events. Id. at 18. The Court, however, emphasized that the
complaint failed to explain why each challenged statement was
misleading, and instead provided a "conclusory litany of reasons
for the statements' falsity that are insufficiently supported by
vague accounts from seven [confidential witnesses]." Id. at 18. The
Court instructed plaintiffs to provide an explanation as to each
challenged statement in any amended complaint.

The Court also explained that certain statements of opinion
expressed in these corporate events were not actionable because
plaintiffs' allegations failed to establish that defendants did not
hold the stated beliefs. Id. at 25. Moreover, the Court held that
challenged statements describing the company's products and
business as "uniquely position[ed]," "strong across sectors,"
"best-in-class," and "industry-leading" were non-actionable
corporate puffery. The Court also explained that various challenged
statements were forward-looking statements either regarding plans
and objectives for future operations or future economic
performance, accompanied by meaningful cautionary language, and
therefore fell within the safe harbor provision in the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"). Id. at 27-28.

The Court also held with respect to the Exchange Act claims that
plaintiffs' allegations based on statements by confidential
witnesses were insufficient to establish scienter. Id. at 28. The
Court explained that, under the PSLRA, confidential witnesses "must
be described with sufficient particularity to establish reliability
and personal knowledge" and the statements themselves must be
"indicative of scienter," but that plaintiffs failed to satisfy
either element. Id. at 29. First, the confidential witnesses were
at least two reporting levels removed from the company's executives
in question and only described generally their attendance at
meetings and receipt of regular reports; in addition, the Court
held that confidential witness allegations regarding deficiencies
in the company's sales strategy did not establish that the company
was "deliberately reckless." Id. at 30-31.

The Court likewise rejected plaintiffs' other theories of scienter.
The Court explained that allegations based on the fact that certain
earnings statements were revised soon after issuance amounted to
impermissible "fraud by hindsight," and the core operations
doctrine -- which, as applied within the Ninth Circuit, permits an
inference of scienter if the fraud is based on facts critical to a
business's core operations, such that key officers would know of
those facts -- was inapplicable because the complaint failed to
contain any details establishing individual defendant's access to
information related to the fraud. Id. at 31. Indeed, the Court
noted that allegations that defendants had general access to sales
reports and "occasionally" sat in on regular meetings were
insufficient to support application of the core operations
doctrine. Id. at 32. Finally, the Court considered the complaint in
its entirety and found that the allegations, taken collectively,
failed to support a compelling inference of scienter, and in fact
failed to "offer any coherent theory of fraud." Id. at 33.

Because plaintiffs indicated that they could plead additional facts
supporting falsity and scienter, the Court granted leave to amend.
Id. at 15, 33. However, the Court emphasized that non-actionable
statements should not be included in any amended complaint,
highlighting in particular allegations based on what the Court had
held constituted corporate puffery or forward-looking statements.
Id. at 15, 25, 28. [GN]


POST HOLDINGS: Still Faces Egg Products Suit by Opt-Out Plaintiffs
------------------------------------------------------------------
Post Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that Michael Foods, Inc. (MFI) continues to defend a
class action suit by opt-out plaintiffs related to egg products.

In late 2008 and early 2009, approximately 22 class action lawsuits
were filed in various federal courts against Michael Foods, Inc.
("MFI"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, and
approximately 20 other defendants (producers of shell eggs and egg
products and egg industry organizations), alleging violations of
federal and state antitrust laws in connection with the production
and sale of shell eggs and egg products, and seeking unspecified
damages.

All cases were transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
for coordinated and/or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

The cases involved three plaintiff groups: (i) a nationwide class
of direct purchasers of shell eggs (the "direct purchaser class");
(ii) individual companies (primarily large grocery chains and food
companies that purchase considerable quantities of eggs) that opted
out of various settlements and filed their own complaints related
to their purchases of shell eggs and egg products ("opt-out
plaintiffs"); and (iii) indirect purchasers of shell eggs
("indirect purchaser plaintiffs").

Resolution of claims:

To date, MFI has resolved the following claims, including all class
claims:

     (i) in December 2016, MFI settled all claims asserted against
it by the direct purchaser class for a payment of $75.0 million,
which was approved by the district court in December 2017;

    (ii) in January 2017, MFI settled all claims asserted against
it by opt-out plaintiffs related to shell egg purchases on
confidential terms;

   (iii) in June 2018, MFI settled all claims asserted against it
by indirect purchaser plaintiffs on confidential terms; and

    (iv) between June 2019 and September 2019, MFI individually
settled on confidential terms egg product opt-out claims asserted
against it by four separate opt-out plaintiffs. MFI has at all
times denied liability in this matter, and no settlement contains
any admission of liability by MFI.

Remaining portion of the cases:

MFI remains a defendant only with respect to claims that seek
damages based on purchases of egg products by three opt-out
plaintiffs. The district court had granted summary judgment
precluding any claims for egg products purchases by such opt-out
plaintiffs, but in January 2018, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
reversed and remanded these claims for further pre-trial
proceedings.

Defendants filed a second motion for summary judgment seeking
dismissal of the claims, which was denied in June 2019. The
remaining opt-out plaintiffs have not yet been assigned trial
dates.

Post Holdings said, "Although the likelihood of a material adverse
outcome in the egg antitrust litigation has been significantly
reduced as a result of the MFI settlements described above, the
remaining portion of the cases could still result in a material
adverse outcome."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Post Holdings, Inc. operates as a consumer packaged goods holding
company in the United States and internationally. It operates
through Post Consumer Brands, Weetabix, Refrigerated Food, and
Active Nutrition segments. The company was founded in 1895 and is
headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.


PRIMO WATER OPERATIONS: Romero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Primo Water
Operations, Inc. The case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Primo Water
Operations, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-07196 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 3,
2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Primo Water Operations, Inc. provides purified bottled water and
water dispensers. The Company provides water dispensers, bottles,
and a service to exchange empty bottles at major retailers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (929) 575-4175
          Fax: (929) 575-4195
          Email: joseph@cml.legal


PROAMPAC INTERMEDIATE: Magalhaes Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
AARON MAGALHAES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PROAMPAC INTERMEDIATE, INC. and COATING EXCELLENCE
INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01333 (E.D. Wis., Aug. 28,
2020), alleges that the Defendants violated of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws by
failing to properly and lawfully compensate the Plaintiff and other
hourly-paid, non-exempt employees overtime pay for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiff worked as a press helper at the Defendants'
Wrightstown, Wisconsin location from October 2009 to March 2020 and
was re-hired in July 2020. He is still currently employed by the
Defendants.

ProAmpac Intermediate, Inc., is a global packing company with a
principal office in Cincinnati, Ohio. Coating Excellence
International, LLC, is a manufacturer of flexible and paper
packaging solutions with a principal office in Cincinnati,
Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:             
  
         James A. Walcheske, Esq.
         Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
         David M. Potteiger, Esq.
         WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
         235 North Executive Drive, Suite 240
         Brookfield, WI 53005
         Telephone: (262) 780-1953
         Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
         E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                 sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                 dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com


PROGENITY INC: Faces Soe Suit Over Misleading IPO Statements
------------------------------------------------------------
AUNG KYAW SOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PROGENITY, INC., HARRY STYLLI, ERIC D'ESPARBES, JEFFREY
ALTER, JOHN BIGALKE, JEFFREY FERRELL, BRIAN L. KOTZIN, SAMUEL
NUSSBAUM, LYNNE POWELL, PIPER SANDLER & CO., WELLS FARGO
SECURITIES, LLC, ROBERT W. BAIRD & CO. INCORPORATED, RAYMOND JAMES
& ASSOCIATES, INC. and BTIG, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-01683-WQH-AHG
(S.D. Cal., Aug. 28, 2020), accuses the Defendants of violating the
Securities Act of 1933 regarding the statement they issued for the
Company's initial public offering.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants negligently prepared the
Registration Statement for the initial public offering (IPO), which
they conducted on June 22, 2020, wherein they have sold over 6.6
million shares of Progenity common stock to the investing public at
a price of $15 per share, generating over $100 million in gross
offering proceeds.

Allegedly, the Registration Statement contained materially false
and misleading statements and the Defendants failed to make the
necessary disclosures required under the rules and regulations
governing the preparation. As a result, the Progenity common stock
suffered significant price declines shortly after the IPO.

The Plaintiff has purchased Progenity common stock.

Progenity, Inc., is a biotechnology company based in San Diego,
California. Harry Stylli served as Progenity's Chief Executive
Officer (CEO) and Chairman of the Progenity Board of Directors at
the time of the IPO. Eric d'Esparbes served as Progenity's Chief
Financial Officer (CFO) at the time of the IPO. Jeffrey Alter, John
Bigalke, Jeffrey Ferrell, Brian L. Kotzin, Samuel Nussbaum, and
Lynne Powell served as members of the Board at the time of the
IPO.

Piper Sandler & Co., Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Robert W. Baird &
Co. Incorporated, Raymond James & Associates, Inc. and BTIG, LLC
served as underwriters for the IPO.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David C. Walton, Esq.
          Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Tel: (619) 231-1058
          Fax: (619) 231-7423
          Emails: davew@rgrdlaw.com
                  bcochran@rgrdlaw.com

                - and –

          Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
          JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1400
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Tel: (619) 230-0063
          Fax: (619) 255-1856
          Email: frankj@johnsonfistel.com


PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Hsu Class Action Ongoing
--------------------------------------------
Puma Biotechnology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class
action suit entitled, Hsu v. Puma Biotechnology, Inc.

On June 3, 2015, Hsingching Hsu, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit against the
company and certain of its executive officers in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California (Case No.
8:15-cv-00865-AG-JCG).  

On October 16, 2015, lead plaintiff Norfolk Pension Fund filed a
consolidated complaint on behalf of all persons who purchased our
securities between July 22, 2014 and May 29, 2015.  

A trial on the claims relating to four statements alleged to have
been false or misleading was held from January 15 to January 29,
2019.  At trial, the jury found that three of the four challenged
statements were not false or misleading, and thus found in the
defendants' favor on those claims.  

The jury found liability as to one statement and awarded a maximum
of $4.50 per share in damages, which represents approximately 5% of
the total claimed damages of $87.20 per share. Trading models
suggest that approximately ten million shares traded during the
class period may be eligible to claim damages.  

Based on prior lawsuits, the company believes that the number of
stockholders who submit proof of claims sufficient to recover
damages is typically in the range of 20% to 40% of the total
eligible shares.  

Based on these assumptions, total damages after claims could range
from $9 million to $18 million. The total amount of aggregate
class-wide damages remains uncertain and will be ascertained only
after an extensive claims process and the exhaustion of any
appeals, and it is reasonably possible that the total damages will
be higher than this estimate.  However, the amount is not estimable
at this time.

On September 9, 2019, the Court entered an order specifying the
rate of prejudgment interest to be awarded on any valid claims at
the 52-week Treasury Bill rate.  

The Court's order also established a claims process, which is
expected to take about 12 months.

A final judgment has not been entered.

Puma Biotechnology, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on
the development and commercialization of products to enhance cancer
care in the United States. Puma Biotechnology, Inc. was founded in
2010 and is headquartered in Los Angeles, California.


PURDUE PHARMA: Montpelier Schools to Join Opioid Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lucas Bechtol, writing for The Bryan Times, reports that the
Montpelier Exempted Village Schools Board of Education voted to
participate in a class-action lawsuit against the company that
invented oxycontin.

The board voted 5-0 to approve "authorizing filing of bankruptcy
proof of claim," which District Superintendent Jamison Grime
immediately clarified.

"No, the school is not going bankrupt," he said. "There is a
class-action lawsuit that school districts in the state of Ohio are
teaming up against Purdue Pharma, who is the company that invented
oxycontin, essentially."

The lawsuit, Grime continued, alleges public school districts saw
an increase in special education costs as the opioid addictions
increased.

"We're trying to recoup some of the money back," he said. "There's
no cost to the school district."

In her update, Treasurer Carla Rice said the district received its
first quarter income tax for the year.

It was 15% below average.

"Currently in the five-year forecast I have a 5% decrease factored
in," Rice said. "If it comes back to the next time we're less,
maybe 5%, we'll be off 7% of what we estimated . . . We'll have a
settlement at the end of October. The five-year forecast is due in
November."

She said the biggest decrease in the tax collections came from
employment withholdings.

That means as employment goes up, that collection should increase.

"Next (payment) we should see a larger increase in that," Rice
said. "If that's true, and again we'll know that in October, we'll
be able to calculate any adjustments that need to be made in the
five-year forecasts."

Right now, a low estimate has Montpelier off around $30,000 from
the estimate.

In other action, the board passed an updated county school
reopening plan.

The primary change was whether or not all the county's schools
would close if the county was designated Red in the Ohio Public
Health Advisory system.

"If the county goes into Red . . . the school superintendents and
the health department officials will get together to determine the
reasons why we went into Red and make a decision whether or not to
close down schools, based upon current data," Grime said. "If the
jail gets an outbreak and the county goes Red, is that a reason to
close all schools in the county?"

He said the updated plan would be made available on the district's
website.

The board also went into executive session to discuss employment
and compensation of a public employee. No action was expected
after. [GN]


RABOBANK NA: Legal Fees Motion in Recovery Fund Suit Partly Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RECOVERY FUND II USA LLC, Plaintiff, v. RABOBANK,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, BANKRUPTCY MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, INC., ERIC
KURTZMAN, BMANSOL HOLDINGS LP, BMANSOL INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS INC.,
UTRECHT - AMERICA HOLDINGS, INC., STONE POINT CAPITAL, LLC, ABC
COMPANIES 1-10, AND JOHN and JANE DOES 1-10, Defendants, C.A. No.
18-2039-MN-JLH (D. Del.), Judge Maryellen Noreika of the District
Court for the District of Delaware adopted a May 2020 Report and
Recommendation recommending that the Court grant-in-part and
deny-in-part Defendants' motions for attorneys' fees.  Accordingly,
Judge Noreika ruled that:

(1) The motions for attorneys' fees are DENIED to the extent they
    seek fees under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1927 and the Court's inherent
    authority; and

(2) The motions for attorneys' fees are GRANTED to the extent they

    seek fees under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988 to reimburse Defendants for

    the time their attorneys spent because of, but only because of,

    Plaintiff's frivolous Sec. 1983 claim.

It is further ordered that attorneys' fees are awarded to Defendant
Bankruptcy Management Solutions, Inc. in the amount of $11,133.00
and to Defendant Rabobank, National Association in the amount of
$7,220.00.

Judge Noreika's June 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y65fphy3 from PacerMonitor.com.

The May 2020 Report and Recommendation was issued by Magistrate
Judge Jennifer L. Hall, a copy of which is available
https://is.gd/R3vuyt from Leagle.com.

The class action complaint was filed by Plaintiff Recovery Fund on
Dec. 21, 2018.  Defendants sought dismissal of the case in March
2019 for failure to state a claim and lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.  Instead of responding, on April 16, 2019, Recovery
Fund filed an Amended Complaint that named additional Defendants
and asserted additional claims.

The Amended Complaint set forth eleven claims: Conspiracy to Commit
Violations of the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corruption
Organizations Act ("RICO") (Count I); RICO - Commission of Wire
Fraud and Mail Fraud 18 U.S.C. Sections 1341, 1343 (Count II); RICO
- Commission of Embezzlement Against the Bankruptcy Estate 18
U.S.C. Section 153 (Count III); Right to Priority Payment for Proof
of Claim 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, 11 U.S.C. Section 726 (Count IV);
Fraud (Count V); Constructive Fraud (Count VI); Conspiracy (Count
VII); Negligent Misrepresentation (Count VIII); Illegal and/or
Unauthorized Distribution (Count IX); Violation of Federal Trade
Commission Act Section 5: Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices
(Count X); and Unjust Enrichment (Count XI).


RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Mistreats UTC Plan Members, Darnis Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
GERAUD DARNIS; DAVID HESS; MICHAEL MAURER; RICHARD SANFREY; DINO
DEPELLEGRINI; BRADLEY HARDESTY; ROY DION; ALAN MACHUGA; THERESA
MACKINNON; CHRISTOPHER DOOT; DAVID CARTER; and COSTAS LOUKELLIS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01171
(D. Conn., Aug. 12, 2020), stems from the Defendants' alleged
substantial mistreatment of the Plaintiffs and the proposed class
in certain of United Technologies Corporation's compensation plans
when UTC spun-off Carrier Global Corporation and Otis Worldwide
Corporation into separate companies and merged with Raytheon
Corporation to form Raytheon Technologies Corporation.

According to the complaint, UTC's compensation plans at issue
provided participants with compensation in the form of Stock
Options, Stock Appreciation Rights ("SARs"), and other rights in
UTC common stock. UTC offered and encouraged participation in the
compensation plans and assured participants that it would make
"equitable adjustments" to preserve the value of participants'
compensation if UTC spun-off a subsidiary or merged with another
company. UTC furthered assured participants that the value
preservation would be measured in relation to the treatment of
common stock and option investors and the value of UTC's share
price on the New York Stock Exchange.

In breach of these obligations, when the Defendants converted the
Plaintiffs' and Class Members' stock-based compensation into
interests in RTX, Carrier and Otis, they used formulae that treated
compensation plan participants in a manner that was significantly
inferior and inequitable as compared to how UTC common stock and
option owners were treated in the spin-offs and merger
(collectively, the "Transaction"), according to the complaint.
While common stock owners received 1 share of RTX, 1 share of
Carrier and .5 shares in Otis in the Transaction for each share of
UTC stock they owned; the Plaintiffs and Class Members only
received .851 shares in RTX and Carrier and only .425 shares in
Otis. To make matters worse, the Defendants' formulae increased the
exercise price (also known as "Strike Price" or grant price) at
which the Plaintiffs and Class Members could exercise their Stock
Options and SARs, which further diminished Plaintiffs' and Class
Members' interests and deprived them of the benefits realized by
UTC's common stock and option owners.

Raytheon Technologies Corporation provides aircraft. The Company
offers engines, integrated systems, components, carrier, and Otis.
Raytheon Technologies serves customers worldwide.

The Defendants are RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; OTIS WORLDWIDE CORPORATION; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION 2018 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION 2020 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN; OTIS WORLDWIDE
CORPORATION 2020 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION SAVINGS RESTORATION PLAN; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION
SAVINGS RESTORATION PLAN; OTIS WORLDWIDE SAVINGS RESTORATION PLAN;
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY PERFORMANCE SHARE UNIT DEFERRAL PLAN;
CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION LTIP PERFORMANCE SHARE UNIT DEFERRAL
PLAN; OTIS WORLDWIDE CORPORATION LTIP PERFORMANCE SHARE UNIT
DEFERRAL PLAN; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY DEFERRED COMPENSATION
PLAN; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN; OTIS
WORLDWIDE CORPORATION DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN; UTC COMPANY
AUTOMATIC CONTRIBUTION EXCESS PLAN; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION
COMPANY AUTOMATIC CONTRIBUTION EXCESS PLAN; OTIS WORLDWIDE
CORPORATION COMPANY AUTOMATIC CONTRIBUTION EXCESS PLAN; LLOYD J.
AUSTIN; III; DIANE M. BRYANT; JOHN V. FARACI; JEAN-PIERRE GARNIER;
GREGORY J. HAYES; CHRISTOPHER J. KEARNEY; ELLEN J. KULLMAN;
MARSHALL O. LARSEN; HAROLD MCGRAW; III; ROBERT K. ORTBERG; MARGARET
L. O'SULLIVAN; DENISE L. RAMOS; FREDERIC G. REYNOLDS; BRIAN C.
ROGERS; DAVID GITLIN; JOHN J. GREISCH; CHARLES M. HOLLEY, JR.;
MICHAEL M. MCNAMARA; MICHAEL A. TODMAN; VIRGINIA M. WILSON; JEFFREY
H. BLACK; KATHY HOPINKAH; SHAILESH G. JEJURIKAR; JUDITH F. MARKS;
MARGARET M. PRESTON; SHELLEY STEWART, JR.; AND JOHN H. WALKER.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Craig A. Raabe, Esq.
          Robert A. Izard, Esq.
          Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
          Douglas P. Needham, Esq.
          IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE LLP
          29 South Main Street, Suite 305
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 493-6292
          Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
          E-mail: craabe@ikrlaw.com
                  rizard@ikrlaw.com
                  mkindall@ikrlaw.com
                  dneedham@ikrlaw.com


RECKITT BENCKISER: Angeles Sues Over Neuriva's Deceptive Labels
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIZA ANGELES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RECKITT BENCKISER LLC and RB HEALTH (US) LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-07138 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 2, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants are engaged in false and deceptive advertising, labeling
and marketing of Neuriva Original and Neuriva Plus supplements.

The Defendants represented the products as clinically proven to
improve brain performance in the areas of focus, memory, learning,
accuracy, concentration, and reasoning, according to the complaint.
In reality, the Defendants have no scientific or clinical proof
that Neuriva provides any benefit to the brain or that its key
advertised ingredients can actually access the brain in sufficient
amounts, or in any amount, to provide meaningful brain performance
benefit. The Defendants' promises about Neuriva and their
representations about the products' key ingredients are simply
false or, in some instances, disturbingly misleading.

As a result of the Defendants' misrepresentations and deceptive
practices, the Plaintiff and Class members lost money as they paid
substantially more than the market value represented by the price
bargained for and they did not receive what they reasonably
believed they can benefit from the products, the Plaintiff
contends.

Reckitt Benckiser LLC is a manufacturer of cleaning products with a
principal place of business located in Parsippany, New Jersey. RB
Health (US) LLC is a manufacturer of health and hygiene products
with a principal place of business located in Parsippany, New
Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          

         Jonathan Shub, Esq.
         Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
         SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
         134 Kings Hwy. E., 2nd Floor
         Haddonfield, NJ 08033
         Telephone: (856) 772-7200
         E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com
                 klaukaitis@shublawyers.com


RENT-A-CENTER WEST: Sanchez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as MARTIN SANCHEZ HERNANDEZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. RENT-A-CENTER WEST, INC.
and DOES 1-50, Case No. CIV DS 2012114, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on August 28, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:20-cv-01759 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of
California Labor Code, including failure to pay the Plaintiff and
all others similarly situated furniture delivery drivers overtime
and minimum wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods,
failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to timely pay
wages, failure to reimburse business expenses, and unlawful wage
deductions.

Rent-A-Center West, Inc., is a rental business in California for
new and used furniture, appliances, and electronics.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:             
  
         Evan R. Moses, Esq.
         OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
         400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 239-9800
         Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
         E-mail: evan.moses@ogletree.com

                - and –

         Michael J. Nader, Esq.
         Rabia Z. Reed, Esq.
         OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
         500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2500
         Sacramento, CA 95814
         Telephone: (916) 840-3150
         Facsimile: (916) 840-3159
         E-mail: michael.nader@ogletreedeakins.com
                 rabia.reed@ogletree.com


RIBBON COMMUNICATIONS: Bid to Dismiss Miller Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ribbon Communications Inc.  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the class action
suit initiated by Ron Miller is still pending.

On November 8, 2018, Ron Miller, a purported stockholder of ours,
filed a Class Action Complaint (the "Miller Complaint") in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the
"Massachusetts District Court") against the company and three of
its former officers, Raymond P. Dolan, Mark T. Greenquist and
Michael Swade (collectively, the "Defendants"), claiming to
represent a class of purchasers of Sonus common stock during the
period from January 8, 2015 through March 24, 2015 and alleging
violations of the federal securities laws.

Similar to a previous complaint entitled Sousa et al. vs. Sonus
Networks, Inc. et al., which was dismissed with prejudice by an
order dated June 6, 2017, the Miller Complaint claims that the
Defendants made misleading forward-looking statements concerning
Sonus' expected fiscal first quarter of 2015 financial performance,
which statements were also the subject of an August 7, 2018
Securities and Exchange Commission Cease and Desist Order, whose
findings the company neither admitted nor denied. The Miller
plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages.

After the Miller Complaint was filed, several parties filed and
briefed motions seeking to be selected by the Massachusetts
District Court to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the action.

On June 21, 2019, the Massachusetts District Court appointed a
group as Lead Plaintiffs and the Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on July 19, 2019.

On August 30, 2019, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Miller Complaint and, on October 4, 2019, the Lead Plaintiffs filed
an opposition to the motion to dismiss. The Defendants filed a
reply to such opposition on November 1, 2019.

There was an oral argument on the motion to dismiss on February 12,
2020.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Ribbon Communications Inc. provides networked solutions in the
United States, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Japan, other Asia
Pacific, and internationally. The company was formerly known as
Sonus Networks, Inc. and changed its name to Ribbon Communications
Inc. in November 2017. Ribbon Communications Inc. was founded in
1997 and is headquartered in Westford, Massachusetts.


ROBERT GOLDFARB: Liable for 401(k) Plan Losses, Ferguson Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL L. FERGUSON, MYRL C. JEFFCOAT and DEBORAH SMITH,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
participants and beneficiaries of the DST Systems, Inc. 401(k)
Profit Sharing Plan v. ROBERT D. GOLDFARB, Case No. 1:20-cv-07092
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 31, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for
breach of fiduciary duties and other violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant violated his fiduciary
duties of prudence, loyalty, diversification, and/or of monitoring
under ERISA with respect to the investments in the Profit Sharing
Account (PSA) by failing to: (a) discharge his duties with respect
to the 401(k) Plan solely in the interest of the participants and
beneficiaries for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to
participants and their beneficiaries, and defraying reasonable
expenses of administering the Plan with the care, skill, prudence,
and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a
prudent man acting in a like capacity and familiar with such
matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like
character and with like aims, (b) diversify the investments of the
Plan so as to minimize the risk of large losses, and (c) monitor
the performance of other fiduciaries to the Plan in a prudent and
reasonable manner.

The Defendant has also engaged in prohibited transactions by acting
on behalf of third parties, which have interests that are adverse
to those interests of the Plan, its participants and/or
beneficiaries in connection with transactions involving the Plan
and by receiving consideration for his own personal accounts from
parties that deal with the Plan in connection with transactions
involving the assets of the Plan.

As a result of the Defendant's breaches of duties, the Plan has
suffered losses and damages, the Plaintiffs assert.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:       
      
         James E. Miller, Esq.
         Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
         SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
         65 Main Street
         Chester, CT 06412
         Telephone: (860) 526-1100
         Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
         E-mail: jmiller@sfmslaw.com
                 lrubinow@sfmslaw.com

                - and –

         Heidi A. Wendel, Esq.
         SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
         52 Duane Street, 7th Floor
         New York, NY 10007
         Telephone: (212) 419-0156
         Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
         E-mail: hwendel@sfmslaw.com

                - and –

         Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq.
         SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
         1625 N. Commerce Parkway, Suite 320
         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326
         Telephone: (954) 515-0123
         Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
         E-mail: nzipperian@sfmslaw.com

                - and –

         Ronald S. Kravitz, Esq.
         Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
         SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
         201 Filbert Street, Suite 201
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Telephone: (415) 429-5272
         Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
         E-mail: rkravitz@sfmslaw.com
                 ktang@sfmslaw.com

                - and –

         James C. Shah, Esq.
         Alec J. Berin, Esq.
         SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
         1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (610) 891-9880
         Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
         E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com
                 aberin@sfmslaw.com

                - and –

         Monique Olivier, Esq.
         OLIVIER SCHREIBER & CHAO LLP
         201 Filbert Street, Suite 201
         San Francisco, CA 94133
         Telephone: (415) 484-0980
         E-mail: monique@osclegal.com


SAM'S CLUB: Asks Judge to Compel Arbitration in Membership Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that ignorance is
no defense, says Sam's Club as it fights as a class action lawsuit
over membership perks.

It is the second time Sam's has asked a federal judge to compel
arbitration or throw out the lawsuit, which was amended after the
first motion to dismiss in June. This motion, filed July 24,
focuses on the terms of arbitration in the membership of Virginia
Herrmann, who filed suit against the company in St. Louis federal
court.

Herrmann says she bought a $45 membership that allowed her to shop
before regular hours but that after it renewed, she was stopped
early one morning and told she needed to upgrade to be able to
check out before 9 a.m.

She claims she is not bound to the arbitration agreement introduced
in the 2020 terms and conditions. She accepted those terms when she
renewed her existing membership, the company said, by not
terminating her membership before Feb. 1.

"Plaintiff states that she is not certain she saw the offer and--as
it contradicts her allegations--there is a purported dispute as to
contract terms," attorneys for Sam's wrote.

"In fact, Plaintiff's failure to read the arbitration clause does
not excuse her from complying with it. And courts must dismiss, not
grant discovery where the plain terms of the actual contract
contradict the allegations of the complaint.

"This case is frivolous and should be referred to arbitration or
dismissed."

Judge Stephen Limbaugh Jr. will have to sort it all out.

The terms with the arbitration provision took effect Feb. 1.
Herrmann says she didn't participate in auto-renewal or expressly
renew her membership. Sam's says this was required to terminate her
membership.

Herrmann also says she does not remember seeing the new terms in
mailers said to have been sent by Sam's in January. Sam's says
"mailing creates a presumption of receipt.

Herrmann also says she emailed Sam's after the Feb. 2 renewal date
to reject the new terms. That's not good enough to void them, Sam's
says. [GN]


SCWORX CORP: Facing Suits Over COVID-19 Rapid Test Kits
-------------------------------------------------------
SCWorx Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2020, that the company is facing several class action suits related
to its April 13, 2020, press release with respect to the sale of
COVID-19 rapid test kits.

Between April 29, 2020 and June 23,2020, three securities class
action cases and one shareholder derivative case were filed against
the Company.

As disclosed in the Company's 10-Q filed July 1, 2020, all three
class action lawsuits allege that the company and its CEO mislead
investors in connection with the company's April 13, 2020 press
release with respect to the sale of COVID-19 rapid test kits.

The plaintiffs in these actions are seeking unspecified monetary
damages.

SCWorx said, "We intend to vigorously defend against these
proceedings."

SCWorx Corp. provides software solutions for the management of
health care providers' foundational business applications. The
company is based in New York, New York.

SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss Agar Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sensient Technologies Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the demurrer filed by Sensient
Natural Ingredients LLC in the Agar v. Sensient Natural Ingredients
LLC, to the Second Amended Complaint, is pending.

On March 29, 2019, Calvin Agar (Agar), a former employee, filed a
Class Action Complaint in Stanislaus County Superior Court against
Sensient Natural Ingredients LLC (SNI). On May 22, 2019, Agar filed
a First Amended Class Action Complaint against SNI (the Complaint).


Agar alleges that SNI improperly reported overtime pay on
employees’ wage statements, in violation of the California Labor
Code.

The Complaint alleges two causes of action, both of which concern
the wage statements.

The Complaint does not allege that SNI failed to pay any overtime
due to Agar or any of the putative class or group members. The
Complaint merely challenges the manner in which SNI has reported
overtime pay on its wage statements.

SNI maintains that it has accurately paid Agar and the putative
class members for all overtime worked, and that they have not
experienced any harm.

SNI further maintains that the format of its wage statements does
not violate the requirements of state law or any specific guidance
from California decisional law, the California Division of Labor
Standards Enforcement, or the California Labor Commissioner's
Office.

Finally, SNI contended that certain of the state law claims are
subject to mandatory individual arbitration.

SNI filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Complaint on
July 10, 2019. The parties participated in an early mediation in
the case in December 2019, which was not successful. On March 17,
2020, the Court granted Agar leave to file a Second Amended
Complaint, which removed the claim that SNI had asserted was
subject to mandatory individual arbitration.

SNI filed a Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint, seeking
dismissal of the remaining claim, on May 1, 2020. The Demurrer is
fully briefed and pending decision.

SNI continues to evaluate the developing legal authority on this
issue. SNI intends to vigorously defend its interests, absent a
reasonable resolution.

Sensient Technologies Corporation, incorporated on December 7,
1882, is a manufacturer and marketer of colors, flavors and
fragrances. The Company uses technologies at facilities around the
world to develop specialty food and beverage systems, cosmetic and
pharmaceutical systems, specialty inks and colors, and other
specialty and fine chemicals. The company is based in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin.


SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss Kelley Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sensient Technologies Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the demurrer filed by the Sensient
Natural Ingredients LLC (SNI) in Kelley v. Sensient Natural
Ingredients LLC; Bryan v. Sensient Natural Ingredients LLC, is
pending.

On March 4, 2020, Monique Kelley filed a Class Action Complaint
against SNI in Merced County Superior Court in California. Ms.
Kelley worked at SNI for less than a week in 2017 through a
temporary staffing company.

Ms. Kelley has brought suit for purported violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code on her own behalf, and on behalf of all current and former
California-based hourly-paid or non-exempt employees of SNI.

Ms. Kelley specifically asserts claims for unpaid overtime wages,
unpaid minimum wages, unpaid meal and rest break premiums, failure
to timely pay final wages upon termination, non-compliant wage
statements, and unreimbursed business expenses.

SNI filed a Demurrer on May 21, 2020, seeking dismissal of the
Complaint in its entirety on the grounds that it contains only
boilerplate allegations that fail to state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action, and it is otherwise uncertain,
ambiguous, and unintelligible.

SNI further seeks dismissal of one cause of action based upon the
statute of limitations.

SNI simultaneously filed a Motion to Strike certain allegations in
the Complaint as improperly pled.

The Demurrer and Motion to Strike are fully briefed and pending
decision.

On June 15, 2020, the same law firm representing Ms. Kelley also
filed notice with the State of California of the intent to pursue a
claim on a representative basis pursuant to the California Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). This notice was served on
behalf of Julie Bryan, who worked at SNI through a temporary
staffing agency in early 2020. The notice states the intent to
pursue relief on behalf of Ms. Bryan as well as other alleged
aggrieved employees, identified as all current and former hourly or
non-exempt employees of SNI, whether hired directly or through
staffing agencies or labor contractors. The notice alleges that SNI
failed to properly pay Ms. Bryan and the other alleged aggrieved
employees for all hours worked, failed to properly provide or
compensate minimum and overtime wages and for meal and rest breaks,
failed to issue compliant wage statements, and failed to reimburse
for all necessary business-related expenses, in violation of the
California Labor Code and California Industrial Welfare Commission
Orders. SNI intends to vigorously defend its interests in both of
these matters, absent a reasonable resolution.

Sensient Technologies Corporation, incorporated on December 7,
1882, is a manufacturer and marketer of colors, flavors and
fragrances. The Company uses technologies at facilities around the
world to develop specialty food and beverage systems, cosmetic and
pharmaceutical systems, specialty inks and colors, and other
specialty and fine chemicals. The company is based in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin.


SERVISFIRST BANK: Court Dismisses PPP Agent Fee Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Donald R. Frederico, Esq. -- dfrederico@pierceatwood.com -- Lucus
A. Ritchie, Esq. -- lritchie@pierceatwood.com -- Melanie A. Conroy,
Esq. -- mconroy@pierceatwood.com -- of Pierce Atwood LLP, in an
article for The National Law Review, report that in a national
bellwether case, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Florida dismissed a putative class action seeking the
payment of "agent fees" for Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans
under the federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
(CARES) Act.

The case, Sport & Wheat CPA, PA v. ServisFirst Bank, Inc., et al.,
No. 20-cv-05425 (N.D. Fla. 2020), is the first among at least 50
similar cases to reach a dispositive decision. These cases all
raise the same central question: does the CARES Act entitle agents
to any of the fees paid by the federal government to lenders who
were tasked with administering hundreds of billions of dollars of
loans under the PPP, where the agents assisted the borrowers in
obtaining the loans but had no agreements with the lenders
entitling them to payment? Here, the court concluded it does not.
For background on this category of class action litigation more
generally, please see our earlier alerts Developments in Class
Action Litigation Surrounding the Paycheck Protection Program and
COVID-19 Payment Protection Program: Lender Guidelines Subject to
Litigation Risks.

Importantly, in this case, the lead plaintiff agent did not allege
that it or the borrowers had contractual agreements with the
defendant banks concerning the payment of agent fees. Instead, it
asserted four classwide claims for unjust enrichment, breach of
implied contract, conversion, and declaratory relief. The first two
theories were based on an argument that the parties had reached an
implied agreement on the payment of agent fees, and that the class
of agents was entitled recover the monetary benefit conferred on
the defendant banks when it helped the borrowers obtain PPP loans.
The second two theories rested on a legal interpretation of the
CARES Act that the PPP and its implementing regulation required
lenders to pay the agent fees regardless of whether there was an
agreement among the parties to do so.

The court's analysis centered on this question of law -- whether,
absent any agreement with the agents, defendant banks are required
to pay agent fees under the text of the CARES Act or its
implementing regulations. The court concluded that nothing in the
CARES Act or its implementing regulations required such payments,
they only established restraints on the collection of agent fees.
As a result, the court reasoned, the CARES Act does not require
lenders to pay agent fees or create a private right of action for
payment absent an express agreement among the parties.

Based on this statutory interpretation, the court dismissed
plaintiff's conversion claim because plaintiff could not
demonstrate that it had a right to the property in question, the
agent fees. Similarly, the court reasoned that the plaintiff's
unjust enrichment claim failed because it did not show a benefit
that was conferred on the defendants, only the borrowers. And, even
if an indirect benefit was conferred on the defendants, the court
determined that this was insufficient to sustain claims for unjust
enrichment or implied contract against the defendants. For these
reasons, the court dismissed the complaint in its entirety.

Sport & Wheat may be the first of these PPP agent fee cases to be
decided on its merits, but it certainly will not be the last.
Dozens of other class action cases against PPP lenders are still in
their early stages, and more filings are expected over the coming
months. A motion to transfer these cases into a single MDL
proceeding was denied by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation. See In re Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Agent Fees
Litigation, MDL No. 2950 (J.P.M.L. Aug. 5, 2020). As a result,
these cases will proceed on individual bases, and it is too early
to rule out whether some will survive the motion to dismiss stage.
For more information on that ruling, please see our earlier alert
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Refuses to Consolidate
Class Action Litigation Concerning Paycheck Protection Program.
[GN]


SILICON VALLEY BANK: Fails to Properly Pay OT Wages, Meguro Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
HIROMI MEGURO, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, and as a private attorney general v. SILICON
VALLEY BANK, a California corporation and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 20CV369854 (Cal. Sup., Aug. 28, 2020), alleges
violations of the California Labor Code and California Business and
Professional Code arising from improper overtime pay.

The Plaintiff started working for the Defendants in 2018 as a
business data analyst, but he was terminated in August 2020.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was required by the
Defendant to work in excess of 8 hours in a workday without proper
overtime pay at one and one-half his regular rate of pay because
the Defendants consistently failed to include all the
non-discretionary compensation to the Plaintiff's regular rate of
pay when computing his overtime pay. Additionally, the Defendants
consistently issued the Plaintiff inaccurate wage statements that
identified the overtime rate as the base hourly rate of pay or
one-half of the hourly rate of pay, and show hours that when
totaled, it does not coincide to the actual total hours worked.

The Plaintiff sent written notice to the Labor & Workforce
Development Agency (LWDA) on August 24, 2020, regarding the
Defendants' violations, but LWDA has neither responded nor
indicated that that it intends to investigate the allegations in
the written notice.

Silicon Valley Bank is a U.S.-based high-tech commercial bank.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Simon L. Yang, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 South Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Tel: (213) 488-6555
          Fax: (213) 488-6554
          Emails: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
                  sly@diversitylaw.com

                - and –

          William L. Marder, Esq.
          POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP
          501 San Benito St., Suite 200
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Tel: (831) 531-4214
          Fax: (831) 634-0333
          Email: bill@polarislawgroup.com


SILVERTIP COMPLETION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Rodgers Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GLEN RODGERS, JR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SILVERTIP COMPLETION SERVICES OPERATING, LLC and
MICHAEL WOOD, Case No. 1:20-cv-00896 (D.N.M., Sept. 1, 2020),
arises from the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay overtime
wages at one-and-one-half times his regular rate when he worked
over 40 hours in individual workweeks. The Defendants also violated
the FLSA and the NMMWA by miscalculating the overtime rate paid to
non-exempt employees ("NEEs") for overtime hours worked.
Specifically, the Defendants failed to include job bonuses earned
by NEEs into their regular rates of pay to determine overtime
compensation. This policy did not depend on the job title or the
specific work performed to earn the job bonuses. Rather, the
Defendant categorically excluded all job bonuses provided to NEEs
from the regular rate of pay.

The Plaintiff is an individual, who worked for the Defendants as an
NEE from August 2018 to April 2019.

Silvertip Completion Services Operating, LLC, is a Midland-based
startup oilfield service company offering a full suite of
cased-hole wireline services including perforating, pumpdown, and
logging.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Travis M. Hedgpeth, Esq.
          THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC
          3050 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 510
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (281) 572-0727
          E-mail: travis@hedgpethlaw.com

               - and -

          Jack Siegel, Esq.
          Stacy W. Thomsen, Esq.
          SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
          4925 Greenville Avenue, Suite 600
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 790-4454
          E-mail: stacy@siegellawgroup.biz
                  jack@siegellawgroup.biz


SIMPSON STRONG-TIE: Court Dismissed First Amended Cooper Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CARY W COOPER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SIMPSON
STRONG-TIE COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-07901-TSH (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted (i) the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and (ii) the Defendants' Request
for Judicial Notice in Support of their Motion.

Defendants Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. and Simpson Manufacturing
Co., Inc. are a California corporation and Delaware corporation
with a principal place of business in Pleasanton, California.
Simpson manufactures, advertises, sells, and distributes steel,
structural building products throughout the United States,
including various products sold for installation in the
foundations, framing, and doors of homes and other buildings to
help secure the structures against high-wind events and earthquake.
The Product is made of pre-formed strips of steel that have
flanges used for connecting the Product to various structures.  It
works in combination with other steel connectors to form load paths
that create resistance to uplift1 and lateral forces which can
damage structures.

Plaintiffs Cary W. Cooper and Terri G. Cooper are Georgia residents
who own a home in Port St. Joe, Florida.  They purchased their home
on Aug. 17, 2019.  The property was built in 2004 and the Product
was installed on the home.  They allege that in 2019, a hurricane
hit the area of Port St. Joe and caused severe damage to the
Coopers' home.  The Plaintiffs allege that the home suffered
extensive damage because the Product was weakened due to premature
corrosion and failed to secure the home.  They allege it would not
have suffered from extensive damage if the Product had functioned
as Simpson marketed it would.

Plaintiff Fernandina Beach is a Florida limited liability company
("LLC") which owns a home in Fernandina Beach, Florida.  It
purchased its property in September 2011.  The home was built in
1997 and the Product was installed on it.  Because of premature
corrosion, the Plaintiffs allege, the Product is no longer capable
of protecting Fernandina's home from high wind and seismic events.

Plaintiffs Simon Nguyen and Thoai Doan ("California Plaintiffs")
are California residents who own a home in San Jacinto, California.
They purchased their home, which was built in January 2007, in
August 2009.  The Product was installed on their home also.  The
Plaintiffs allege that "signs of corrosion on the Product continue
to manifest" on this home as well, compromising the home's
foundation and structural support.

Simpson provides installation instructions, design specifications,
and other representations as to the usage and qualities of the
Product in materials, including manuals and guides, which it
produces and disseminates to consumers.  The manuals and guides
include corrosion warnings.  Nevertheless, the Plaintiffs allege
that Simpson never adequately disclosed that the Product was
subject to corrosion, rusting, failure, deterioration, and
disintegration.  They allege that few Class members ever see, and
that they never saw, the corrosion warnings and that the warnings
do not adequately disclose Simpson is selling the Product into
areas where it will foreseeably corrode long before its usual life,
under reasonably foreseeable conditions, even if the installer
reasonably follows the installation instructions.

The Plaintiffs believe that installation of the Product onto their
structures complied with Simpson's installation instructions and
that deterioration was not due to environmental conditions but,
rather, the Defendants' defective design of the Product.  They
allege that Simpson knew of the Product defect since before they
and Class members purchased their properties, and that it failed to
disclose it.

The Plaintiffs filed their original class action complaint on Dec.
2, 2019.  Simpson filed a motion to dismiss on Feb. 5, 2020.
Rather than oppose the motion, the Plaintiffs filed their First
Amended Complaint (FAC) on Feb. 5, 2020.  In their FAC, they assert
nine causes of action against Simpson: (1) unfair competition, or
unfair or deceptive acts or practices, in violation of the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); (2) unlawful
business practices in violation of the California unfair
competition law ("UCL"); (3) unfair business practices in violation
of the UCL; (4) a violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act ("FDUTPA"); (5) breach of express warranty; (6)
breach of implied warranty of fitness; (7) breach of implied
warranty of merchantability; (8) negligence; and (9) fraud through
non-disclosure or concealment.

Simpson filed its Motion to Dismiss the FAC ("MTD") on March 17,
2020, asserting dismissal is warranted pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Simpson Also requested judicial of the following items: Simpson's
High Wind-Resistant Construction Application Guide; pages from a
2001 archive of Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc.'s website, retrieved
from the Internet Archive; pages from the official website for City
of Fernandina Beach, Florida; a map showing the City of Fernandina
Beach, located on the North East Atlantic coast of Florida; pages
from the official website for Port St. Joe, Florida; a map showing
the Port St. Joe, Florida located on the North West Gulf of Mexico
coast of Florida; a 2019 North Atlantic hurricane tracking chart,
prepared by the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Weather
Service.

Magistrate Judge Hixson grants Simpson's requests for judicial
notice.  Judicial notice may be taken at any stage of a proceeding.
Simpson's requests are unopposed, and the Plaintiffs either rely
on the documents requested (the Application Guide and the website
pages), meaning they're not subject to dispute, or the items are
otherwise proper subjects for judicial notice.

Turning to Simpson's Motion to Dismiss, the Magistrate Judge held
that since the FAC does not plausibly allege that the Product was
subject to premature corrosion or defective in any way, or that
Simpson represented that its products would never corrode, fail, or
need to be replaced, the FAC does not plausibly allege that Simpson
concealed a defect in the Product or otherwise misrepresented the
quality or durability of its products.  Each of the Plaintiffs'
claims fail because of that.  The Judge also addressed the
individual claims.  Because the Plaintiffs' second and third causes
of action, their California unfair competition law claims, are
based on violations asserted in their other causes of action, he
will discuss those claims last.

The judge finds that the Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged a
claim under the CLRA.  The Plaintiffs argue that Simpson's
marketing and sales decisions are made from its home office in
California.  But they do not allege that fact in the FAC, even
though Simpson raised this argument in its motion to dismiss the OC
and they had opportunity to do so.  Simpson is correct that the
Plaintiffs' have not alleged that the Florida Plaintiffs have
sufficient contacts with California to be able to avail themselves
of the CLRA or UCL.

Next, the Judge finds that the FAC does not plausibly allege that
Simpson's products suffered from any defects, or that Simpson
omitted any material information about its products. It does not
plausibly allege that Simpson misled consumers.  And because the
Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that Simpson's products
suffered from defects, they've also not plausibly alleged that they
were injured due to any defect in Simpson's products.  They've
failed to state a claim under the FDUTPA.

The California Plaintiffs cannot assert warranty claims under the
California Song-Beverly Act ("SBA") because the Products they
purchased as part of their home were not "new," the Judge finds.
"Consumer goods" under the Act are defined as any new product that
is used, bought, or leased for use primarily for personal, family,
or household purposes.  The only section of the act that applies to
used goods is Section 1795.5, which creates obligations on behalf
of the distributor or retail seller making express warranties with
respect to used consumer goods (and not the original
manufacturer).

As fo the Plaintiffs' negligence claim, the Judge finds that with
regard to the Fernandina and California Plaintiffs' homes, Simpson
is correct that the Plaintiffs have not even alleged damage to
anything other than the Product.  They allege only speculative
damage to their homes.  The breach of a duty causing only
speculative harm or the threat of future harm does not normally
suffice to create a cause of action.

The Plaintiffs' ninth cause of action is one for fraud or
concealment.  They allege that Simpson concealed and suppressed
material facts concerning the Product, namely the inability of the
Product, even when selected and installed pursuant to Simpson's
guidelines and instructions, to withstand environmental factors
that cause premature corrosion.  Once again, the Plaintiffs have
not plausibly alleged that any of Simpson's products were defective
or that Simpson concealed any information from consumers.  Thus,
they have not plausibly alleged fraud or unlawful concealment.

For the Plaintiffs' second and third causes of action, they allege
that the Defendants engaged in unlawful (claim two) and unfair
(claim three) business practices in violation of the California
unfair competition law.  These causes of action depend on the other
claims, which for reasons already explained, all fail.  Thus, like
the Plaintiffs' other claims, these claims fail.

Finally, without an allegation of when a plaintiff discovered facts
forming the basis of an alleged fraud, a court cannot know when the
tolling stopped and thus, when the plaintiff pursued a cause of
action diligently.  Because the Plaintiffs did not allege when they
discovered the alleged fraud, they cannot avail themselves of
equitable tolling.

For the reasons stated, Magistrate Judge Hixson dismissed the
Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint.  

The Plaintiffs' first (CLRA), second and third (UCL), fourth
(FDUTPA), and ninth (fraud) claims of action are dismissed with
leave to amend.

The Plaintiffs' sixth (breach of warranty of fitness), seventh
(breach of warranty of merchantability), and eighth (negligence)
claims are dismissed with prejudice.  Additionally, Fernandina's
CLRA claim and the California Plaintiffs' SBA claims are dismissed
with prejudice.  These claims cannot be cured by amendment.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 15, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/4i8m13 from Leagle.com.


SOUTH AFRICA: Class Action Mulled Against SARS
----------------------------------------------
Ciaran Ryan, writing for Moneyweb, reports that Joaquim Alves was
arrested and locked up for a weekend in May 2019 when his
Lesotho-registered vehicle, which was being driven by a friend, was
seized by SA customs officials in the eastern Free State town of
Ficksburg.

Alves has businesses on both sides of the Lesotho border, and the
vehicle was used to travel to and fro across the border several
times a week.

He argued in vain with South African Revenue Service (Sars) customs
officials that they had misread the law in seizing his vehicle. He
then "unlawfully" retrieved his vehicle from the Ficksburg
municipal compound. Shortly thereafter, the police came and
arrested him on charges of theft. Alves, who has high blood
pressure, ended up in hospital.

The following Monday the local magistrate ordered that Alves be
released and the matter was postponed to a later date. The charges
of theft were then dropped and the magistrate ordered that the
vehicle be returned to Alves's possession. However, this did not
happen. When Sars refused to return the vehicle, Alves took it and
the SA Police Service to the high court in Bloemfontein and won his
case. Sars hung on to the vehicle while appealing the case.

Moneyweb first reported on the story in March.

Sars's appeal was blown out of court and it was ordered to pay the
legal costs.

Sars has yet to indicate whether it plans to lodge an appeal with
the higher court, but Alves says he will be ready for it if and
when it does.

He has also lodged charges of fraud and contempt of court against
the officials involved (for not releasing the vehicle when ordered
to do so by the magistrate).

"What this means is that anyone with a vehicle registered in any
Southern African Customs Union [Sacu] country is free to drive that
vehicle in SA without hinderance," says Mkhosi Radebe of MC Radebe
Attorneys in Pretoria, which is representing Alves in this case.
"My instructions are to take this, if necessary, to the Supreme
Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court to confirm what the
Bloemfontein High Court has ruled.

Up for the fight

The reason this is such a contentious issue is that South Africans
need special permits to purchase cheap imported vehicles, mostly
from Japan, yet the same rules do not apply to residents of other
Sacu countries. This is why so many Lesotho and Botswana-registered
vehicles are visible on SA roads. Yet owners of these vehicles have
complained for years of seemingly arbitrary seizure of their
vehicles by SA police and customs officials while driving in SA.
Those days appear to be coming to an end.

"Most people just meekly pay the penalties to get their impounded
cars back again. In my case, I decided to take Sars and the police
on in court to prove a point. And I am prepared to take it to the
top court in the land," says Alves.

This is a matter begging for a constitutional hearing, and it's
perhaps surprising that it hasn't happened yet.

Section 88 of the Customs and Excise Act allows any officer,
magistrate or member of the police to "detain any ship, vehicle,
plant, material or goods at any place for the purpose of
establishing whether that ship, vehicle, plant, material or goods
are liable to forfeiture under this act".

Radebe says this clause is so badly worded and open-ended that any
South African driving their locally-purchased vehicle could be
subject to the same treatment as Alves. "Any customs or police
official has the right to seize your vehicle to see if it violates
the Customs and Excise Act. This in our opinion violates the
constitutional protections against arbitrary deprivation of
property. This must be challenged."

Fringe benefits

Tens of thousands of vehicles registered in Lesotho and Botswana
are believed to have been impounded by Sars over the years and then
released on payment of "penalties". The court case Alves brought
before the Bloemfontein High Court provides a possible explanation
as to the enthusiasm for seizing vehicles. Radebe says Section 92
of the same act allows for the seizing officer to receive up to one
third from the proceeds of any penalties or asset sales.

Alves and Radebe have been gathering evidence from scores of other
people in similar circumstances in preparation for a potential
class action suit against Sars, likely run to a claim of several
billion rands.

One case shown to Moneyweb details the case of a Lesotho-registered
vehicle valued at R45 000 that was impounded by Sars and released
on payment of penalties of R23 000 – nearly half the value of the
car.

In another case, a South African-registered vehicle was impounded
and released on the payment of penalties.

"These Sars and police officials are making a business out of
seizing vehicles," says Alves.

In Alves's case, Sars argued that the seized vehicle was "imported"
and could not be driven in SA without an import permit. If so,
thousands of cheap imported vehicles driving around SA sporting
number plates from Lesotho, Botswana, Namibia and eSwatini--all
Sacu member nations--are prone to seizure in the same way.

Radebe says to classify these foreign-registered vehicles from Sacu
countries as "imports" when driven on SA roads makes a mockery of
the Sacu agreement.

Another issue highlighted by the case is whether vehicle
registration papers constitute proof of ownership.

In 2002 Alves purchased the vehicle in question, a second-hand
Nissan Serena station wagon, but did not officially change
ownership of the vehicle, a point raised by Sars in challenging his
right to bring a case before court. His lawyers argued the fact
that transfer of the vehicle to Alves's name does not affect his
title or ownership of the property. [GN]


SOUTHERN CORROSION: Misclassifies Employees, Antoine Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
JERMAINE ANTOINE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SOUTHERN CORROSION, LLC, BRANDON J. GUIDRY,
and ANDREA GUIDRY, Case No. 6:20-cv-01123 (W.D. La., Aug. 28,
2020), is brought against the Defendants for their alleged illegal
pay practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants improperly classified
the Plaintiff as independent contractor. Despite frequently working
more than 60 hours per week, the Defendants paid the Plaintiff
"straight-time" pay for overtime hours worked instead of paying him
one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked
in excess of 40 pursuant to the FLSA.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly paid
employee from June 2019 until June 2020

Southern Corrosion, LLC, provides painting and blasting services.
Brandon J. Guidry and Andrea Guidry own and operate Southern
Corrosion.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          PARMET PC
          3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
          Houston, TX 77056
          Tel: 713-999-5228
          Email: matt@parmet.law


SP PLUS: Marzette BIPA Suit Moved From Cir. Ct. to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as MICHAEL MARZETTE, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. SP PLUS CORPORATION, Case No.
2020-CH-03691, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court, Cook
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on August 31, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-05119 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Illinois Biometric Privacy Act by using fingerprint activated
timeclocks to accurately record the working time of the Plaintiff
and other employees.

SP Plus Corporation is a company that manages and operates parking
facilities throughout the Chicagoland area in Illinois.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:             
  
         Melissa A. Siebert, Esq.
         SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
         111 South Wacker Drive, Suite 4700
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 704-7700
         Facsimile: (312) 558-1195
         E-mail: masiebert@shb.com


SPARTAN COMPANIES: Hernandez Suit Moved From D.N.M. to W.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RONNIE HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SPARTAN COMPANIES, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-00581, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Mexico to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas on August 28, 2020.

The clerk of court for the Western District of Texas assigned Case
No. 1:20-cv-00895 to the proceeding.

The case alleges that the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and
all others similarly situated former and current welders overtime
compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek because they were misclassified as independent contractors
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Spartan Companies, LLC, is a company that provides services to the
oil and gas industry in Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas,
Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana and North Dakota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Don J. Foty, Esq.
         HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P.
         4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
         Houston, TX 77006
         Telephone: (713) 523-0001
         Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
         E-mail: DFoty@hftrialfirm.com


STAAR SURGICAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Oct. 19 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of STAAR Surgical Company
(NASDAQ: STAA).  Stockholders have until the deadlines below to
petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff.  Additional
information about each case can be found at the link provided.

STAAR Surgical Company (NAASDAQ: STAA)

Class Period: February 26, 2020 to August 10, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020

STAAR designs, develops, manufactures, and sells implantable lenses
for the eye and companion delivery systems used to deliver the
lenses into the eye. STAAR's primary products are: (1) "implantable
Collamer® lenses," or "ICLs," used in refractive surgery; and (2)
intraocular lenses, or "IOLs," used in cataract surgery.

On August 5, 2020, after the markets closed, STAAR announced its
financial results for the quarter ended July 3, 2020, reporting a
net loss of $0.03 per share, versus net income of $0.08 per share
in the prior year quarter, among other things.

On this news, the company's share price dropped approximately 10%,
from a closing share price of $61.81 on August 5, 2020, to a close
on August 6, 2020 at $55.86.

On August 11, 2020, analyst J Capital Research Limited published a
report stating that "[w]e think STAAR Surgical has overstated sales
in China by at least one-third, or $21.6 mln. That would mean that
all of the company's $14 mln in 2019 profit is fake." J Capital
stated that the report was based on "over 75 interviews," as well
as visits to STAAR locations in China and Switzerland.

On this news, STAAR's stock price sharply declined, closing at
$48.25 on August 11, 2020, down approximately 6.2% from its August
10, 2020 closing price of $51.42.

The complaint, filed on August 19, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts to
investors. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to
disclose to investors that the Company was overstating and/or
mischaracterizing: (1) its sales and growth in China; (2) its
marketing spend; (3) its research and development expenses; and
that as a result of the foregoing, (4) defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

For more information on the STAAR class action go to:
https://bespc.com/STAA

                About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York and California. The firm represents
individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities,
derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal
courts across the country. For more information about the firm,
please visit www.bespc.com.  Attorney advertising.  Prior results
do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contact Information:

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]


STAAR SURGICAL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Oct. 19 Motion Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Aug. 26 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of Staar
Surgical. 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.

Staar Surgical Company (NASDAQ:STAA)

STAA Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 26,
2020 - August 10, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/staar-surgical-company-information-request-form?prid=8838&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Staar
Surgical Company made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: the Company was overstating and/or
mischaracterizing: (1) its sales and growth in China; (2) its
marketing spend; (3) its research and development expenses; and
that as a result of the foregoing, (4) Defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

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
http://www.zlk.com[GN]


STAAR SURGICAL: Zhang Sues Over Drop in Securities' Market Value
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Zhang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. STAAR SURGICAL COMPANY, CAREN L. MASON, DEBORAH
ANDREWS, and PATRICK F. WILLIAMS, Case No. 8:20-cv-01660 (C.D.
Cal., Sept. 1, 2020), seeks to recover damages caused by the
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 due to their
wrongful acts and omissions that resulted in the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's securities.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all investors, who purchased or
otherwise acquired STAAR Surgical Company securities between
February 26, 2020, and August 10, 2020, inclusive.

STAAR's primary products are: (1) "implantable Collamer lenses," or
"ICLs," used in refractive surgery; and (2) intraocular lenses, or
"IOLs," used in cataract surgery. In violation of the Exchange Act,
the Plaintiff alleges, STAAR misled investors as to, inter alia,
its sales in China, which led to inflated financial results.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts to investors. Specifically, the Defendants
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose to investors that the
Company was overstating and/or mischaracterizing: (1) its sales and
growth in China; (2) its marketing spend; (3) its research and
development expenses; and that as a result, (4) Defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
On August 5, 2020, after the markets closed, STAAR reported
disappointing financial results. On this news, shares of STAAR
common stock fell approximately 10%, down from the August 5, 2020
closing price of $61.81 to an August 6, 2020 close of $55.86.

On August 11, 2020, analyst J Capital Research published a report
in which it wrote that "we think that STAAR Surgical has overstated
sales in China by at least one-third, or $21.6 mln. That would mean
that all of the company's $14 mln in 2019 profit is fake." The
report continued that "fake sales in China come at 100% margins and
therefore translate directly into profit. That means that the
roughly $21.6 mln in overstated Chinese sales in 2019 represent
152% of total company profit. In other words, without the fraud
that we believe pervades the China business, STAAR is losing
money."

J Capital Research stated in reaching its conclusions, it
"conducted over 75 interviews, visited company sites in China and
Switzerland, and reviewed financial statements and other government
documents for STAAR's distributors and customers in China. We will
show that sales of STAAR's ICLs are dramatically overstated." On
this news, the stock continued its descent, closing at just $48.25
per share on August 11, 2020.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff allegedly acquired shares of STAAR securities at
artificially inflated prices.

STARR designs, develops, manufactures, and sells implantable lenses
for the eye and companion delivery systems used to deliver the
lenses into the eye.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: (310) 405-7190
          Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                 ahood@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: (212) 697-6484
          Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
          Email: peretz@bgandg.com


T&S RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Duran Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NESTOR ISMAEL GALVEZ DURAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. T&S RESTAURANT LLC (D/B/A GRACIE'S ON
2ND), STAVROS NIKOLAKAKOS, and ANASTACIUS KATSAROS, Case No.
1:20-cv-07090 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 31, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' failure to compensate the Plaintiff and other
restaurant workers appropriate minimum and overtime wages for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The lawsuit also asserts claims against the Defendants for their
failure to provide meal and rest breaks, to give any notice of pay
rate, and to provide accurate wage statements, all in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a delivery worker,
a dishwasher, a cashier, and waiter at Gracie's Diner on 2nd
restaurant located at 300 East 86th Street, in New York City, from
January 2015 until August 2018.

T&S Restaurant LLC is the owner and operator of a diner under the
name "Gracie's Diner on 2nd" located at 300 East 86th Street, in
New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:    
   
         Michael Faillace, Esq.
         MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
         New York, NY 10165
         Telephone: (212) 317-1200
         Facsimile: (212) 317-1620


TBC RETAIL: Fails to Pay Mechanics' Overtime Wages, Schultz Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
FREDERICK SCHULTZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TBC RETAIL GROUP, INC., Case No.
8:20-cv-02044-SDM-AAS (M.D. Fla., Aug. 31, 2020), is brought
against the Defendant for its failure to compensate the Plaintiff
and other mechanics overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of
40 hours in a workweek due to their misclassification as exempt
from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Schultz worked as a mechanic for the Defendant at a Tire
Kingdom franchise store located in Hudson, Florida, from January
11, 2013, until January 17, 2014.

TBC Retail Group, Inc., is a manufacturer and distributor of
automobile tires with its principal place of business located in
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:       
      
         Matthew Gunter, Esq.
         MORGAN AND MORGAN
         20 N Orange Ave., Suite 1600,
         Orlando, FL 32801
         Telephone: (407) 236-0946
         E-mail: MGunter@forthepeople.com

                - and –

         Marybeth Mullaney, Esq.
         MULLANEY LAW
         652 Rutledge Ave.
         Charleston, SC 29403
         Telephone: (843) 588-5587
         E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net


TEVA PHARMA: Settlement in Provigil(R) Suit Wins Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the settlement of litigation
involving the State of California over PROVIGIL(R) has received
final court approval.

Beginning in April 2006, certain subsidiaries of Teva were named in
a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania with allegations that the
settlement agreements entered into between Cephalon, Inc., now a
Teva subsidiary ("Cephalon"), and various generic pharmaceutical
companies in late 2005 and early 2006 to resolve patent litigation
involving certain finished modafinil products (marketed as
PROVIGIL(R)) were unlawful because they had the effect of excluding
generic competition. The cases also allege that Cephalon improperly
asserted its PROVIGIL patent against the generic pharmaceutical
companies.

Separately, Apotex challenged Cephalon's PROVIGIL patent and, in
October 2011, the court found the patent to be invalid and
unenforceable based on inequitable conduct.

Teva has either settled or reached agreements in principle to
settle with all plaintiffs in such cases, except for an action
brought by the State of Louisiana.

The settlement with the State of California that was reached in
2019 received final court approval in June 2020.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.


THERMON GROUP: Litig. Over THS Heating Elements Ongoing in Quebec
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thermon Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a
suit in the Province of Quebec, Canada related to certain heating
elements previously manufactured by Thermon Heating Systems, Inc.
(THS) and incorporated into portable construction heaters sold by
certain manufacturers.

In January 2020, the Company received service of process in a class
action application in the Province of Quebec, Canada related to
certain heating elements previously manufactured by THS and
incorporated into portable construction heaters sold by certain
manufacturers.

The Company believes this claim is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself against the claim.

The Company continues to evaluate the facts and circumstances of
this claim; however, due to the current uncertainty of the basis
for the claim, the Company is unable to establish an amount of an
accrual for this claim at this time.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Thermon Group Holdings, Inc. provides highly engineered thermal
solutions (heating cables, tubing bundles and control systems) and
services (design optimization, engineering, installation and
maintenance services) required to deliver comprehensive solutions
to complex projects.

TRIBORO WATER: Sosa Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA/NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Sosa, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly-situated v. TRIBORO WATER MAIN AND SEWER
CORP., and MICHAEL PASSALACQUA, individually, Case No.
1:20-cv-04084 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 1, 2020), is brought for damages and
equitable relief based upon the Defendants' violations of the
Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to him by the overtime provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants willfully failed to pay
Plaintiff the wages lawfully due to him under the FLSA and the
NYLL. Specifically, the Defendants required the Plaintiff to work,
and the Plaintiff did work, either five or six days per week for an
average of approximately 57 hours per week, yet the Defendants
failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime compensation at the
statutorily-required overtime rate of one and one-half times his
regular rate of pay for all hours that the Plaintiff worked in a
week in excess of 40.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a plumber from June 2005
through May 2, 2020.

The Defendants is a New York corporation that provides sewer and
plumbing services throughout New York City and on Long Island.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Minkoff, Esq.
          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 679-5000
          Fax: (212) 679-5005


TRUSTMARK CORP: Investors' Appeal Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------
Trustmark Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the appeal taken by certain individual
investors and entities from their court-dismissed motion to
intervene in a class action lawsuit against Trustmark National Bank
(TNB) remains pending.

On August 23, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the District Court of Harris County, Texas, by Peggy Roif Rotstain,
Guthrie Abbott, Catherine Burnell, Steven Queyrouze, Jaime Alexis
Arroyo Bornstein and Juan C. Olano (collectively, Class
Plaintiffs), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, naming TNB and four other financial institutions and one
individual, each of which are unaffiliated with Trustmark, as
defendants.  

The complaint seeks to recover (i) alleged fraudulent transfers
from each of the defendants in the amount of fees and other monies
received by each defendant from entities controlled by R. Allen
Stanford (collectively, the Stanford Financial Group) and (ii)
damages allegedly attributable to alleged conspiracies by one or
more of the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to commit
fraud and/or aid and abet fraud on the asserted grounds that
defendants knew or should have known the Stanford Financial Group
was conducting an illegal and fraudulent scheme.  

Class Plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial. Class Plaintiffs did
not quantify damages.

In November 2009, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by
certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern
District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford related matters
are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings.  

In May 2010, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the lawsuit. In August 2010, the court authorized and
approved the formation of an Official Stanford Investors Committee
(OSIC) to represent the interests of Stanford investors and, under
certain circumstances, to file legal actions for the benefit of
Stanford investors.  

In December 2011, the OSIC filed a motion to intervene in this
action.  

In September 2012, the district court referred the case to a
magistrate judge for hearing and determination of certain pretrial
issues. In December 2012, the court granted the OSIC's motion to
intervene, and the OSIC filed an Intervenor Complaint against one
of the other defendant financial institutions.  

In February 2013, the OSIC filed a second Intervenor Complaint that
asserts claims against TNB and the remaining defendant financial
institutions.

The OSIC seeks to recover: (i) alleged fraudulent transfers in the
amount of the fees each of the defendants allegedly received from
Stanford Financial Group, the profits each of the defendants
allegedly made from Stanford Financial Group deposits, and other
monies each of the defendants allegedly received from Stanford
Financial Group; (ii) damages attributable to alleged conspiracies
by each of the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to
commit fraud and/or aid and abet fraud and conversion on the
asserted grounds that the defendants knew or should have known the
Stanford Financial Group was conducting an illegal and fraudulent
scheme; and (iii) punitive damages. The OSIC did not quantify
damages.  

In July 2013, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the OSIC's claims. In March 2015, the court entered an
order authorizing the parties to conduct discovery regarding class
certification, staying all other discovery and setting a deadline
for the parties to complete briefing on class certification issues.


In April 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motions to dismiss the Class Plaintiffs' claims and the
OSIC's claims.  The court dismissed all of the Class Plaintiffs'
fraudulent transfer claims and dismissed certain of the OSIC's
claims.  The court denied the motions by TNB and the other
financial institution defendants to dismiss the OSIC's constructive
fraudulent transfer claims.  

On June 23, 2015, the court allowed the Class Plaintiffs to file a
Second Amended Class Action Complaint (SAC), which asserted new
claims against TNB and certain of the other defendants for (i)
aiding, abetting and participating in a fraudulent scheme, (ii)
aiding, abetting and participating in violations of the Texas
Securities Act, (iii) aiding, abetting and participating in
breaches of fiduciary duty, (iv) aiding, abetting and participating
in conversion and (v) conspiracy.  

On July 14, 2015, the defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the SAC and to reconsider the court's prior denial to
dismiss the OSIC's constructive fraudulent transfer claims against
TNB and the other financial institutions that are defendants in the
action.  

On July 27, 2016, the court denied the motion by TNB and the other
financial institution defendants to dismiss the SAC and also denied
the motion by TNB and the other financial institution defendants to
reconsider the court's prior denial to dismiss the OSIC's
constructive fraudulent transfer claims. On August 24, 2016, TNB
filed its answer to the SAC.  

On October 20, 2017, the OSIC filed a motion seeking an order
lifting the discovery stay and establishing a trial schedule. On
November 4, 2016, the OSIC filed a First Amended Intervenor
Complaint, which added claims for (i) aiding, abetting or
participation in violations of the Texas Securities Act and (ii)
aiding, abetting or participation in the breach of fiduciary duty.


On November 7, 2017, the court denied the Class Plaintiffs' motion
seeking class certification and designation of class
representatives and counsel, finding that common issues of fact did
not predominate. The court granted the OSIC's motion to lift the
discovery stay that it had previously ordered.

On May 3, 2019, individual investors and entities filed motions to
intervene in the action. On September 18, 2019, the court denied
the motions to intervene.  

On October 14, 2019, certain of the proposed intervenors filed a
notice of appeal.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Trustmark Corporation operates as the bank holding company for
Trustmark National Bank that provides banking and other financial
solutions to individuals and corporate institutions in the United
States. Trustmark Corporation was founded in 1889 and is
headquartered in Jackson, Mississippi.


TURTLE BEACH: Settlement in VTBH Merger Suit Wins Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Turtle Beach Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that the Court has approved the settlement and
entered final judgment in the class action suit related to the
Company's merger deal with VTB Holdings, Inc.

On August 5, 2013, VTB Holdings, Inc. (VTBH) and the Company (f/k/a
Parametric Sound Corporation) announced that they had entered into
the Merger Agreement pursuant to which VTBH would acquire an
approximately 80% ownership interest and existing shareholders
would maintain an approximately 20% ownership interest in the
combined company (the "Merger").

Following the announcement, several shareholders filed class action
lawsuits in California and Nevada seeking to enjoin the Merger. The
plaintiffs in each case alleged that members of the Company's Board
of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders by
agreeing to a merger that allegedly undervalued the Company.

VTBH and the Company were named as defendants in these lawsuits
under the theory that they had aided and abetted the Company's
Board of Directors in allegedly violating their fiduciary duties.

The plaintiffs in both cases sought a preliminary injunction
seeking to enjoin closing of the Merger, which, by agreement, was
heard by the Nevada court with the California plaintiffs invited to
participate. On December 26, 2013, the court in the Nevada case
denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.

Following the closing of the Merger, the Nevada plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint, which made essentially the same
allegations and sought monetary damages as well as an order
rescinding the Merger. The California plaintiffs dismissed their
action without prejudice, and sought to intervene in the Nevada
action, which was granted.

Subsequent to the intervention, the plaintiffs filed a third
amended complaint, which made essentially the same allegations as
prior complaints and sought monetary damages. On June 20, 2014,
VTBH and the Company moved to dismiss the action, but that motion
was denied on August 28, 2014.

On September 14, 2017, a unanimous en banc panel of the Nevada
Supreme Court granted defendants' petition for writ of mandamus and
ordered the trial court to dismiss the complaint but provided a
limited basis upon which plaintiffs could seek to amend their
complaint. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on December 1, 2017
to assert the same claims in a derivative capacity on behalf of the
Company, as a well as in a direct capacity, against VTBH, Stripes
Group, LLC, SG VTB Holdings, LLC, and the former members of the
Company's Board of Directors.

All defendants moved to dismiss this amended complaint on January
2, 2018, and those motions were denied on March 13, 2018.

Defendants petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court to reverse this
ruling on April 18, 2018. On June 15, 2018, the Nevada Supreme
Court denied defendants' writ petition without prejudice. The
district court subsequently entered a pretrial schedule and set
trial for November 2019.

On January 18, 2019, the district court certified a class of
shareholders of the Company as of January 15, 2014.

On October 11, 2019, the parties notified the District Court that
they had reached a settlement that would resolve the pending action
if ultimately approved by the Court.

On January 13, 2020, the District Court preliminarily approved the
settlement between the plaintiffs and all defendants.

A final approval hearing was held on May 18, 2020, wherein the
Court approved the settlement and entered final judgment.

Turtle Beach Corporation operates as an audio technology company.
It provides various gaming headset solutions for various platforms,
including video game and entertainment consoles, handheld consoles,
personal computers, and mobile and tablet devices under the Turtle
Beach brand. The company was founded in 1975 and is headquartered
in San Diego, California.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Aussie Law Firm's Class Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Uber Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the class action suit initiated by an
Australian law firm is ongoing.

In May 2019, an Australian law firm filed a class action in the
Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia, against the company and
certain of its subsidiaries, on behalf of certain participants in
the taxi, hire-car, and limousine industries.

The plaintiff alleges that the Uber entities conspired to injure
the group members during the period 2014 to 2017 by either directly
breaching transport legislation or commissioning offenses against
transport legislation by UberX Drivers in Australia.

The claim alleges, in effect, that these operations caused loss and
damage to the class representative and class members, including
lost income and decreased value of certain taxi licenses.

In March and April 2020, the same Australian law firm filed three
additional class action lawsuits alleging the same claim.

Uber said, "We deny these allegations and intend to vigorously
defend against the lawsuit."

Uber Technologies, Inc. develops and supports proprietary
technology applications that enable independent providers of
ridesharing, and meal preparation and delivery services to transact
with riders and eaters worldwide. The company operates in two
segments, Core Platform and Other Bets. The company was formerly
known as Ubercab, Inc. and changed its name to Uber Technologies,
Inc. in February 2011. Uber Technologies, Inc. was founded in 2009
and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


ULTRA PETROLEUM: Subramanian Sues Execs Over Stock Price Decline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eswaran Subramanian, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. MICHAEL D. WATFORD, GARLAND R. SHAW, C.
BRADLEY JOHNSON, DAVID W. HONEYFIELD and JERALD J. STRATTON, JR.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-02652-CMA-STV (D. Colo., Sept. 1, 2020), seeks to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against
certain of Ultra Petroleum Corp.'s current and former senior
executives, due to materially false and misleading statements made,
which resulted the decline of the price of Ultra stock.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all purchasers of Ultra common
stock between April 13, 2017, and August 8, 2019, inclusive.

At the start of the Class Period, in April 2017, Ultra exited a
court-supervised reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code. At the time, Ultra's management hailed the
Company's purportedly streamlined and flexible financial profile,
lower debt load, access to credit lines, and production growth
capabilities. Unusually, the bankruptcy afforded equity holders a
substantial recovery in the form of newly issued equity in the
reorganized Company, leading Defendant Michael D. Watford (Ultra's
then-Chairman and Chief Executive Officer) to boast to investors:
"We didn't haircut anyone at all."

Ultra exited the bankruptcy purportedly in "growth mode." The
Defendants stated that the Company was poised to maximize the value
of its substantial oil and gas deposits (which they valued at $4.19
billion, including $1.5 billion of proved undeveloped reserves)
through ramped up production in 2017 and 2018. They likewise
claimed that Ultra was on track to produce between 290 and 300
billion cubic feet equivalent ("Bcfe") in 2017, with 25% production
growth over these figures in 2018. The Defendants represented that
the Company had the financial and production flexibility to weather
even a low-commodity-price environment and was set to ramp up well
development with 10 rigs operating by 2018 on the back of an
estimated $788 million capital budget. Accretive to this plan was
the launch of a horizontal well drilling program, which Ultra
executives claimed was set to significantly expand the production
capabilities of the Company's existing wells.

According to the complaint, these and similar statements to
investors were materially false and misleading when made.
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants, inter alia: (i)
materially overstated the value of Ultra's oil and gas reserves;
(ii) materially misrepresented the Company's ability to ramp up
production and its financial flexibility; (iii) failed to disclose
the Company's extreme sensitivity to even a modest decline in
natural gas prices; and (iv) concealed significant setbacks in the
Company's vaunted horizontal well drilling program.

Soon after exiting bankruptcy, cracks in the Defendants' false and
misleading narrative appeared when Ultra provided disappointing
financial and operational results for its second quarter of
2017--the same quarter in which Ultra had exited the bankruptcy
proceedings. However, the full truth about the Defendants' fraud
would not be fully revealed until two years later, after a series
of shocking revelations demonstrated that Ultra could not grow
production by any meaningful amount and that its wells were worth a
fraction of the values previously represented, according to the
complaint. By the end of the Class Period, Ultra was forced to
completely halt well development, abandon its horizontal well
program, and admit that its undeveloped proved reserves--previously
valued at $1.5 billion--were in fact worthless.

Ultra stock has now been delisted. In May 2020, the Company was
forced to enter bankruptcy proceedings yet again in order to seek a
court ordered reorganization. This time around, however, the
Company claimed its equity is worthless and that shareholders
should get nothing. The bankruptcy court approved the Company's
reorganization plan on August 21, 2020. The price of Ultra stock
has plummeted 99% from its Class Period high to a low of less than
$0.01 per share, causing investors in the Company to suffer
tremendous losses, says the complaint.

Ultra is an oil and gas development company with primary assets in
the Pinedale and Jonah fields of the Green River Basin of southwest
Wyoming.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rusty E. Glenn, Esq.
          SHUMAN, GLENN & STECKER
          600 17th Street, Suite 2800 South
          Denver, CO 80202
          Phone: 303/861-3003
          Fax: 303/536-7849
          Email: rusty@shumanlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Brett D. Stecker, Esq.
          SHUMAN, GLENN & STECKER
          326 W. Lancaster Ave.
          Ardmore, PA 1903
          Phone: 303/861-3003
          Fax: 303/536-7849
          Email: brett@shumanlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631/367-7100
          Fax: 631/367-1173
          Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: 312/674-4674
          Fax: 312/674-4676
          Email: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul L. Robinson, Esq.
          PAUL L. ROBINSON, ESQ. LLC
          500 Paterson Plank Road
          Union City, NJ 07087
          Phone: 201/627-3299
          Fax: 201/627-3301
          Email: trginternationalllc@gmail.com


UMG: Declaratory Judgment Useful for Some Artists, Judge Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that a
New York federal judge agrees to entertain a declaratory judgment
in a proposed class action over copyright termination rights.

A lawsuit that seeks to vindicate the copyright termination rights
of UMG recording artists continues to take shape. On Aug. 10, a New
York federal judge allowed an amended complaint that includes a
request for declaratory relief for a proposed class of musicians
who in the coming decade may have the ability to reclaim rights to
their recorded works.

The case concerns the Copyright Act of 1976, under which many
authors can terminate copyright grants after 35 years. John Waite
and Joe Ely are two UMG musicians who allege that UMG
systematically refuses to honor termination notices. Sony is facing
a similar putative class action. The record labels have a range of
arguments why the terminations are invalid. In many instances, they
contend the recorded songs were "works for hire" and that makes
them as employers -- not the artists -- the statutory authors of
said works. In other instances, they say the musicians are
challenging authorship way too late.

In March, U.S. District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan decided that the
lawsuit wasn't time-barred and agreed to move it forward. His
ruling did, however, include some setbacks for the plaintiffs. He
said that Waite and Ely may not be eligible to terminate copyright
grants wherever they used loan-out companies to grant rights.
Additionally, he rejected an initial request for a declaratory
judgment by reasoning that there was nothing he could decide that
would guarantee that UMG would accept termination notices going
forward.

But in his latest decision, Kaplan has now ruled that for some
recording artists, a declaratory judgment may be useful.

The plaintiffs amended the suit and explained the necessity of such
relief for a musician like Syd Straw, once a member of a band
called Golden Palominos. She wants to reclaim rights to the
recorded music on her album, Surprise, which was released by Virgin
in 1989. Her contract stated she was an employee at the record
label and that she was producing "works for hire," which she
alleges is merely artifice. In other words, Straw claims there is
no real employer-employee relationship. She's served a Notice of
Termination upon UMG, and it doesn't become effective until June
2024.

Judge Kaplan now rules that "resolving certain legal issues prior
to the effective dates of termination would be useful even if not a
complete solution."

For recording artists whose termination is between the date of
class certification in this case and December 31, 2030, Kaplan is
willing to consider declaring these notices to be provisionally
valid based because the works weren't really "made for hire." That,
of course, will depend on further fact-finding and legal arguments
in the case. But it figures to be especially important to musicians
from the late 1980s into the 1990s.

In the meantime, Kaplan's opinion (read here) also provides a win
for suing musicians on the topic of gap grants, meaning instances
where works were produced after 1978 in accordance with contracts
signed before then. There's two separate termination sections of
the Copyright Act (one for newer works, one for older works) that
taken together raise the prospect that these works fall into a
"gap" not covered explicitly by either provision. As such,
ambiguity has long existed without a court fully addressing the
situation. Here, though, the judge rules that gap grants are indeed
terminable under the "broader context" of the copyright law and
what Congress intended. [GN]



UNITED SPECIALTY: Refuses to Reimburse Losses, Tourgee Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
LEE TOURGEE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. UNITED SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00902-LY
(W.D. Tex., Aug. 28, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for
its alleged breach of contract by refusing to reimburse covered
losses.

Plaintiff Tourgee has purchased insurance from the Defendant in the
2019-2020 ski season to ensure he would be able to get a refund if
he was unable to use the pass.

Unfortunately, Vail Resorts announced on March 15, 2020, that its
"North America resorts and retail stores will remain closed for the
2019-2020 winter ski season due to the fast-moving situation
involving COVID-19." The Plaintiff timely provided notice to
American Claims Management, Inc. (ACM), which is the third-party
claims administrator for the Pass Insurance Program, on June 9,
2020, requesting for reimbursement.

Although ACM did not issue a formal denial letter for the
Plaintiff's claim and request, but Vail resorts have changed their
entire insurance coverage for the 2020/2021 ski pass season
attempting to offer partial credits to 2019/2020 ski pass
purchasers for a condition that they would purchase a 2020/2021 ski
pass. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant has arbitrarily and
without justification refused to reimburse him and others similarly
situated for their respective losses.

United Specialty Insurance Company is a property casualty insurance
company, which provides season ski pass insurance coverage,
whereby, it promises its insured coverage against loss of use of
the insured's season ski pass.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Karen H. Beyea-Schroeder, Esq.
          BURNETT LAW FIRM
          3737 Buffalo Speedway, 18th Floor
          Houston, TX 77089
          Tel: (832) 413-4410
          Email: Karen.schroeder@rburnettlaw.com


UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over H-4 EAD Visas
----------------------------------------------------
Ritu Jha, writing for Indica, reports that thousands of people who
applied for H-4 EAD visas that authorize them to work in the US are
facing job loss because the US authorities have stopped printing
the EAD (employment authorization documents (EAD) card, and the
Trump administration is facing a lawsuit against it.

President Obama, in an executive order passed in 2015, had allowed
eligible H-4 spouses of H-1B holders to obtain work permits through
the H-4 EAD program.

The attorney who has filed the case has accused United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) of abuse of power "in
an egregious and outrageous manner."

Ranjitha Subramanya, an Indian citizen and H-4 EAD visa holder,
finding no response from the USCIS after repeated query and fearing
job loss, has filed a class-action case in the Southern District of
Ohio.

The suit has been filed against the USCIS, USCIS acting director
Ken Cuccinelli, and Ernest Destefano, chief of the Office of Intake
and Document Production, USCIS.

"We are asking the court for an order requiring that USCIS produce
the EAD within seven days of approval," Robert H. Cohen of Porter
Wright Morris & Arthur LLP, who has filed the case on behalf of
Subramanya, told indica News.

He said Subramanya's application for an EAD was approved April 7
and the card was not produced until after they filed the
class-action lawsuit July 22.

"She still has not received the EAD," Cohen told indica News.

Asked about the number of people impacted by the document denial,
Cohen said: "While we don't know the number of people in the class,
we understand that it may be as many as 75,000 applicants are
waiting for the card to be produced."

While waiting for the production of the EAD the applicants are not
authorized to work, he pointed out. They have either had to stop
working if their prior authorization has expired or they are not
able to begin work.

"Many have lost their jobs because they were unable to demonstrate
employment authorization," Cohen said.

According to the lawsuit, Subramanya was forced to stop working for
her employer after her initial EAD expired June 7, 2020. She came
to the US on an H-1B specialty occupation visa to work at
Nationwide Insurance, and later changed her status to an H-4 visa.

Her husband has his H-1B visa valid until June 2023, according to
the lawsuit.

The lawsuit says Subramanya's employer has notified her that she
will lose her job if she does not provide proof of employment
authorization by August 9, 2020.

The court document states that because USCIS has significantly
slowed and/or stopped printing EADs, which are essential for the
plaintiff (Subramanya) and approximately 75,000 putative class
members to obtain or keep their jobs, the plaintiff seeks emergency
relief that requires defendants to print and issue the EADs
immediately, and in no event later than seven days from the date of
the court's order.

According to law360.com, the ombudsman for the USCIS confirmed in
an alert that the agency had "reduced its capacity to print secure
documents," such as work permits and permanent residency cards,
after ending its contract with a third-party company that
previously printed the cards.

According to the alert, USCIS had planned to hire federal employees
to take over the printing, but that effort has stalled due to the
agency's projected financial troubles.

The USCIS, which is primarily fee-funded, has projected a
$1.2-billion budget shortfall as a result of declining immigration
applications during the pandemic and is requesting a bailout from
Congress.

The USCIS "expects these backlogs will continue for the foreseeable
future," the alert says. [GN]


UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Class Action Seeks Spring Tuition Fee Refund
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Miami Hurricane.com reports that after the University of Miami
suspended classes on campus in March due to the on-going Covid-19
pandemic, students were forced to finish the rest of the spring
semester at home via online instruction without a refund on
tuition.

As a result, two undergraduate students and two UM parents,
including junior marketing major Adelaide Dixon, recent
architecture graduate Valeria Dimitryuk, Julie Gold and Michael
Weiss on behalf of their sons are suing the University of Miami as
part of a class-action lawsuit, alleging students deserve a portion
of their tuition back because they did not receive the in-person,
on-campus instruction they paid for.

This lawsuit against the University of Miami is one of 30
class-action lawsuits filed against universities around the
country, which include Drexel University, University of
California-Berkeley and Boston University. The total cost of
attendance at UM is roughly $70,000 a year. Since this is a
class-action lawsuit, all students who were enrolled at UM during
the spring of 2020 would benefit.

"We acknowledge that the university had to make very tough
decisions in order to protect the university and safety of the
students," said Roy Wiley who is representing Dixon. "We don't take
the position that they should not have done anything necessarily
differently just that they should refund the students for the
product the students bought and what they delivered."

Wiley's firm created collegerefund2020.com for students who have
yet to receive relief from their respective universities over
spring tuition to seek a lawyer and inquire about a possible
lawsuit.

Although the university offered online instruction, according to
Dixon's suit, UM students lost the benefits of on-campus
instruction, including extra-curricular activities, access to
facilities and face-to-face interaction with professors. Therefore,
Wiley said the students are entitled to a partial refund over
students' inability to access any of the on-campus services.

"The case is not asking for all the tuition for the spring semester
but a percentage of the portion representing the difference for
what the students paid for and what the university actually
delivered," Wiley said. "It is about basic fairness."

The complaint asserts the university "has failed and continues to
fail to adequately and fully refund plaintiff and class members'
fees for on-campus services which Defendant is no longer
providing." It is unclear what percentage of reimbursement is being
sought.

The university declined to comment on the pending litigation but
issued this statement:

"The University of Miami continues to be committed to the health
and safety of our community, providing a robust online learning
environment, and proactively working with all of our students and
their families to make it through this difficult time and for all
of us to emerge stronger in the future."

All of the lawsuits reiterate the students deserve refunds because
online instruction, they argue, is less costly for the university
and less effective for the students. Additionally, Wiley asserts
the university received millions of dollars in COVID-19 related
relief from the federal government's CARES Act so the students
should be entitled to a refund.

"The university has substantial financial resources and the
students don't have the same level of resources," he said. "If they
are permitted to keep all the money the students paid, all the
CARES Act money and save money on the cost side, then essentially
they will be profiting from the pandemic. That's just not right."

According to 'Canes Central, the University of Miami received
around $4 million in CARES Act funding. As of July 30, the
university distributed 1335 Emergency Financial Aid Grants for a
total of $1.8 million. 64 percent of Undergraduate students were
eligible for relief due to the sudden disruption of campus
operations resulting from COVID-19.

With the same allegations of breach of contract and unjust
enrichment, the four plaintiffs consolidated their suits to
expedite the process. The case has yet to be dismissed and unlike
other universities, Wiley said, UM has yet to issue any solution to
the students' grievances. While many schools, including UM issued
refunds for room and board, none have budged on the rest of tuition
as a result of the change in learning.

Despite the recent surge in coronavirus cases in July, UM decided
to resume classes this fall on Aug. 17 with in-person instruction
and students returning to campus. However, UM President Julio
Frenk, the former secretary of Health of Mexico, said the number of
COVID-19 cases and deaths would decline in mid-August and the
statistics support that. On Aug. 24, Miami-Dade County reported its
lowest number of cases since June at around 2,300 cases.

Student Government President senior Abigail Adeleke, who declined
to comment on the on-going lawsuit, said she is grateful the
university has taken the necessary precautions to guarantee a safe
return to campus.

"In order for us to continue to be on our beautiful campus it's
going to take all of us doing the right thing, said Adeleke.
"Wearing a mask, social distancing, and limiting unnecessary travel
is how all of us are going to remain safe and healthy. Incredibly
grateful for the University of Miami's dedication to our return and
that they didn't take the easy route and go fully online."

Additionally, there is not a reduction in tuition for students this
school year. Students are allowed to opt into fully online
instruction, but they will still have to pay the bulk of the
semester's tuition even if they are not on campus. Frenk announced
that around 25 percent of undergraduate students are online this
semester.

Yet, others do not see the value in exclusively learning online,
instead opting to take the semester off.

"The experience of completely online learning is very different
from what a traditional semester would look like and for the same
price, I felt like there was less value in exclusive online
learning," sophomore said Zach Ng, a finance major who elected to
take a semester off over the unpredictability of the COVID-19
pandemic.

Ng acknowledges the university is taking a financial hit as a
result of the COVID-19 pandemic; thus, he did not expect tuition to
be lowered.

"Although education is very messy right now, most prestigious
universities despite volatility in enrollment don't feel the
pressure to lower costs because they're still at a position to do
so," Ng said. "Students don't really have much bargaining power if
any, so I'm not surprised that the price is the same (or increasing
at that same rate) but I do understand that we are all taking a hit
in some way."

While some students wanted to return to campus for in-person
classes, others, including many professors, worry about the risk of
a COVID outbreak. Since Aug.16, there have been a total of 156
positive COVID-19 cases.

Thus, some students do not have high hopes in-person instruction
will make it through the full fall semester, leaving them wondering
if they would be awarded a refund if school were to shut down once
again. [GN]


UNUM GROUP: Loomis Sues Over Claims Examiners' Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
KERRY ANN LOOMIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. UNUM GROUP CORPORATION, Case No.
1:20-cv-00251 (E.D. Tenn., Sept. 1, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's failure to compensate its claims examination employees
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek due to their misclassification as exempt from the overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Maine Wage and
Hour Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a claims examination
employee from May 2014 to January 2019.

Unum Group Corporation is an insurance company with its corporate
headquarters located at 1 Fountain Square, in Chattanooga,
Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:       
      
         Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq.
         N. Chase Teeples, Esq.
         YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC
         2021 Richard Jones Road, Suite 310A
         Nashville, TN 37215
         Telephone: (615) 250-2000
         Facsimile: (615) 250-2020
         E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com
                 teeples@yezbaklaw.com

                - and –

         Travis M. Hedgpeth, Esq.
         THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC
         3050 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 510
         Houston, TX 77056
         Telephone: (281) 572-0727
         Facsimile: (281) 572-0728
         E-mail: travis@hedgpethlaw.com

                - and –

         Jack Siegel, Esq.
         Stacy W. Thomsen, Esq.
         SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
         4925 Greenville Avenue, Suite 600
         Dallas, TX 75206
         Telephone: (214) 790-4454
         E-mail: stacy@siegellawgroup.biz
                 jack@siegellawgroup.biz


VALVOLINE LLC: Armour Claims Discrimination Against Black Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CURTIS L. ARMOUR, JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. VALVOLINE LLC d/b/a/ VALVOLINE INSTANT OIL
CHANGE and BRIAN I. FLEMING, Case No. CV 20 936590 (Ohio Com.
Pleas, Cuyahoga Cty., Aug. 28, 2020), is brought against the
Defendants for their discriminatory and unlawful employment
practices towards African American employees in violation of the
Ohio Civil Rights Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants segregated their African
American employees, including the Plaintiff, in the Valvoline
location in North Randall, Ohio, and subjected them to a racially
hostile work environment. The Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated African American employees at the North Randall location
were forced to work with outdated, unsafe, inefficient, and broken
equipment, costing the location thousands of dollars in lost profit
and creating a hostile work environment. The Defendants were aware
about the deficiencies at the service center location but still
failed to timely inspect, repair, or mitigate them.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful actions, conduct, or
failure to act, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered and in all
likelihood will continue to suffer severe damages, including lost
wages, mental anguish and emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of
life, stress, anxiety, and inability to engage in their usual
activities, all to their detriment.

The Plaintiff worked as a service center manager at the Defendants'
business location in North Randall, Ohio.

Valvoline LLC, doing Valvoline Instant Oil Change, is a
manufacturer and distributor of automotive oil, additives, and
lubricants, headquartered in Lexington, Kentucky.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          

         Lewis A. Zipkin, Esq.
         Kevin M. Gross, Esq.
         ZIPKIN WHITING CO., LPA
         Zipkin Whiting Building
         3637 South Green Road
         Beachwood, OH 44122
         Telephone: (216) 514-6400
         Facsimile: (216) 514-6406
         E-mail: zfwlpa@aol.com
                 kgross.zipkinwhiting@gmail.com


VAXART INC: Hagens Berman Alerts of Class Action Filing
-------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman on Aug. 26 disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit against Vaxart, Inc. (NASDAQ: VXRT) and certain of its
senior executives. The firm urges VXRT investors who have suffered
losses to submit their losses now to learn if they qualify to
recover their investment losses.

Class Period: June 25, 2020 - July 25, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Oct. 23, 2020

Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/cases/vxrt

Contact An Attorney Now: VXRT@hbsslaw.com
                         844-916-0895

Hagens Berman's VXRT Securities Class Action:

The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, and captioned Himmelberg v.
Vaxart, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-05949-VC, is brought on
behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired VXRT
securities during the Class Period - between June 25, 2020 and July
25, 2020, inclusive. The case seeks 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 VXRT shares during the class
period, you have until Oct. 23, 2020, to ask the Court to appoint
you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be
obtained here. Click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens
Berman.

Vaxart is a clinical-stage Company purportedly engaged in the
discovery and development of vaccines for a variety of diseases
that would be administered orally, rather than by injection.

The class action arises from Defendants' alleged fraudulent scheme
to profit from artificially inflating the Company's stock price by
announcing false and misleading information concerning Vaxart's
oral COVID-19 vaccine candidate.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that on June 26, 2020, Vaxart
issued a press release entitled, "Vaxart's COVID-19 Vaccine
Selected for the U.S. Government's Operation Warp Speed," falsely
claiming its vaccine had been selected to participate in a
non-human challenge study, organized and funded by OWS. This
announcement sent the price of Vaxart shares rocketing higher.

In furtherance of the scheme, Defendants amended controlling
shareholder Armistice's existing warrant agreements, allowing
Armistice to exercise all of its warrants immediately and sell 27.6
million Vaxart shares, reaping profits of approximately $200
million. Defendants also issued millions of dollars in favorable
stock options to Vaxart's most senior executives.

The Complaint alleges that on July 25, 2020, details emerged
revealing Defendants' deception concerning their alleged pump and
dump scheme. In particular, on July 25, 2020, The New York Times
published an article entitled, "Corporate Insiders Pocket $1
Billion in Rush for Coronavirus Vaccine," covering suspiciously
timed stock bets that had generated significant profits for senior
executives and board members at companies developing vaccines and
treatments. Vaxart was featured prominently in the article, and it
clarified "Vaxart is not among the companies selected to receive
significant financial support from Warp Speed." In response to this
news, the price of Vaxart shares dropped sharply lower on July 27,
2020 from $12.29 to $11.16.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Vaxart misled
investors about OWS's potential funding support for the Company,"
said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the
investigation.

Lead Plaintiff Process: The Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased VXRT securities
during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. A
lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in
directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm
of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential
future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If
you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must file a
motion with the Court no later than Oct. 23, 2020, which is the
first business day on which the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California is open that is 60 days after the
publication date of Aug. 24, 2020. Any member of the proposed Class
may move the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff through counsel of
their choice. Members may also choose to do nothing and remain part
of the proposed Class.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
Vaxart should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein
at 844-916-0895 or email VXRT@hbsslaw.com.

                       About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents
investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex
litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at
hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or follow us on
Twitter at @classactionlaw. [GN]


VAXART INC: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on Aug. 26 disclosed that a complaint has
been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased the common stock of Vaxart, Inc. ("Vaxart" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ CM: VXRT) between June 25, 2020 and July 25,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of
its officers (the "Complaint").

If you purchased shares of Vaxart during the Class Period, or
purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold Vaxart,
and wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Seth D.
Rigrodsky or Timothy J. MacFall at Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 300
Delaware Avenue, Suite 210, Wilmington, DE 19801, by telephone at
(888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com, or at
http://rigrodskylong.com/cases-vaxart-inc.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted
materially adverse facts, about the Company's business, operations
and prospects. As a result of defendants' alleged false and
misleading statements, the Company's stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.

According to the Complaint, on June 25, 2020, Vaxart announced that
it had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Attwill
Medical Solutions Sterilflow, LP to enable production of a billion
or more tablet COVID-19 vaccine does annually. In the press
release, Vaxart's Chief Executive Officer, Defendant Cezar Andrei
Floroiu claimed the deal would "enable the large scale
manufacturing and ultimate supply of our COVID-19 vaccine for the
US, Europe and other countries in need." The announcement was
favorably received, with Vaxart's stock price nearly doubling from
opening at $3.61 per share to closing at $6.26 on June 25, 2020.

The next day, on June 26, 2020, Vaxart issued a second press
release entitled "Vaxart's COVID-19 Vaccine Selected for the U.S.
Government's Operation Warp Speed," claiming its vaccine has been
selected to participate in a non-human challenge study, organized
and funded by OWS. This announcement sent the price of Vaxart
shares rocketing higher. In the press release, Vaxart's Chief
Executive Officer, Defendant Cezar Andrei Floroiu said, "We are
very pleased to be one of the few companies selected by Operation
Warp Speed, and that ours is the only oral vaccine being
evaluated." Cezar Andrei Floroiu added, "[O]ur vaccine is a room
temperature-stable tablet, an enormous logistical advantage in
large vaccination campaigns." As a result, the stock price jumped
from $6.26 to $8.04 after opening at $11.49 with a high of $14.30.

But on July 25, 2020, details emerged revealing Defendants'
deception concerning their pump and dump scheme. In particular, on
July 25, 2020, The New York Times published an article entitled,
"Corporate Insiders Pocket $1 Billion in Rush for Coronavirus
Vaccine," covering suspiciously timed stock bets that had generated
significant profits for senior executives and board members at
companies developing vaccines and treatments. Vaxart was featured
prominently in the article, and it clarified "Vaxart is not among
the companies selected to receive significant financial support
from Warp Speed."

On this news, shares of Vaxart fell over 9%, closing at $11.16 per
share on July 26, 2020, on heavy trading volume.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 23, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Delaware and New York, has
recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of investors
and achieved substantial corporate governance reforms in numerous
cases nationwide, including federal securities fraud actions,
shareholder class actions, and shareholder derivative actions.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

CONTACT:

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
Seth D. Rigrodsky
Timothy J. MacFall
(888) 969-4242
(516) 683-3516
Fax: (302) 654-7530
info@rl-legal.com
http://www.rigrodskylong.com[GN]


VAXART INC: Wolf Haldenstein Alerts of Class Action Filing
----------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Aug. 26 disclosed that
a federal class action securities lawsuit has been filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of investors that purchased Vaxart, Inc.
(NASDAQ: VXRT) securities between June 25, 2020 and July 25, 2020
(the "Class Period").

All investors who purchased shares of Vaxart, Inc. and incurred
losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774.  You may
obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.

If you have incurred losses in the shares of Vaxart, Inc., you may,
no later than October 23, 2020, request that the Court appoint you
lead plaintiff of the proposed class.

Vaxart is a clinical-stage Company purportedly engaged in the
discovery and development of vaccines for a variety of diseases
that would be administered orally, rather than by injection.

The  filed Complaint alleges that on June 26, 2020, Vaxart issued a
press release entitled, "Vaxart's COVID-19 Vaccine Selected for the
U.S. Government's Operation Warp Speed," falsely claiming its
vaccine had been selected to participate in a non-human challenge
study, organized and funded by OWS.  This announcement sent the
price of Vaxart shares sharply higher.

In furtherance of the scheme, Defendants amended controlling
shareholder Armistice's existing warrant agreements, allowing
Armistice to exercise all of its warrants immediately and sell 27.6
million Vaxart shares, reaping profits of approximately $200
million.  Defendants also issued millions of dollars in favorable
stock options to Vaxart's most senior executives.

On July 25, 2020, details emerged revealing defendants' deception
concerning their alleged pump and dump scheme. In particular, on
July 25, 2020, The New York Times published an article entitled,
"Corporate Insiders Pocket $1 Billion in Rush for Coronavirus
Vaccine," covering suspiciously timed stock bets that had generated
significant profits for senior executives and board members at
companies developing vaccines and treatments. Vaxart was featured
prominently in the article, and it clarified "Vaxart is not among
the companies selected to receive significant financial support
from Warp Speed."

On this news, the price of Vaxart shares declined significantly on
July 27, 2020 from $12.29 per share to $11.16 per share.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country.  The firm
has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego.  The reputation and expertise of this firm
in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com.

Contact:
123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456
  Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
  Kevin Cooper, Esq.
  Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
  Email: gstone@whafh.com, kcooper@whafh.com or
         classmember@whafh.com
  Tel: (800)575-0735 or (212)545-4774

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


VELOCITY FINC'L: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 28 Bid Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Aug. 26 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of Velocity
Financial, Inc.  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.

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=8838&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
http://www.zlk.com[GN]


VERNON E & I: Salas Sues to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA, NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Guillermo Salas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. VERNON E & I CORP. and VERNON BOULEVARD SUPERMARKET,
INC, d/b/a E & I DELI & GROCERY, and CHAN KIM and SONGUI YI,
individually, Case No. 1:20-cv-04066 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 1, 2020), is
brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff worked as a stock clerk for the Defendants from March
2017 through May 7, 2020.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was regularly scheduled
to work more than 40 hours each week. The Plaintiff was paid a flat
weekly salary of $600.00 that was not inclusive of overtime pay.
The Defendants never discussed overtime compensation or overtime
work with the Plaintiff, and he never received any written record
of his regular and/overtime hours worked. The Plaintiff was not
required to clock in or clock out at the beginning or end of his
workday.

The Defendants operated under a policy of willfully failing and
refusing to pay the Plaintiff one and one-half times the regular
hourly rate of pay for all work in excess of 40 hours per workweek,
says the complaint.

Vernon E & I Corp. is a grocery store and deli incorporated in the
State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
          225 Broadway, 3rd floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 323-6980
          Email: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com


VIACOMCBS INC: Bid to Dismiss CalPERS Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------
ViacomCBS Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the putative class action
suit headed by the California Public Employees' Retirement System
("CalPERS"), is pending.

Beginning on November 25, 2019, four purported Viacom stockholders
filed separate putative class action lawsuits in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware. On January 23, 2020, the Court
consolidated the four lawsuits.

On February 6, 2020, the Court appointed California Public
Employees' Retirement System ("CalPERS") as lead plaintiff for the
consolidated action. On February 28, 2020, CalPERS, together with
Park Employees' and Retirement Board Employees' Annuity and Benefit
Fund of Chicago and Louis M. Wilen, filed a First Amended Verified
Class Action Complaint (as used in this paragraph, the "Complaint")
against National Amusements, Inc. (NAI), NAI Entertainment Holdings
LLC, Shari E. Redstone, the members of the Viacom special
transaction committee of the Viacom Board of Directors (comprised
of Thomas J. May, Judith A. McHale, Ronald L. Nelson and Nicole
Seligman) and the company's President and Chief Executive Officer
and director, Robert M. Bakish.

The Complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties to Viacom
stockholders in connection with the negotiation and approval of the
Merger Agreement. The Complaint seeks unspecified damages, costs
and expenses, as well as other relief. On May 22, 2020, the
defendants filed motions to dismiss.

ViacomCBS said, "We believe that the claims are without merit and
we intend to defend against them vigorously. We are currently
unable to determine a range of potential liability, if any.
Accordingly, no accrual for this matter has been made in our
consolidated financial statements."

ViacomCBS Inc., a media and entertainment, creates content and
experiences for audiences worldwide. The company operates in four
segments: Entertainment, Cable Networks, Publishing, and Local
Media. The company was formerly known as CBS Corporation and
changed its name to ViacomCBS Inc. in December 2019. ViacomCBS Inc.
was founded in 1986 and is based in New York, New York.


VIACOMCBS INC: Bid to Dismiss CBS Merger-Related Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
ViacomCBS Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the defendants' motion to dismiss the putative
class action suit headed by Bucks County Employees' Retirement Fund
and International Union of Operating Engineers of Eastern
Pennsylvania and Delaware, is pending.

On December 4, 2019, Viacom Inc. ("Viacom") merged with and into
CBS Corporation ("CBS"), with CBS continuing as the surviving
company (the "Merger"). At the effective time of the Merger, the
combined company changed its name to ViacomCBS Inc. ("ViacomCBS").
The Merger has been accounted for as a transaction between entities
under common control as National Amusements, Inc. ("NAI") was the
controlling stockholder of each of CBS and Viacom (and remains the
controlling stockholder of ViacomCBS). Upon the closing of the
Merger, the net assets of Viacom were combined with those of CBS at
their historical carrying amounts and the companies have been
presented on a combined basis for all periods presented.

Beginning on February 20, 2020, three purported CBS stockholders
filed separate derivative and/or putative class action lawsuits in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

On March 31, 2020, the Court consolidated the three lawsuits and
appointed Bucks County Employees' Retirement Fund and International
Union of Operating Engineers of Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware
as co-lead plaintiffs for the consolidated action.

On April 14, 2020, the lead plaintiffs filed a Verified
Consolidated Class Action and Derivative Complaint (as used in this
paragraph, the "Complaint") against Shari E. Redstone, NAI, Sumner
M. Redstone National Amusements Trust, members of the CBS Board of
Directors (comprised of Candace K. Beinecke, Barbara M. Byrne, Gary
L. Countryman, Brian Goldner, Linda M. Griego, Robert N. Klieger,
Martha L. Minow, Susan Schuman, Frederick O. Terrell and Strauss
Zelnick), former CBS President and Acting Chief Executive Officer
Joseph Ianniello and nominal defendant ViacomCBS Inc.

The Complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties to CBS
stockholders in connection with the negotiation and approval of the
Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of August 13, 2019, as
amended on October 16, 2019 (the "Merger Agreement").

The Complaint also alleges waste and unjust enrichment in
connection with Mr. Ianniello's compensation. The Complaint seeks
unspecified damages, costs and expenses, as well as other relief.

On June 5, 2020, the defendants filed motions to dismiss.

ViacomCBS said, "We believe that the claims are without merit and
we intend to defend against them vigorously. We are currently
unable to determine a range of potential liability, if any.
Accordingly, no accrual for this matter has been made in our
consolidated financial statements."

ViacomCBS Inc., a media and entertainment, creates content and
experiences for audiences worldwide. The company operates in four
segments: Entertainment, Cable Networks, Publishing, and Local
Media. The company was formerly known as CBS Corporation and
changed its name to ViacomCBS Inc. in December 2019. ViacomCBS Inc.
was founded in 1986 and is based in New York, New York.


VIACOMCBS INC: Bid to Dismiss Construction Laborers Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
ViacomCBS Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the consolidated putative
class action suit headed by Construction Laborers Pension Trust for
Southern California is pending.

On August 27, 2018 and on October 1, 2018, Gene Samit and John
Lantz, respectively, filed putative class action suits in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, for claims
that are similar to those alleged in the amended complaint.

On November 6, 2018, the Court entered an order consolidating the
two actions. On November 30, 2018, the Court appointed Construction
Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California as the lead
plaintiff of the consolidated action. On February 11, 2019, the
lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended putative class action
complaint against CBS Corporation (CBS), certain current and former
senior executives and members of the CBS Board of Directors.

The consolidated action is stated to be on behalf of purchasers of
CBS Class A Common Stock and Class B Common Stock between September
26, 2016 and December 4, 2018.

This action seeks to recover damages arising during this time
period allegedly caused by the defendants' purported violations of
the federal securities laws, including by allegedly making
materially false and misleading statements or failing to disclose
material information, and seeks costs and expenses as well as
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On April 12, 2019, the defendants filed motions to dismiss this
action, which the Court granted in part and denied in part on
January 15, 2020.

With the exception of one statement made by Mr. Moonves at an
industry event in November 2017, in which he allegedly was acting
as the agent of CBS, all claims as to all other allegedly false and
misleading statements were dismissed.

ViacomCBS said, "We believe that the remaining claims are without
merit and we intend to defend against them vigorously. We are
currently unable to determine a range of potential liability, if
any. Accordingly, no accrual for this matter has been made in our
consolidated financial statements."

ViacomCBS Inc., a media and entertainment, creates content and
experiences for audiences worldwide. The company operates in four
segments: Entertainment, Cable Networks, Publishing, and Local
Media. The company was formerly known as CBS Corporation and
changed its name to ViacomCBS Inc. in December 2019. ViacomCBS Inc.
was founded in 1986 and is based in New York, New York.


VIVINT SOLAR: Silverberg Suit Challenges $3.2-Bil. Sale to Sunrun
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HERBERT SILVERBERG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. VIVINT SOLAR, INC., DAVID BYWATER, DAVID
D'ALESSANDRO, BRUCE MCEVOY, JAY D. PAULEY, TODD R. PEDERSEN, ELLEN
S. SMITH, JOSEPH S. TIBBETTS, JR., and PETER F. WALLACE, Case No.
1:20-cv-07051 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 31, 2020), alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed
sale of the Company to Sunrun Inc.

Sunrun has announced that it entered into a definitive agreement to
acquire Vivint Solar for an enterprise value of $3.2 billion.

According to the complaint, Vivint's board of directors caused
Vivint to enter into an agreement and plan merger with Sunrun and
Viking Meger Sub, Inc., on July 6, 2020, in which each share of
Vivint common stock issued and outstanding immediately prior to the
effective time of the merger will be converted into the right to
receive 0.55 fully paid and nonassessable share of Sunrun common
stock and cash.

In order to convince Vivint's stockholders to vote in favor of the
Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized the filing of joint
proxy statement, which was filed by Sunrun on Form S-4 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2020. However, the
Plaintiff alleges, the proxy statement in the S-4 was materially
incomplete and misleading because the Defendants have failed to
disclose material information necessary for Vivint's stockholders
to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff owns Vivint Solar common stock.

Vivint Solar, Inc., provides distributed solar energy primarily to
residential customers in the U.S. David Bywater is the Company's
Chief Executive Officer (CEO) since 2017. David D'Alessandro, Bruce
McEvoy, Jay D. Pauley, Todd R. Pedersen, Ellen S. Smith, Joseph S.
Tibbetts, Jr., and Peter F. Wallace are the board of directors of
Vivint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Klein, Esq.
          ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, NY 10119
          Tel: (212) 279-5050
          Fax: (212) 279-3655
          Email: mklein@aflaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN: Class Action Over Defective Sunroofs Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a VW
sunroof class action lawsuit is over after the plaintiff alleged
numerous Audi and Volkswagen models have sunroofs that leak and
cause damage to the interiors.

Volkswagen allegedly sold tens of thousands of the following
vehicles with defective panoramic sunroof seals and drainage
systems.

2016-present Audi A1
2016-present Audi A3
2016-present Audi TT
2016-present Audi Q2
2016-present Audi Q3
2016-present Volkswagen Arteon
2016-present Volkswagen Atlas/Teramont
2016-present Volkswagen Golf
2016-present Volkswagen Jetta
2016-present Volkswagen Passat
2016-present Volkswagen Polo
2016-present Volkswagen Tiguan
2016-present Volkswagen Touran

According to the VW sunroof class action, the automaker made
mistakes that cause cracks to appear due to the plastic water
channels and the steel reinforcement plates which cause the water
leaks.

The plaintiff claims VW blames the leaks on customers to avoid
covering the expensive repairs under the warranties, then dealers
allegedly can't properly repair the sunroofs even though owners are
stuck with the expense.

In addition to damage to the headliners, carpets and upholstery,
the sunroof class action alleges leaking water damages important
electrical systems and sensors.

Those affected sensors allegedly cause the Audi and Volkswagen
vehicles to brake on their own while driving.

According to the plaintiff, dealerships have been issued no less
than 12 separate technical service bulletins (TSBs) about the
panoramic sunroofs. Additionally, other manufacturer notices and
actions have been issued about leaking panoramic sunroofs and the
damage that is possible from water intruding where it shouldn't
be.

Although the plaintiff filed the proposed class action lawsuit to
include all affected owners and lessees nationwide, he changed his
mind and submitted documents to the New Jersey court requesting
voluntary dismissal of the entire lawsuit, without prejudice.

However, the plaintiff's leaking sunroof lawsuit isn't the only one
to appear in the courts.

The Volkswagen sunroof class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey: Ziarno, et al., v.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.

The plaintiff is represented by Berger Montague PC, Simmons Hanly
Conroy LLC, Greg Coleman Law PC, and Bryant Law Center PSC.

Read complaints sent to CarComplaints.com from drivers of the Audi
and VW models named in the sunroof class action lawsuit.

Audi A3
Audi A1
Audi TT
Audi Q2
Audi Q3
Volkswagen Arteon
Volkswagen Atlas
Volkswagen Golf
Volkswagen Jetta
Volkswagen Passat
Volkswagen Polo
Volkswagen Tiguan
Volkswagen Touran [GN]


VOYA FINANCIAL: Advance Trust COI Class Suit in Colorado Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Voya Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend against a cost
of insurance litigation entitled, Advance Trust & Life Escrow
Services, LTA v. Security Life of Denver (D. Colo. Case No.
1:18-cv-01897), in Colorado.

Cost of insurance litigation for the Company also includes Advance
Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA v. Security Life of Denver (USDC
District of Colorado, No. 1:18-cv-01897) (filed July 26, 2018), a
putative class action in which Plaintiff alleges that two specific
types of universal life insurance policies only permitted the
Company to rely upon the policyholder's expected future mortality
experience to establish and increase the cost of insurance, but the
Company instead relied upon other, non-disclosed factors not only
in the administration of the policies over time, but also in the
decision to increase insurance costs beginning in approximately
October 2015.

Plaintiff alleges a breach of contract and seeks class
certification.

The Company denies the allegations in the complaint, believes the
complaint to be without merit, and intends to defend the lawsuit
vigorously.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and
employee benefits company in the United States. It operates through
four segments: Retirement, Investment Management, Employee
Benefits, and Individual Life. The company was formerly known as
ING U.S., Inc. and changed its name to Voya Financial, Inc. in
April 2014. Voya Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is
based in New York, New York.


VOYA FINANCIAL: Advance Trust COI Class Suit in Minn. Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Voya Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend against a cost
of insurance litigation entitled, Advance Trust & Life Escrow
Services, LTA v. ReliaStar Life Insurance Company, in Minnesota.

Cost of insurance litigation includes Advance Trust & Life Escrow
Services, LTA v. ReliaStar Life Insurance Company (USDC District of
Minnesota, No. 1:18-cv-02863) (filed October 5, 2018), a putative
class action in which Plaintiff alleges that the Company's
universal life insurance policies only permitted the Company to
rely upon the policyholders' expected future mortality experience
to establish the cost of insurance, and that as projected mortality
experience improved, the policy language required the Company to
decrease the cost of insurance.

Plaintiff alleges that the Company did not decrease the cost of
insurance as required, thereby breaching its contract with the
policyholders, and seeks class certification.

The Company denies the allegations in the complaint, believes the
complaint to be without merit, and will defend the lawsuit
vigorously.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and
employee benefits company in the United States. It operates through
four segments: Retirement, Investment Management, Employee
Benefits, and Individual Life. The company was formerly known as
ING U.S., Inc. and changed its name to Voya Financial, Inc. in
April 2014. Voya Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is
based in New York, New York.


VOYA FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Barnes COI Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------
Voya Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that  the cost of insurance litigation styled,
Barnes v. Security Life of Denver (D. Colo. Case No. 1:18-cv-00718)
(filed March 27, 2018), is still ongoing.

Cost of insurance litigation for the Company includes Barnes v.
Security Life of Denver (USDC District of Colorado, No.
1:18-cv-00718) (filed March 27, 2018), a putative class action in
which the plaintiff alleges that his insurance policy only
permitted the Company to rely upon his expected future mortality
experience to establish and increase his cost of insurance, but the
Company instead relied upon other, non-disclosed factors to do so.


Plaintiff alleges breach of contract and conversion claims against
the Company and also seeks declaratory relief.

The Company denies the allegations in the complaint, believes the
complaint to be without merit, and intends to defend the matter
vigorously.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and
employee benefits company in the United States. It operates through
four segments: Retirement, Investment Management, Employee
Benefits, and Individual Life. The company was formerly known as
ING U.S., Inc. and changed its name to Voya Financial, Inc. in
April 2014. Voya Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is
based in New York, New York.


WALGREENS: Faces Pain Patient Discrimination Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Pat Anson, writing for Pain News Network, reports that national
class action lawsuits have been filed against three of the nation's
largest pharmacy chains for discriminating against pain patients
trying to fill legitimate prescriptions for opioid medication.  

Class action complaints against Walgreens, Costco and CVS Pharmacy
were filed in California and Rhode Island on behalf of two women
seeking legal relief that will allow them to get their opioid
prescriptions filled without delays or restrictions, and without
the fear that their prescriptions will be denied.  

Edith Fuog, a 48-year old Florida woman and breast cancer survivor,
lives with trigeminal neuralgia, lupus, arthritis and other chronic
pain conditions. Fuog's lawsuit alleges that since 2017, CVS
pharmacies have refused to fill her prescriptions for opioid
medication in violation of the American with Disabilities Act
(ADA), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the anti-discrimination
provisions of the Affordable Care Act.  Her complaint was filed in
Rhode Island, where CVS has its corporate headquarters.

43-year old Susan Smith of Castro Valley, California, filed a
similar class action against Walgreens and Costco in the Northern
District of California. Smith suffers from Mesial Temporal Lobe
Sclerosis, which resulted in scar tissue in her brain that causes
severe chronic migraines. The only medication that gives Smith
relief from headache pain are opioids.  She alleges that Walgreens
and Costco pharmacies refused to fill her opioid prescriptions in
violation of federal law.

"Many Americans are unaware of the difficulties chronic pain
patients have getting pharmacies to fill their lawfully-obtained
opioid prescriptions. It is not only a crisis for Edith and Susan,
but for millions of Americans due to the backlash caused in part by
the national publicity concerning opioid abuse," said Scott Hirsch,
a Florida lawyer who is one of several lead attorneys handling the
cases.

"These lawsuits seek to allow the millions of chronic pain patients
to obtain their legitimate opioid prescriptions without being
discriminated against, harassed, denied, or embarrassed.  It will
hopefully improve their quality of life and save many lives in the
process."

Pain patients in the U.S. have complained for years about
pharmacists refusing to fill their opioid prescriptions or reducing
them to lower doses. It's also not uncommon for patients to
encounter delays and excuses, such as a pharmacy claiming it was
out of stock of a particular medication. The California and Rhode
Island cases are believed to be the first class action lawsuits to
address the problem.

"I have always thought that this is one of the better potential
legal avenues for an ADA action regarding prescription opioids.  It
is a violation for any person with a disability to be denied
service by a place of public accommodation, and pharmacies are
clearly covered as places of public accommodation under the ADA,"
said Kate Nicholson, a patient advocate and civil rights lawyer who
handled discrimination cases at the Department of Justice for over
20 years.

"Whether this will succeed will depend on a lot of intangibles such
as the quality of the complaints, what is learned during discovery
about any nationwide policies the pharmacy chains had in place, or,
alternatively, repeated instances of fills for legitimate
prescriptions being denied. Also, whether the court which hears it
considers the refusal to fill prescriptions tantamount to a denial
of service. I think it's promising."

Corporate Policies Profile Patients  
While pharmacies have a legal right to refuse to fill prescriptions
they consider suspicious or inappropriate, the lawsuits allege that
CVS, Walgreens and Costco adopted corporate policies that encourage
their pharmacists to profile patients as drug abusers and impose
limits on opioid medication. The companies did not respond to a
request for comment.

Walgreens adopted a "secret checklist" in 2013 that required its
pharmacies to watch for red flags such as patients paying for
opioid prescriptions in cash, seeking an early refill or taking an
"excessive" number of pills. If anything was suspicious,
pharmacists were instructed to "inform the patient that it may take
additional time to process the prescription."  The policy was
implemented after Walgreens was fined $80 million by the DEA for
violating rules for dispensing controlled substances.

CVS adopted a policy in 2017 to limit the dose and supply of
opioids for short-term, acute pain to seven days. For both acute
and chronic pain, opioid prescriptions were not filled if they
exceeded a 90mg MME daily dose. Customers enrolled in CVS' pharmacy
benefit plan were also required to try immediate release
formulations, before using extended release opioids. The policy was
adopted after CVS was fined hundreds of millions of dollars for
violations of the Controlled Substances Act.

In a recent letter to the CDC, the American Medical Association
called the CVS and Walgreens policies "inappropriate" because they
misapplied the CDC opioid guideline in ways that were harmful to
patients. The AMA said it has received numerous complaints about
Walgreens pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions because of
corporate policy.

Other big pharmacy chains have similar policies. Walmart has been
accused of "blacklisting" doctors for writing high dose
prescriptions. And a tearful video posted online by a California
woman with stage 4 breast cancer went viral after a Rite Aid
pharmacist refused to fill her prescription for Norco.

The law firms that filed the cases against Walgreens, Costco and
CVS are seeking additional information from patients interested in
joining the legal action at this website. [GN]


WALMART: Settles Meat Overcharge Class Action for $9.5MM
--------------------------------------------------------
Ron Hurtibise, writing for South Florida Sun Sentinel, reports that
Walmart has agreed to pay up to $9.5 million to settle a class
action lawsuit that accused it of deceiving customers about its
discounts offered for on-clearance meats.

"Hundreds of thousands, if not millions" of consumers who purchased
clearance meats from Walmart since Feb. 15, 2015, could be eligible
for refunds, according to a settlement notice filed in U.S.
District Court in Miami.

Vassilios Kukorinis, who lives in Hillsborough County, sued Walmart
in federal court last year after noticing that the per-pound
clearance price advertised on soon-to-be-expired meat wasn't what
the retailer actually used when calculating the final price to
consumers.

Kukorinis' attorneys determined consumers were overcharged by $1.67
per purchase.

Terms of the settlement call for Walmart to establish a settlement
fund of at least $4.5 million and up to $9.5 million if enough
consumers claim refunds.

Consumers eligible for refunds include anyone who purchased
weighted goods from Walmart since Feb. 13, 2015, "whose weighted
goods' unit sale price was not accurately reflected in the final
sale price," the agreement states.

Eligible purchasers will receive:

   -- Up to $10 if they submit a sworn affidavit stating that they
purchased allegedly mispriced meats.
   -- Up to $40 if they can produce receipts or proofs of purchase
but without packaging that would show the actual amount
overcharged.
   -- Non-capped amounts for consumers who can produce receipts or
proofs of purchase plus packaging showing the actual amount of the
overcharge.

If the claim is rejected for any reason, consumers will be given an
opportunity to correct errors or deficiencies identified by the
claims administrator, the settlement states.

A website for affected consumers to register their claims will go
live once the court approves the settlement agreement, said John
Yanchunis of Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group, which is
representing Kukronis in the lawsuit.

Walmart spokesman Randy Hargrove said by email, "We are pleased we
could reach a proposed resolution and look forward to the court
granting preliminary approval of the settlement."

Walmart agreed to the settlement without admitting any wrongdoing,
but agreed to change how it prices and marks its weighted goods,
terms of the settlement state.

Kukorinis filed his suit in February 2019, claiming that Walmart
violated Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act to
unfairly enrich itself.

As the suit commenced, he submitted details of alleged overcharging
at 12 Walmart stores in central and southern Florida, including in
Miami, the suit states.

An example recounted in Kukorinis' complaint described a package of
chicken tenders that weighed 1.18 pounds and was originally priced
at $5.78 a pound. The total package was originally priced at
$6.82.

As the product's expiration date approached, Walmart reduced the
per-pound price to $3.77, which should have reduced the 1.18-pound
package's price to $4.45. But instead, the sale price was $5.93, or
$1.48 more than it should have been if the per-pound price had
actually been reduced to $3.77. [GN]


WB STUDIO: Ettedgui Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as DAVID ETTEDGUI, an individual, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. WB
STUDIO ENTERPRISES INC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
20STCV24867, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on September 2, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-08053 to the proceeding.

The case alleges that the Defendants failed to pay overtime and
minimum wages, failed to provide required meal and rest periods,
failed to reimburse business expenses, failed to provide accurate
itemized wage statements, and wrongfully dismissed and retaliated
against their employees in violation of California Labor Code and
California Business and Professions Code.

WB Studio Enterprises Inc. is an entertainment company based in
Burbank, California.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:             

         Seth E. Pierce, Esq.
         Carly B. Epstein, Esq.
         MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP
         2049 Century Park East, 18th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-3120
         Telephone: (310) 312-2000
         Facsimile: (310) 312-3100
         E-mail: sep@msk.com
                 cbe@msk.com


WELLS FARGO: Changes Mortgage Maturity Dates, Class Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Raychel Lean, writing for Law.com, reports that a putative class
action lawsuit alleging California-based Wells Fargo Bank N.A.
fraudulently changed the maturity dates on thousands of mortgages
across the country has landed in the Middle District of Florida,
and it could prove costly for the bank.

Florida plaintiff attorneys call this putative class action lawsuit
the latest example of bad actors in large banks trying to take
advantage of unsophisticated borrowers. [GN]


WERNER ENTERPRISES: Dismissal Order in Wage & Hour Suit Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Werner Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that the order dismissing a wage-and-hour
class suit in Nebraska has been appealed.

The company had been involved in class action litigation in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, in which the
plaintiffs allege that the company owes drivers for unpaid wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Nebraska Wage
Payment and Collection Act and that the company failed to pay
minimum wage per hour for drivers in its Career Track Program,
related to short break time and sleeper berth time.

The period covered by this class action suit is August 2008 through
March 2014. The case was tried to a jury in May 2017, resulting in
a verdict of $0.8 million in plaintiffs' favor on the short break
matter and a verdict in our favor on the sleeper berth matter.

As a result of various post-trial motions, the court awarded $0.5
million to the plaintiffs for attorney fees and costs.

As of June 30, 2020, the company had accrued for the jury's award,
attorney fees and costs in the short break matter and had not
accrued for the sleeper berth matter. Plaintiffs appealed the
post-verdict amounts awarded by the trial court for fees, costs and
liquidated damages, and the Company filed a cross appeal on the
verdict that was in plaintiffs' favor.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied
Plaintiffs' appeal and granted Werner's appeal, vacating the
judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The appellate court sent the
case back to the trial court for proceedings consistent with the
appellate court's opinion.

On June 22, 2020, the trial court denied Plaintiffs' request for a
new trial and entered judgment in favor of the Company, dismissing
the case with prejudice.

On July 21, 2020, Plaintiffs' counsel filed a notice of appeal of
that dismissal.

Werner Enterprises, Inc., a transportation and logistics company,
engages in transporting truckload shipments of general commodities
in interstate and intrastate commerce in the United States, Mexico,
Canada, and China. It operates in two segments, Truckload
Transportation Services and Werner Logistics. Werner Enterprises,
Inc. was founded in 1956 and is headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska.


WERNER ENTERPRISES: Labor-Related Class Litigation Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Werner Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend itself
against labor-related class action suit.

The company is involved in certain class action litigation in which
the plaintiffs allege claims for failure to provide meal and rest
breaks, unpaid wages, unauthorized deductions and other items.

Based on the knowledge of the facts, management does not currently
believe the outcome of these class actions is likely to have a
material adverse effect on the company's financial position or
results of operations.

However, the final disposition of these matters and the impact of
such final dispositions cannot be determined at this time.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Werner Enterprises, Inc., a transportation and logistics company,
engages in transporting truckload shipments of general commodities
in interstate and intrastate commerce in the United States, Mexico,
Canada, and China. It operates in two segments, Truckload
Transportation Services and Werner Logistics. Werner Enterprises,
Inc. was founded in 1956 and is headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska.


WESTERN EXPRESS: Sanders Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Sanders, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. WESTERN EXPRESS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 1:20-cv-03137-SAB (E.D. Wash., Sept. 1, 2020),
asserts claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act for the
Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages and to provide rest
breaks.

According to the complaint, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff on a
per mile driven basis. The Defendant's pay plan failed to
compensate the Plaintiff and other drivers for rest breaks or
minimum wage for non-driving activities. The Plaintiff was not paid
for rest breaks because the Defendant's "piece rate," or per mile,
pay plan failed to compensate for rest breaks, and failed to treat
rest breaks as "on the employer's time," in violation of Washington
Administrative Code.

Plaintiff Sanders was employed by the Defendant from December 2019
through August 2020 as a driver. The Plaintiff regularly drove for
the Defendant and was on the road for over 24 hours, without being
compensated federal minimum wage, says the complaint.

Western Express, Inc., is a transportation company that is
authorized to conduct and is actually conducting business in the
State of Washington. The Company's main office is in
Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
          Graham G. Lambert, Esq.
          HAFFNER LAW PC
          445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2625
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 514-5681
          Facsimile: (213) 514-5682
          Email: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com


WINS FINANCE: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 23 Motion Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Wins Finance Holdings, Inc.
(NASDAQ: WINS).  Stockholders have until the deadlines below to
petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional
information about each case can be found at the link provided.

Wins Finance Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: WINS)

Class Period: October 31, 2018 to July 6, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 23, 2020

Wins, through its subsidiaries, purports to provide financing
solutions for small and medium enterprises in the People's Republic
of China.  The Company purports to offer financial guarantees, as
well as financial leasing, advisory, consultancy, and agency
services in Jinzhong City, Shanxi Province, and Beijing.

In 2014, Wins entered into a RMB 580 million credit agreement with
Guohong Asset Management Co., Ltd. (the "Guohong Loan"), pursuant
to which Guohong's repayment was due to Wins in October 2019.

In September 2017, Wins engaged Centurion ZD CPA & Co. ("CZD") as
its independent registered public accounting firm after dismissing
its previous accounting firm.

On October 31, 2019, Wins filed a notification of inability to
timely file Form 20-F on Form NT 20-F with the Securities and
Exchange Commission("SEC") (the "2019 NT 20-F").   

The following trading day, the Company's stock price declined from
$11.90 to $11.20, or 5.8%.

On November 19, 2019, Wins issued a press release announcing its
receipt of a notification letter from the NASDAQ Listing
Qualifications and its intent to submit a plan of compliance,
adding that the filing of the 2019 20-F was untimely due to the
uncertainty over recovery of the Guohong Loan but assuring
investors that failure to collect on the loan would "not impact the
Company's ongoing operations."

Then, on May 26, 2020, Wins issued a press release announcing that
the Company received a delisting determination letter from Nasdaq.
The press release stated, in relevant part, "[a]s disclosed
previously, the Company is working assiduously to complete its
delinquent filing with SEC and to regain compliance with the Nasdaq
listing rule as soon as possible."

On this news, Wins's stock price closed at $7.81 per share on May
26, 2020, in contrast to its previous close of $10.06, a decline of
22.3%.

The Company's undisclosed ongoing financial
difficulties—including non-repayment of the Guohong Loan—and
material control weaknesses came to a head on June 30, 2020, when
CZD resigned as the Company's independent auditor after less than
three years in that role.  On July 6, 2020, Wins issued a press
release announcing CZD's resignation.

On this news, Wins's stock price fell $2.06 per share, or 6.1%, to
close at $31.70 per share on July 7, 2020.

The Complaint, filed on July 24, 2020, 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) the
ultimate repayment of the RMB 580 million Guohong Loan was highly
uncertain; (ii) nonpayment of the Guohong Loan would have a
significant impact on the Company's financial and operating
condition; (iii) weaknesses in Wins's internal control over its
financial reporting persisted despite the Company's repeated
assurances to investors that it was taking steps to remediate these
weaknesses; (iv) the foregoing issues, among others, made the
resignation of Wins's independent auditor foreseeably likely; and
(v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the Wins Finance class action go to:
https://bespc.com/WINS-2

               About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York and California. The firm represents
individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities,
derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal
courts across the country. For more information about the firm,
please visit www.bespc.com.  Attorney advertising.  Prior results
do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]


YAYYO INC: Defends Rung Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
YayYo, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2020, that the company is a named defendant in a securities class
action suit entitled, Ivan Rung v. YayYo, Inc., Ramy El-Batrawi, et
al., 20STCV27876.

This action was filed on July 22, 2020, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. Plaintiff
Ivan Rung claims to have purchased the Company's stock and purports
to bring a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of
YayYo's stock pursuant to the Registration Statement and Prospectus
issued in connection with YayYo's November 14, 2019 initial public
stock offering (IPO). Mr. Ramy El-Batrawi is the founder and
current CEO of the Company but at the time of the IPO was only a
shareholder of the Company having stepped down as CEO, Director and
a controlling shareholder of the Company.

The complaint is vague about alleged misrepresentation and material
omissions, detailing instead a supposed chronology of events
leading to the Company's voluntary decision to delist its stock
from NASDAQ, a decision the Company announced in an 8K filed on
February 10, 2020.

The Company denies liability and asserts that it accurately and
completely disclosed all materially adverse facts and occurrences
in its Registration Statement, related public filings and other
public statements, and the Complaint's alleged violations of
Sections 11 & 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 are baseless.

It intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit.

YayYo, Inc., through its subsidiaries, engages in developing
vehicle rental platform in the United States. It operates Rideshare
Platform, an online peer-to-peer booking platform that rents
standard passenger vehicles to self-employed ridesharing drivers;
and manages a fleet of standard passenger vehicles to be rented
directly to drivers in the ridesharing economy through the
Rideshare Platform.  The company was founded in 2016 and is based
in Beverly Hills, California.


YAYYO INC: Defends Vanbecelaere Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
YayYo, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2020, that the company is a named defendant in the case, Michael
Vanbecelaere v. YayYo, Inc., Ramy El-Batrawi, et al., 20STCV28066.

This action was filed on July 23, 2020, in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, also as a
purported class action. Plaintiff Michael Vanbecelaere claims to
have purchased the Company's stock "traceable to the initial public
offering (IPO)" and like Ivan Rung v. YayYo, Inc., Ramy El-Batrawi,
et al., brings a securities class action pursuant to Sections 11 &
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of all purchasers of
YayYo's stock.

The complaint like the preceding action, Ivan Rung v. YayYo, Inc.,
Ramy El-Batrawi, et al., 20STCV27876 ("Rung") alleges false
statements and material omission pursuant to the Registration
Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with YayYo's November
14, 201 9 initial public stock offering (IPO).

The defendants are identical to the defendants in the action filed
the day before, on July 22, 2020. The two complaints are virtual
cookie cutter versions of each other including a false allegation
of fact about YayYo that appears in an identical paragraph 13: "On
or about June 21, 2016, defendant EI-Batrawi incorporated YayYo in
Delaware. The Company then rented cars to Uber and Lyft drivers."
(The business model of YayYo was different on June 21, 2016.)

As with the Rung case, the Company denies liability and asserts
that it accurately and completely disclosed all materially adverse
facts, events and occurrences in its Registration Statement and
related public filings, and the Complaint's alleged violations of
Sections 11 & 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 are baseless.

The actions will be "low numbered" to the same Superior Court judge
and consolidated. The Company intends to vigorously defend the
lawsuit.

YayYo, Inc., through its subsidiaries, engages in developing
vehicle rental platform in the United States. It operates Rideshare
Platform, an online peer-to-peer booking platform that rents
standard passenger vehicles to self-employed ridesharing drivers;
and manages a fleet of standard passenger vehicles to be rented
directly to drivers in the ridesharing economy through the
Rideshare Platform.  The company was founded in 2016 and is based
in Beverly Hills, California.


YERBA MATE: Troyer Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as CASEY TROYER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. THE YERBA MATE CO., LLC; GUAYAKI
SUSTAINABLE RAINFOREST PRODUCTS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, Case
No. RG20068307, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Alameda, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on August 28, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 4:20-cv-06065 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to compensate
the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated employees all
overtime and minimum wages, failure to provide meal and rest breaks
or provide premium pay in lieu thereof, failure to provide accurate
wage statements, unfair and unlawful business practices, and
invasion of employees' privacy.

The Yerba Mate Co., LLC, is a food and beverages company with its
principal place of business located in Jacksonville, Florida.
Guayaki Sustainable Rainforest Products, Inc., is an organic
beverage company specializing in yerba mate products based in
Sebastopol, California. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          

         David L. Cheng, Esq.
         FORD & HARRISON LLP
         350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 237-2400
         Facsimile: (213) 237-2401
         E-mail: dcheng@fordharrison.com

                - and –
  
         Daniel R. Lyman, Esq.
         FORD & HARRISON LLP
         1901 Harrison Street, Suite 1650
         Oakland, CA 94612
         Telephone: (415) 852-6914
         E-mail: dlyman@fordharrison.com


YOUNG LIVING: Penhall Suit Moved From S.D. California to D. Utah
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Lindsay Penhall, on behalf of herself and a
class of all others similarly situated v. Young Living Essential
Oils, Case No. 3:19-cv-02340, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Utah on Sept. 3, 2020.

The District of Utah Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-00617-DB
to the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Young Living is a multi-level marketing company based in Lehi,
Utah, that sells essential oils and other related products.[BN]


ZINUS INC: Fails to Disclose Fiberglass in Mattresses, Daida Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRIS DAIDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ZINUS, INC., Case No. 2:20-at-00796 (E.D. Cal., Aug.
12, 2020), alleges that the Defendant failed to disclose in its Web
site that fiberglass materials were used in its mattresses.

According to the complaint, all of the Defendant's mattresses use
fiberglass as a flame retardant in their mattresses; however, the
Defendant does not disclose this fact on their Web site. Nowhere on
the Defendant's Web site does it affirmatively mention that its
mattresses contain fiberglass.

All mattresses sold in the U.S. are required to pass a mattress
flammability test as set out by the Consumer Product Safety
Commission. Mattress manufacturers are not required to use
fiberglass as a flame retardant, though many choose to do so
because it is extremely inexpensive. As a result, fiberglass
sleeves or socks are frequently used in the manufacture of
inexpensive mattresses.

While this information is disclosed on the tag--which a customer
purchasing online will only find once their mattress arrives--it is
not disclosed elsewhere in many companies' advertising, including
the Defendant, the Plaintiff contends.

Zinus Inc. wholesales and distributes household furniture. The
Company wholesales and distributes bed frames, sofas, platform
beds, mattresses, and other related products. Zinus markets its
products worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
          Rachele R. Byrd, Esq.
          Marisa C. Livesay, Esq.
          Brittany N. Dejong, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
          750 B Street, Suite 1820
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-4599
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
          E-mail: manifold@whafh.com
                  byrd@whafh.com
                  livesay@whafh.com
                  dejong@whafh.com

               - and -

          Carl Malmstrom, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
          111 W. Jackson St., Suite 1700
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 984-0000
          Facsimile: (212)545-4653
          E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com


ZUFFA LLC: Sosa Sues in New York Over Disabilities Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zuffa, LLC. The case
is styled as Yony Sosa, On Behalf of Himself and All Other Persons
Similarly Situated v. Zuffa, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-07225 (S.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 3, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Zuffa, LLC, is an American sports promotion company specializing in
mixed martial arts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: nyjg@aol.com


ZYNGA INC: Awaits Ruling on Arbitration Bid in Chaudhri Case
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action suit initiated by minor "I.C." (acting through
his parent Nasim Chaudhri) and Amy Gitre against Zynga Inc., the
Defendant's motion to compel arbitration is currently under
submission with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California. Accordingly, the Case Management Conference set for
August 31, 2020 was vacated.  The Court will reset the Case
Management Conference upon resolution of the pending motion if
necessary.

Zynga Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that on September 12, 2019, the company
announced that an incident had occurred that may have involved
player data (the "Data Incident"). Upon its discovery of the Data
Incident, an investigation immediately commenced and advisors and
third-party forensics firms were retained to assist. The company's
current belief is that, during the third quarter of 2019, outside
hackers illegally accessed certain player account information and
other Zynga information, and that no financial information was
accessed. The company had provided notifications to players,
investors, regulators and other third parties, where the company
believes notice was required or appropriate.

On March 3, 2020, two plaintiffs -- minor "I.C." (acting through
his parent Nasim Chaudhri) and Amy Gitre -- filed a class action
complaint arising out of the Data Incident (the "Chaudhri
complaint"), generally alleging that Zynga failed to reasonably
safeguard certain player information, including names, addresses,
email addresses, passwords and more; failed to provide them with
timely notification of the breach; and made unlawful
representations over the safety and security of plaintiffs’
personal information.

Plaintiffs allege claims against Zynga under several state law
theories, including negligence, and unjust enrichment.

The Chaudhri plaintiffs seek monetary relief and damages.  

Zynga filed a motion to compel arbitration on May 8, 2020, and a
hearing date of August 25, 2020 was set.

Zynga Inc. is an American social game developer running social
video game services and founded in April 2007 with headquarters in
San Francisco, California, United States. The company primarily
focuses on mobile and social networking platforms. Zynga states its
mission as "connecting the world through games.


ZYNGA INC: Awaits Ruling on Arbitration Bid in Johnson-Thomas Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action suit initiated by Carol Johnson and Lisa Thomas
against Zynga Inc., the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration is
currently under submission with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California. Accordingly, the Case Management
Conference set for August 31, 2020 was vacated.  The Court will
reset the Case Management Conference upon resolution of the pending
motion if necessary.

Zynga Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2020, that on September 12, 2019, the company announced that an
incident had occurred that may have involved player data (the "Data
Incident"). Upon its discovery of the Data Incident, an
investigation immediately commenced and advisors and third-party
forensics firms were retained to assist. The company's current
belief is that, during the third quarter of 2019, outside hackers
illegally accessed certain player account information and other
Zynga information, and that no financial information was accessed.
The company had provided notifications to players, investors,
regulators and other third parties, where the company believes
notice was required or appropriate.

On March 23, 2020, plaintiffs Carol Johnson and Lisa Thomas (the
"Johnson complaint") filed a class action complaint in the Northern
District of California federal court.

The Johnson plaintiffs -- residents of Missouri and Wisconsin --
assert Zynga failed to adequately protect their personally
identifiable player information ("PII"), including names, email
addresses, passwords, password reset tokens, and phone numbers
(among other items).

Plaintiffs contend that, despite Zynga's representations in its
privacy policy that sensitive player information would be
adequately protected, plaintiffs' PII was improperly stored in
plain text formatting, and inadequate encryption methods were used
to store sensitive password information.

Plaintiffs allege that the lack of adequate security measures
caused them harm as a result of the Data Incident, and they assert
numerous state law claims against Zynga, including claims for
negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and declaratory
relief.  

The Johnson plaintiffs additionally assert claims for breach of
confidence, breach of contract and implied contract, violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL", CGL 17200, et seq.),
and state-specific violations of Missouri's Merchandising Practices
Act and Wisconsin's Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Plaintiffs seek
damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.

On May 26, 2020, Zynga filed a motion to compel arbitration. The
motion was set to be heard by the court on August 25, 2020.

Zynga Inc. is an American social game developer running social
video game services and founded in April 2007 with headquarters in
San Francisco, California, United States. The company primarily
focuses on mobile and social networking platforms. Zynga states its
mission as "connecting the world through games.


ZYNGA INC: Awaits Ruling on Arbitration Bid in Martinez-Petro Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action suit initiated by Joseph Martinez IV and Daniel
Petro against Zynga Inc., the Defendant's motion to compel
arbitration is currently under submission with the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California. Accordingly, the
Case Management Conference set for August 31, 2020 was vacated.
The Court will reset the Case Management Conference upon resolution
of the pending motion if necessary.

Zynga Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2020, that on September 12, 2019, the company announced that an
incident had occurred that may have involved player data (the "Data
Incident"). Upon its discovery of the Data Incident, an
investigation immediately commenced and advisors and third-party
forensics firms were retained to assist. The company's current
belief is that, during the third quarter of 2019, outside hackers
illegally accessed certain player account information and other
Zynga information, and that no financial information was accessed.
The company had provided notifications to players, investors,
regulators and other third parties, where the company believes
notice was required or appropriate.

On April 15, 2020, plaintiffs Joseph Martinez IV and Daniel Petro,
residents of Colorado and Iowa, filed a third class action
complaint in the Northern District of California (the "Martinez
complaint"). .

Plaintiffs allege they are longtime Zynga players who were affected
by the Data Incident. Similar to the Chaudhri and Johnson
plaintiffs, the Martinez plaintiffs generally allege that Zynga
failed to adequately store and protect or otherwise secure their
personally identifiable player information (PII), including names,
email addresses, passwords, and more; that Zynga failed to protect
their PII by using outdated and unlawful password encryption
methods; that Zynga failed to adequately provide notice of the Data
Incident; and that they have been harmed as a result of the Data
Incident.

The Martinez plaintiffs assert claims for negligence, negligence
per se, and unjust enrichment, as well as contractual claims, and
claims for relief under multiple state consumer protection
statutes.

Additionally, the Martinez plaintiffs also assert misrepresentation
and omission claims under California’s false advertising law and
the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

Plaintiffs seek injunctive and monetary relief on behalf of a
nationwide class.

In May 2020, Judge Yvonne Gonzaelz Rogers granting an
Administrative Motion to Relate the Martinez-Petro case with those
initiated by Carol Johnson and Lisa Thomas; and minor "I.C."
(acting through his parent Nasim Chaudhri) and Amy Gitre.

Zynga responded to the Martinez complaint by filing a motion to
compel arbitration on June 19, 2020. The motion was set for hearing
on August 25, 2020.

Zynga Inc. is an American social game developer running social
video game services and founded in April 2007 with headquarters in
San Francisco, California, United States. The company primarily
focuses on mobile and social networking platforms. Zynga states its
mission as "connecting the world through games.


ZYNGA INC: Continues to Defend Oeste Class Action in Maryland
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zynga Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit
initiated by James Oeste and Marissa Oeste.

Zynga has filed a Motion to Transfer Case, or in the Alternative,
to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Improper Venue.

The Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Discovery re: Leave to Take
Limited Jurisdictional Discovery, and have opposed the Defendant's
Motion to Transfer.

On September 12, 2019, the company announced that an incident had
occurred that may have involved player data (the "Data Incident").
Upon its discovery of the Data Incident, an investigation
immediately commenced and advisors and third-party forensics firms
were retained to assist. The company's current belief is that,
during the third quarter of 2019, outside hackers illegally
accessed certain player account information and other Zynga
information, and that no financial information was accessed. The
company had provided notifications to players, investors,
regulators and other third parties, where the company believes
notice was required or appropriate.

On June 9, 2020 plaintiffs James Oeste and Marissa Oeste, both
residents of Maryland, filed a a class action complaint in the
Northern District of Maryland (the "Oeste complaint").

Plaintiffs allege they were Zynga players who were affected by the
Data Incident. Similar to all the foregoing plaintiffs, the Oeste
plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class and generally
allege that Zynga failed to adequately or reasonably protect their
personally identifiable player information ("PII"), including
names, email addresses, passwords, and more; that Zynga failed to
protect their PII by using outdated and unlawful password
encryption methods; that Zynga failed to adequately provide notice
of the Data Incident; and that they have been harmed as a result of
the Data Incident.

The Oeste plaintiffs assert claims for contractual breach,
negligence, negligence per se, invasion of privacy, and claims for
relief under California consumer protection and unfair competition
statutes.

Zynga Inc. is an American social game developer running social
video game services and founded in April 2007 with headquarters in
San Francisco, California, United States. The company primarily
focuses on mobile and social networking platforms. Zynga states its
mission as "connecting the world through games.


[*] Big Aus. Litigation Funders Welcome New Class Action Regulation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Phi, writing for The Australian, reports that when large
financiers and biggest companies welcome new anti-competitive
government red tape, Scott Morrison's quiet Australians should
become nervous.

The two largest litigation funders in the country have welcomed the
government's new class action regulations, which require litigation
funders to hold an Australian Financial Services licence and,
oddly, treat plaintiffs seeking compensation through a class action
as investors in a managed investment scheme.

Why are big litigation funders applauding government red tape?
Here's a hint: Litigation Capital Management told shareholders the
regulations would give it a "strategic advantage" by creating
barriers to entry and reducing competition. The changes also have
been welcomed by repeat class action defendant AMP, which
distinguished itself as the biggest villain in the Hayne royal
commission and is eager to escape accountability for misconduct.

Some suggest a political motivation for this change: to hurt the
big plaintiff law firms Maurice Blackburn and Slater & Gordon,
which routinely donate to Labor. It will do the opposite. Those
industry giants are well-capitalised, have great market power and
will gain even more. While they publicly oppose these regulations,
in fact they are the only firms with the capital base and structure
to self-fund class actions. Reducing the availability of litigation
funding won't hurt them but it will hurt smaller law firms that
provide competition. Without this competition, Maurice Blackburn
and Slater & Gordon's market share will increase, and their prices
and profits will rise.

This point was raised in 2016, when Treasury warned that imposing
AFS licence and managed investment scheme requirements on the
litigation funding industry would drive up costs for business and
consumers, and force smaller firms out of the market, undermining
competition. Four years ago, when Morrison was treasurer, he
accepted this argument and left the exemptions in place. Quiet
Australians will pay the price for reversing that decision.

The Australian Farmers Fighting Fund helped deliver justice for
exporters affected by the shutdown of the live cattle trade by
funding a class action. That fighting fund will be caught under
these new regulations, a serious cause for concern for our
world-class farmers. If Bundaberg growers affected by the Paradise
Dam debacle launch a class action, they will be considered to be
"investing in an MIS"--an absurd construct.

The regulations will hurt small and family businesses such as
Michel's Patisserie franchisees in their class action against the
Retail Food Group, which a bipartisan parliamentary committee
accused of "exploitative fee gouging". Landowners whose properties
and livelihoods have been poisoned by toxic PFAS chemicals will pay
more to have their day in court, as will the north Queensland
primary producers fighting a class action against state
government-owned energy companies.

Coalition MPs who defended negative gearing and franking credits
may be surprised to learn the regulations will hit property
investors, such as those facing ruin in the Opal Tower fiasco in
Sydney. They will hurt self-funded retirees and mum-and-dad
investors who benefit from shareholder class actions.

Corporations claim they face an explosion of litigation, but that
is not right. The Australian Law Reform Commission found that class
actions made up only 0.68 per cent of cases filed in the Federal
Court. Since the Hayne royal commission, can anyone sensibly
suggest companies such as AMP need less accountability?

Yes, some past litigation funding deals have delivered poor returns
for group members, but these regulations have nothing to do with
prices as the regulator, the Australian Securities & Investments
Commission, has confirmed.

We live in extraordinary times and the scale of the COVID-19
response means the Prime Minister and Treasurer may be forgiven for
mistakenly believing these regulations, cobbled together in haste,
would hurt only the big Labor firms. Liberals normally are first to
recognise that government regulation doesn't reduce costs and if
high prices are the problem, competition is the solution.

It is competition from mid-tier firms and smaller litigation
funders--not regulation--that will drive better financial returns
for class action group members.

For instance, it is competition that means group members in our
company's class action against Westpac are guaranteed to receive
more than 90 per cent of the total payout recovered.

And it is only competition that will provide a long-term challenge
to the power of the big Labor firms.

These ill-fitting regulations will serve only to cement their power
and dominance.

Ben Phi is managing director of Phi Finney McDonald. [GN]


[*] Hardwick Accuses MP of Blatantly Defamatory Social Media Post
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Butler, writing for The Guardian, reports that the head of law
firm Slater and Gordon's class action practice, Ben Hardwick, has
described as "blatantly defamatory" a social media statement by
Liberal backbencher Jason Falinski accusing him of misleading a
parliamentary inquiry.

On July 28, Falinski tweeted a video of Hardwick telling an inquiry
that "shortly before the treasurer of this country made
announcements regarding reforms to class action laws, he met with
an affiliate of the American Chamber of Commerce".

The video describes this claim as "wrong" and in his accompanying
tweet Falinski said Hardwick "misled a parliamentary inquiry
alleging foreign interference".

However, in answers to questions on notice, Treasury said that "the
treasurer met with an affiliate of the US Chamber of Commerce, the
American Chamber of Commerce in Australia, by video conference on
14 May 2020".

Frydenberg announced a clampdown on litigation funders, who often
bankroll class actions, the following Friday 22 May, and the next
Monday 25 May followed up with changes watering down rules
requiring listed companies to keep the market fully informed about
their financial situation that the treasurer said would make it
harder to bring shareholder class action lawsuits during the
coronavirus crisis.

It is believed Hardwick is considering whether he should sue
Falinksi over the statements, which were made without the
protection of parliamentary privilege.

"For Mr Falinski to tweet that I have misled a parliamentary
inquiry, when I have clearly done no such thing, is blatantly
defamatory," Hardwick said.

"He's attempting to use his platform as an elected offical to
dishonestly smear my reputation."

Hardwick said his source for his statement to the inquiry was
Treasury's answer to questions on notice.

"If Mr Falinski thinks my mistaken replacement of the word 'US'
with the word 'American' constitutes the misleading of parliament
then I would suggest he should seek better legal advice," he said.

"I continue to believe that Australians are entitled to know why
the treasurer of Australia met with the US business lobby, through
its Australian affiliate, just days before announcing these bizarre
regulations. We know he didn't meet with Asic. He certainly didn't
meet with any class action members."

Falinski defended his tweet, telling Guardian Australia the
American Chamber of Commerce in Australia's "affiliation to the US
Chamber of Commerce is I think $800 a year".

"They're not a foreign entity. Their president is Brendan Nelson
for god's sake."

Nelson, a former defence minister in the Howard government, is the
chair of the American Chamber of Commerce in Australia, or AmCham,
which describes itself as "the voice of international business
interests".

"The Zoom meeting I am reliably informed was with 50 people and the
topic of class actions never came up," Falinski said.

"He [Frydenberg] was giving an update on Australian business to an
Australian audience."

Hardwick and another senior Slater and Gordon lawyer, Andrew Paull,
gave evidence to the parliamentary inquiry on July 27.

Falinski has been a vocal participant in the parliamentary inquiry
into class actions, tangling with Australia's leading academic
expert on the topic, Vince Morabito.

"My god, is this going to be the standard of the questioning
today," Morabito, a professor at Monash University, said after
being peppered with questions by Falinski.

During hearings on July 29, lobby groups the Business Council of
Australia and the Australian Institute of Company Directors
repeated their previous calls for Frydenberg's watering down of
corporate disclosure rules to become permanent.

In addition, the AICD head of advocacy, Louise Petschler, told the
inquiry she questioned whether private enforcement of company law
through class actions should be allowed at all.

The Australian Industry Group proposed a 10-point plan that, if
adopted, would impose strict conditions on class actions,
litigation funders and lawyers. [GN]


[*] Judicial Panel May Consolidate BI Claims into Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Haughey, writing for The Center Square, reports that so many
COVID-19 business interruption lawsuits have been filed against
insurers across the country that a federal judicial panel has
called for a hearing on how to legally process them all.

The seven-member U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(JPML) will ponder how to proceed with more than 450 federal
complaints nationwide, in addition to hundreds of lawsuits filed in
state courts, in Washington.

The JPML has the authority to determine whether civil actions
pending in two or more federal judicial districts can be
transferred to a single federal district court for pretrial
proceedings.

A group from South Florida has filed one of three petitions
requesting the JPML consolidate more than 100 lawsuits filed by
businesses seeking coverage for business-interruption losses caused
by pandemic stay-home orders into one case before the U.S. District
Court in Miami.

Similar petitions have been filed before the JPML on behalf of
plaintiffs in Philadelphia and Chicago.

The insurance industry has uniformly stated standard business
interruption policies do not provide coverage for pandemic-related
impacts. They argue business interruption policies cover losses
incurred during business shutdowns caused by catastrophes, such as
floods or hurricanes, but not those incurred during the economic
fallout of a pandemic.

Business interruption policies specifically exclude pandemics,
industry officials say, unless businesses specifically purchase
pandemic coverage. It's in every policy's fine print, they say.

The American Property and Casualty Insurance Association said
forcing insurers to pay such claims would undermine the solvency of
the industry. APCIA estimated business closures are costing
businesses with fewer than 500 employees from $393 billion to $668
billion per month

But in lawsuits filed across the nation, policyholders argue
business interruption policies should be applied to instances when
there is no physical damage or destruction to a business that is
being prevented from conducting business as usual by a government
order.

In what could be a precursor to an avalanche of local, state and
federal business interruption rulings unless the JPML consolidates
cases, a Michigan judge in July sided with an insurer that rejected
a $650,000 business interruption insurance claim by the owner of
two restaurants.

The owner contended business interruption coverage should apply
because local authorities prohibited customers from physically
entering his properties.

However, Judge Joyce Draganchuk ruled COVID-19 did not tangibly
alter the properties, which is necessary to provide coverage under
the owner's insurance policy -- upholding a key contention by
insurers.

In late April, Florida Insurance Commissioner David Altmaier warned
Gov. Ron DeSantis' Re-Open Florida Task Force that many business
owners were only then realizing their business interruption
insurance policies did not cover financial losses stemming from
pandemic shutdowns.

In May, state Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis called on
Florida's 27-member congressional delegation to find a way for
small businesses to recover losses related to the COVID-19
emergency shutdowns that many business interruption insurance
policies don't cover through legislation rather than litigation.

"There are a lot of business owners who purchased business
interruption insurance policies thinking they would be used for
times like these," he wrote. "Many responsible businesses that care
deeply for their employees and their communities have spent a lot
of their hard-earned dollars on business interruption insurance
policies for years, and Congress should take that into
consideration as they craft programs to help businesses during this
crisis."

U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Calif., has introduced HR 7412, the
'Business Interruption Relief Act of 2020,' which would create a
'Business Interruption Relief Program' (BIRP) to reimburse insurers
that voluntarily paid COVID-19 business interruption claims.

It awaits a first hearing before the House Financial Services
Committee. [GN]


[*] Mass. Judge Pauses CBD Supplement Product Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a Massachusetts federal judge paused a proposed
class action over the potency of CBD supplement products on Aug.
11, following three other federal courts in saying the suit can
wait until U.S. Food and Drug Administration releases long-awaited
rules regulating the popular hemp derived compound. [GN]



[*] Securities Class Actions Cause Increase in D&O Premiums
-----------------------------------------------------------
Camilla Theakstone, writing for Insurance Business Australia,
reports that last month, the Insurance Council of Australia (ICA)
and Marsh presented to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on
Corporations and Financial Services on litigation funding and the
regulation of the class action industry.

Representing Marsh was Craig Claughton (pictured), Marsh's head of
FINPRO, alongside CEO Scott Leney, who argued in opening
submissions to the Joint Committee that class actions are having a
corrosive impact on insurance premiums and policies.

"Securities class actions supported by litigation funding are
causing an unprecedented increase in premiums and retentions that
we fear is unsustainable," Leney said. "Marsh's ASX 200
benchmarking data shows that, in the year to Q2 2020, average D&O
spend is up over 170%, and retention, the amount of loss the client
bears themselves before insurance kicks in, is up over 300%, and
it's only getting worse.

"Worryingly, the impact of securities class actions has
reverberated through all D&O insurance policies. This has also
impacted small to medium-sized business and not-for-profit
organisations, which seems unfair because they're not having the
claims, but that's the way insurance works: losses of the few are
paid for by the many. The costs are ultimately passed on to the
consumer and hurt the broader economy."

Leney focused in on the hike in management liability and D&O
premiums ranging from 40% to 200% for SME and medium-sized clients
across industries such as property development, freight forwarding,
pet care and not-for-profit.

"For many small companies and not-for-profits these massive
increases are at the point of unaffordability. We worry that this
will have a huge impact on charities being able to recruit
trustees, most of whom are volunteers," Leney concluded.

The issue of class actions impacting not just the big end of town
but also the smaller players in the market was also echoed by Tom
Lunn, senior policy manager at the ICA. Alongside Ewen McKay, ICA's
professional indemnity insurance committee and product leader, Lunn
told the Joint Committee the ICA supports the Law Reform
Commission's 2018 recommendation that there be a separate review
into the legal and economic impacts of the Continuous Disclosure
obligations of the Corporations Act.

"Our submissions have highlighted the impact increasing securities
class actions continue to have on the availability and
affordability of directors and officers 'Side C' insurance in
Australia," Lunn explained. "These actions are based on an alleged
breach of the Corporations Act's continuous disclosure
obligations.

"The continuous disclosure obligations are essentially applied with
a strict liability on directors. This means these actions are
exceedingly difficult and costly to defend. This is highlighted by
the fact that the vast majority of securities class actions are
resolved by settlement with only one matter proceeding to judgment
with an adverse finding against the company."

Consequently, Lunn said Australia has become a "highly attractive
and profitable market" for litigation funders and the most likely
jurisdiction outside the US in which a company may face a
significant class action litigation. This, in turn, has created a
"steep increase" in the cost of D&O insurance and a "sharp
contraction and hardening" of this section of the insurance
market.

"Fewer insurers are now willing to provide this cover. Those
insurers who are willing to provide cover are increasing their
premiums. They are also reducing coverage limits.

In 2018, premiums rose an average of 88%. Last year they rose by at
least 75%," Lunn argued.

"This is making D&O insurance very expensive, and for many smaller
listed companies the premiums may be close to unaffordable."

Increasing securities class actions also have a "broader" impact on
the economy, Lunn added. He said the inability to obtain affordable
or adequate insurance coverage deters talented workers from
accepting director positions and acts as a "handbrake" on emerging
companies and a hefty burden on larger companies.

"It is for this reason the ICA strongly supports the [Law Reform
Commission]'s recommendation that there be a separate review
undertaken into the legal and economic impacts of the continuous
disclosure obligations," he continued. "The case for this review to
be undertaken is clear and it should proceed with some urgency."

Marsh's Claughton told Insurance Business it was important for the
company to represent their clients who have been "quite
significantly impacted" by the country's class action regime.

Throughout the Joint Committee, Claughton claimed class actions in
Australia had experienced a threefold increase over the past
decade. One explanation for this, he says, is because of the
lucrative litigation funding behind them.

"This particular Senate inquiry is also focusing on litigation
funding and we believe that the vast majority of those matters,
particularly the shareholder class actions, have been funded, so
that has allowed those to develop since the class action regime
came into being in 1999 here in Australia," he explained.

"But, outside of that, we believe that the continuous disclosure
here in Australia is problematic for directors because they get
caught in the decision of 'do they have an obligation to notify or
should they be keeping information that they have confidential?' I
also use the term 'damned if they do, damned if they don't' because
some way or another it seems like they end up in hot water."

While those two reasons are the "significant drivers" behind the
hike in class actions, Claughton also believes litigation can be
"pro-plaintiff."

"When proceedings are commenced, it seems to be easier for a
plaintiff than it is for a defendant and, of course, these things
are incredibly expensive to run and to defend," he said.

This has led to companies settling outside of court with big
payouts because it is seen as being cheaper and quicker than going
through litigation, Claughton said. However, just because companies
are "settling" doesn't suggest there's an admission of wrongdoing.

There are two recommendations from Claughton that will keep
Australia's class action litigation robust and protect against
wrongdoing without the financial "penalisation" on insurers.

"Consistent with what the Australian Law Reform said in its report
in 2018, that the continuous disclosure regime should be reviewed
in its totality because Australia is somewhat of an outlier in
requirements of disclosure versus other parts of the world," he
said, "we think that perhaps it would make sense for all of the
class actions to be heard in the Federal Court rather than going
through various levels of different Supreme Courts in different
states. This would thereby achieve a level of consistency in terms
of procedure and then you don't have forum shopping to get a
desired outcome.

"Another suggestion we had is for ASIC to actually be the
gatekeeper and run these class actions on behalf of shareholders,
which might be a way of keeping litigation funding groups honest
and to discourage actions that are really somewhat frivolous."
[GN]



                            *********

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 ***