---

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

              Tuesday, September 15, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 185

                            Headlines

36KR HOLDINGS: Johnson Fistel Launches Investigation Into Firm
ABM ELECTRICAL: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
ACETO CORP: Stock Drop Class Action Dismissed
ACRE MORTGAGE: Court Certifies Class in James Suit Over Kickbacks
ADTRAN INC: Bid to Dismiss Burbridge Putative Class Suit Pending

AIRBUS SE: Howard G. Smith Alerts of Class Action Filing
ALPHA AND OMEGA: Gray Putative Class Action Ongoing
AMCOR PLC: Dixon and Stein Suit Consolidated
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Levi & Korsinsky Alerts of Class Action Filing
AMERICAN FINANCE: Dismissal of St. Clair-Hibbard Suit Upheld

AMERICAN FINANCE: NY Consolidated Class Suit Ongoing
AMERICAN FINANCE: Securities Suit in Maryland Ongoing
AMERICAN INSURANCE: Faces Emery Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Ads
AMNEAL PHARMA: Continues to Defend Eaton Putative Class Suit
AMNEAL PHARMA: Metformin Marketing & Sales Practices Suit Ongoing

AMNEAL PHARMA: Rhodes Class Action Proceedings Remains Stayed
ANAPLAN INC: Bragar Eagel Alerts of Class Action Filing
ANAPLAN INC: Glancy Prongay Alerts of Securities Class Action
ANAPLAN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Alerts of Class Action Filing
ANCESTRY.COM: Faces Class Action Over Automatic Membership Renewal

APPLE INC: $9.75MM Deal in Powerbeats2 Class Action Gets Prelim. OK
ASCENA RETAIL: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Class Suit Pending
ASSURANT INC: Suits Over Lender-Placed Insurance Still Ongoing
AURORA, CO: Police Faces Class Action Over Use of Excessive Force
AUSTRALIA: May Face Class Action Over Shutdown of Businesses

AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
AVIVA INSURANCE: Thomson, Rogers Attorney Discusses BI Class Action
AXON ENTERPRISE: Continues to Defend Richey Class Suit
AXOS FINANCIAL: Appeal in Calif. Securities Class Suit Ongoing
BAUSCH HEALTH: Bid to Amend Gutierrez Complaint Pending

BAUSCH HEALTH: Catucci Settlement Awaits Court's Approval
BAUSCH HEALTH: Continues to Defend Shower to Shower(R) Suits
BAYER AG: ClaimsFiler Reminds of September 14 Deadline
BELLRING BRANDS: Suit Against Premier Nutrition Ongoing
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in Rickman RICO Suit

BRASKEM SA: Bragar Eagel Alerts of Securities Class Action
BRISTOL-MYERS: Skadden Arps Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
CABOT OIL: Howard G. Smith Alerts of Class Action Filing
CAFE SPICE: Court Enters Final Judgment in Corea Class Action
CANADA: Northern Territories Deny Sex Abuse Class Suit Allegations

CBS CORP: Remand of Musiello Suit to Bronx County Court Denied
CDK GLOBAL: AutoLoop Class Action Still Ongoing in Illinois
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Customers' Class Action Dismissed
CENTERBRIDGE: Faces Jeffersons Tower Rent Overcharge Class Action
CENTRAL HEALTH: Faces Privacy Breach Class Action

CENTRUS ENERGY: Pollution Class Action Trimmed
CENTURA HEALTH: Sued Over Predatory Billing Practices
CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Court Orders Closing of Hayes Suit
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Awaits Final Court Approval of Rael Settlement
CLOUDERA INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Calif.

CLOUDERA INC: Hortonworks Merger-Related Suit Ongoing
COMMONWEALTH BANK: Woodsford Funds Class Action
COMMONWEALTH EDISON: Faces Bribery Class Action in Illinois
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Shareholders Seek Approval of $18MM Settlement
CONCIERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Bids to Consolidate Investor Suits Pending

CONN'S INC: Uddin Securities Class Suit in Texas Ongoing
COTY INC: Continues to Defend Suit over Cottage Tender Offer
CPI AEROSTRUCTURES: Putative Class Suit Underway in N.Y.
CV SCIENCES: Colette Putative Class Suit Stayed
CV SCIENCES: Discovery in Smith Purported Class Suit Pending

DELL TECH: Suit over Class V Transaction Proceeds to Discovery
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Plaintiffs Appeal Order Denying Bid to Vacate
DISH NETWORK: Bid to Dismiss Appeal in Krakauer Pending
DISH NETWORK: Still Defends Hallandale Police & Firefighters' Suit
DOLLAR TREE: Agreement in Principle Reached in Ex-Employee's Suit

DOLLAR TREE: Defends Former Employee Suit in California
DOLLAR TREE: Family Dollar Sued in Cal. Over Unpaid Meal Breaks
DOLLAR TREE: N.Y. Consumer Suit Over Almond Milk Label Ongoing
DXC TECH: California Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
EASTMAN KODAK: Hagens Berman Reminds of Oct. 13 Motion Deadline

EASTMAN KODAK: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Oct. 13 Motion Deadline
ECI MGMT: White and Williams Attys. Discuss Court Ruling in Aegis
ENDO INT'L: Appeal in PERS Mississippi Lawsuit Pending
ENDO INT'L: Bid for Class Certification in Pelletier Suit Pending
ENDO INT'L: Defends Albiges Putative Class Action

ENDO INT'L: Suit Against PPI over Xyrem Sales Ongoing
ENERGY RECOVERY: Vincent Wong Reminds of September 21 Deadline
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Parties Agree to Dismiss Claims in Solomon
FACEBOOK INC: Tel Aviv Judge Says Class-Action Suit Can Proceed
FASTLY INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action

FASTLY INC: Levi & Korsinsky Alerts of Class Action Filing
FASTLY INC: Schall Law Alerts of Securities Class Action
FELTEX: Investors Continues With Appeal Against Strike-Out of Suit
FIAT CHRYSLER: Dodge 1500 Truck Owners Sue Firm
FIFTH THIRD: Defends Fox Putative Class Suit Over MB Merger

FIFTH THIRD: Lead Plaintiff & Counsel Appointed in "Christakis"
FIRST SOLAR: Smilovits Class Action Dismissed
FIRSTENERGY CORP: ClaimsFiler Reminds of September 28 Deadline
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Faces Two New Shareholder Class Actions
FORECLOSURE EXPEDITORS: Deal in Hamilton Suit Entered in Good Faith

FULTON FINANCIAL: Kress Putative Class Action Ongoing
GENIE ENERGY: Bid to Nix Putative Class Suit v. IDT Energy Pending
GENIE ENERGY: Davis Class Suit Over TCPA Violations Ongoing
GEO GROUP: Vincent Wong Reminds of Class Action
GERMAN AMERICAN: Suit Over Checking Account Practices Ongoing

GHIRARDELLI CHOCOLATE: Court Nixes False Advertising Class Action
GODADDY INC: Oct. 7 Deadline for Submission of Claims in Bennett
GOLDMAN SACHS: Accord in Adeptus IPO Suit Wins Final Approval
GOLDMAN SACHS: Accord Reached in Indirect Forex Purchasers' Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Suit Over 1MDB Scandal Still Pending

GOLDMAN SACHS: Consolidated Suit Over Mortgage Matters Stayed
GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement in Snap Inc. IPO Suit Wins Initial OK
GOLDMAN SACHS: Valeant Securities Suit in Canada Still Ongoing
GOOGLE INC: Google+ Class Action Settlement Notices Sent
GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Vincent Wong Reminds of September 23 Deadline

GULFPORT ENERGY: Defending Against Lefort Wage-and-Hour Suit
GULFPORT ENERGY: Woodley Securities Suit Underway in S.D.N.Y.
H&R BLOCK: Swanson Putative Class Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration
HAIN CELESTIAL: Appeal in Consolidated Class Suit Pending
HAIN CELESTIAL: Stockholders' Consolidated Class Suit Ongoing

HERMES LANDSCAPING: Wins Final OK of $415K Deal in Rodriguez Suit
HEWLETT PACKARD: Continues to Defend Forsyth Suit in Calif.
HEWLETT PACKARD: Jackson Putative Class Suit Dismissed
HEWLETT PACKARD: Ross and Rogus Putative Class Suit Ongoing
HEWLETT PACKARD: Says Wall Class Action Closed

HP INC: Consolidated Gensin Class Suit in Israel Ongoing
HP INC: Suit by Electrical Workers Pension Fund Ongoing
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Must Face Securities Fraud Class Action
INSULET CORP: Bid for Fees & Expenses in ATRS Suit Still Pending
INTEL CORP: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of September 28 Deadline

JELD-WEN HOLDING: Settlement Entered in Molded Doors Suits
JONES DAY: Judge Orders Plaintiffs to be Specific in Equal Pay Suit
KENT STATE: Class Action Seeks Refund of Tuition, Mandatory Fees
KENTUCKY: 6th Cir. Upholds House Bill 454 Enjoinment in EMW Womens
KIA MOTORS: Sup. Ct. Reinstates Individualized Damages in Little

KIDS BEHAVIORAL: Fails to Obtain Dismissal of Bonanini WARN Suit
KIRKLAND'S INC: Gennock Suit Over Credit Card Info Ongoing
L BRANDS: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Ohio Class Suit Pending
LANNETT CO: Securities Suit Over Drug Pricing Ongoing in E.D. Pa.
LANNETT CO: Suits Over Contaminated Ranitidine Ongoing

LILAH BEAUTY: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Paguada Alleges
LIPOCINE INC: Bid to Dismiss Abady Class Action Pending
LOS ANGELES, CA: Police Sued Over Gang Member Misclassification
LOUISIANA: Bar Owners File Class Action
LOYOLA MARYMOUNT: McCarthy Suit Seeks Tuition Fee Refund

LUMENTUM HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Karri Class Action Still Pending
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Moves to Dismiss Data Breach Complaint
MCDERMOTT INT'L: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 16 Bid Deadline
MEDTRONIC PLC: Suit Over Covidien Acquisition Underway
MEET GROUP: Putative Class Suits Related to Parship Merger Nixed

MEI PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of October 9 Deadline
MENLO THERAPEUTICS: Awaits Final Court Approval of Settlement
METLIFE INC: Asks Court to Approve Settlement Notice
METLIFE INC: MLIC Still Defends Julian & McKinney Class Action
METLIFE INC: Parchmann Class Action Ongoing in New York

METLIFE INC: Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal Filed in Atkins
MICHIGAN: Fails to Obtain Summary Judgment on Count VI of Hill Suit
MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Class Action Over Privacy Violations
MIDWEST WATER: Settlement in Varble Labor Suit Gets Final Approval
MORGAN STANLEY: Faces Second Data Breach Class Action

MYLAN NV: Class Suit over Valsartan Recalls Ongoing in New Jersey
MYLAN NV: Class Suits Over Opioid Sales Underway
MYLAN NV: EpiPen Direct Purchasers' Suit Pending in Kansas
MYLAN NV: Israeli Securities Suit Still Stayed
MYLAN NV: PERS Mississippi Putative Class Suit Ongoing

MYLAN NV: Suit Over Reverse Morris Trust Transaction Dismissed
NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS: Litigation Over CONTEPO Reports Ongoing
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Painkiller Culture Suit Revived by 9th Cir.
NATIONAL RURAL: Settles 401(k) Plan Class Action for $10MM
NATIONWIDE BIWEEKLY: Missed Chance to Dismiss Class Action

NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Suit Over Bempegaldesleukin Ongoing
NEONODE INC: Defends Purported Class Suit in Delaware
NEW YORK TRANSIT: Court Denies Bid for Protective Order in Robinson
NEW YORK: Families of Special Needs Kids File Class Action
NN INC: Still Defends Class Action by Erie County ERS

NORTHLAND AUTO: Ohio App. Affirms Class Certification in Goree
O'REILLY AUTO: Averts Class Action Over Rest-Break Policy
OLAPLEX INC: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Paguada Claims
OLIN CORP: Suits Against Unit Over Sale of Caustic Soda Ongoing
OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Bid to Dismiss Stirling Class Suit Pending

OMNICOM GROUP: Faces New Class Action Over 401(k) Plan
ONECOIN: Founder's Brother Dismissed From Civil Class Action
ONESPAN INC: Bernstein Liebhard Announces Securities Class Action
ONESPAN INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action Filing
ONESPAN INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Oct. 19 Motion Deadline

ONESPAN INC: Robbins Geller Alerts of Class Action Filing
ONESPAN INC: Rosen Law Alerts of Securities Class Action
PAM TRANSPORT: Court Approves $16.5MM Class Action Settlement
PAM TRANSPORT: Judge in Settled Wage Case Concerned of Co. Finances
PATTERSON COS: Plymouth Retirement System Suit Ongoing

PERSPECTA INC: 142 of 145 Opt-In Plaintiffs Agree to Settlement
PINNACLE FINANCIAL: Bank Unit Sued Over PPP Loan Agent Fees
PINTEREST INC: Faces Class Action Over Misuse of Pictures for Ads
PROPETRO HOLDING: Continues to Defend Logan Class Suit
PROSHARES ULTRA: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline

PURDUE PHARMA: Minnetonka Schools Join Opioid Class Action
RESTAURANTS BRANDS: Latifi Suit Against TDL Group Corp. Ongoing
RESTAURANTS BRANDS: Suit Over Non-Compete Policy Ongoing
RESTAURANTS BRANDS: Suits Over Data Collection Underway in Canada
SALESFORCE.COM INC: Continues to Defend Suit Over Tableau Merger

SANDERSON FARMS: Discovery in Broiler Chicken Litigation Ongoing
SARATOGA DIAGNOSTICS: Floyd May Serve Pallone by Certified Mail
SENSEONICS HOLDINGS: Purcell Investigates Fiduciary Duty Claim
SHELBY COUNTY, TN: Bid to Compel Depositions in Powell Suit Granted
SIGNET JEWELERS: Settlement in Shareholder Suit Wins Final OK

SIGNET JEWELERS: Suit Against SJI Ongoing in S.D.N.Y.
SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Continues to Defend Gentry Homes
SKECHERS USA: Appeal in Steamfitters Local 449 Suit Ongoing
SKECHERS USA: Guzman Class Action Settled
SKECHERS USA: Settlement in Principle Reached in Wilk Class Suit

SMITH & WESSON: Shooting Victims Putative Class Suit Ongoing
STABILIS ENERGY: Barrett Class Suit vs. M&I Electric Ongoing
STAMPS.COM INC: Karinski Putative Class Action Underway
SUPER MICRO: Bid to Nix Consolidated NY Class Suit Pending
SUR: Faces Another Labor Class Action in California

SYNEOS HEALTH: Vaitkuviene Class Action Remain Stayed
TACTILE SYSTEMS: Glancy Prongay Probes for Securities Law Violation
TIVITY HEALTH: Appointment of Lead Plaintiff & Counsel Pending
TIVITY HEALTH: Weiner Class Action Ongoing in Tennessee
TOKYO BAY: Ortega Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages for Delivery Workers

TOOTSIE ROLL: Faces "Slack Fill" Class Action in California
TUFIN SOFTWARE: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 21 Bid Deadline
TUFIN SOFTWARE: Scott+Scott Reminds of Sept. 21 Motion Deadline
UBER INC: Arbitrator's Remarks Won't Wipe Out Award, Judge Rules
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA: Seyfarth Shaw Attorneys Discuss Ruling

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Must Tell Alumni About Abuse Lawsuits
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA: Class Action Seeks to Delay Classes
US OIL FUND: Bid to Dismiss Ephrati Putative Class Action Pending
US OIL FUND: Bid to Dismiss Lucas Putative Class Suit Pending
US OIL FUND: Wang Putative Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed

VALEANT PHARMA: Canadian Securities Class Action Resolved
VAXART INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action Filing
VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Sept 28 Bid Deadline
VISA INC: B&R's Motion to Certify Class Terminated

VMWARE INC: Defends Lopez-Howarth Consolidated Suit
WAITR HOLDINGS: Amended Halley Settlement Wins Final Approval
WAITR HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Welch and Bates Suits
WASHINGTON: Supreme Court Affirms Judgment Denial in Davison Suit
WATERSTONE FINANCIAL: Seeks to Vacate Award in Herrington Suit

WINNEBAGO COUNTY, IL: Protesters File Class Suit v. Judge, Sheriff
WINS FINANCE: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 23 Motion Deadline
WIRECARD AG: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Class Action
YALE UNIVERSITY: Student's Class Action Seeks Tuition Refund
ZAAPPAAZ INC: Burns Charest Alerts of Proposed Deal in Kjessler

ZILLOW GROUP: Shotwell Class Certification Bid Still Pending
ZOOM VIDEO: Continues to Defend Suits Over Alleged Data Sharing
ZOOM VIDEO: Data Privacy & Security Measures Suits Consolidated
ZUORA INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit in Cal.
ZUORA INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated IPO Related Class Suit

[*] Airlines Face Class Action as Passengers Fight for Refunds
[*] Beauty Companies Hit with False-Labeling Class Actions
[*] No Clarity Yet on Third-Party Cookies Class Action Ruling
[*] Wisconsin Sees Dramatic Increase in ERISA Class Actions

                            *********

36KR HOLDINGS: Johnson Fistel Launches Investigation Into Firm
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder Rights Law Firm Johnson Fistel, LLP, is investigating
potential claims against 36Kr Holdings Inc. ("36Kr" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: KRKR) for violations of federal securities
laws.

On or about November 8, 2019, 36Kr sold about 1.4 million shares of
stock in its initial public stock offering (the "IPO"), at $14.50 a
share raising nearly $20.5 million in new capital. However, since
the IPO, 36Kr stock has plunged, on August 21, 2020, the stock
closed at $3.61.

Specifically, Johnson Fistel's investigation seeks to determine
whether the Company's filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with its November 2019 IPO and subsequent
investor communications contained untrue statements of material
facts or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made therein not misleading concerning the Company's
business, and operations.

If you have information that could assist in this investigation, or
if you are a 36Kr shareholder and are interested in learning more
about the investigation, please contact Jim Baker
(jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471. If emailing, please
include a phone number.

                           About Johnson Fistel

Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits.

         Jim Baker
         Johnson Fistel, LLP
         Tel: 619-814-4471
         E-mail: jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN]

ABM ELECTRICAL: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego employment law attorneys, at Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed a class action complaint alleging that
ABM Electrical & Lighting Solutions, Inc. failed to provide their
California employees with meal and rest periods as required by
California law. The ABM Electrical & Lighting Solutions, Inc.,
class action lawsuit, Case No. 37-2020-00024997-CU-OE-CTL, is
currently pending in the San Diego Superior Court of the State of
California.

The complaint alleges ABM Electrical & Lighting Solutions, Inc.
committed acts of unfair competition in violation of the California
Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Secs. 17200, et seq.
(the "UCL"), by engaging in a company-wide policy and procedure
which failed to accurately calculate and record all missed meal and
rest periods by PLAINTIFFS and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members. As a
result of DEFENDANT's intentional disregard of the obligation to
meet this burden, DEFENDANT allegedly failed to properly calculate
and/or pay all required compensation for work performed by the
members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS and violated the California Labor
Code.

Additionally, DEFENDANT allegedly "failed to maintain adequate
staffing levels while increasing the production levels for each
employee." This resulted in employees forfeiting meal breaks
without additional compensation. The lawsuit also alleges these
employees were required to work off the clock without being payed
for all the time they were under DEFENDANT's control.

If you would like to know more about the ABM Electrical & Lighting
Solutions, Inc. lawsuit, please contact Attorney Nicholas J. De
Blouw today by calling (800) 568-8020.

Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP is an employment law
firm with offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento,
Los Angeles, Riverside and Chicago that dedicates its practice to
helping employees, investors and consumers fight back against
unfair business practices, including violations of the California
Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act. If you need help in
collecting unpaid overtime wages, unpaid commissions, being
wrongfully terminated from work, and other employment law claims,
contact one of their attorneys today. [GN]


ACETO CORP: Stock Drop Class Action Dismissed
---------------------------------------------
Porter Wells, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Aceto Corp.
executives convinced a federal judge on Aug. 3 to again dismiss a
proposed class action alleging the pharmaceutical company misled
investors about unfulfilled orders ahead of a 66% stock drop in
February 2019.

Investors alleged the company should have been more upfront about
the problems it was having with its India-based supplier,
Aurobindo, before filing the Chapter 11 bankruptcy paperwork that
led the price of Aceto's common stock to tumble.

But Aceto made several disclosures as early as November 2017 about
"supply challenges" which were "all on the manufacturing side,"
Judge Edward R. Korman said. [GN]


ACRE MORTGAGE: Court Certifies Class in James Suit Over Kickbacks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RENITA JAMES, Plaintiff, v. ACRE MORTGAGE & FINANCIAL,
INC., Defendant, Civil Case No. SAG-17-1734 (D. Md.), Judge
Stephanie A. Gallagher of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Maryland granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.

Renita James, on behalf of herself and the entire class of persons
similarly situated, filed a Class Action Complaint against
Defendant Acre on June 23, 2017.  The Plaintiff and the proposed
class members seek damages, pursuant to the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act ("RESPA") for Acre's alleged role in an illegal
kickback scheme, under which Acre received kickbacks in exchange
for referring mortgage loan borrowers to Genuine Title, LLC.

Acre, a corporation based in New Jersey, is a mortgage lender
licensed to do business in the State of Maryland, and elsewhere.
Genuine Title was a title service company licensed, and based, in
the State of Maryland.  The Plaintiff alleges that from 2009
through 2014, Acre brokers referred approximately 148 loans
(including the Plaintiff's) to Genuine Title for settlement
services, pursuant to an illegal kickback scheme.

In general terms, the Plaintiff alleges that Genuine Title would
provide Acre loan brokers with one of three forms of kickbacks, in
exchange for referrals: (1) cash payments ("Referral Cash"); (2)
free marketing materials ("Marketing Materials"); or (3) credits
for future marketing services ("Marketing Credits").  As a result
of the scheme, the Plaintiff and the class members were deprived of
kickback-free settlement services and impartial and fair
competition, as RESPA requires, and paid more for their settlement
services than they otherwise would have.

The Plaintiff now seeks certification of the following class of
individuals who allegedly suffered harm under RESPA, as a result of
the alleged kickback scheme Acre engaged in with Genuine Title:
All individuals in the United States who were borrowers on a
federally related mortgage loan (as defined under the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act) from Acre Mortgage & Financial, Inc.,
for which Genuine Title provided a settlement service, as
identified in Section 1100 on the HUD-1, between Jan. 1, 2009, and
Dec. 31, 2014.

The Plaintiff must show that her proposed class meets each Civil
Rule of Federal Procedure 23(a) prerequisite, as well as one of the
conditions for certification set forth in Rule 23(b).  Judge
Gallagher turns to an analysis of each, except for the Rule
23(a)(1) numerosity requirement, because during the hearing, the
counsel for Acre conceded that this requirement was met.

Judge Gallagher finds that (i) the Plaintiff has shown that her
class is readily identifiable; (ii) a number of common questions of
fact and law unite the Plaintiff's class and the common questions
will predominate those individual ones; (iii) the Plaintiff's claim
is typical because the Plaintiff suffered the same injury, under
the same alleged scheme, as all other class members; (iv) the
Plaintiff is an adequate class representative; and that (v) given
that common legal and factual issues abound, the Judge is convinced
that there will be little difficulty in managing the class action
moving forward.

Accordingly, Judge Gallagher granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 2, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://is.gd/UB5FBv from Leagle.com.


ADTRAN INC: Bid to Dismiss Burbridge Putative Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
ADTRAN, 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 filed in the purported stockholder
class action lawsuit, captioned Burbridge v. ADTRAN, Inc. et al.,
Docket No. 19-cv-09619, is pending.

On October 17, 2019, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit,
captioned Burbridge v. ADTRAN, Inc. et al., Docket No. 19-cv-09619,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company, two of its current
executive officers and one of its former executive officers.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws and
seeks unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of purported
purchasers of ADTRAN securities between February 28, 2019 and
October 9, 2019.

The lawsuit claims that the defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding, and/or failed to disclose material
adverse facts about, the Company's business, operations and
prospects, specifically relating to the Company's internal control
over financial reporting, excess and obsolete inventory reserves,
financial results and demand from certain customers.

The lawsuit was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama on January 7, 2020, and co-lead
plaintiffs have been appointed to represent the putative class.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 30, 2020.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
June 17, 2020. The plaintiffs filed an opposition brief to the
defendants' motion to dismiss on July 17, 2020. The defendants
intend to file a reply to the plaintiffs' brief on August 17, 2020.


ADTRAN said, 'We deny the allegations in the complaint, as amended,
and intend to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. At this time,
we are unable to predict the outcome of or estimate the possible
loss or range of loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit."

ADTRAN, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, markets, and services
a variety of high-speed digital transmission products. The
Company's products are used by telephone companies and corporate
end-users to implement advanced digital data services over existing
telephone networks. ADTRAN also offers a line of multiplexers which
provides modular flexibility. The company is based in Huntsville,
Alabama.


AIRBUS SE: Howard G. Smith Alerts of Class Action Filing
--------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that class action
lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of Airbus SE.
Investors have until the deadlines listed below to file a lead
plaintiff motion.

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

Airbus SE (OTC: EADSY, EADSF)
Class Period: February 24, 2016 - July 30, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 5, 2020

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Airbus's policies and protocols were
insufficient to ensure the Company's compliance with relevant
anti-corruption laws and regulations; (2) that, consequently,
Airbus engaged in bribery, corruption, and fraud in order to
enhance its business with respect to its commercial aircraft,
helicopter, and defense deals; (3) that, as a result, Airbus's
earnings were derived in part from unlawful conduct and therefore
unsustainable; (4) the full scope and severity of Airbus's
misconduct; (5) that resolution of government investigations of
Airbus would foreseeably cost Airbus billions of dollars in
settlements and legal fees and subject the Company to significant
continuing government investigation and oversight; and (6) that, as
a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

To be a member of these class actions, you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish
to learn more about these class actions, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith,
Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike,
Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215)
638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.

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

         Howard G. Smith, Esquire
         Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
         Tel No: 215-638-4847
         E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com [GN]


ALPHA AND OMEGA: Gray Putative Class Action Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------
Alpha and Omega Semiconductor Limited 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 the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit initiated by Darryl Gray.

On March 19, 2020, Darryl Gray, a stockholder of the Company, filed
a putative class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York  alleging that the
Company and its management members made material misstatements or
omissions regarding the Company's business and operations,
including its export control practices relating to business
transactions with Huawei and its affiliate.

The Gray Action asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer, as well as claims under Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act against the Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer.

Among other remedies, the Gray Action seeks to recover
compensatory and other damages as well as attorney's fees and
costs.

On May 18, 2020, Plaintiff moved for an order appointing him as
Lead Plaintiff pursuant to Section 21D of the Exchange Act and
approving Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as Lead Counsel for the
putative class (the Motion).

On July 1, 2020, the Court entered an order granting the Motion and
requiring that: (i) Lead Plaintiff file an amended complaint or
designate the current complaint as operative within sixty days;
(ii) Defendants answer the complaint or otherwise move within sixty
days of such filing or designation; (iii) Lead Plaintiff file an
opposition, if any, within 45 days; and (iv) Defendants file a
reply, if any, forty-five days thereafter.

On August 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting
the same claims against the Defendants, and adding the Company's
Executive Vice President of Product Line as a defendant on both
claims.

The Company believes the claims in the Gray Action are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend this litigation.

Alpha and Omega Semiconductor Limited designs and manufactures
semiconductors. The Company produces analog switches, power
integrated circuits, transient voltage suppressors for notebook
computers, battery pack protection, liquid crystal display
backlight inverters, and high speed USB. Alpha and Omega
Semiconductor serves clients worldwide.


AMCOR PLC: Dixon and Stein Suit Consolidated
--------------------------------------------
Amcor plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March
31, 2020, that the cases, Dixon, et al. v. Bemis Company, Inc. et
al. and Stein v. Bemis Company, Inc. et al., have been
consolidated.

Amcor plc is a holding company originally incorporated under the
name Arctic Jersey Limited as a limited company under the Laws of
the Bailiwick of Jersey in July 2018, in order to effect the
Company's combination with Bemis Company, Inc. On October 10, 2018,
Arctic Jersey Limited was renamed "Amcor plc" and became a public
limited company incorporated under the Laws of the Bailiwick of
Jersey.

On June 11, 2019, the company completed the acquisition of Bemis
Company, Inc. ("Bemis"), a global manufacturer of flexible
packaging products, pursuant to the definitive merger agreement
(the "Agreement") between Amcor Limited and Bemis dated August 6,
2018.

Two lawsuits brought by purported holders of Bemis stock against
Bemis and Bemis directors and officers are pending in federal court
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
in which plaintiffs are seeking damages for alleged violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission rules and regulations.

Plaintiffs allege a failure to disclose adequately information in
the proxy statement issued in connection with the Amcor-Bemis
merger.

Dixon, et al. v. Bemis Company, Inc. et al. and Stein v. Bemis
Company, Inc. et al., were instituted on April 15, 2019 and April
17, 2019, respectively.

On March 10, 2020 the federal court in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York consolidated the two pending
cases into a single class action.


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Levi & Korsinsky Alerts of Class Action Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of American Electric Power
Company, 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.

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

AEP Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased November 2, 2016
- July 24, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline : October 19, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/american-electric-power-company-inc-information-request-form?prid=8865&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, American
Electric Power Company, Inc. made materially 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 ("HB6"), 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' 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 brought by HB6; (9) as opposed to
the its repeated public statements regarding a move to clean
energy, the Company 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.

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. [GN]


AMERICAN FINANCE: Dismissal of St. Clair-Hibbard Suit Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------
American Finance Trust, 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 the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed the lower court's
dismissal of the complaint initiated by Carolyn St. Clair-Hibbard.

On February 8, 2018, Carolyn St. Clair-Hibbard, a purported
stockholder of the Company, filed a putative class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company, AR Global, the Advisor, and both
individuals who previously served as the Company's chief executive
officer and chair of the board of directors (the "Former
Chairmen").

On February 23, 2018, the complaint was amended to, among other
things, assert some claims on the plaintiff's own behalf and other
claims on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
shareholders of the Company as a class. On April 26, 2018,
defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

On May 25, 2018, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. The
second amended complaint alleges that the proxy materials used to
solicit stockholder approval of the Merger at the Company's 2017
annual meeting were materially incomplete and misleading.

The complaint asserts violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange
Act against the Company, as well as control person liability
against the Advisor, AR Global, and the Former Chairmen under
20(a). It also asserts state law claims for breach of fiduciary
duty against the Advisor, and claims for aiding and abetting such
breaches, of fiduciary duty against the Advisor, AR Global and the
Former Chairmen. The complaint seeks unspecified damages,
rescission of the Company's advisory agreement (or severable
portions thereof) which became effective when the Merger became
effective, and a declaratory judgment that certain provisions of
the Company's advisory agreement are void.

The Company believes the second amended complaint is without merit
and intends to defend vigorously. On June 22, 2018, defendants
moved to dismiss the second amended complaint.

On August 1, 2018, plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants'
motions to dismiss. Defendants filed reply papers on August 22,
2018, and oral argument was held on September 26, 2018. On
September 23, 2019, the Court granted defendants' motions and
dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

The plaintiff has appealed that order. Appellate briefing is
complete and oral argument took place on April 23, 2020.

On May 5, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the complaint.

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

American Finance Trust, Inc. is a publicly traded real estate
investment trust listed on the Nasdaq focused on acquiring and
managing a diversified portfolio of primarily service-oriented and
traditional retail and distribution related commercial real estate
properties in the U.S. The company is based in New York, New York.


AMERICAN FINANCE: NY Consolidated Class Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
American Finance Trust, 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' motion to file an
amended class action complaint is scheduled to be fully briefed in
early September 2020.

On October 26, 2018, Terry Hibbard, a purported stockholder of the
Company, filed a putative class action complaint in New York State
Supreme Court, New York County, against the Company, AR Global, the
Advisor, Nicholas S. Schorsch and William M. Kahane (the Former
Chairmen), the Company's chief financial officer at the time of the
Merger and each of the Company's directors immediately prior to the
Merger.

All of the directors immediately prior to the Merger, except for
David Gong, currently serve as directors of the Company.

The complaint alleges that the registration statement pursuant to
which RCA shareholders acquired shares of the Company during the
Merger contained materially incomplete and misleading information.


The complaint asserts violations of Section 11 of the Securities
Act against the Company's chief financial officer at the time of
the Merger and each of the Company's directors immediately prior to
the Merger, violations of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act
against the Company and the Company’s current chief executive
officer, president and chair of the board of directors, and control
person liability against the Advisor, AR Global and the Former
Chairmen, under Section 15 of the Securities Act.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and rescission of the
Company's sale of stock pursuant to the registration statement.

The Company believes the complaint is without merit and intends to
defend vigorously.

Due to the early stage of the litigation, no estimate of a probable
loss or any reasonably possible losses are determinable at this
time.

On March 6, 2019, Susan Bracken, Michael P. Miller and Jamie
Beckett, purported stockholders of the Company, filed a putative
class action complaint in New York State Supreme Court, New York
County, on behalf of themselves and others who purchased shares of
common stock through the Company's then effective distribution
reinvestment plan, against the Company, AR Global, the Advisor, the
Former Chairmen, the Company's chief financial officer at the time
of the Merger and each of the Company's directors immediately prior
to the Merger.

The complaint alleges that the April and December 2016 registration
statements pursuant to which class members purchased shares
contained materially incomplete and misleading information. The
complaint asserts violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act
against the Company, the Company's chief financial officer at the
time of the Merger and each of the Company's directors immediately
prior to the Merger, violations of Section 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act against the Company and the Company's current chief
executive officer, president and chair of the board of directors,
and control person liability against the Advisor, AR Global and the
Former Chairmen under Section 15 of the Securities Act.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and either rescission of
the Company's sale of stock or rescissory damages. The Company
believes the complaint is without merit and intends to defend
vigorously. Due to the early stage of the litigation, no estimate
of a probable loss or any reasonably possible losses are
determinable at this time.

On April 30, 2019, Lynda Callaway, a purported stockholder of the
Company, filed a putative class action complaint in New York State
Supreme Court, New York County, against the Company, AR Global, the
Advisor, the Former Chairmen, the Company's chief financial officer
at the time of the Merger and each of the Company's directors
immediately prior to the Merger.

The complaint alleges that the registration statement pursuant to
which plaintiff and other class members acquired shares of the
Company during the Merger contained materially incomplete and
misleading information.

The complaint asserts violations of Section 11 of the Securities
Act against the Company, the Company's chief financial officer at
the time of the Merger and each of the Company's directors
immediately prior to the Merger, violations of Section 12(a)(2) of
the Securities Act against the Company and the Company's current
chief executive office, president and chair of the board of
directors, and control person liability under Section 15 of the
Securities Act against the Advisor, AR Global, and the Former
Chairmen.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and rescission of the
Company's sale of stock pursuant to the registration statement. Due
to the early stage of the litigation, no estimate of a probable
loss or any reasonably possible losses are determinable at this
time.

On July 11, 2019, the New York State Supreme Court issued an order
consolidating the three above-mentioned cases: Terry Hibbard,
Bracken, and Callaway (the "Consolidated Cases").

The Court also stayed the Consolidated Cases pending a decision on
the motions to dismiss in the St. Clair-Hibbard litigation pending
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

Following the federal court's decision on the motions to dismiss in
the St. Clair-Hibbard litigation, on October 31, 2019 plaintiffs
filed an amended consolidated class action complaint in the
Consolidated Cases seeking substantially similar remedies from the
same defendants. The Company moved to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint on December 16, 2019.

After the parties completed briefing on this motion, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its decision
affirming dismissal of the federal St. Clair-Hibbard action.

Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint, purportedly to limit it
to claims still viable in spite of the results of the federal
action. The proposed second amended complaint no longer contains
direct claims against the Company.

Instead, plaintiffs seek to pursue state law claims derivatively
against the Advisor, AR Global, the Company's initial chief
executive officer and chair of the board of directors, the
Company's current directors and David Gong, a former director, with
the Company as a nominal defendant.

The parties are briefing the plaintiffs' motion to amend, which is
scheduled to be fully briefed in early September 2020.

There are no other material legal or regulatory proceedings pending
or known to be contemplated against the Company.

American Finance Trust, Inc. is a publicly traded real estate
investment trust listed on the Nasdaq focused on acquiring and
managing a diversified portfolio of primarily service-oriented and
traditional retail and distribution related commercial real estate
properties in the U.S. The company is based in New York, New York.


AMERICAN FINANCE: Securities Suit in Maryland Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
American Finance Trust, 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 in Maryland.

On January 13, 2017, four affiliated stockholders of American
Realty Capital - Retail Centers of America, Inc. ("RCA") filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Maryland a
putative class action lawsuit against RCA, the Company, Edward M.
Weil, Jr., Leslie D. Michelson, Edward G. Rendell (Weil, Michelson
and Rendell, the "Director Defendants"), and AR Global, alleging
violations of Sections 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") by RCA and the Director Defendants, violations
of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by AR Global and the Director
Defendants, breaches of fiduciary duty by the Director Defendants,
and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty by AR Global and
the Company in connection with the negotiation of and proxy
solicitation for a shareholder vote on what was at the time the
proposed merger with RCA (the "Merger") and an amendment to RCA's
charter.

On March 11, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court
dismissing the complaint.

On March 25, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a Petition for Rehearing
and Rehearing En Banc, which was subsequently denied on April 9,
2019.

Due to the stage of the litigation, no estimate of a probable loss
or any reasonable possible losses are determinable at this time. No
provisions for such losses have been recorded in the accompanying
consolidated financial statements for the six months ended June 30,
2020 or 2019.

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

American Finance Trust, Inc. is a publicly traded real estate
investment trust listed on the Nasdaq focused on acquiring and
managing a diversified portfolio of primarily service-oriented and
traditional retail and distribution related commercial real estate
properties in the U.S. The company is based in New York, New York.

AMERICAN INSURANCE: Faces Emery Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHAYNE EMERY v. AMERICAN INSURANCE ORGANIZATION LLC, Case No.
3:20-cv-03225-SEM-TSH (C.D. Ill., Aug. 31, 2020), is brought by the
Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
against the Defendant for its alleged negligent and willful
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff received at least 17
unsolicited telemarketing calls to his cellular telephone number
between January and March 2017 from the Defendant's telephone
number 217-600-2044 in an attempt to promote or sell its products
or services even without Plaintiff's prior express invitation or
permission to receive these solicitation telemarketing calls.
Additionally, the Plaintiff's residential cellular telephone number
ending in -2220 was registered with the National Do Not Call
Registry on February 27, 2010.

The Plaintiff contends that he has suffered concrete and
particularized injuries and harm because of the Defendant's
unsolicited telemarketing calls.

American Insurance Organization LLC provides health and life
insurance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David B. Levin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 103
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Tel: (224) 218-0882
          Fax: (866) 633-0228
          Email: dlevin@toddflaw.com


AMNEAL PHARMA: Continues to Defend Eaton Putative Class 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 company continues to defend a
proposed class action suit entitled, Kathryn Eaton v. Teva Canada
Limited, et al., No. T-607-20.

On June 3, 2020, the Company and Impax were named in a proposed
class action complaint filed in the Federal Court of Canada in
Toronto, Ontario against numerous generic pharmaceutical
manufacturers on behalf of a putative class of individuals who have
purchased generic drugs in the private sector from 2012 to present
(Kathryn Eaton v. Teva Canada Limited, et al., No. T-607-20).

Plaintiff alleges a conspiracy in Canada among generic
pharmaceutical manufacturers to fix prices and allocate or divide
customers or markets for various products (including, with respect
to the Company, bethanechol chloride tablets, norethindrone acetate
tablets, ranitidine HCL tablets, and warfarin sodium tablets; and
with respect to Impax, digoxin and lidocaine-prilocaine) in
violation of Canada’s Competition Act.

Plaintiff seeks, among other things, $2.75 billion in monetary
damages or compensation, pre- and post-judgment interest, and
costs.

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: Metformin Marketing & Sales Practices 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 company continues to defend a
consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In Re Metformin
Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation (No.
2:20-cv-02324-MCA-MAH).

The Company, Amneal, and AvKARE, Inc. have been named as
defendants, along with numerous other manufacturers, retail
pharmacies, and wholesalers, in several putative class action
lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey ("D.N.J."), filed on behalf of consumers who
purchased and third-party payors who paid or made reimbursements
for prescription generic metformin products manufactured by or for
defendants, alleging that defendants made and sold to putative
class members metformin products that were "adulterated" or
"contaminated" with N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) and thus
"worthless," and therefore that plaintiffs suffered economic losses
in connection with their purchases or reimbursements.

On June 3, 2020, the D.N.J. consolidated the lawsuits, as In Re
Metformin Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation (No.
2:20-cv-02324-MCA-MAH). On July 6, 2020, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated economic loss class action complaint, in which they
seek, in addition to class certification, among other things,
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, statutory penalties,
and equitable relief. Responsive pleadings are not yet due.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the
claims asserted with respect to this matter. 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.


AMNEAL PHARMA: Rhodes Class Action Proceedings Remains Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
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 all activity in the class action
suit entitled, Rhodes, et al., v. Rhodes Technologies, Inc., et
al., No. 3:19-cv-00885, had been stayed by order of the
multi-district litigation court.

In October 2019, the Company, Amneal, Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New
York, LLC, and Impax were served with a putative class action
complaint, which also names as defendants numerous manufacturers of
opioid products (and certain corporate officers thereof), filed in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee by several individuals who allegedly purchased
prescription opioid medication in cash and/or with an insurance
co-payment (Rhodes, et al., v. Rhodes Technologies, Inc., et al.,
No. 3:19-cv-885).

Plaintiffs claim that they would not have purchased these
prescription opioid products had defendants not allegedly
misrepresented the products' "addiction propensities," and thereby
suffered economic loss.

Plaintiffs purport to represent a nationwide class of all
individuals who directly or indirectly purchased prescription
opioid medication from January 2008 to the present in 31 different
states, allege causes of action for violations of those states’
antitrust laws and consumer protection statutes (and unjust
enrichment), and seek, in addition to class certification,
unspecified monetary damages (including actual, statutory, and
punitive or treble damages) and equitable relief, including
declaratory judgment and restitution.

On February 13, 2020, this case was transferred to the MDL. All
activity in the case is stayed by order of the MDL court.

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

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: Bragar Eagel Alerts 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 Anaplan, Inc. (NYSE: PLAN).
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.

Anaplan, Inc. (NYSE: PLAN)

Class Period: November 21, 2019 to February 26, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 23, 2020

On February 27, 2020, the Company announced that, although it
slightly exceeded revenue guidance for the quarter ($98.2mm versus
$97.5mm estimate), which grew at rate of 42% year-over-year, its
calculated billings for the fourth quarter fell far short of
expectations. Specifically, billings were only $126 million,
representing a growth rate of 25%, which was well below consensus
estimates of $138 million, and roughly half of the Company's
historical growth rates of 46% to 59%, and far less than the
Company's rate of revenue growth of over 40%.

In response to this shocking disclosure, that was in stark contrast
to the management's previous statement that the calculated billings
growth rate would track the revenue growth rate, Anaplan's stock
price plummeted 25% in a single day, falling from $58.09 to $44.03,
wiping out almost $2 billion in market capitalization. Financial
news source Barron's attributed the stock price decline to the
slowing billings growth with an article titled "Anaplan stock
plunges on concerns about slowing billings growth."

The complaint, filed on August 24, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants 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.

                  About Bragar Eagel & Squire

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.  Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.  [GN]


ANAPLAN INC: Glancy Prongay Alerts of Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investors rights
law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased Anaplan Inc. ("Anaplan" or the
"Company") (NYSE: PLAN) common stock between November 21, 2019 and
February 26, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Anaplan
investors have until October 23, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff
motion.

If you suffered a loss on your Anaplan investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/anaplan-inc/. You
can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.

On February 27, 2020, Anaplan reported billings of $126 million for
fourth quarter 2019, representing a growth rate of 25%, which was
well below consensus estimates and roughly half of the Company's
historical growth rates of 46% to 59%. The Company attributed the
shortfall to the inability to close some large deals at the end of
the quarter due to certain "management changes."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $14.06 per share, or
25%, to close at $44.03 per share on February 27, 2020, thereby
injuring investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company was undergoing sales organization
and execution challenges; (2) that these organizational challenges
were causing the Company to miss on closing very important large
deals; and (3) that, as a result, Anaplan's financial guidance for
"calculated billings growth" was baseless and unattainable.

If you purchased Anaplan common stock during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than October 23, 2020 to ask the Court
to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Charles
Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los
Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased. [GN]


ANAPLAN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Alerts of Class Action Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Aug. 30 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of shareholders of Anaplan
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.

Anaplan Inc. (NYSE:PLAN)

PLAN Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased November 21,
2019 - February 26, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 23, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/anaplan-inc-information-request-form?prid=8922&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Anaplan
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose 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.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
https://www.zlk.com [GN]


ANCESTRY.COM: Faces Class Action Over Automatic Membership Renewal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa B. Dubrow, Esq., writing for Subscription Insider, reports
that a class-action lawsuit was filed against Ancestry.com.
Ancestry is accused of violating California law by automatically
renewing memberships without consumers' clear permission. [GN]



APPLE INC: $9.75MM Deal in Powerbeats2 Class Action Gets Prelim. OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Apple has settled a class action lawsuit claiming the company's
Powerbeats2 wireless earphones contain a design defect that causes
the device to stop retaining a charge.

The initial complaint, filed in the Superior Court of California by
plaintiffs Latanya Simmons and Kevin Tobin on behalf of a wider
class of device owners in 2017, focused on both Powerbeats2 and
Powerbeats3 hardware. Allegations centered around advertised
product robustness, waterproofness and battery life claims, all of
which were claimed to be false.

Plaintiffs alleged that, during the course of ownership, the
product failed to charge or turn on "after a short amount of time."
The suit claimed breach of express warranty, breach of the
Song-Beverly Act, violation of the California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, violation of the Unfair Competition Law, unjust
enrichment, common law fraud and negligence.

Apple denied the allegations and no judgment was made in the case.

Parties reached a settlement agreement in January. A preliminary
approval order detailing specifics of the settlement, including
Apple's $9.75 million payout, was signed on Aug. 7.

A related class action lawsuit filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California asserted identical
grievances and was allowed to proceed in 2018. That case was
dismissed in April following word of Apple's settlement in superior
court.

Lawyers for plaintiffs began to notify potential class members of
the settlement via email, reports MacRumors. According to a
dedicated informational webpage, customers are eligible for
benefits if they purchased Powerbeats2 prior to the Aug. 7 order.
Potential claimants have until Nov. 20, 2020, to submit a claim,
file an exclusion from the settlement or enter an objection.

The settlement amount will be meted out on a points system.
Authorized claimants with no proof of purchase and record of repair
receive one point, while those with a valid proof of purchase or
warranty repair receive two points. The net settlement will then be
divided by total points claimed, with individual awards calculated
from that amount.

Claimants are eligible for a maximum payout of $189 multiplied by
the number of the number of valid proofs of purchase. Class counsel
estimates the point multiplier will be about $38, meaning claimants
without proof of purchase will receive $38, while those with proof
of purchase or warranty repair net $76.

Attorneys' fees of $3,250,000, administrative costs estimated to
fall between $516,000 and $552,600, service awards to class
representatives of $1,000, and unspecified costs are to be deducted
from the $9.75 million settlement prior to distribution.

A final fairness hearing is scheduled for Jan. 21, 2021 [GN]


ASCENA RETAIL: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ascena Retail Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended May 2, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the complaint in the
consolidated securities class action suit entitled, In re Ascena
Retail Group, Inc. Sec. Litig., is pending.

On June 7, 2019, plaintiff James Newman commenced a federal
securities class action in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, naming Ascena Retail Group, Inc. and
certain of ascena's current and former officers and directors as
defendants.

The Newman complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 related to
the Company's goodwill impairment accounting and statements
regarding the success of the 2015 purchase of ANN and the overall
performance and expected growth of the ANN brands.

Plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of a proposed class of purchasers
of ascena securities between September 16, 2015 and June 8, 2017
(the proposed "Class Period").

On July 2, 2019, a second lawsuit was filed by Michaella
Corporation. The Michaella complaint is substantially similar to
the Newman complaint. Both the Michaella complaint and the Newman
complaint name the same defendants, allege the same proposed Class
Period, and challenge the same categories of public statements
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5.

On August 6, 2019, two potential lead plaintiffs (Joel Patterson
and Michaella Corporation) filed motions for appointment as lead
plaintiff in the Newman and Michaella actions, and to consolidate
both actions.

On August 23, 2019, the Court consolidated the two actions as In re
Ascena Retail Group, Inc. Sec. Litig. and appointed Patterson and
Michaella Corporation as joint lead-plaintiffs ("Lead Plaintiffs").


The Lead Plaintiffs' filed an amended complaint on November 21,
2019, which shortened the class period. Defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint on February 7, 2020.

The motion has now been fully briefed.

Defendants believe they have strong defenses to these claims. The
range of loss, if any, is not reasonably estimable at this time.

Headquartered in Mahwah, New Jersey, Ascena Retail Group, Inc.
operates close to 2,900 women's specialty retail stores throughout
the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico under the brands LOFT,
Ann Taylor, Justice, Lane Bryant, and Catherines (pro-forma for the
exit of maurices and dressbarn). Pro-forma revenue for the last
twelve months ending May 4, 2019 was approximately $4.8 billion.


ASSURANT INC: Suits Over Lender-Placed Insurance Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Assurant, 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 lawsuits
related to lender-placed insurance programs.

The Company is a defendant in class actions in a number of
jurisdictions regarding its Lender-placed Insurance programs. These
cases assert a variety of claims under a number of legal theories.


The plaintiffs typically seek premium refunds and other relief.

The Company continues to defend itself vigorously in these class
actions.

The Company has participated and may participate in settlements on
terms that the Company considers reasonable.

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

Assurant, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides risk management
solutions for housing and lifestyle markets in North America, Latin
America, Europe, and the Asia Pacific. The company operates through
three segments: Global Housing, Global Lifestyle, and Global
Preneed. The company was formerly known as Fortis, Inc. and changed
its name to Assurant, Inc. in February 2004. Assurant, Inc. was
founded in 1892 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


AURORA, CO: Police Faces Class Action Over Use of Excessive Force
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Quincy Snowdon, writing for Sentinel Colorado, reports that the
president of the Aurora Police Department's primary bargaining
union has said he is exploring possible criminal charges against
the organizer of a protest at the Aurora municipal complex.

Police Sgt. Marc Sears said he is looking into elements of
Colorado's terroristic threats law to possibly levy such charges
against Candice Bailey, a co-founder of the Frontline Party for
Revolutionary Action who helped organize the demonstration calling
for justice for Elijah McClain on July 25. Bailey also sits on the
city's nascent police reform task force.

"I would like to pursue it immediately," Sears said.

The president of the local Fraternal Order of Police chapter said
he was concerned with comments Bailey made in front of Aurora
police headquarters earlier in the day. The comments were captured
on video and shared via Twitter.

"Ya'll we got some work to do," Bailey can be heard telling an
applauding crowd. "They might put up a fence. That fence don't mean
s***. It doesn't mean we're not showing up… you just held
yourself inside the house. Eventually it's going to burn down with
your ass in it. Now let's go take this motherf***** over again."

Two people were shot as the protest wove onto Interstate 225, and
dozens of windows were later broken on the municipal courthouse
after organizers left and night fell. A small group of people clad
in quasi-tactical gear eventually upended a metal fence that was
installed in front of the police station earlier this month.

Fireworks were also launched into the building, at one point
igniting several items inside a courthouse office.

No arrests were made the day of the event, though the man suspected
of firing a revolver into the crowd has since been charged with
multiple counts of attempted murder.

Citing an ongoing investigation, a spokesperson for the Aurora
Police Department declined to comment on any forthcoming charges
against Bailey, but said any legal violations will be probed.

"Any criminal violation observed at the July 25th demonstration
will be pursued for prosecution," Officer Crystal McCoy wrote in an
email.

Police are also investigating the events surrounding a blue Jeep
that tore through a group of protesters on Interstate 225 earlier
in the day. No charges have yet been recommended against the
driver.

Bailey challenged Sears' announcement.

"If he wants to go there, we can go there," she told The Sentinel
on July 31. "I haven't done anything, and I haven't incited any
violence. Every single thing I have done is peaceful. I have worked
with the city and the police department on this to keep the
agitators away."

Bailey left the protest with other organizers from the Party for
Social and Liberation before municipal buildings were damaged. She
has repeatedly upbraided the smaller group of people who amassed in
front of the police station later in the evening, goaded police and
damaged city structures.

"I and the Frontline Party for Revolutionary Action do not condone
violence and never once have we ever torn a single thing up,"
Bailey said. "But these leeches -- I call them the night crew --
come in and attach themselves to us like wet toilet paper, and we
get called for it. And now this man Marc Sears is threatening
charges against me. I take that very seriously."

Sears excoriated the city's relationship with Bailey, who was
recently named to a new police community police task force after
Sears was prevented from joining the entity. City council members
questioned Sears' fitness for the new body, the creation of which
has been spearheaded by Councilperson Nicole Johnston, due to a DUI
conviction entered against him 11 years ago.

"I was removed from that task force, I was replaced with her, and
here she is ultimately committing a crime -- and felonious at
that," he said. " . . . To say you're going to replace the
president of the union with somebody of this nature is insane. It
makes a mockery of this task force."

The group was created in the wake of the death of McClain, who died
six days after police detained him and paramedics injected him with
ketamine in the 1900 block of Billings Street last year. He was
unarmed and never suspected of a crime.

During the creation of the task force, Johnston said she asked the
union to contribute somebody other than Sears, but that request was
declined.

The 13-member group became official in June and began meeting this
month. Aurora police Officer Virgil Majors replaced Sears as the
law enforcement presence on the board, though Majors is a
non-voting ex-officio member.

Sears also challenged the position of other members on the task
force who recently filed a class action lawsuit against the city
and Interim Police Chief Vanessa Wilson, claiming that police used
excessive force during a violin vigil held at city hall June 27.

"They're part of class action lawsuit trying to sue the city using
an absolutely erroneous complaint," he said.

One of the plaintiffs in the suit who also sits on the task force,
Lindsay Minter, rebutted Sears' claims.

"It's garbage," she said. " . . . People are going to be speaking
truth to power as long as we're waiting for justice for Elijah.
Things are going to be said."

None of the first responders who interacted with McClain the night
of Aug. 24, 2019 ever faced criminal charges related to the
23-year-old man's death. But a bevy of new investigations -- by the
FBI, Colorado Attorney General, state health department and the
city -- have been opened in recent months following renewed
international outcry. [GN]


AUSTRALIA: May Face Class Action Over Shutdown of Businesses
------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Yun, writing for Yahoo!Finance, reports that the Victorian
government is facing a potential class action expected to be to the
tune of several billion dollars brought by the businesses that have
been shut down during the state's stage four restrictions.

The class action is open to all Victorian-based businesses that
were shut down after 1 July, according to an AFR report, and
thousands are expected to take part.

The lawsuit is being launched by Damian Scattini, from Sydney-based
law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan. Scattini was formerly
with Maurice Blackburn, the firm known for successfully winning a
class action against the Queensland Government after the November
2011 floods.

The class action also names Victorian Ministers Jenny Mikakos,
Martin Pakula as well as their department secretaries.

The lead plaintiff for the case is the owner of a New York-themed
restaurant, Anthony Ferrara, who normally earns tens of thousand
dollars a week but is now only open for takeaway and making below
$10,000 a week.

"Victorian businesses don't need charity or kind thoughts from
politicians," Ferrara said.

"We need certainty and we need it soon. Our situation is not our
doing. We are calling to account those who put us in this dire
position."

Yahoo Finance has contacted Quinn Emanuel and the Victorian
Government for comment.

The class action comes as Federal Treasurer Josh Frydenberg takes
aim at Andrews for failing to outline how Victoria will emerge from
lockdown.

According to the Treasurer, there are more Aussies in Victoria that
are on JobKeeper than the entire country combined.

But Andrews was poised to make an announcement on Aug. 30 about how
the government can work with the business industry to open up, two
weeks away from when the restrictions expire. [GN]


AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP reports that on July 24, 2020, United
States District Judge Allison D. Burroughs of the District of
Massachusetts dismissed a putative securities class action against
a biopharmaceutical company (the "Company") and certain of its
executives under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.  Hackel v. Aveo
Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al., No. 1:19-cv-10783, 2020 WL 4274542 (D.
Mass. July 24, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants
misrepresented the status of clinical trials of a cancer drug
required for approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA").  The Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss because
the statements at issue were forward-looking and because plaintiffs
failed to allege falsity.

The "central focus" of the Company's strategy was developing a
cancer treatment medication called tivozanib, which was in clinical
trials.  Clinical trials for tivozanib--like other cancer treatment
drugs--measure two outcomes:  overall survival ("OS"), which
measures how long a patient lives after treatment, and
progression-free survival ("PFS"), which measures how long a
patient lives and for how long the disease stops progressing after
treatment.  When the Company announced the start of a Phase 3 trial
in May 2016, it stated that the preliminary endpoint analysis and
relevant safety data based on PFS--referred to as "topline
results"--of 255 events (or patients) were "projected" to be
available in the first quarter of 2018.  The Company subsequently
announced postponements of the topline results until the fourth
quarter of 2018, attributing the adjusted timeline to the slow pace
of PFS events.  In November 2018, the Company reported topline
results and initial OS results but noted that OS data would not be
mature until nearly a year later.  The Company said that its goal
was to submit a New Drug Application ("NDA") "in approximately six
months."  Then, on January 31, 2019, the Company announced that it
accepted the FDA's recommendation to delay filing an NDA as it
waited for "more mature OS results."  Plaintiffs alleged that
defendants misled investors about the timing of topline results and
about the preliminary OS results.

The Court held that statements about the timing of topline results
were forward-looking statements protected under the PSLRA safe
harbor.  The Court first found that the timing statements about "a
projected, or planned, timeline for future results," framed with
words such as "expect" and "anticipate" were "clearly
forward-looking."  The Court also found that the statements were
accompanied by meaningful cautionary language, including that "the
completion of enrollment and the data readout for the [Phase 3]
trial" was one of the Company's "substantial risks and
uncertainties," that the "expected timeline" for reporting the
topline results was uncertain, that clinical trial testing was
"inherently uncertain as to outcome," and that the Company could
not "guarantee that any clinical trials will be conducted as
planned or completed on schedule, if at all."  Because these
disclosures "explicitly identified the expected timeline of topline
results as uncertain," the requirements of the PSLRA safe harbor
were satisfied.

The Court next held that defendants' announcements regarding the
preliminary OS results were not misleading.  Plaintiffs alleged
that the Company's failure to disclose complete data from its OS
results -- including the number of "lost to follow-up subjects" or
patients who had to be dropped from the trial because of
eligibility or non-compliance with protocol--made the statements
misleading.  However, the Court found that the Company's statements
were clear that the OS results were incomplete, indicated how many
patients remained in active follow-up, and how many had withdrawn
consent or were lost to follow-up.  The Court further found the
Company's statement that it was actively attempting to gather
"additional data on as many of these patients as possible," "put[]
investors on notice that subjects who had withdrawn or been lost to
follow-up might still contribute data to the study." Accordingly,
plaintiffs failed to allege how knowing the exact number of lost to
follow-up subjects would be relevant to the "total mix" of
information.  The Court also rejected plaintiffs' hindsight
argument that the Company's statement in January 2019 that
additional OS results from lost to follow-up subjects had a
negative impact on results showed that the November 2018 statements
were misleading.  The Court found that statements about the impact
of the lost to follow-up subjects' OS results to the study did not
support plaintiffs' allegations that the number of lost to
follow-up subjects was material information, and in any event, that
plaintiffs could not plead fraud by hindsight by contrasting
"defendant's past optimism with less favorable actual results."
Moreover, the Company in any event warned investors that it could
not "make any predictions about what the final OS analysis for
[Phase 3] will show." [GN]


AVIVA INSURANCE: Thomson, Rogers Attorney Discusses BI Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Times reports that as the COVID-19 pandemic exposed deep
weaknesses in many of our institutions and organizations, class
action lawyers have stepped up, seeking justice for those affected
by structural failings during this time.

Stephen Birman, a partner with Thomson Rogers LLP, has been playing
a role in his firm's class action suits emerging from the pandemic.
Most of these actions are directed against particular long term
care homes that saw significant outbreaks during the pandemic.
Another, is against Aviva insurance Company of Canada over their
business interruption policy. Birman explained the strategic
approach that Thomson, Rogers is taking in both the nursing home
class actions and the breach of contract class action they are
pursuing. While each case touches on a different area of the law,
Birman says that they share some unifying threads in their
connection to the pandemic and heightened public notoriety due to
the class members' vulnerability and the important interests at
stake in each.

"While the source of these cases is the COVID pandemic, at the end
of the day, one is a negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claim,
and the other is a breach of contract claim," Birman says. "There
are other class actions that have been commenced against ticket
companies and airlines and there will likely be many others, some
of which we haven't even thought about, that will all arise from
the pandemic."

Managing the two claim areas present different challenges for
Thomson, Rogers to overcome. In the claim against Aviva, Birman and
his team are fighting on behalf of businesses that held business
interruption insurance with Aviva that the insurer refused to
honor. These coverages were intended to help businesses during the
desperate times that many find themselves. Aviva claims the
situation of a global pandemic does not qualify under the policy's
coverage which indemnifies for loss of business income as a result
of an outbreak of a contagious or infectious disease. Insurers,
Birman says, appear to be taking a blanket position of denial
against these claims. He says the courts will have to decide
whether the specific policy in question contains language that
addresses the pandemic.

Birman believes the language in the Aviva policy applies to the
present circumstances but notes that even where an insurance
contract contains ambiguous language, the Courts typically find
against the insurer as the party that drafted the language. The
Plaintiffs are hoping to advance the Aviva claim quickly because
many of the insured businesses need immediate help to continue
operating.

The long term care situation has received extensive news coverage
due to the horror stories that emerged from so many of them during
the pandemic. In these cases, Birman and his team must work around
the question of the standard of care and circumstances that were
unique to each home in respect of issues such as design, staffing,
protective equipment and infection control. One of the major
challenges will be gathering an evidentiary record because of the
closures in these facilities to protect against the spread of
COVID-19.  Thomson, Rogers continues to work to obtain evidence
from residents, family members in contact with residents, some
staff and caseworkers, and hopes to receive assistance from the
Canadian Armed Forces which has been sent into a number of these
facilities.

In both the nursing home and business interruption cases Birman
hopes there is widespread awareness of these issues so that Class
Member's are aware of their rights. Many Aviva insureds will be
unaware of their coverages especially since the insurer is tell
them that they don't have any. Birman hopes public interest in the
nursing home cases will also get more family members to contact
Thomson, Rogers. Birman says that many of these families are
grieving and a class action is the furthest thing from their minds.
However, he believes that families will come forward at the
appropriate time because their stories carry societal importance
about how we've structured our elder care in the past and how we
should take care of the elderly in the future.

Birman says pursuing these class actions has been a rewarding, if
intense, experience.

"What's interesting as a class action lawyer is one day you're
doing a certain type of work and the next day, events and
circumstances change, and all of a sudden, a certain new type of
legal situation arises," Birman says. "As a class action lawyer you
need to be quick on your feet and be able to adapt and look for
those opportunities both to learn, but also to help vulnerable and
disadvantaged groups seek appropriate recourse through a class
action." [GN]


AXON ENTERPRISE: Continues to Defend Richey Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Axon Enterprise, 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 Douglas Richey.

The company is a defendant in a consumer class action lawsuit filed
in the District of Nevada on April 9, 2019 by Douglas Richey.

The case alleges the TASER Pulse, X2 and X26P CEDs have a faulty
safety switch based on Richey's Pulse allegedly discharging inside
its neoprene case in a jacket pocket without injury.

Any such discharge was likely due to static electricity, as
disclosed in our consumer warnings.

The nationwide class allegations have been withdrawn and any
applicable class is limited to California purchasers.

Axon said, "We are vigorously defending this suit and the propriety
of any class certification."

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

Axon Enterprise, Inc. develops, manufactures, and sells conducted
electrical weapons (CEWs) worldwide. The company operates through
two segments, TASER Weapons, and Software and Sensors. Axon
Enterprise, Inc. was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in
Scottsdale, Arizona.


AXOS FINANCIAL: Appeal in Calif. Securities Class Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Axos Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a consolidated
class action suit entitled, In re BofI Holding, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case #: 3:15-cv-02324-GPC-KSC.

On October 15, 2015, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and
its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a putative
class action lawsuit styled Golden v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al,
and brought in United States District Court for the Southern
District of California.

On November 3, 2015, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and
its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a second
putative class action lawsuit styled Hazan v. BofI Holding, Inc.,
et al, and also brought in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California (the Hazan Case).

On February 1, 2016, the Golden Case and the Hazan Case were
consolidated as In re BofI Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case #: 3:15-cv-02324-GPC-KSC (the Class Action), and the Houston
Municipal Employees Pension System was appointed lead plaintiff.

The plaintiffs allege that the Company and other named defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose
wrongful conduct that was alleged in a complaint filed in
connection with a wrongful termination of employment lawsuit filed
on October 13, 2015 (the Employment Matter) and that as a result
the Company's statements regarding its internal controls, as well
as portions of its financial statements, were false and misleading.


On March 21, 2018, the Court entered a final order dismissing the
Class Action with prejudice. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a
notice of appeal and opening brief, the Company filed its answering
brief, arguments in the appeal occurred and the Court has taken the
matter under advisement and has yet to issue its ruling.

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

Axos Financial, Inc. operates as the holding company for BofI
Federal Bank that provides consumer and business banking products
in the United States. The company offers deposits products,
including consumer and business checking, demand, savings, and time
deposit accounts. Axos Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and
is based in San Diego, California.


BAUSCH HEALTH: Bid to Amend Gutierrez Complaint Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
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 motion for leave to amend the
complaint in the case, Gutierrez, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et
al., remains pending.

On June 19, 2019, plaintiffs filed a proposed class action in
California state court against Bausch Health US and Johnson &
Johnson (Gutierrez, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No.
37-2019-00025810-CU-NP-CTL), asserting claims for purported
violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False
Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law in connection with their
sale of talcum powder products that the plaintiffs allege violated
Proposition 65 and/or the California Safe Cosmetics Act.

This lawsuit was served on Bausch Health US on June 28, 2019 and
was subsequently removed to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California, where it is currently pending.


Plaintiffs seek damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive
relief, and reimbursement/restitution. The Company filed a motion
to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims, which was granted on April 27, 2020
without prejudice.

On May 28, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint and on June
19, 2020, filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint further,
which remains pending.

The Company and Bausch Health US dispute the claims against them
and intend to defend each of these lawsuits vigorously.

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: Catucci Settlement Awaits Court's Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies 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 the parties in the
Catucci action before the Quebec Superior Court are awaiting the
court's approval of their settlement.

In 2015, six putative class actions were filed and served against
the Company and certain current or former officers and directors in
Canada in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec.

The Company is also aware of two additional putative class actions
that were filed with the applicable court but which have not been
served on the Company and the factual allegations made in these
actions are substantially similar to those outlined above.

The actions generally allege violations of Canadian provincial
securities legislation on behalf of putative classes of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the Company for
periods commencing as early as January 1, 2013 and ending as late
as November 16, 2015. The alleged violations relate to the same
matters described in the U.S. Securities Litigation description
above.

Each of these putative class actions, other than the Catucci action
in the Quebec Superior Court, has been discontinued.

In the Catucci action, on August 29, 2017, the judge granted the
plaintiffs leave to proceed with their claims under the Quebec
Securities Act and authorized the class proceeding. On October 26,
2017, the plaintiffs issued their Judicial Application Originating
Class Proceedings.

After a hearing on November 11, 2019, the court approved a
settlement in the Catucci action between the class members and the
Company's auditors and the action was dismissed as against them.

On August 4, 2020, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs in Catucci, on behalf of the class, pursuant to
which it agreed to resolve the Catucci action for the amount of CAD
94,000,000 plus payment of an additional amount to cover notice and
settlement administration costs and disbursements.

As part of the settlement, the Company and the other defendants
admitted no liability as to the claims against it and deny all
allegations of wrongdoing.

The settlement agreement is subject to court approval.

If court approval is granted, the Catucci action will be dismissed
against the Company, its current and former directors and officers,
its underwriters and its insurers.

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: Continues to Defend Shower to Shower(R) Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
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 in accordance with an
indemnification agreement, Johnson & Johnson will continue to
vigorously defend Bausch in each of the remaining actions related
to Shower to Shower(R) body powder product that are not voluntarily
dismissed or subject to a grant of summary judgment.

Since 2016, the Company has been named in a number of product
liability lawsuits involving the Shower to Shower(R) body powder
product acquired in September 2012 from Johnson & Johnson; due to
dismissals, only twelve (12) of such product liability suits
currently remain pending. Potential liability (including its
attorneys' fees and costs) arising out of these remaining suits is
subject to full indemnification obligations of Johnson & Johnson
owed to the Company, and legal fees and costs will be paid by
Johnson & Johnson.

Ten of these lawsuits filed by individual plaintiffs allege that
the use of Shower to Shower(R) caused the plaintiffs to develop
ovarian cancer or mesothelioma. The allegations in these cases
include failure to warn, design defect, manufacturing defect,
negligence, gross negligence, breach of express and implied
warranties, civil conspiracy concert in action, negligent
misrepresentation, wrongful death, loss of consortium and/or
punitive damages.

The damages sought include compensatory damages, including medical
expenses, lost wages or earning capacity, loss of consortium and/or
compensation for pain and suffering, mental anguish anxiety and
discomfort, physical impairment and loss of enjoyment of life.
Plaintiffs also seek pre- and post-judgment interest, exemplary and
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.

Additionally, two proposed class actions have been filed in Canada
against the Company and various Johnson & Johnson entities (one in
the Supreme Court of British Columbia and one in the Superior Court
of Quebec), on behalf of persons who have purchased or used Johnson
& Johnson's Baby Powder or Shower to Shower(R).

The class actions allege the use of the product increases certain
health risks (British Columbia) or negligence in failing to
properly test, failing to warn of health risks, and failing to
remove the products from the market in a timely manner (Quebec).

The plaintiffs in these actions are seeking awards of general,
special, compensatory and punitive damages.

In accordance with the indemnification agreement, Johnson & Johnson
will continue to vigorously defend the Company in each of the
remaining actions that are not voluntarily dismissed or subject to
a grant of summary judgment.

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: ClaimsFiler Reminds of September 14 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:

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.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-bayer-aktiengesellschaft-american-depositary-shares-securities-litigation

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.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-firstenergy-corp-securities-litigation

If you purchased shares of the above companies 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
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit 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 ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations.

To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit www.claimsfiler.com [GN]


BELLRING BRANDS: Suit Against Premier Nutrition Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Bellring 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 Premier Nutrition Company, LLC, continues to
defend the so-called Joint Juice Litigation.

In March 2013, a complaint was filed on behalf of a putative,
nationwide class of consumers against Premier Nutrition in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California seeking
monetary damages and injunctive relief.

The case asserted that some of Premier Nutrition's advertising
claims regarding its Joint Juice(R) line of glucosamine and
chondroitin dietary supplements were false and misleading. In April
2016, the district court certified a California-only class of
consumers in this lawsuit (this lawsuit is hereinafter referred to
as the "California Federal Class Lawsuit").

In 2016 and 2017, the lead plaintiff's counsel in the California
Federal Class Lawsuit filed ten additional class action complaints
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on behalf of putative classes of consumers under the laws of
Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

These additional complaints contain factual allegations similar to
the California Federal Class Lawsuit, also seeking monetary damages
and injunctive relief.

In April 2018, the district court dismissed the California Federal
Class Lawsuit with prejudice. This dismissal was upheld on appeal
by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiff has petitioned for an en banc rehearing by the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The other ten complaints remain
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, and the court has certified individual state classes in
each of those cases.

In January 2019, the same lead counsel filed another class action
complaint against Premier Nutrition in Alameda County California
Superior Court, alleging claims similar to the above actions and
seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief on behalf of a
putative class of California consumers.

The Company continues to vigorously defend these cases.

The Company does not believe that the resolution of these cases
will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows.

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

Bellring Brands, Inc. manufactures food supplements. The Company
produces nutritional items such as protein shakes, powders, and
bars. Bellring Brands serves customers in the State of Missouri.
The company is based in St. Louis, Missouri.


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in Rickman RICO Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey issued an
Opinion granting in part and denying in part the Motions to Dismiss
filed in the case captioned GARNER RICKMAN, ZIWEN LI, GARY REISING,
JACOB BIGGINS, TOM HOFFMAN, ALEXANDER VANDAMME, SETH DAVIS, CHARLES
CHAPMAN, CHARLES ROGERS, ION NICOLESCU, WERNER ROGMANS, ERICA
OLSON, ALGREDO ARIAS, JESSE WHITE, RAZMIR AVIC, RICKEY EVANS, MARK
MESSINA, LUKAS WILDNER, MIGUEL FRAGOSO, MARK SMITH, WILLIAM
BERBAUM, KYLE KERN, ERIC STENGLEIN, CARLOS BUENDIA, TAHANI IBRAHIM,
JOHN SAVIANO, GENE QUINT, BRIAN HEMBLING, IRVING COHEN, CHRISTINE
GRIFFITH, TARRAH PEE, DARSHAN PATEL, BRIAN BECKNER, JOSHUA HU,
JEFFREY PRICE, DEAN WERNER, ERIC SANCHEZ, CHARLES CAMPBELL, ANGELA
HUGHES, JAMES TURNER, ELLIS GOLDFRIT, CHAD MACCANELLI, and SALOMON
CAMPOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE
AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT (BMW A.G.), ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, and ROBERT BOSCH
LLC, Case No. 18-4363(KM) (JBC) (D.N.J.).

The Named Plaintiffs in this case represent a putative class of car
buyers, who each allegedly own a BMW X5 or BMW 335D vehicle. On
behalf of the class, the Named Plaintiffs sued BMW of North America
("BMW USA"); Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft ("BMW AG")
(together, "BMW"); Robert Bosch GmbH; and Robert Bosch LLC
(together, "Bosch") for their alleged roles in the clean-diesel
emissions scandal. The Plaintiffs' first amended complaint ("1AC")
asserts one count under the federal Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act statute and 78 counts under the laws of
various states.

District Judge Kevin McNulty ruled that the motions to dismiss of
BMW of North America and Robert Bosch LLC are GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part.

Judge McNulty notes that the Plaintiffs' allegations of
misrepresentations, and particularly those involving omissions,
have sufficiently notified BMW and Bosch of the precise misconduct
with which they are charged: "Each Plaintiff alleges exposure to
the materially deficient messaging because each 'selected and
ultimately purchased [his or her vehicle], in part, because of the
diesel system, as represented through advertisements and
representations made by BMW,' including 'advertisements on BMW's
website and representations from the dealership touting the
efficiency, fuel economy, and power and performance of the
engine.'"

Moreover, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants designed the
defeat device to provide the perception of reduced emissions while
avoiding the cost of reduced emissions. Judge McNulty opines that
these allegations are sufficient to permit an inference fraudulent
intent, and they meet the specificity requirements of Rule 9(b) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Similar allegations have been
found in other automotive-defect cases, both within and without
this district, to satisfy Rule 9(b), citing Counts v. Gen. Motors,
LLC, 237 F.Supp.3d 572, 599 (E.D. Mich. 2017).

Therefore, the Court will not dismiss, among other things, the
Plaintiffs' state-law fraudulent-concealment claims for failure to
meet the standards of Rule 9(b). However, the Court ruled that
Count 1 of the first amended complaint (1AC) is DISMISSED.

Judge McNulty states that the dismissal is with prejudice because
it appears that further amendment would be futile. Judge McNulty
opines that the Plaintiffs have failed to allege standing to bring
a claim under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. Section 1962. Because
amendment would appear to be futile, the portion of the complaint
that purports to state a claim for RICO relief (Count 1) is
DISMISSED. Because federal-court jurisdiction is unaffected by that
dismissal, the Plaintiffs may continue to prosecute their state-law
claims (Counts 2-79).

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 25, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybsjx5dk from Leagle.com.


BRASKEM SA: Bragar Eagel Alerts of Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey on behalf of investors that purchased Braskem S.A. (NYSE:
BAK) securities between May 6, 2016 and July 8, 2020 (the "Class
Period"). Investors have until October 26, 2020 to apply to the
Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

On April 2, 2019, media sources and, later, Braskem, disclosed that
the Company had been sued by local authorities in connection with a
geological event it had purportedly caused in the state of Alagoas,
Brazil. Specifically, Braskem disclosed, in relevant part, that the
Company "ha[d] become aware, through the media, of a lawsuit filed
against it by the Public Prosecutor's Office and the Public
Defender's Office, both of the State of Alagoas." The Company also
disclosed that the lawsuits were "requesting the freezing of
amounts and assets in a total of approximately R$6.7 billion to
guarantee any potential damages owed to the general public affected
by the geological phenomenon which occurred in districts near the
rock salt extraction area in Maceio."

On this news, Braskem's American Depositary Share ("ADS") price
fell $1.60 per share over two trading days, or 5.98%, to close at
$25.14 per share on April 3, 2020.

On July 9, 2020, Braskem disclosed that authorities in northeastern
Brazil had advised the Company that the geological damage from its
salt mining operations was more widespread than initial estimates.
Specifically, among other things, 1,918 properties needed to be
evacuated because of the geological event associated with Braskem's
mining operations, and Braskem estimated that moving the residents
would cost the Company an additional R$850 million in possible
payments to those residents, with another additional R$750 million
in expenses to "definitively" shut down Braskem's salt mining
operations.

On this news, Braskem's ADS price fell $0.59 per share, or 6.20%,
to close at $8.93 per share on July 9, 2020.

The complaint, filed on August 25, 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) Braskem's
salt mining operations were unsafe and presented a significant
danger to surrounding areas, including nearly two thousand
properties; (ii) the foregoing foreseeably increased the risk that
Braskem would be subjected to remedial liabilities, including, but
not limited to, increased governmental and/or regulatory oversight
or enforcement, significant monetary and reputational damage,
and/or the permanent closure of one or more of its salt mining
operations; (iii) accordingly, earnings generated from Braskem's
salt mining operations were unsustainable; (iv) Braskem downplayed
the true scope and severity of the Company's liability with respect
to its salt mining operations; and (v) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

If you purchased Braskem securities during the Class Period and
suffered a loss, have information, would like to learn more about
these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or
your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Melissa Fortunato, Marion Passmore, or Brandon Walker by
email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or
by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.

                     About Bragar Eagel & Squire

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. [GN]

BRISTOL-MYERS: Skadden Arps Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
John H. Beisner, Esq. -- john.beisner@skadden.com -- Jessica D.
Miller, Esq. -- jessica.miller@skadden.com -- Geoffrey M. Wyatt,
Esq. -- geoffrey.wyatt@skadden.com -- Jordan M. Schwartz, Esq.,
Anthony J. Balzano, Esq., and Kent T. Hiebel, Esq., of Skadden Arps
Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that
in 2017, the Supreme Court decided Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v.
Superior Court of California (BMS), holding that a California state
court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant as
to the claims being asserted by nonresident plaintiffs in a
sprawling mass tort proceeding. 582 U.S. –––, 137 S. Ct. 1773
(2017). As Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent in that case noted,
the Supreme Court expressly left open whether the ruling would
apply to claims being asserted by members of putative nationwide
classes in federal court.

In the immediate aftermath of the decision, district courts split
somewhat evenly on this question. By one court's count, as of the
one-year anniversary of BMS, approximately nine cases had ruled
that BMS does apply to nationwide class actions, while another nine
or so cases had "gone the other way." As the courts in the former
camp explained, the general principle outlined in BMS applies just
as much to absent class members as to the mass action plaintiffs in
BMS for several reasons. For starters, federalism burdens persist
notwithstanding the federal forum and status of the litigation as a
putative class action. This is so because the forum has no
legitimate interest in a dispute between nonforum class members and
a nonforum defendant any more than it would in a dispute between
out-of-state plaintiffs and defendants. In addition, these courts
recognized that the Rules Enabling Act -- under which substantive
rights cannot be abridged by procedural rules -- also compels the
application of BMS to putative class actions pending in federal
court both as to the claims of named and unnamed class members.

The first two federal appeals courts to weigh in on this recurring
and nettlesome question issued their opinions in March 2020. The
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that BMS does
not apply to putative nationwide class actions, while the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit punted on the
issue and deemed the question premature prior to class
certification. Although the cases reached slightly different
conclusions, they both found that nonresident putative class
members are not "parties" before the court. This reasoning has
since been followed by district courts elsewhere in the United
States, signaling that the U.S. Supreme Court itself might have to
intervene and clarify once and for all whether the dictates of BMS
apply with equal force to nationwide class actions.

In Mussat v. IQVIA, Inc., the plaintiffs brought a putative class
action, alleging that the defendant violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA) by mailing unsolicited "junk faxes" to the
putative class members.4 The district court granted the defendant's
motion to strike the class definition, finding that under BMS, the
court did not have personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state
members of the proposed class. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit
reversed, holding that BMS did not extend to class actions because
nonresident putative class members are not parties to the action
for purposes of personal jurisdiction. The Mussat court
distinguished BMS on the basis that consolidation of individual
cases into a mass action is different from a federal class action
because all plaintiffs in a mass action are parties to the action,
whereas in class actions, "[n]onnamed class members . . . may be
parties for some purposes and not for others." According to the
Mussat court, in some contexts -- like diversity of citizenship
analysis or determination of proper venue -- courts do not consider
unnamed class members, and the same should obtain with the question
of personal jurisdiction.

In Molock v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., a putative class of
current and former Whole Foods employees sued the company for lost
wages, alleging that the company unfairly manipulated its bonus
program. Relying on BMS, Whole Foods moved to dismiss the claims of
the nonresident potential class members, arguing that the court
lacked personal jurisdiction over it with respect to those specific
claims. The district court denied the motion and Whole Foods
appealed. On appeal, the D.C. Circuit affirmed, but on alternative
grounds. Unlike the district court, the D.C. Circuit did not reach
the merits of the motion; instead, the court concluded that the
motion should have been denied as premature, holding that the
unnamed putative class members were not parties before the court
during the period prior to class certification. The court explained
that "[i]t is class certification that brings unnamed class members
into the action and triggers due process limitations on a court's
exercise of personal jurisdiction over their claims." On that
basis, the court concluded that "[b]ecause the class in this case
has yet to be certified, Whole Foods' motion to dismiss the
putative class members is premature."

In the wake of these appellate decisions, district courts across
the country have been tasked with deciding whether to follow Mussat
and Molock or chart their own course. The early returns indicate
that many district courts have been persuaded by Mussat, expressly
relying on that case in declining to apply the requirements of BMS
to nationwide class actions. For example, in Lacy v. Comcast Cable
Communications, LLC, the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington applied Mussat in denying a motion to
dismiss the claims of nonresident putative class members in a TCPA
action.  Like the Seventh Circuit, the Lacy court found BMS
inapplicable because "a plaintiff in a mass tort action is named as
a plaintiff, making each 'a real party in interest[;]' [i]n
contrast, only the proposed class representative is actually named
on the complaint in a class action." In addition to that rationale,
the Lacy court also found BMS distinguishable because "Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23 imposes additional due process safeguards on
class actions that do not exist in the mass tort context." In sum,
the Lacy court held that "[t]his [c]ourt will not upend the
traditional approach to personal jurisdiction in class actions
absent an express ruling from the Supreme Court."

Unlike the largely positive reception of Mussat by the lower
courts, the Molock decision has garnered a more mixed reaction. For
example, one judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio explicitly declined to follow Molock in another
case brought under the TCPA.9 In Progressive Health & Rehab Corp.
v. Medcare Staffing, Inc., the court reasoned that addressing the
question left open by BMS is not "premature" before class
certification because "the issue . . . is not whether this court
retains personal jurisdiction over absent class members, but
whether th[e] court has personal jurisdiction over [d]efendant for
claims relating to a nationwide class." In rejecting the key
premise from Molock, the court explained that "[t]he distinction is
important because jurisdiction over parties is a threshold issue
and because district courts have the power to adjudicate a named
plaintiff's ability to represent a class of individuals pursuant to
[Rule 23]." Nonetheless, the court followed the Seventh Circuit's
reasoning in Mussat and denied the motion to dismiss the claims of
the absent class members on the ground that BMS simply does not
apply to "Rule 23 class actions."

However, the Molock decision has not been completely rejected or
ignored, with at least one district court following it and the
majority of district courts that relied on Mussat also citing
Molock for additional support or as an alternative ground for
denying a motion to dismiss on personal jurisdiction grounds.10
Moreover, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently
indicated an inclination to follow Molock as well. In Cruson v.
Jackson National Life Insurance Co., the court considered whether
the defendant had waived its personal jurisdiction challenge
against nonresident putative class members by failing to timely
raise it at the outset of the case. As the Fifth Circuit put it,
the answer to that question was "no" because those nonresident
putative class members "were not yet before the court when Jackson
filed its Rule 12 motions"; "[w]hat brings putative class members
before the court is certification." Although the Fifth Circuit did
not cite Molock, it employed precisely the reasoning underlying the
D.C. Circuit's decision.

As these recent examples illustrate, courts construing Molock and
Mussat have rejected personal jurisdiction challenges to claims
being asserted on behalf of absent class members, either kicking
the can down the road to class certification or rejecting the
application of BMS outright. But either approach essentially relies
on the same rationale -- that unnamed class members are not
"parties" for purposes of personal jurisdiction. There is sound
basis, however, to question that rationale, and it is articulated
by D.C. Circuit Judge Laurence H. Silberman's succinct dissenting
opinion in Molock.

First and foremost, the notion that a personal jurisdiction
challenge with respect to absent class members is not ripe until
class certification is based on the "flawed premise" that such a
challenge seeks the dismissal of putative class members themselves.
As Judge Silberman explained, "Whole Foods did not move to dismiss
nonresident putative class members; it moved to dismiss the named
plaintiffs' claims to represent those putative class members."
Under the approach endorsed by the majority in Molock and
effectively countenanced by the Fifth Circuit in Cruson, "a
hypothetical named plaintiff would be entitled to extensive class
discovery even after an on-point decision by the Supreme Court"
compelling the dismissal of claims at the outset of a case. As
noted above, this reasoning from Judge Silberman has gained
traction with at least one district court, which explicitly adopted
it and declined to defer consideration of BMS' application until
class certification (though it ultimately endorsed Mussat's
approach to the merits of the question and rejected the application
of BMS to absent class members).

Judge Silberman also addressed and rejected the key arguments that
led the Seventh Circuit and more recent courts to deny personal
jurisdiction challenges in the class action context on the merits.

One such argument is that class actions are different from mass
actions (such as BMS, which had more than 600 plaintiffs) in that
the plaintiffs in the latter category of proceedings are actual
"parties," whereas absent class members in the former category are
not. Specifically, as mentioned above, the Seventh Circuit reasoned
in Mussat that because the Supreme Court has not treated absent
class members as "parties" for purposes of subject matter
jurisdiction or venue, it must follow that they should not count as
parties for purposes of assessing personal jurisdiction. But
subject matter jurisdiction and venue do not generally raise due
process concerns, which are implicated by the exercise of personal
jurisdiction over a defendant. Regardless of how absent class
members are treated when assessing subject matter jurisdiction or
venue, they should be deemed parties for the purpose of analyzing
personal jurisdiction because (assuming they do not opt out) they
would be "bound" by any final judgment and therefore could enforce
that judgment against the defendant in the forum where the suit was
brought. As Judge Silberman put it, "the goal of a nationwide class
action is 'a binding judgment over the defendant as to the claims
of the entire nationwide class -- and the deprivation of the
defendant's property accordingly.'"

While it is true that many certified class actions settled, and a
defendant could waive personal jurisdiction issues in order to
facilitate a settlement, a court facing the question of
certification prior to any proposed settlement must assume that a
certified class would be tried and have a plan for binding the
defendant as to all class members following any adverse verdict. As
such, the question of whether the court could exercise personal
jurisdiction over the defendant with respect to out-of-state class
members must necessarily be answered before any class can be
certified.

Some district courts following Molock and Mussat, such as in the
Lacy case described above, have gone even further and justified an
exception for class actions on the ground that "at its core,
'[p]ersonal jurisdiction is rooted in fairness to the defendant,
and Rule 23 provides significant safeguards to that end.'" However,
those procedural safeguards cannot elevate the class action device
above due process requirements of the Constitution. To conclude
otherwise would arguably manufacture personal jurisdiction by dint
of the lawsuit's putative classwide status and exceed the scope of
the Rules Enabling Act by using a procedural rule to "abridge,
enlarge or modify [a] substantive right."

Finally, Judge Silberman also dismissed the "parade of horribles"
that plaintiffs' lawyers have frequently suggested would result
from applying BMS to nationwide class actions. Specifically, the
plaintiffs in Molock contended that such an application would
render nationwide class actions moribund. Some district courts have
agreed. For example, one court recently stated that "fusing the
Bristol-Myers rule into class actions would divest federal courts
of specific jurisdiction over nationwide class actions -- even
where Rule 23 requirements are met -- simply because the federal
court may not maintain specific jurisdiction over a nonresident
defendant as to every single class member['s] claim as though each
class member had brought an individual suit." It is important to
remember, however, that specific jurisdiction is not the only way
to establish personal jurisdiction over a defendant. As Judge
Silberman recognized in Molock, general jurisdiction could have
been exercised over Whole Foods in its home state of Delaware
"without any personal jurisdiction difficulties."20 Nor would a
straightforward application of BMS to class actions preclude
defendants from waiving personal jurisdiction objections if they
chose to do so, such as where parties on both sides sought to
resolve a nationwide dispute by way of settlement.21 Moreover,
plaintiffs can bring purely statewide class actions in their own
home states. In short, the policy claims being advanced in
opposition to BMS in the class action context could well be
overstated.

It remains to be seen whether Mussat and Molock will continue to
hold sway among other lower courts. But it is clear that they have
influenced subsequent district court decisions despite the
countervailing arguments outlined by Judge Silberman and prior
district court decisions that BMS should apply to putative
nationwide class actions. Ultimately, the Supreme Court itself will
likely have to weigh in on whether the limits on the exercise of
personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants apply to
putative nationwide class actions.

Recent Class Action Decisions of Note
Courts Continue To Split on Whether Consumers Have Standing To Sue
on Behalf of Consumers Who Purchased a Different, but Substantially
Similar, Product
Richey v. Axon Enterprises, Inc., 437 F. Supp. 3d 835 (D. Nev.
2020)

Chief Judge Miranda M. Du of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada held that a plaintiff had standing to bring
claims on behalf of purchasers of three models of allegedly
defective Tasers even though the plaintiff only purchased and used
one of those particular models. In that case, the plaintiff alleged
that his model of Taser -- called the Pulse -- discharged while in
the "safe" position and that the Taser could fire even if the
safety mechanism was moved only part of the way from the "safe" to
the "armed" position. Based on this claim, the plaintiff sought to
represent a class comprising not only purchasers of the Pulse but
also purchasers of two other models of Tasers sold by the
defendant. The defendant moved to dismiss the claims involving the
other models, arguing that the plaintiff did not have standing to
bring such claims because he never purchased those models.

The court disagreed, holding that the plaintiff had standing to
bring claims on behalf of purchasers of all three models because
the models were substantially similar. Although courts are split on
whether plaintiffs can bring claims on behalf of consumers who
purchased similar, but not identical, products, the court reasoned
that most find standing "so long as the products and alleged
misrepresentations are substantially similar." To determine whether
products are substantially similar, Judge Du explained that courts
ask whether "the resolution of the asserted claims will be
identical between the purchased and unpurchased products" and look
to factors such as similarity in products, claims and injuries.
Applying that standard, the court found that the three Taser models
at issue were substantially similar. In particular, the court
focused on three similarities. First, the models had the "same
traditional hand gun design"; second, an investigation by the
Canadian government found that all three models had the same design
flaw; and, third, the defendant failed to disclose the defects in
all three models. In light of those similarities, the court
determined that the plaintiff had standing to assert claims on
behalf of consumers who purchased all three Taser models.

Snyder v. Green Roads of Florida LLC, 430 F. Supp. 3d 1297 (S.D.
Fla. 2020)

Judge Ursula Ungaro of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida held that consumers did not have standing to
bring certain class claims against a company that sold cannabidiol
(CBD) products because the consumers did not purchase some of the
products at issue. In that case, the plaintiffs alleged that the
defendant misrepresented the amount of CBD in its products, some of
which the named plaintiffs did not purchase themselves. The court
held that the plaintiffs could not bring class claims with respect
to the CBD products they did not purchase. The court reasoned that,
while some courts allow consumers to bring class claims involving
nonpurchased products that are substantially similar to the
purchased products, courts in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit do not. The court explained that, because at least
one named plaintiff must have standing with respect to each claim
under Article III, standing did not exist with respect to a
particular product unless one of the named plaintiffs purchased
that product. As a result, the court determined that the classes
were overbroad in including claims related to CBD products that the
named plaintiffs did not purchase and dismissed them for lack of
standing.

Ninth Circuit Vacates Order Allowing Counsel To Use Discovery To
Identify a Lead Plaintiff
In re Williams-Sonoma, Inc., 947 F.3d 535 (9th Cir. 2020)

Judge Ferdinand F. Fernandez, writing for a panel of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, granted a writ of mandamus
vacating a pre-class-certification order for discovery that would
have allowed the plaintiff's counsel to find a lead plaintiff to
pursue class claims. In that case, the plaintiff brought suit in
Kentucky, alleging that the defendant misrepresented the thread
count of its bedding. After the trial court held that the plaintiff
could not bring a class action under Kentucky law, the court
ordered the defendant, on the plaintiff's request, to produce a
list of California customers so the plaintiff's counsel could find
a plaintiff to bring the class action. In granting the writ
vacating that order, the Ninth Circuit relied on U.S. Supreme Court
precedent holding that potential class members' names and addresses
were not relevant under Federal Rule 26 and thus were not
discoverable. See Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340,
350-53 (1978). The court also disagreed with the plaintiff's
argument that the list of Californian purchasers was relevant to
commonality, typicality, ascertainability and reliance, reasoning
that "using discovery to find a client to be the named plaintiff
before a class action is certified is not within the scope of Rule
26(b)(1)." Accordingly, the court vacated the discovery order.
[GN]


CABOT OIL: Howard G. Smith Alerts of Class Action Filing
--------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that class action
lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of Cabot Oil &
Gas Corporation.  Investors have until the deadlines listed below
to file a lead plaintiff motion.

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

Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation (NYSE: COG)

Class Period: October 23, 2015 - June 12, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 13, 2020

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Cabot had inadequate environmental controls and
procedures and/or failed to properly mitigate known issues related
to those controls and procedures; (2) as a result, Cabot, among
other issues, failed to fix faulty gas wells, thereby polluting
Pennsylvania's water supplies through stray gas migration; (3) that
the foregoing was foreseeably likely to subject Cabot to increased
governmental scrutiny and enforcement, as well as increased
reputational and financial harm; (4) that Cabot continually
downplayed its potential civil and/or criminal liabilities with
respect to such environmental matters; and (5) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

To be a member of these class actions, you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish
to learn more about these class actions, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith,
Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike,
Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215)
638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.

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

         Howard G. Smith, Esquire
         Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
         Tel No: 215-638-4847
         E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com [GN]


CAFE SPICE: Court Enters Final Judgment in Corea Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DIANA COREA, SINDY PINEDA, ISAAC RUNCIMAN, AMPARO
CHAUCA, LAOS CARDOSO, AND JUANA CRUZ, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated as Class Representatives, Plaintiffs,
v. CAFÉ SPICE {GCT}, INC. A/K/A CAFÉ SPICE INC. A/K/A CAFÉ SPICE
GLOBAL CUISINE A/K/A ZAIKA FLAVORS OF INDIA; SUSHIL MALHOTRA;
SAMEER MALHOTRA; PAYAL MALHOTRA; AND VIRGILIO FELIX, Defendants,
Civil Action No. 7:18-cv-10354-KMK (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Kenneth M.
Karas of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York entered final judgment on June 18, 2020 in the case approving
the proposed Class Agreement as fair, reasonable, and adequate, and
dismissing the case with prejudice.

Affected Class Members (as defined in the Settlement Agreement)
received Notice under Rule 23(c)(2) and the Court finds them to be
class members bound by the Final Judgment.  Without affecting the
finality of the Final Judgment in any way, the Court reserves
exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the action, the
Plaintiffs and all other Affected Class Members, and the Defendant
for the purpose of supervising the implementation, enforcement,
construction, and interpretation of the Agreement, the Preliminary
Approval Order, the Final Approval Order, and the Final Judgment.

The Court entered the Final Approval Order on June 17, 2020,
granting final approval to the class-wide settlement.  The Court
also approved the requested Service Awards to the Class
Representatives of $10,000 each, as well as the Service Awards to
the Designated Opt-in Plaintiffs of $2,000 each.  The Court also
awarded Class Counsel reimbursement of Litigation expenses, to be
paid from the Settlement Amount, in the amount of $6,357.71.  The
Claims Administrator is authorized pay its fees from the Settlement
Fund on a regular basis as it performs the work set forth in the
Settlement Agreement throughout the administration of the
settlement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Final Judgment is
available at https://bit.ly/2ZB8KSG from Leagle.com.


CANADA: Northern Territories Deny Sex Abuse Class Suit Allegations
------------------------------------------------------------------
cabinradio.ca reports that the Northwest Territories and Nunavut
governments are denying all allegations in a class action lawsuit
by Nunavummiut who say they were sexually abused as children by a
teacher.

The lawsuit, which a Nunavut judge allowed to proceed against the
commissioners of both territories in June, is seeking damages for
former students of Maurice Cloughley in Nunavut between 1969 and
1981.

According to court documents, Cloughley was a teacher in several
communities in the Northwest Territories--and what is now
Nunavut--between 1959 and 1987.

In June 1995, he was charged with 22 sexual offences against some
of his former students in the territories. In February 1996, he
pleaded guilty to nine of those charges while the remaining 13 were
stayed. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

Alan Regel, one of the lawyers behind the class action, told Cabin
Radio the lawsuit does not cover cases before 1969 as they fall
under the federal Indian day school class action. Responsibility
for education wasn't transferred from Canada to the Northwest
Territories until 1969.

Anyone in the Northwest Territories who claims they were abused by
Cloughley after that date, has not been compensated, and wants to
pursue a claim, can contact the law firms Cooper Regel or Morris
Martin Moore for assistance.

Regel said there are at least 50 members seeking damages in the
class action. They claim that Cloughley sexually assaulted them or
took pornographic photos of them when they were children or
adolescents.

As a result, they allege, they have experienced physical and
psychological pain, suffering and anguish; humiliation and
betrayal; shame and embarrassment about their bodies; an inability
to experience a normal life; and ongoing fear and anxiety that
pornographic photos of them will surface and be viewed by others,
including their children.

"They will live the rest of their lives with the knowledge
Cloughley, or others he may have shared their images with, may be
viewing their images at any time," court documents state.

The statement of claim in the lawsuit alleges that the territorial
commissioners were vicariously liable for the alleged abuse and
resulting damages, were negligent in their supervision of
Cloughley, and breached a duty of care and a fiduciary duty that
they owed to the students.

The document claims the government put Cloughley in a position
where he would be "trusted, respected, and obeyed without question"
and had "unrestricted and unquestioned" access to the class
members. It claims the defendants failed to conduct any
investigation into Cloughley's background, put little restrictions
on him, and failed to properly supervise him or put safeguards in
place to ensure abuse could be detected, limited, or curtailed.

In a statement of defence, representatives for the commissioners
deny all of the allegations.

They deny Cloughley sexually exploited the class members and say if
he did, it was never disclosed to them.

They say such abuse would not have been within the scope of
Cloughley's employment and was contrary to his work duties and
responsibilities. Those would have been "independent acts for which
he is solely responsible both in fact and law," the defence's
document states.

The defendants claim any injuries, losses, or damages the class
members suffered were not caused or contributed to by any breach,
fault, or negligence on their part, but were caused by "some
pre-existing or intervening act or cause unrelated to the
allegations."

The class members have proposed that a trial in the case be held in
Iqaluit.

Cloughley is not listed as a defendant in the lawsuit. Cabin Radio
was unable to reach him for comment.

Cloughley was last known to be living in New Zealand in 2008. If he
is still alive, he would be in his mid-80s. [GN]

CBS CORP: Remand of Musiello Suit to Bronx County Court Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JACQUELYN MUSIELLO, and other employees similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CBS CORPORATION, CBS RADIO INC., CBS SPORTS
RADIO NETWORK INC., ENTERCOM COMMUNICATIONS CORP., DAN TAYLOR,
MARGARET MARION, ABC CORPORATIONS 1-5, and JOHN DOES 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 20 Civ. 2569 (PAE) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Paul A.
Engelmayer of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York denied the Musiello's motion to remand the action to the
Supreme Court of New York, Bronx County.

On Feb. 14, 2020, Musiello filed her class action complaint in New
York Supreme Court, alleging, inter alia, sex discrimination,
sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and retaliation for
her complaints of violations of the civil rights of CBS employees,
including herself, arising out of rampant discriminatory practices
prohibited under New York anti-discrimination and Labor laws.  The
complaint seeks $10 million in damages for Musiello "and others
similarly situated."

On March 25, 2020, the Defendants removed the case to federal
court, and the matter was assigned to the New York District Court.
They asserted that the District Court has subject-matter
jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA),
which grants district courts original jurisdiction of any civil
action in which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value
of $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs, and is a class
action in which" there is minimal diversity and the proposed class
exceeds a total of 100 Plaintiffs.  The removing Defendant bears
the burden of establishing the Court's CAFA jurisdiction by a
"reasonable probability."

On April 24, 2020, Musiello filed a motion to remand the action to
state court, a supporting memorandum of law, and the declaration of
Donna H. Clancy, Esq., with an attached exhibit.  On May 22, 2020,
the Defendants filed a memorandum of law in opposition.  On May 29,
2020, Musiello filed a reply, and the reply affirmation of Donna H.
Clancy, Esq.,with an attached exhibit.

Musiello primarily argues that remand should be granted because the
Defendants have failed to establish that there are more than 100
members in the putative class.  Musiello also gestures at an
argument that the Court should find that the home state exception
to CAFA applies here. Neither argument is availing.

Musiello first argues that the Defendants cannot in good faith
claim that the putative class is greater than 100 Plaintiffs, since
she did not in her complaint allege or even estimate the precise
number of similarly situated employees.  She therefore argues that
any estimate of that number at this juncture would be pure
conjecture and cannot possibly support removal.  She further
alleges that the Defendants' notice of removal does not even rise
to the level of conjecture, since it is based on the
misrepresentation that Plaintiff specifies 'all' employees as
similarly situated in her Complaint.  Finally, she notes that she
named less than 10 victims, while refusing to rule out the
possibility that the class could be much larger.

The Defendants respond that the Plaintiff's argument is a
convoluted attempt to amend the Complaint solely to defeat
jurisdiction.

Judge Engelmayer agrees.  The Defendants have proffered that, based
on human resources records, they employed upwards of 400 female
employees in their New York City offices during the period covered
by the statute of limitations.  That is sufficient to satisfy
CAFA's numerosity requirement.  And notwithstanding Musiello's
protestations, her complaint is fairly read as asserting class
claims on behalf of all of the Defendants' female employees, even
if she does not literally use the word "all."  

The complaint repeatedly asserts claims on behalf of, and alleges
discrimination against, the Defendants' "female employees" without
limitation, brings multiple claims on behalf of Musiello "and other
similarly situated females," the Plaintiff's first, third and
fourth causes of action; and prays, in its wherefore clause, for
relief for Musiello "and others similarly situated."  The
inescapable conclusion in reading the text of Musiello's complaint
is that it is brought on behalf of all current and former female
employees who worked for defendants during the statutory period.

Moreover, as the Defendants rightly point out, Musiello fails to
define the contours of an alternative and presumably more narrowly
drawn putative class.  Instead, she merely argues that the class is
currently indefinable but in any event is surely fewer than 100
Plaintiffs.  In any event, even if Musiello's motion for remand had
proposed a narrower class, such a constructive amendment would not
deprive the Court of CAFA jurisdiction.  The Juduge therefore
concludes that defendants have carried their burden to establish
CAFA's numerosity requirement.

While the "argument" section of Musiello's motion for remand
addresses solely her numerosity claim, she hints in both her motion
and reply that the home state exception may also defeat CAFA
jurisdiction in the case.  For avoidance of doubt, the Judge
rejects such a contention.  Musiello, despite admittedly receiving
copies of the employee data that the Defendants rely on in
asserting CAFA jurisdiction, does not make such an argument.
Instead, she complains that none of the data has been presented to
the Court in the proper form.  That is a red herring, as is her
argument that the Defendants failed to provide the data on which
they originally relied in removing the case.  It was Musiello's
burden in asserting the home state exception—assuming arguendo
that her briefing is taken to make such an argument -- to make a
cognizable argument on the merits.  She has not done so.

Lastly, Musiello's reply brief raises for the first time a request
for the attorneys' fees and costs incurred in bringing her motion
to remand.   Notwithstanding the fact that new arguments are not
properly raised in reply briefs, the Judge can easily deny the
claim on the merits.  A]sent unusual circumstances, attorney's fees
should not be awarded when the removing party has an objectively
reasonable basis for removal.  Having concluded that the
Defendants' invocation of the Court's CAFA jurisdiction is not only
reasonable but proper, Musiello's request will be denied.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Engelmayer denied Musiello's
Motion for Remand.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 5, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/90DVNl from Leagle.com.


CDK GLOBAL: AutoLoop Class Action Still Ongoing in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
CDK Global, 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 Loop LLC d/b/a AutoLoop.

Loop LLC d/b/a AutoLoop ("AutoLoop") brought suit against CDK
Global, LLC on April 9, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, but reserved its rights with respect
to remand to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin at the conclusion of the MDL proceedings.

On June 5, 2018, AutoLoop amended its complaint to sue on behalf of
itself and a putative class action of all other automotive software
vendors in the United States that purchased data integration
services from CDK Global, LLC or Reynolds. CDK Global, LLC moved to
compel arbitration of AutoLoop's claims, or in the alternative, to
dismiss those claims; that motion was denied on January 25, 2019.

CDK Global, LLC filed an answer to AutoLoop's complaint and
asserted counterclaims against AutoLoop on February 15, 2019.

AutoLoop filed an answer to CDK Global, LLC's counterclaims on
March 8, 2019.

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

CDK Global, Inc. provides software and technology solutions for
automotive retailers in the United States and internationally. The
company operates through Retail Solutions North America,
Advertising North America, and CDK International segments. CDK
Global, Inc. is headquartered in Hoffman Estates, Illinois.


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Customers' Class Action Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. (NYSE: CEL) (TASE: CEL) (hereinafter: the
"Company") announced the dismissal of the recently announced
purported class action filed against the Company, alleging that the
Company misled its customers by failing to disclose certain
information in relation to a certain service. The amount claimed
from the Company, had the lawsuit been certified as a class action,
was estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS179 million.

                       About Cellcom Israel

Cellcom Israel Ltd., established in 1994, is a leading Israeli
communications group, providing a wide range of communications
services. Cellcom Israel is the largest Israeli cellular provider,
providing its approximately 2.747 million cellular subscribers (as
at March 31, 2020) with a broad range of services including
cellular telephony, roaming services for tourists in Israel and for
its subscribers abroad, text and multimedia messaging, advanced
cellular content and data services and other value-added services
in the areas of music, video, mobile office etc., based on Cellcom
Israel's technologically advanced infrastructure. The Company
operates an LTE 4 generation network and an HSPA 3.5 Generation
network enabling advanced high speed broadband multimedia services,
in addition to GSM/GPRS/EDGE networks. Cellcom Israel offers
Israel's broadest and largest customer service infrastructure
including telephone customer service centers, retail stores, and
service and sale centers, distributed nationwide. Cellcom Israel
further provides OTT TV services, internet infrastructure and
connectivity services and international calling services, as well
as landline telephone services in Israel. Cellcom Israel's shares
are traded both on the New York Stock Exchange (CEL) and the Tel
Aviv Stock Exchange (CEL).

For additional information please visit the Company's website
http://investors.cellcom.co.il.[GN]


CENTERBRIDGE: Faces Jeffersons Tower Rent Overcharge Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia Kromrei, writing for TRD New York, reports that the Upper
East Side tower that famously housed a TV family's "de-luxe
apartment in the sky" now faces sky-high damages from a
class-action lawsuit.

Tenants allege that the owners of the Park Lane, the rental
building featured in the 1970s sitcom "The Jeffersons," charged as
many as 100 current and former tenants market-rate rents while
receiving a tax benefit.

The lawsuit names the owner entity of the 430-unit tower, which
property records show is linked to an executive at investment firm
Centerbridge. The executive, Lance West, also served as CEO of the
property's management company, Charles H. Greenthal & Co.

A representative for Centerbridge, which manages $25 billion in
assets, declined to comment. Charles H. Greenthal & Co. did not
immediately return a request for comment.

The plaintiffs seek $250,000 in legal fees plus damages equal to
the alleged rent overcharges, meaning the difference between the
actual rent and what was allowed under rent stabilization while the
building received a property-tax break under the J-51 program.

Rents at the 35-story Yorkville tower have been movin' on up since
1975, when the fictional George and Louise Jefferson moved in from
Archie Bunker's neighborhood in Astoria. Units are now about $4,000
a month, according to StreetEasy.

The attorney representing the plaintiffs, Lucas Ferrara, an adjunct
professor at New York Law School and a partner at Newman Ferrara,
said the tenants are "finally going to be getting a piece of the
pie," referencing the once-popular sitcom's theme song.

"While it is premature to offer precise rent-rollback calculations,
damages are likely to be quite significant given the rents that
were wrongfully charged," said Ferrara.

Tenant attorneys filed a slew of rent-overcharge lawsuits after
last year's new rent law increased the look-back period for
determining overcharges and enlarged the monetary damages tenants
could win in such cases.

In April, the state's highest court ruled that the law had
overreached on the look-back provision, but a previous ruling still
requires landlords to offer rent-stabilized leases while receiving
J-51 benefits.

Ferrara said the case against 185 East 85th Street is the first
class-action rent overcharge lawsuit brought since the April
ruling. That Court of Appeals decision limited the new overcharge
formula to cases brought after the bill passed in June 2019--a rare
bit of recent good news for multifamily landlords. [GN]


CENTRAL HEALTH: Faces Privacy Breach Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
The Telegram reports that St. John's lawyers Bob Buckingham and Eli
Baker say they will launch a class-action lawsuit in relation to a
recent privacy breach by a former employee of Central Health.

Officials with the health authority said an employee had
inappropriately accessed the health records of 240 people online
over a two-year span. Central Health was informed of a potential
privacy breach July 14 and immediately undertook an investigation,
they said.

Central Health president and CEO Andree Robichaud issued an apology
to the people whose records were involved, saying, "We take
confidentiality and privacy very seriously and sincerely regret
this happened."

Robichaud said the organization has taken extra steps to prevent
further privacy breaches and was contacting the patients involved.

Buckingham said he would have expected the province's health
authorities to have implemented such measures before now, given
previous similar breaches.

He wondered how the breach could go undetected for two years.

"Of particular concern in this case is that there is an apparent
pattern to quite a few of the incidents respecting the type of
medical records which were accessed," Buckingham said.

"We will be seeking appropriate compensation and guarantees that
systems are in place to protect patient medical records in the
future."

Buckingham said he had been asked to represent patients involved
and has set up a class-action registration form on his website for
those who want to sign on to the lawsuit.

"Anyone who has received notification of the privacy breach by
Central Health . . . has the right to know how their personal,
confidential, private health records were violated, when they were
violated, how many times they were violated and the nature of the
violation. They may be entitled to monetary compensation," he said.
[GN]


CENTRUS ENERGY: Pollution Class Action Trimmed
----------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Centrus Energy Corp. and a slew of other energy
and engineering companies have dodged a portion of a proposed class
action accusing them of polluting homes near a uranium enrichment
facility under an Ohio federal court decision. [GN]

CENTURA HEALTH: Sued Over Predatory Billing Practices
-----------------------------------------------------
Alia Paavola, writing for Becker's Hospital Review, reports that a
man who had a knee replacement at a Centura Health hospital last
year has filed a class-action lawsuit against the Centennial,
Colo.-based organization for what he claims are predatory billing
practices, according to The Durango Herald.

The patient, Franklin Walter, went to Mercy Regional Medical Center
in Derango, Colo., for the routine surgery in April 2019, and two
months later, he received what he called a "surprise" medical bill
for $1,216.73, the newspaper reports.

Mr. Walter said that he had to sign a "consent for medical
treatment" contract requiring him to pay all costs associated with
the knee replacement before the procedure. That contract also
requires Centura to give patients an estimate of out-of-pocket
costs, according to the lawsuit.

But Mr. Walter claims Centura never gave him that out-of-pocket
estimate, which led him to believe he didn't owe anything out of
pocket for the knee replacement and resulted in the surprise bill.

The lawsuit also claims that Mercy Regional's lists out prices for
medical procedures failed to list the price of an arthroplasty, the
procedure Mr. Walter had. The chargemaster doesn't list costs of
the most frequently used medications, and Centura charged
"arbitrary and grossly inflated" ones, Mr. Walter alleged.

"For example, medications are often triple, quadruple, or more than
the full retail price, and include costs that exceed amounts a
third-party payer will pay for them," the lawsuit alleges.

The class action case seeks to include all patients from February
2017 until now who didn't receive an estimate of the amount owed
before or the day of the procedure and received surprise bills.

In the lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado, Mr. Walter and his lawyers seek compensation for an
alleged breach of contract and seek a change in the health system's
billing practices.  Mr. Walter also is asking for $5 million in
damages, an amount based on the number of people lawyers estimate
were affected by Centura's billing practice since February 2017.

Centura Health declined the Herald's request for comment. The
health system is expected to file a response to the class-action in
August. [GN]


CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Court Orders Closing of Hayes Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Chembio Diagnostics 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 Court has entered an order closing a
stockholder litigation and providing the plaintiff until September
28, 2020, to move to reopen the Hayes case if the attorneys' fee
issue has not been resolved.

As of July 31, 2020, four purported class action lawsuits had been
filed by alleged stockholders of Chembio Diagnostics, Inc.
("Chembio") in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, including: (1) Sergey Chernysh v. Chembio
Diagnostics, Inc., Richard L. Eberly, and Gail S. Page, 20-cv-2706,
filed on June 18, 2020, or Chernysh; (2) James Gowen v. Chembio
Diagnostics, Inc., Richard L. Eberly, and Gail S. Page,
2:20-cv-02758, filed on June 22, 2020, or Gowen; and (3) Anthony
Bailey v. Chembio Diagnostics, Inc. Richard J. Eberly, Gail S.
Page, and Neil A. Goldman, 2:20-cv-02961, filed on July 3, 2020, or
Bailey; and (4) Ken Hayes v. Chembio Diagnostics, Inc., Richard L.
Eberly, Gail S. Page, Katherine L. Davis, Mary Lake Polan, and John
G. Potthoff, 1:20-cv-02918, filed on July 1, 2020, or Hayes.

The Chernysh, Gowen and Bailey complaints are brought by purported
individual stockholders of Chembio on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased Chembio publicly traded stock during the
alleged "class period" and purport to state claims for violations
of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Chernysh and Bailey complaints define the "class period" as
April 1, 2020 through June 16, 2020, inclusive, whereas the Gowen
complaint defines the "class period" as March 12, 2020, through
June 16, 2020, inclusive.

The plaintiffs in these actions generally purport to allege that
the defendants named therein misrepresented and failed to disclose
that Chembio's DPP COVID-19 IgM/IgG System did not provide
high-quality results and there were material performance concerns
with the DPP COVID-19 IgM/IgG System's accuracy, including that it
generates false results at a rate higher than expected and higher
than reflected in its authorized labeling and was not effective in
detecting antibodies against COVID 19.

The Chernysh, Gowen, and Bailey complaints seek an award of damages
ostensibly sustained as a result of alleged wrongdoing in an amount
to be proven at trial as well as an award of reasonable attorneys'
fees and expenses, including expert fees and pre- and post-judgment
interest.  

Chembio and the plaintiffs in Chernysh, Gowen and Bailey have
entered into a stipulation, approved by the Court on July 17, 2020,
relieving the defendants from the obligation to respod to the
complaints in the cases pending the designation of a lead
plaintiff.  

Pursuant to the stipulation, within ten days following the entry of
an order by the Court appointing a lead plaintiff and a lead
plaintiff's counsel, counsel for the defendants and the lead
plaintiff are to confer and submit to the Court a proposed schedule
for the filing of a consolidated amended complaint and the
defendants’ response to that pleading.

The Hayes complaint purports to state claims for violations of
Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission,
declaratory relief, and state law claims for breach of fiduciary
duty, brought by plaintiff on behalf of himself and all of
Chembio's other public stockholders against Chembio and members of
its board of directors to remedy alleged misstatements of material
information in the proxy statement disseminated by Chembio in
advance of our Annual Meeting of Stockholders held on July 28, 2020
(the "Annual Meeting").

The Hayes plaintiff alleges that the Schedule 14A Proxy Statement
filed by Chembio on June 16, 2020 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, or the Proxy Statement, in which Chembio is soliciting
stockholder approval of, inter alia, a proposal to change Chembio's
state of incorporation from the State of Nevada to the State of
Delaware  (the "Reincorporation Proposal"), contains misstatements
of Nevada and Delaware law.  

The Hayes plaintiff seeks a declaration that the Proxy Statement is
false and misleading and entry of an order enjoining the
stockholder vote on the Reincorporation Proposal until such time as
the Proxy Statement has been corrected as well as an order finding
the company's directors liable for breaching their fiduciary duties
and awarding plaintiff the costs and disbursements of the action,
including attorneys' and expert fees.  

On July 8, 2020, Chembio filed an amended proxy statement
correcting, among other things, the issues raised in the Hayes
complaint. As a consequence of the supplementation, the plaintiff
withdrew its motion for a preliminary injunction.  

On July 23, 2020, Chembio and the plaintiff entered into a
stipulation to the dismissal of the action, with prejudice as to
the claims of the named plaintiff. The stipulation was subject to
plaintiff's reservation of the right to apply for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses from Chembio within 45 days after
entry of an order approving the stipulation in the event the
parties are unable to reach agreement on plaintiff's claim for
entitlement to fees.  

Also, on July 23, 2020, the plaintiff filed a notice dismissing the
named plaintiff's claims, with prejudice, as to the individual
defendants.  

On July 27, 2020, the Court entered an order closing the case and
providing that plaintiff shall have until September 28, 2020 to
move to reopen the case if the attorneys' fee issue has not been
resolved.

Chembio Diagnostics Inc. develops diagnostic solutions. The Company
offers products for treatment of malaria, ebola, febrile illness,
dengue fever, and influenza, as well as provides human and
veterinary diagnostics. Chembo Diagnostics serves patients in the
United States. The company is based in Hauppauge, New York.


CHILDREN'S PLACE: Awaits Final Court Approval of Rael Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Children's Place, 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 awaiting the court's final
approval of the settlement in the case, Rael v. The Children's
Place, Inc.

The Company is a defendant in Rael v. The Children's Place, Inc., a
purported class action, pending in the U.S. District Court,
Southern District of California.

In the initial complaint filed in February 2016, the plaintiff
alleged that the Company falsely advertised discount prices in
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising
Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in April 2016, adding
allegations of violations of other state consumer protection laws.
In August 2016, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint,
adding an additional plaintiff and removing the other state law
claims.

The plaintiffs' second amended complaint seeks to represent a class
of California purchasers and seeks, among other items, injunctive
relief, damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company engaged in mediation proceedings with the plaintiffs in
December 2016 and April 2017. The parties reached an agreement in
principle in April 2017, and signed a definitive settlement
agreement in November 2017, to settle the matter on a class basis
with all individuals in the U.S. who made a qualifying purchase at
The Children's Place from February 11, 2012 through the date of
preliminary approval by the court of the settlement.

The settlement is subject to court approval and provides for
merchandise vouchers for class members who submit valid claims, as
well as payment of legal fees and expenses and claims
administration expenses. The court stayed the matter, pending an
appellate court ruling in another lawsuit to which the Company is
not a party, from April 2, 2018 through June 17, 2019.

On January 28, 2020, the court entered an order granting
preliminary approval of the settlement. The settlement is also
subject to the court's final approval. The final fairness hearing
occurred on July 31, 2020, and an order has not yet been issued.

The Children's Place said, "The settlement, if finally approved by
the court, will result in the dismissal of all claims through the
date of the court's preliminary approval of the settlement.
However, if the settlement is ultimately rejected by the court, the
parties will likely return to litigation, and in such event, no
assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter.
In connection with the proposed settlement, the Company recorded a
reserve for $5.0 million in its consolidated financial statements
in the first quarter of 2017."

The Children's Place, Inc. operates as a children's specialty
apparel retailer. The Company was formerly known as The Children's
Place Retail Stores, Inc. and changed its name to The Children's
Place, Inc. in June 2014.  The Children's Place, Inc. was founded
in 1969 and is headquartered in Secaucus, New Jersey.


CLOUDERA INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cloudera, Inc.  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a securities class action suit entitled, In re Cloudera,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:19-cv-3221-LHK.

In January 2019, the company completed its merger with Hortonworks,
Inc., a publicly-held company headquartered in Santa Clara,
California, and a provider of enterprise-grade, global data
management platforms, services and solutions.

On June 7, 2019, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, entitled Christie v. Cloudera, Inc., et al., Case No.
5:19-cv-3221-LHK.

The complaint named as defendants Cloudera, its former Chief
Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer and a former officer
and director, asserting alleged class claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and
SEC Rule 10b-5.

Two substantially similar class action complaints, entitled
Zarantonello v. Cloudera, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-4007-LHK,
and Dvornic v. Cloudera, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-4310-LHK,
were subsequently filed against the same defendants in the same
court on July 12, 2019 and July 26, 2019, respectively.

The suits have been consolidated under the name, In re Cloudera,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:19-cv-3221-LHK.

The court subsequently appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel,
and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on February 14,
2020. The consolidated amended complaint asserted claims against
the Company and three individual defendants under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, based on allegedly
false and misleading statements between April 28, 2017 and June 5,
2019.

It also added as defendants ten current or former directors or
officers of the Company and Intel Corporation and asserted claims
under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
on behalf of all persons who acquired Cloudera stock pursuant or
traceable to the S-4 registration statement filed in connection
with Cloudera's January 2019 merger with Hortonworks, and alleged
that the registration statement contained untrue statements of
material fact and omitted material facts.

The complaint sought, among other things, an award of damages and
attorneys' fees and costs. Cloudera believes that the allegations
in the action are without merit.

On March 18, 2020, the court vacated its prior order appointing
lead plaintiffs and lead counsel and reopened the lead plaintiff
process.

On July 27, 2020, the court appointed new lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel. A further amended complaint is schedule to be filed on
September 22, 2020.

Cloudera, Inc. provides platform for machine learning and analytics
in the United States, Europe, and Asia. The company operates
through two segments, Subscription and Services. Cloudera, Inc. was
founded in 2008 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California.


CLOUDERA INC: Hortonworks Merger-Related Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Cloudera, Inc.  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, In re Cloudera, Inc.
Securities Litigation, related to the company's merger agreement
with  Hortonworks, Inc.

In January 2019, the company completed its merger with Hortonworks,
Inc., a publicly-held company headquartered in Santa Clara,
California, and a provider of enterprise-grade, global data
management platforms, services and solutions.

On June 7, 2019, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, entitled
Lazard v. Cloudera, Inc., et al., Case No. 19CV348674.

The complaint named as defendants Cloudera, thirteen individuals
who are current or former directors or officers of the Company, and
Intel Corporation. The complaint alleged that the registration
statement contained untrue statements of material fact and omitted
material facts.

Two substantially similar suits, entitled Franchi v. Cloudera,
Inc., et al., Case No. 19CV348790, and Cannizzo v. Cloudera, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 19CV348974, were subsequently filed in the same
court on June 11, 2019 and June 14, 2019, respectively.

The suits have been consolidated under the name In re Cloudera,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 19CV348674 and the
consolidated amended complaint purports to assert claims under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on
behalf of all persons who acquired Cloudera stock pursuant or
traceable to the S-4 registration statement filed in connection
with Cloudera's January 2019 merger with Hortonworks, and alleges
that the registration statement contained untrue statements of
material fact and omitted material facts. Plaintiffs seek, among
other things, an award of damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 1, 2020, the court overruled the Company's demurrer to the
consolidated amended complaint.

On August 18, 2020, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Stahl v. Cloudera, Inc., et al., Case No. 20CV369480 was filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara.

The Stahl complaint is substantially similar to the consolidated
state court complaint and asserts the same claims against the same
defendants on behalf of the same purported class.

Cloudera believes that the allegations in the lawsuits are without
merit.

Cloudera, Inc. provides platform for machine learning and analytics
in the United States, Europe, and Asia. The company operates
through two segments, Subscription and Services. Cloudera, Inc. was
founded in 2008 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California.


COMMONWEALTH BANK: Woodsford Funds Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Litigation Finance Journal reports that UK Litigation Finance firm
Woodsford is funding a class action against BT, AMP, and
Commonwealth Bank. If successful, the case could bring the funder
as much as 25% of any potential reward. Craig Allsopp, class action
leader at Shine, who has taken on the case, has said that funders
generally receive between 20-30% of awards from successful cases.
[GN]

COMMONWEALTH EDISON: Faces Bribery Class Action in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
On August 3, 2020, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Bellows
Law Group, and Mason Lietz & Klinger filed a federal bribery and
corruption class action lawsuit in the Northern District of
Illinois on behalf of Commonwealth Edison's customers and
ratepayers alleging that over many years, ComEd paid bribes to
Michael J. Madigan, the powerful Speaker of the Illinois House of
Representatives, so that Madigan would ensure passage through the
Illinois legislature of bills permitting ComEd to charge higher
electric rates. The multi-year illegal scheme benefitted ComEd,
defendant Exelon Corporation, and Madigan; the losers were public
trust in government, the people of Illinois, and ComEd's
customers.

The complaint alleges that the scheme was part of a longstanding
"pay to play" enterprise headed by Madigan, involving his network
of loyalists as well as defendants and their individual employees
and representatives. The modus operandi of Madigan's enterprise was
simple: Madigan demanded money or "favors," defendants complied,
and in exchange Defendants received Madigan's support for
legislation favoring their economic interests. That support was
crucial: it is common knowledge no bill moves in the Illinois House
without Madigan's support.

"Consumers and small businesses are struggling enough to get by
already without paying higher utility rates because of corruption,"
notes Lieff Cabraser partner Jonathan Selbin, who represents the
plaintiffs with co-counsel.

As the complaint sets out, and as has been admitted publicly in a
Deferred Prosecution Agreement between ComEd and the U.S.
Department of Justice, ComEd hired Madigan's associates as
"subcontractors," who were paid well (to the tune of more than $1.3
million) for little or no work, appointed another associate to its
board of directors (without interviewing or even considering other
candidates), and retained a particular law firm "with the intent to
influence and reward" Madigan. Further, ComEd concealed its illegal
payments using off-the-books payment records and fraudulent
invoices.

The bribes to Madigan paid off handsomely for ComEd. As the
complaint further details, under Madigan's stewardship, the
Illinois legislature passed two bills in 2011 and 2016 -- the
Energy Infrastructure and Modernization Act ("EIMA") and the Future
Energy Jobs Act ("FEJA") -- each of which permitted ComEd to charge
dramatically higher rates for electricity. Some 70% of Illinois
residents (individuals and businesses), including Plaintiffs, who
buy electricity from ComEd, paid out of pocket for these rate
increases.

As the complaint highlights, the central allegations in the case
are as indisputable as they are shocking. Many of the essential
facts of the illegal conduct are laid bare, and admitted to by
ComEd, in the DOJ's Deferred Prosecution Agreement. Defendants'
corrupt intent is proven by their efforts to obfuscate the truth.
And the harm to Plaintiffs and the proposed Class is staggeringly
real: to date, they paid approximately $1.64 billion in increased
electricity rates under legislation that never would have passed
but for defendants' corrupt scheme.

"The violation of the public trust here is staggering," notes The
Bellows Law Group's Laural G. Bellows, who also represents the
plaintiffs in the case. "It is time we recognized that corruption
is not a victimless crime."

The complaint makes explicit the fact that without the
bribery-induced support of Madigan, ComEd would not have secured
the favorable legislation allowing it to increase rates in the
amounts it obtained and charged consumers, and states claims under
the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, as well
as Illinois statutory and common law. The suit seeks an award of
economic, monetary, actual, consequential, compensatory and
punitive damages as appropriate under the law.

Contacts:

Jonathan D. Selbin
Jason L. Lichtman
Rachel Green
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013
212.355.9500
jselbin@lchb.com
jlichtman@lchb.com

Laurel G. Bellows
The Bellows Law Group, P.C.
209 South LaSalle, Suite 800
Chicago, IL 60604
312.332.3340

Gary M. Klinger
Mason, Lietz & Klinger, LLP
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
202.975.0477 [GN]


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Shareholders Seek Approval of $18MM Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ayla Ellison, writing for Becker's Hospital Review, reports that a
group of shareholders asked a federal judge July 21 for preliminary
approval of an $18 million settlement in their class-action lawsuit
against Franklin, Tenn.-based Community Health Systems and its
spinoff Brentwood, Tenn.-based Quorum Health, according to Law360.

The parties reached the settlement agreement after two full days of
mediation earlier this year. The settlement would resolve a
shareholder lawsuit alleging Quorum's stock was trading at an
inflated price after its spinoff from CHS in 2016.

In April 2016, CHS spun off 38 hospitals and a management company
to form Quorum. The lawsuit, filed in 2016 and amended in 2017,
alleges investors were tricked into buying Quorum stock at inflated
prices because CHS, Quorum and several company executives failed to
disclose that Quorum's goodwill and long-lived assets were impaired
prior to the spinoff. The plaintiffs, a class of investors who
acquired Quorum stock after the spinoff, allege the companies'
failure to disclose the impairment charges violated federal
securities law.

The settlement would cover those who bought Quorum common stock
between May 2016 and August 2016. There were approximately 30
million shares of Quorum common stock purchased during that period,
according to a notice of proposed settlement. If those who
purchased all affected Quorum shares participate in the settlement,
the average recovery per share would be 60 cents before deduction
of any fees or other expenses. [GN]


CONCIERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Bids to Consolidate Investor Suits Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Concierge Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated September 1, 2020,
that motions to consolidate the purported class action suits filed
against United States Commodity Funds LLC ("USCF") and United
States Oil Fund, LP ("USO"), are pending.

On August 18, 2020, pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act ("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4, motions were filed
seeking to consolidate (i) a purported stockholder class action
initiated on June 19, 2020 by Robert Lucas, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, that is currently pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York as
Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-04740 and in which United States Commodity
Funds LLC ("USCF"), United States Oil Fund, LP ("USO"), John P.
Love, and Stuart P. Crumbaugh were named as defendants (the "Lucas
Class Action"), (ii) a purported stockholder class action initiated
on July 31, 2020 by Moshe Ephrati, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, that is currently pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York as Civil
Action No. 1:20-cv-06010 and in which the same defendants named in
the Lucas Class Action were also named as defendants (the "Ephrati
Class Action"), and (iii) a purported stockholder class action
initiated on August 13, 2020 by Danny Palacios, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, that is currently pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York as
Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-06442 and also named the same defendants
as in the Lucas Class Action and the Ephrati Class Action (the
"Palacios Class Action" and, together with the Lucas Class Action
and the Ephrati Class Action, the "Class Actions"). The Lucas Class
Action was disclosed in the Prior Form 8-K.

The claims made in each of the Lucas Class Action, the Ephrati
Class Action and the Palacios Class Action are nearly identical. In
each case, it is alleged that, in connection with USO's
registration and issuance of additional shares, beginning in March
2020, USCF, USO and the other named defendants failed to disclose
to investors in USO certain extraordinary market conditions and the
attendant risks that caused the demand for oil to fall
precipitously, including the COVID-19 global pandemic and the Saudi
Arabia-Russia oil price war, and that USCF, USO and the other named
defendants possessed inside knowledge about the consequences of
these converging adverse events on USO and did not sufficiently
acknowledge them until late April and May 2020, after USO suffered
losses and was allegedly forced to abandon its investment strategy.


Although the aforementioned claims are substantively identical, the
putative class period in the Ephrati Class Action and the Lucas
Class Action begins on March 19, 2020, whereas the putative class
period in the Palacios Class Action begins on February 25, 2020.

Each of the complaints in the Ephrati Class Action, the Lucas Class
Action and the Palacios Class Action seeks to certify a class and
award the class compensatory damages at an amount to be determined
at trial.

The Class Actions have been designated as related, and have been
assigned to the same Judge. The actions will proceed under the
procedures outlined in the PSLRA. The nine movants in the
above-referenced August 18, 2020 motions seek to have the Class
Actions consolidated into a single case and to serve as lead
plaintiff on behalf of the entire putative class.

USCF, USO and the other defendants in the Class Actions intend to
vigorously contest the claims made therein and move for their
dismissal.

Concierge Technologies, Inc. through its wholly owned operating
subsidiary Kahnalytics, Inc., is in the business of importing,
selling, distributing and installing high-definition digital video
recorders with GPS mapping, audio recording, wireless broadcasting,
playback and security features as conceptualized to provide
historical records of vehicle driving behavior and mobile
incidents. The company is based in San Clemente, California.


CONN'S INC: Uddin Securities Class Suit in Texas Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Conn's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on September 3, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended July 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a
putative securities class action suit entitled, Uddin v. Conn's,
Inc., et al., No. 4:20-1705.

On May 15, 2020, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed against us and two of our executive officers in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, captioned
Uddin v. Conn's, Inc., et al., No. 4:20-1705 (Uddin Action).

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made false and misleading
statements or failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
company's business and operations.

Plaintiff alleges violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and seeks to certify a class of all persons and entities
that purchased or acquired Conn’s securities between September 3,
2019 and December 9, 2019.

The complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought.

Conn's said, "We intend to vigorously defend our interests in the
Uddin Action. It is not possible at this time to predict the timing
or outcome of this litigation, and we cannot reasonably estimate
the possible loss or range of possible loss from these claims."

Conn's, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a holding company with no
independent assets or operations other than its investments in its
subsidiaries. Conn's is a leading specialty retailer that offers a
broad selection of quality, branded durable consumer goods and
related services in addition to proprietary credit solutions for
its core credit-constrained consumers. The company is based in
Woodland, Texas.


COTY INC: Continues to Defend Suit over Cottage Tender Offer
------------------------------------------------------------
Coty Inc. 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 the company continues to defend a consolidated class
action suit related to a tender offer by Cottage Holdco B.V.

A purported stockholder class action complaint concerning the
tender offer by Cottage Holdco B.V. (the Cottage Tender Offer) and
the Schedule 14D-9, captioned Rumsey v. Coty, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:19-cv-00650-LPS, was filed by a putative stockholder against
the Company and certain current and former directors of the Company
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, but has
not yet been served.

The plaintiff alleges that the Company's Schedule 14D-9 omits
certain information, including, among other things, certain
financial data and certain analyses underlying the opinion of
Centerview Partners LLC.

The plaintiff asserts claims under the federal securities laws and
seeks, among other things, injunctive and/or monetary relief.

A second consolidated purported stockholder class action and
derivative complaint concerning the Cottage Tender Offer and the
Schedule 14D-9 is pending against certain current and former
directors of the Company, JAB Holding Company, S.à.r.l., JAB
Holdings B.V., JAB Cosmetics B.V., and Cottage Holdco B.V. in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The Company was named
as a nominal defendant.

The case, which was filed on May 6, 2019, was captioned
Massachusetts Laborers' Pension Fund v. Harf et.al., Case No.
2019-0336-AGB. On June 14, 2019, plaintiffs in the consolidated
action filed a Verified Amended Class Action and Derivative
Complaint (Amended Complaint).

After defendants responded to the Amended Complaint, on October 21,
2019, plaintiffs filed a Verified Second Amended Class Action and
Derivative Complaint (the Second Amended Complaint), alleging that
the directors and JAB Holding Company, S.a.r.l., JAB Holdings B.V.,
JAB Cosmetics B.V., and Cottage Holdco B.V. breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders and breached the
Stockholders Agreement.

The Second Amended Complaint seeks, among other things, monetary
relief. On November 21, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss
certain claims asserted in the Second Amended Complaint, and
certain of the director defendants also answered the complaint.

On May 7, 2020, plaintiffs stipulated to the dismissal without
prejudice of JAB Holding Company, S.a.r.l. from the action. On
August 17, 2020, the court denied the remaining motions to dismiss.


This case remains at an early stage.

Coty Inc., together with its subsidiaries, manufactures, markets,
distributes, and sells beauty products worldwide. It operates in
three segments: Luxury, Consumer Beauty, and Professional Beauty.
The company was founded in 1904 and is based in New York, New York.
As of April 26, 2019, Coty Inc. operates as a subsidiary of JAB
Cosmetics B.V.


CPI AEROSTRUCTURES: Putative Class Suit Underway in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------
CPI Aerostructures, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission, for the quarterly period
ended September 29, 2019, that the company continues to defend a
putative consolidated class action suit initiated by Mark A.
Rodriguez and Russell Garret.

On February 24, 2020, Mark A. Rodriguez, a purported stockholder,
filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company, Douglas
McCrosson, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and Vincent
Palazzolo, the Company's former Chief Financial Officer, in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
arising out of the errors in and restatements of our financial
statements.

On February 25, 2020, Russell Garret, a purported stockholder,
filed a second putative class action lawsuit against the Company
and Messrs. McCrosson and Palazzolo, in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, arising out of the same
alleged facts.

Each plaintiff seeks to represent a class of stockholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock from May
15, 2018 to February 14, 2020 ("Class Period").

The complaints are almost identical. Both complaints generally
allege that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC by making false
and misleading statements in the Company's periodic reports filed
during the Class Period and seek unspecified damages.

On May 5, 2020, the court consolidated these two lawsuits. The
court also appointed a lead plaintiff and approved plaintiff's
selection of lead counsel.

On May 20, 2020, the court ordered plaintiff to file a consolidated
amended complaint within 30 days of the Company's issuance of its
restated financials.

Founded in 1980, CPI Aerostructures, Inc. is a sub-assembly
manufacturer servicing the commercial and military sector of the
aircraft industry. The company is based in Edgewood, New York.


CV SCIENCES: Colette Putative Class Suit Stayed
-----------------------------------------------
CV Sciences, 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 suit initiated by
Michelene Colette is still stayed.

On December 3, 2019, Michelene Colette and Leticia Shaw filed a
putative class action complaint in the Central District of
California, alleging the labeling on the Company's products
violated the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 (the "Colette
Complaint").

On February 6, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Colette Complaint.

Instead of opposing the company's motion, plaintiffs elected to
file an amended complaint on February 25, 2020.

On March 11, 2020, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. The court issued a ruling on May 22, 2020 that
stayed this proceeding in its entirety and dismissed part of the
amended complaint.

The portion of the proceeding that is stayed will remain stayed
until the U.S. Food and Drug Administration promulgates rules that
govern cannabidiol products (the "FDA Rules"). When such FDA Rules
are promulgated, the plaintiffs will be allowed to ask the court to
reopen the proceeding.

Management intends to vigorously defend the allegations.

CV Sciences, Inc. operates as a life science company. It operates
through two segments, Consumer Products and Specialty
Pharmaceuticals. The company was formerly known as CannaVest Corp.
and changed its name to CV Sciences, Inc. in January 2016. CV
Sciences, Inc. was founded in 2010 and is based in Las Vegas,
Nevada.


CV SCIENCES: Discovery in Smith Purported Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
CV Sciences, 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 initiated by David Smith.

On August 24, 2018, David Smith filed a purported class action
complaint in Nevada District Court (the "Smith Complaint") alleging
certain misstatements in the Company's public filings that led to
stock price fluctuations and financial harm.

Several additional individuals filed similar claims, and the Smith
Complaint and each of the other suits all arise out of a report
published by Citron Research on Twitter on August 20, 2018,
suggesting that the Company misled investors by failing to disclose
that the Company's efforts to secure patent protection for CVSI-007
had been "finally rejected" by the United States Patent and
Trademark Office ("USPTO").

On November 15, 2018, the court consolidated the actions and
appointed Richard Ina, Trustee for the Ina Family Trust, as Lead
Plaintiff for the consolidated actions. On January 4, 2019, Counsel
for Lead Plaintiff Richard Ina, Trustee for the Ina Family Trust,
filed a "consolidated amended complaint".

On March 5, 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss the action.
The Court denied the motion to dismiss on December 10, 2019, and
the parties have commenced discovery in the action.

Arising out of the same facts and circumstances in the Smith
Complaint, on June 11, 2020, Phillip Berry filed a derivative suit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California alleging breaches of fiduciary duty against the Company
and various defendants, and waste of corporate assets (the "Berry
Complaint").

The Company has accepted service of the Berry Complaint, but has
not filed a responsive pleading yet. A responsive pleading is
currently due by August 31, 2020. A total of four shareholder
derivative suits have been filed which are premised on the same
event as the Smith Complaint.

Three of these derivative suits are currently stayed with a
responsive pleading due in the fourth such suit on September 11,
2020. On May 19, 2020, the USPTO issued a patent pertaining to
CVSI-007, which the Company believes negates and defeats any claims
that the Company and the various defendants misled the market by
not disclosing that the USPTO had finally rejected the patent.

Management intends to vigorously defend the allegations in both
matters as the result of the issuance of a patent and the failure
of the plaintiffs’ causes of action on various other grounds.

CV Sciences, Inc. operates as a life science company. It operates
through two segments, Consumer Products and Specialty
Pharmaceuticals. The company was formerly known as CannaVest Corp.
and changed its name to CV Sciences, Inc. in January 2016. CV
Sciences, Inc. was founded in 2010 and is based in Las Vegas,
Nevada.


DELL TECH: Suit over Class V Transaction Proceeds to Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dell Technologies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in
the consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In Re Dell
Class V Litigation (Consol. C.A. No. 2018-0816-JTL)

On December 28, 2018, the Company completed a transaction (the
"Class V transaction") in which it paid $14.0 billion in cash and
issued 149,387,617 shares of its Class C Common Stock to holders of
its Class V Common Stock in exchange for all outstanding shares of
Class V Common Stock. The non-cash consideration portion of the
Class V transaction totaled $6.9 billion. As a result of the Class
V transaction, the tracking stock feature of the Company’s
capital structure associated with the Class V Common Stock was
terminated. The Class C Common Stock is traded on the NYSE.

Four purported stockholders brought putative class action
complaints arising out of the Class V transaction.

The actions were captioned Hallandale Beach Police and Fire
Retirement Plan v. Michael Dell et al. (Civil Action No.
2018-0816-JTL), Howard Karp v. Michael Dell et al. (Civil Action
No. 2019-0032-JTL), Miramar Police Officers' Retirement Plan v.
Michael Dell et al. (Civil Action No. 2019-0049-JTL), and
Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan v. Michael Dell et al. (Civil
Action No. 2019-0115-JTL).

The four actions were consolidated in the Delaware Chancery Court
into In Re Dell Class V Litigation (Consol. C.A. No.
2018-0816-JTL), which names as defendants the Company's board of
directors and certain stockholders of the Company, including
Michael S. Dell.

The plaintiffs generally allege that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the former holders of Class V Common Stock in
connection with the Class V transaction by allegedly causing the
Company to enter into a transaction that favored the interests of
the controlling stockholders at the expense of such former
stockholders.

The plaintiffs seek, among other remedies, a judicial declaration
that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and an award of
damages, fees, and costs.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in August 2019 making
substantially similar allegations to those described above. The
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action in September 2019.


The court denied the motion in June 2020 and the case has now moved
to discovery.

Dell Technologies Inc. provides computer products. The Company
offers laptops, desktops, tablets, workstations, servers, monitors,
printers, gateways, software, storage, and net working products.
Dell Technologies serves customers worldwide. Dell Technologies
Inc. was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Round Rock,
Texas.


DENTSPLY SIRONA: Plaintiffs Appeal Order Denying Bid to Vacate
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 plaintiffs have taken an appeal from a
Court's February 2020 order denying their motion to vacate or
modify the judgment and for leave to amend their complaint.

On June 7, 2018, and August 9, 2018, two putative class action
suits were filed, and later consolidated, in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, County of New York claiming that the Company
and certain individual defendants, violated U.S. securities laws
(the "State Court Class Action") by making material
misrepresentations and omitting required information in the
December 4, 2015 registration statement filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC) in connection with the Merger.

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants failed to
disclose, among other things, that a distributor had purchased
excessive inventory of legacy Sirona products and that three
distributors of the Company's products had been engaging in
anticompetitive conduct.

The plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of a class of
former Sirona shareholders who exchanged their shares for shares of
the Company's stock in the Merger. The Company has filed motions to
dismiss the amended complaint, to stay discovery pending resolution
of the motion to dismiss, and to stay all proceedings pending
resolution of the Federal Class Action described below.

On August 2, 2019, the Court denied the Company's motions to stay
discovery and to stay all proceedings. On August 21, 2019, the
Company filed a notice of appeal of that decision. Briefing has not
yet commenced on that appeal. On September 26, 2019, the Court
granted the Company's motion to dismiss all claims. The associated
judgment was entered on September 30, 2019.

On October 25, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
motion to dismiss decision and the judgment. On November 4, 2019,
the Company filed a notice of cross-appeal of select rulings in the
Court's motion to dismiss decision.

On October 9, 2019, the plaintiffs moved by order to show cause to
vacate or modify the judgment and grant plaintiffs leave to amend
their complaint. On February 4, 2020, the Court denied the
plaintiffs' motion.

On March 5, 2020, the plaintiffs also filed a notice of appeal from
the denial of their motion to vacate or modify the judgment and for
leave to amend their complaint.

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.


DISH NETWORK: Bid to Dismiss Appeal in Krakauer Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
DISH Network 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 motion to dismiss the appeal related
to the "Krakauer Action" for lack of jurisdiction remains pending.

A portion of the alleged telemarketing violations by an independent
third-party retailer at issue in the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
Action are also the subject of a certified class action filed
against DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of North Carolina (the "Krakauer Action").  

Following a five-day trial, on January 19, 2017, a jury in that
case found that the independent third-party retailer was acting as
DISH Network L.L.C.'s agent when it made the 51,119 calls at issue
in that case, and that class members are eligible to recover $400
in damages for each call made in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).   

On May 22, 2017, the Court ruled that the violations were willful
and knowing, and trebled the damages award to $1,200 for each call
made in violation of TCPA. On April 5, 2018, the Court entered a
$61 million judgment in favor of the class.  

DISH Network L.L.C. appealed and on May 30, 2019, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. On October 15,
2019, DISH Network L.L.C. filed a petition for writ of certiorari,
requesting that the United States Supreme Court agree to hear a
further appeal but it denied the petition on December 16, 2019.  

On January 21, 2020, DISH Network L.L.C. filed a second notice of
appeal relating to the district court's orders on the claims
administration process to identify, and disburse funds to,
individual class members.  

On June 29, 2020, Krakauer filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction.  

The district court is deciding how to handle the $10.76 million in
disbursable judgment funds for which no corresponding class member
was identified, the company said.

The company's total accrual related to the Krakauer Action at
December 31, 2018 was $61 million, which was recorded in prior
periods and was included in "Other accrued expenses" on the
company's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. During the third
quarter 2019, the judgment was paid to the court.  

DISH Network said, "We intend to vigorously defend these cases. We
cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of these
suits."

DISH Network Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides
pay-TV services in the United States. The company operates in two
segments, Pay-TV and Wireless. DISH Network Corporation was founded
in 1980 and is headquartered in Englewood, Colorado.


DISH NETWORK: Still Defends Hallandale Police & Firefighters' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
DISH Network 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 a class
action suit entitled, City of Hallandale Beach Police Officers' and
Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Trust v. Ergen, et al., Case No.
A-19-797799-B.

On July 2, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by a
purported EchoStar stockholder in the District Court of Clark
County, Nevada under the caption City of Hallandale Beach Police
Officers' and Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Trust v. Ergen, et
al., Case No. A-19-797799-B.  

The lawsuit named as defendants Charles W. Ergen, the other members
of the EchoStar Board, as well as EchoStar, certain of its
officers, DISH Network and certain of DISH Network's and EchoStar's
affiliates.  

Plaintiff alleges, among other things, breach of fiduciary duties
in approving the transactions contemplated under the Master
Transaction Agreement for inadequate consideration and pursuant to
an unfair and conflicted process, and that EchoStar, DISH Network
and certain other defendants aided and abetted such breaches.  

In the operative First Amended Complaint, filed on October 11,
2019, the plaintiff dropped as defendants the EchoStar board
members other than Mr. Ergen.  

Plaintiff seeks equitable relief, including the issuance of
additional DISH Network Class A Common Stock, monetary relief and
other costs and disbursements, including attorneys' fees.

DISH Network said, "We intend to vigorously defend this case, but
cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of this
suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or
damages."

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

DISH Network Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides
pay-TV services in the United States. The company operates in two
segments, Pay-TV and Wireless. DISH Network Corporation was founded
in 1980 and is headquartered in Englewood, Colorado.


DOLLAR TREE: Agreement in Principle Reached in Ex-Employee's Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
August 1, 2020, that an agreement in principle has been reached to
settle the class action suit initiated by a former employee of the
company.

In August 2018, a former employee brought suit in California state
court as a class action and as a PAGA representative suit alleging
that the company failed to provide all non-exempt California store
employees with compliant rest and meal breaks, accrued vacation,
accurate wage statements and final pay upon termination of
employment.

Dollar Tree said, "We have reached an agreement to settle the
matter and are waiting for the court’s approval."

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

Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It
operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The
company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake,
Virginia.


DOLLAR TREE: Defends Former Employee Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
August 1, 2020, that its Family Dollar unit is a defendant in a
class action suit filed by a former employee alleging that the
company failed to provide compliant rest breaks, pay timely wages,
reimburse business expenses and provide accurate wage statements.

In July 2020, a former employee brought a class action in state
court in California on behalf of all non-exempt California store
employees alleging that the company failed to provide compliant
rest breaks, pay timely wages, reimburse business expenses and
provide accurate wage statements.

Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It
operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The
company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake,
Virginia.



DOLLAR TREE: Family Dollar Sued in Cal. Over Unpaid Meal Breaks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
August 1, 2020, that its Family Dollar unit is facing a class
action complaint alleging the company failed to provide compliant
rest and meal breaks, suitable seating, accurate wage statements,
pay during security checks and to pay all wages due upon
termination of employment.

In May 2020, a former employee filed a class action complaint in
state court in California on behalf of all non-exempt California
store employees alleging that the company failed to provide
compliant rest and meal breaks, suitable seating, accurate wage
statements, pay during security checks and to pay all wages due
upon termination of employment.

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

Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It
operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The
company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake,
Virginia.


DOLLAR TREE: N.Y. Consumer Suit Over Almond Milk Label Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
August 1, 2020, that the company continues to defend a consumer
class action suit related to alleged mislabeling of its Almond Milk
product with "Vanilla" featured prominently on the packaging.

In January 2020, a consumer class action was filed against us in
New York alleging Almond Milk sold by the company with "Vanilla"
featured prominently on its packaging is mislabeled because it does
not contain the expected amount, type, and proportion of vanilla
relative to non-vanilla flavor components.

The legal claims include New York consumer protection laws,
negligent misrepresentations, breach of warranties, fraud and
unjust enrichment.

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

Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It
operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The
company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake,
Virginia.

DXC TECH: California Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP reports that on July 27, 2020, United
States District Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed,
with leave to amend, a putative class action asserting violations
of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the
"Securities Act") against a large IT services provider (the
"Company"), certain of its officers, and its largest shareholder.
Costanzo v. DXC Tech. Co., No. 19-cv-05794-BLF, 2020 WL 4284838
(N.D. Cal. July 27, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that the Company's
prospectus and registration statement (the "Registration
Statement"), issued in connection with the merger that created the
Company, mislead investors about the true scale of, and the risks
associated with, the Company's plan to reduce its workforce costs.
The Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss because plaintiffs
failed to allege that the statements in the Company's Registration
Statement were false and because the alleged misstatements were
protected by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act's
("PSLRA") safe harbor.

In April 2017, two IT services providers executed a "Reverse Morris
Trust" merger.  One of the IT service providers spun off a division
into a new company, which then purchased the second IT service
provider to form the Company.  The second IT service provider's
company stock was then converted to the Company's stock on a
one-to-one basis.  The Company filed a draft Registration Statement
to register the Company's shares that were issued and exchanged in
the merger, which was declared effective in February 2017.  A few
days after the completion of the merger, the Company's shares began
trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

The Registration Statement announced that the Company expected to
produce first-year "cost synergies" of $1 billion that would be
achieved, in large part, through a "workforce optimization" plan
that would eliminate duplicative roles and costs.  Relying on
allegations in a separate breach of contract suit against the
Company brought by a former senior executive, who had been
terminated a year after the merger, plaintiffs alleged that
defendants failed to disclose that (i) the Company in fact intended
to make $2.7 billion in workforce cuts, nearly triple what it had
announced; (ii) the workforce cuts were made to inflate reported
earnings and other financial metrics; and (iii) the scale and speed
of these cuts would essentially cripple the Company's workforce
infrastructure, impeding its ability to deliver on client contracts
and driving down its revenue.

The Court was unpersuaded.  The Court, agreeing with its sister
court in the Eastern District of Virginia, which had dismissed a
similar suit against the Company, found that the allegations in the
former executive's complaint, even assuming that they were true,
made clear that the $2.7 billion internal cost-cutting target was
nothing more than an "aspirational goal" that was used to "reduce
internal debate" within the Company.  Because the plaintiffs had
not alleged that the Company actually cut costs beyond the
disclosed $1 billion -- and, indeed, alleged no facts outside of
those set forth in the former executive's complaint --the Court
held that plaintiffs had not alleged that the Registration
Statement contained any false or misleading statements.  According
to the Court, the use of an internal aspirational goal as a tool to
silence internal debate was "simply a business decision without any
consequence to the investor."

The Court also addressed defendants' argument that the complaint
should be dismissed because the alleged misstatements were
forward-looking and therefore protected by the PSLRA's safe harbor.
The Court agreed with defendants, rejecting plaintiffs' argument
that the alleged misstatements were made in connection with an
initial public offering ("IPO") and therefore exempt from the
PSLRA's safe harbor.  Although plaintiffs conceded that the merger
was not a "vanilla IPO," they argued that it should nevertheless be
treated as an IPO because the Company had issued "a brand new,
never before publicly traded security of a new and thus previously
non-reporting company."  While the Court acknowledged that the
PSLRA's safe harbor does not extend to statements made in
connection with an IPO, the Court was unpersuaded that the merger
should be treated as an IPO.  The Court found it particularly
noteworthy that plaintiffs had not alleged that the Registration
Statement referred to the stock issuance as an IPO or indicated
that the stock had never before publicly traded. [GN]


EASTMAN KODAK: Hagens Berman Reminds of Oct. 13 Motion Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Eastman Kodak Company (NYSE: KODK) investors
with losses in excess of $250,000 to submit your losses now.  A
recently filed Kodak securities fraud class action extends the
alleged fraudulent period through August 11, 2020.

New Alleged Class Period: July 27, 2020 - Aug. 11, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Oct. 13, 2020

Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/KODK

Contact An Attorney Now: KODK@hbsslaw.com
                         844-916-0895

Eastman Kodak Company (KODK) Securities Class Action

The complaint alleges that Defendants misrepresented and concealed
material facts regarding a purported deal Kodak reached with the
U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC).

Specifically, on July 27, 2020, Defendants caused Kodak to issue a
statement to Rochester, New York media outlets on the imminent
public announcement of a "new manufacturing initiative" involving
the DFC and the response to COVID-19. Following publication of
Kodak's initial statement on the deal, the Company claimed this
information was released inadvertently.

That same day, Kodak granted several insiders options to purchase
approximately 1.885 million shares of Company's stock, including
Chairman and CEO Jim Continenza, who received options to purchase
1.75 million shares, and CFO David Bullwinkle, who received options
to purchase 45,000 shares.

On July 28, 2020, the price of Kodak's shares jumped 200% following
news Kodak had won a $765 million loan from the DFC to produce
pharmaceutical materials, including COVID-19 drug ingredients.
Shares continued to surge by over 300% the next day.  This massive
stock price increase allowed Kodak insiders to profit tremendously.


Days later, media outlets uncovered Defendants' compensation
scheme. As a result of these revelations, the SEC is reportedly
investigating, the DFC paused the deal, and Kodak's share price has
declined sharply thereby damaging Class Period investors.

"We're focused on investors' losses and holding Kodak and its
insiders accountable for their fraudulent compensation scheme,"
said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the
investigation.

If you are a Kodak investor who lost over $250,000 on Class Period
investments, click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens
Berman.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Kodak
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 KODK@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]


EASTMAN KODAK: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Oct. 13 Motion Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Eastman Kodak Company.
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.

Eastman Kodak Company (NYSE:KODK)

KODK Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased July 27, 2020 -
August 11, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline : October 13, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/eastman-kodak-company-information-request-form-2?prid=8865&wire=1

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

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. [GN]


ECI MGMT: White and Williams Attys. Discuss Court Ruling in Aegis
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Konrad Krebs, Esq. -- krebsk@whiteandwilliams.com -- and Anthony
Miscioscia, Esq. -- misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com -- of White
and Williams LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that
highlighted by a decision in the 11th Circuit, a small divide may
be beginning to emerge in the treatment of coverage for underlying
plaintiff's attorneys' fees under professional liability policies,
a split that can be traced to how policies define the term "loss."

The decision came in Aegis Elec. & Gas Int'l Servs. v. ECI Mgmt.,
LLC, which arose from a class action against a property management
company alleging the improper withholding and failure to return
security deposits, in violation of Georgia statute.

ECI Mgmt. LLC (ECI) was insured under a Real Estate Services
Professional Liability Insurance Policy, which provided coverage
for claims made against the insured seeking to hold the insured
liable for any loss as a result of a "wrongful act." "Loss" was
defined as "a compensatory monetary amount for which the Insured
may be held legally liable, including judgments (inclusive of any
pre-judgment or post-judgment interest), awards, or settlements
negotiated with the prior approval of the Insurers, but shall not
include" the following:

a. any disgorgement, return, withdrawal, restitution or reduction
of any sums which are or were in the possession or control of any
Insured, or any amounts credited to any Insured's account;

b. fines, sanctions, taxes, penalties or awards deemed uninsurable
pursuant to any applicable law;

c. punitive, exemplary, treble damages or any other damages
resulting from the multiplication of compensatory damages; [or]

d. equitable relief, or fees, costs or expenses incurred by the
Insured to comply with any such equitable relief.

In its opinion, the court concluded that, under the applicable
Georgia statute, the return of security deposits to a plaintiff was
not a "loss" under Georgia law. Importantly, the court analyzed the
applicable statute concluding that the amounts potentially owed for
improperly retained security deposits were a "return" of those
deposits, which fell within the first "loss" definition carve-out.

However, the court then turned to the issue of whether the
underlying plaintiff's statutory attorneys' fees could constitute a
"loss" under the policy. The court primarily looked at the punitive
and treble damages carve-out in this analysis. The court noted that
an award of attorneys' fees was not provided for without
intentional action by the landlord, potentially tying the award to
an award of treble damages. Nonetheless, the court did not agree
that an attorneys' fee award itself flowed from an award of treble
damages under the statute to invoke the treble damages carve-out.
The court further recognized 11th Circuit precedent, holding that
attorneys' fees did not constitute "damages," effectively
distinguishing "attorneys' fees" from treble damages and the term
"damages" from the term "loss." Based upon this analysis, the court
concluded that attorneys' fees met the definition of a "loss," and
exposure to potential attorneys' fees triggered a duty to defend.

This raises an important distinction in policy language, which was
alluded to by the court. Multiple courts, including the 11th
Circuit, have held that attorneys' fees are not damages. See Alea
London Ltd. v. Am. Home Servs., 638 F.3d 768 (11th Cir. 2011). As a
result, some professional liability policies that include "damages"
within their definition of "loss" have been held to not afford
coverage for attorneys' fee awards. See, e.g., Health Net, Inc. v.
RLI Ins. Co., 206 Cal.App.4th 232 (Cal. App. 2012), but see
Republic Franklin Ins. Co. v. Albemarle County Sch. Bd., 670 F.3d
563, 569 (4th Cir. 2012) (holding that attorneys' fees and
liquidated damages constituted "damages" within the definition of a
"loss"). Conversely, for policies that do not include "damages"
within their definition of "loss", the 11th Circuit now joins other
courts in concluding that attorneys' fees may constitute a "loss"
when the definition of "loss" is not limited to damages. See, e.g.,
Continental Casualty Co. v. Board of Education, 489 A.2d 536 (Md.
1985).

Given the limited number of cases to address this issue, room still
exists for insurers with the instant policy language to argue that
attorneys' fees are not covered under a similar "loss" definition
carve-out, though caution must be employed, as some states already
hold that statutory attorneys' fees are compensatory in nature.
See, e.g., Action Marine, Inc. v. Cont'l Carbon Inc., 481 F.3d
1302, 1321 (11th Cir. 2007); Clausen v. Icicle Seafoods, Inc., 272
P.3d 827, 832 (Wa. 2012); Hess v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., 398
P.3d 27, 33 (Ok. App. 2017), Brown v. Quicken Loans, Inc., 2013
W.V. Cir. LEXIS 8039 (W.V. Cir. June 17, 2013). Insurers with broad
definitions of "loss" within their policy language, as in ECI
Mgmt., should carefully review their individual language before
denying coverage for attorneys' fees. [GN]


ENDO INT'L: Appeal in PERS Mississippi Lawsuit Pending
------------------------------------------------------
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 putative intervenor's appeal from an order
denying its petition to intervene and from the order granting final
approval to the settlement in the matter, Public Employees'
Retirement System of Mississippi v. Endo International plc, by the
Pennsylvania Superior Court, is still pending.

In February 2017, a putative class action entitled Public
Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v. Endo International
plc was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County,
Pennsylvania by an institutional purchaser of shares in the
Company's June 2, 2015 public offering.

The complaint alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 against the company, certain of its
current and former directors and officers, and the underwriters who
participated in the offering, based on certain disclosures about
Endo's generics business.

In June 2019, the parties entered into a settlement providing for,
among other things, a $50 million payment to the investor class in
exchange for a release of their claims.

In December 2019, the court denied a petition to intervene filed by
the lead plaintiff in the Pelletier litigation described below, and
granted final approval of the settlement.

In December 2019, the putative intervenor appealed the denial of
its petition to intervene and the final approval order to
Pennsylvania Superior Court. That appeal remains pending.

As a result of the settlement, during the first quarter of 2019,
the Company recorded an increase of approximately $50 million to
its accrual for loss contingencies.

As the Company's insurers agreed to fund the settlement, the
Company also recorded a corresponding insurance receivable of
approximately $50 million during the first quarter of 2019, which
was recorded as Prepaid expenses and other current assets in the
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

The Company's insurers funded the settlement during the third
quarter of 2019, resulting in corresponding decreases to the
Company's accrual for loss contingencies and insurance receivable.

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

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.


ENDO INT'L: Bid for Class Certification in Pelletier Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 motion for class certification in the case,
Pelletier v. Endo International plc, Rajiv Kanishka Liyanaarchchie
De Silva, Suketu P. Upadhyay and Paul V. Campanelli, remains
pending.

In November 2017, a putative class action entitled Pelletier v.
Endo International plc, Rajiv Kanishka Liyanaarchchie De Silva,
Suketu P. Upadhyay and Paul V. Campanelli was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by an
individual shareholder on behalf of himself and all similarly
situated shareholders.

The lawsuit alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder relating to the
pricing of various generic pharmaceutical products.

In June 2018, the court appointed Park Employees' and Retirement
Board Employees' Annuity Benefit Fund of Chicago lead plaintiff in
the action.

In September 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which
the court granted in part and denied in part in February 2020.

In particular, the court granted the motion and dismissed the
claims with prejudice insofar as they were based on an alleged
price-fixing conspiracy; the court otherwise denied the motion to
dismiss, allowing other aspects of lead plaintiff's claims to
proceed.

In June 2020, the lead plaintiff moved for class certification.

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.


ENDO INT'L: Defends Albiges Putative Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
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 company is a named defendant in the
putative class action suit entitled, Benoit Albiges v. Endo
International plc, Paul V. Campanelli, Blaise Coleman, and Mark T.
Bradley.

In June 2020, a putative class action entitled Benoit Albiges v.
Endo International plc, Paul V. Campanelli, Blaise Coleman, and
Mark T. Bradley was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey by an individual shareholder on behalf of
himself and all similarly situated shareholders. The lawsuit
alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, relating to the marketing
and sale of opioid medications and the New York Department of
Financial Services' administrative action against the Company, Endo
Pharmaceuticals Inc. (EPI), Endo Health Solutions Inc. (EHSI), Par
Pharmaceutical, Inc. (PPI) and Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc.
(PPCI).

To the extent unresolved, the company will continue to vigorously
defend the foregoing matters and to explore other options as
appropriate in our best interests. Similar matters may be brought
by others or the foregoing matters may be expanded.

Endo said, "We are unable to predict the outcome of these matters
or to estimate the possible range of any losses that could be
incurred. Adjustments to our overall liability accrual may be
required in the future, which could have a material adverse effect
on our business, financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows."

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.


ENDO INT'L: Suit Against PPI over Xyrem Sales Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
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 Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (PPI) is a defendant
in a class action suit related to the settlement of certain patent
litigations concerning generic versions of Xyrem (sodium oxybate).


Beginning in June 2020, several alleged indirect purchasers filed
proposed class actions against Jazz Pharmaceuticals and other
pharmaceutical companies, including Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (PPI),
alleging violations of state and federal antitrust laws in
connection with the settlement of certain patent litigations
concerning generic versions of Xyrem (sodium oxybate).

Certain of the complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois while others were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California or the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In July, plaintiffs in the Northern District of Illinois cases
naming PPI voluntarily dismissed their cases and re-filed them in
the Northern District of California. The complaints allege that
Jazz entered into a series of "reverse-payment" settlements,
including with PPI, to delay generic competition for Xyrem.

The various complaints assert claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act, Section 16 of the Clayton Act, state antitrust and
consumer protection statutes and/or state common law.

Plaintiffs generally seek damages, treble damages, equitable relief
and attorneys' fees and costs.

Endo said, "To the extent unresolved, we will continue to
vigorously defend the foregoing matters and to explore other
options as appropriate in our best interests. Similar matters may
be brought by others or the foregoing matters may be expanded. We
are unable to predict the outcome of these matters or to estimate
the possible range of any losses that could be incurred.
Adjustments to our overall liability accrual may be required in the
future, which could have a material adverse effect on our business,
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows."

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.


ENERGY RECOVERY: Vincent Wong Reminds of September 21 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that class actions have
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the following
companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
There will be no obligation or cost to you.

Energy Recovery, Inc. (NASDAQ:ERII)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/energy-recovery-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8754&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 21, 2020
Class Period: August 2, 2017 - June 29, 2020

Allegations against ERII include that: (i) the Company had
different strategic perspectives regarding commercialization of the
Company's VorTeq technology than Schlumberger Technology Corp.,
which had exclusive rights to the use of VorTeq (ii) these
differences created substantial risk of early termination of the
Company's exclusive licensing agreement with Schlumberger; (iii)
accordingly, the revenue guidance and expectations of future
license revenue was false and lacked reasonable basis; and (iv) as
a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times or lacked a reasonable basis and
omitted material facts.
To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         39 East Broadway
         Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Tel. 212.425.1140
         Fax. 866.699.3880
         E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]

EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Parties Agree to Dismiss Claims in Solomon
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the case captioned SARAH SOLOMON, on behalf of herself
and all individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EQUIFAX
INFORMATION SERVICES LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-266
(E.D. Va.) filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice as to
the plaintiffs' individual claims and without prejudice as to the
putative class claims, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(a)(1)(A)(ii).  District Judge John A. Gibney Jr. acknowledged
the voluntary dismissal and directed the Clerk to close the case in
a July 8, 2020 Order.

In a previous order dated June 5, 2020, Judge Gibney denied the
parties' joint motion for settlement approval, a full copy of which
Opinion is available at https://is.gd/B08HGQ from Leagle.com.

Sarah Solomon filed the suit asserting that Equifax incorrectly
reported information about her credit history.  The case involves
Equifax's analysis of her bankruptcy proceedings, which went on for
several years.  Solomon originally filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy,
commonly called a wage earner's plan.  When a debtor files under
Chapter 13, she gets some relief from current debt, but agrees to
follow a plan in which she will pay off some or all of her
obligations over a set period of time.

After Solomon filed under Chapter 13, she incurred "new" debt in
addition to what she had listed in her Chapter 13 plan.
Unfortunately, she could not comply with her Chapter 13 plan, and
so converted it to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.  Under Chapter 7, the
bankruptcy court liquidates the petitioner's assets, and discharges
all her debts.  In Solomon's case, her Chapter 7 bankruptcy
eliminated both the remaining debt in her original Chapter 13 case,
and the "new" debt incurred after filing the Chapter 13 case.

Equifax uses a complex computer program to determine -- and report
-- a consumer's credit obligations.  In the case of Solomon, and
others like her, it reported that her debts listed in her Chapter
13 bankruptcy no longer existed.  But Equifax did not catch the
discharge under Chapter 7 of her "new" debt; it reported that she
still owed those creditors.  The effect of that error is obvious:
if Solomon applied for credit, her Equifax report would show that
she still owed the "new" debt, thus making her a worse credit risk
than she really was.

Because of the error, Solomon filed the case as a class action on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated.  Solomon has not
moved the Court to certify the case as a class action.

The parties have tentatively reached an individual settlement in
the case.  While the agreement resolves only Solomon's personal
claim, it has elements common to class action settlements.  The
parties have not presented the settlement agreement to the Court,
but have told the Court about two of its provisions.

First, they have agreed that Equifax will adopt a complicated
coding procedure for its computers.  The procedure will pick up the
discharge of "new" debt after the conversion of a Chapter 13 to a
Chapter 7 bankruptcy.  The procedure essentially tracks what the
court ordered in a similar case, White v. Experian Information
Solutions, Inc.  In White, the court entered a 36-page order
requiring the defendants in that case to change their procedures in
many interrelated ways, with a set of computer codes designed to
pick up situations like Solomon's.  In the case, Solomon and
Equifax ask the Court to enter a consent decree containing an
injunction requiring Equifax to abide by the White procedure, with
some modifications to pick up "new" debt.  Further, they ask the
Court to hold that Equifax's future procedure complies with the
Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), and all equivalent state
statutes.

Second, they have asked the Court to approve an agreement between
Equifax and some of the Plaintiff's counsel in the case that
restricts the ability of those lawyers to bring further claims
similar to this one.  The restriction would apply during the 18
months that the consent decree remains in effect.

Judge Gibney has no idea whether the settlement agreement complies
with the laws of grammar and punctuation, to say nothing of the
FCRA.  And the Judge does not know what "equivalent state statutes"
exist, or how the proposed agreement satisfies them.  Further, the
the Judge cannot anticipate the myriad problems that might arise
under the agreement and might amount to potential violations of the
FCRA.  The Judge can only address concrete disputes.  The proposed
agreement can allow Equifax to argue in some as yet unknown case
that the Court gave its blessing to the agreement as a lawful way
to comply with the FCRA.  That the Judge cannot do.

The parties also asked the Court to approve a restriction on the
future practice of Leonard Bennett and his firm, Consumer
Litigation Associates ("CLA").  Specifically, the settlement
agreement, if approved, would forbid Bennett and CLA from taking
similar cases to this one against Equifax for the duration of the
proposed consent decree.

The Virginia rule recognizes that sometimes it might be best to
allow a lawyer to agree to a restriction on her practice.  The
comments to Virginia's rule suggest that, in a settlement that
provides broad social benefits (such as a mass tort case), a lawyer
might agree to not sue the defendant again.  Indeed, the Court
approved such a resolution in Gibbs v. Curry, where a lawyer
persuaded a defendant to contribute millions of dollars to a fund
to benefit the victims of the defendant's wrong-doing, and in
return agreed not to sue him again.  While the results in the
instant case certainly benefit Solomon and others, they do not
provide the extraordinary assistance that came in Gibbs. As Bennett
notes, other lawyers in Virginia protect consumers.  But they are
few in number.  To allow Bennett to restrict his practice, even in
a limited way, would violate the public interest, so the Judge will
not approve this provision of the settlement.  In sum, Judge Gibney
declined to approve the proposed settlement in the case in his June
5 decision.


FACEBOOK INC: Tel Aviv Judge Says Class-Action Suit Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Calcalis Tech reports that Facebook is going to have to defend
itself in a class-action lawsuit in Israel after the court rejected
the company's request to reject the motion, claiming the plaintiffs
aren't "consumers" of the social media network.

The ruling by Tel Aviv District Court judge Rhachamim Cohen, hinged
on the question of who constitutes a Facebook "consumer." The
social media company claimed that the definition only covers
regular users and therefore according to its terms of use, the
lawsuit cannot be conducted in Israel, rather only in the
California court system. The plaintiffs, two operators of pages who
in the past paid for advertising on Facebook before the company
closed down their accounts, claimed that they meet the definition
of "consumers" and therefore their lawsuit can be heard in the
Israeli class-action suit.

The plaintiffs, attorney Eli Nacht and independent marketer Semion
Valdberg, filed the lawsuit on behalf of "all Facebook users whose
accounts were frozen by Facebook without warning and without the
ability to appeal the move." The two claimed that Facebook violated
its own terms of use when it de-activated their accounts without
warning, and that it acted in bad faith and counter to contract
law. They claimed the account closure caused the users direct and
indirect financial damages. It was further argued that any clause
that allows Facebook to willy nilly deactivate the accounts of its
users without prior notice and without the possibility of restoring
it is a discriminatory condition in a uniform contract that must be
rescinded.

Facebook's terms of use state that in the case that a "consumer"
has grievances or claims against the company, they are subject to
the laws of the state in which they reside and the relevant
authority is the court in the same country. Other users can only
sue the company in a California court.

Facebook, who asked that the lawsuit be dismissed, claimed the
plaintiffs were not consumers, since they presented themselves at
registration as business users who purchased services from the
company. "The plaintiffs are not ordinary non-paying users of the
Facebook platform (i.e. consumers), but rather are 'non-consumers'
(i.e. advertisers)," wrote Cohen in his summary of Facebook's
response. In response, the plaintiffs said that Facebook's
classification of them as business clients was wrong since they
were also the owners of user accounts that were also de-activated.

In his decision, the judge noted that alongside the business
account the plaintiffs also created personal profiles and that
Facebook had shut both down. "Linguistically the plaintiffs are
'consumers' of Facebook as they 'use' Facebook services," he said.
"Facebook is asking to differentiate between non-paying customers
who are 'consumers,' and users who paid for Facebook advertising
services, who aren't 'consumers.' In my judgment, the issue of
payment cannot be the sole criterion for distinguishing between who
is and who isn't a consumer.

"In the regular world, a consumer pays for the services he or she
uses. Therefore the act of payment does not turn the plaintiffs
into non-consumers, the claim that only those who don't pay are
'consumers' is not an obvious one. In this case, we are dealing
with a mix of personal use of the personal account and business use
for marketing courses and the advancement of public issues on the
'pages.' Keeping in mind that the service is 'mainly personal' and
that Facebook deactivated the personal profile, it appears that the
plaintiffs should be viewed as Facebook 'consumers.'"

Cohen also highlighted the power disparity between the plaintiffs
and Facebook: "the plaintiffs are private individuals who
occasionally purchased advertising and marketing packages while
Facebook is a powerful multinational company who's products are
used by more than two billion people, the inequality between
Facebook and the plaintiffs is so significant that the
distinctions, if they exist, between users who only have a private
profile and users who also have business pages are subject to
blurring. Both are in a position of weakness relative to Facebook
and both deserve protection under consumer legislation."

The judge ruled that the plaintiffs are indeed Facebook
"consumers," rejected the motion to dismiss and ordered it to pay
legal expenses worth NIS 30,000 (approximately $9,000). The case is
now set to advance to the next stage, a hearing related to the
content of the class action suit, after which the court will
determine whether to approve or dismiss it.

Facebook declined to comment on the report. [GN]

FASTLY INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all those who purchased
Fastly, Inc. ("Fastly" or the "Company") (NYSE:FSLY) common stock
between May 6, 2020 and August 5, 2020, seeking to recover damages
for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The case,
Betancourt v. Fastly, Inc., et al., No. 3:20-cv-06024, was filed on
August 27, 2020 in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from
today.

If you invested in Fastly common stock between May 6, 2020 and
August 5, 2020 and would like to discuss your legal rights, click
here: www.faruqilaw.com/FSLY. There is no cost or obligation to
you.

You can also contact us by calling Richard Gonnello toll free at
877-247-4292 or at 212-983-9330 or by sending an e-mail to
rgonnello@faruqilaw.com.

Fastly is the provider of an edge cloud platform. The complaint
charges Fastly and certain of its officers with violations of the
Exchange Act.

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

On August 5, 2020 after market close, Fastly held its second
quarter ("Q2") 2020 earnings conference call. During the call,
Defendants disclosed that ByteDance, the Chinese company that
operates the wildly popular mobile app TikTok, was Fastly's largest
customer in Q2 2020, and that TikTok represented about 12% of
Fastly's revenue for the six months ended June 30, 2020.

This news shocked the market, as TikTok had been under heavy
scrutiny by U.S. officials and others since at least late 2019 due
to fears that the data it collects from its users could be accessed
by the Chinese government. Indeed, on July 31, 2020, President
Trump announced a plan to ban TikTok in the U.S. over national
security concerns. As Fastly's Chief Executive Officer admitted on
the Q2 2020 earnings call, "any ban of the TikTok app by the US
would create uncertainty around our ability to support this
customer[,]" and "the loss of this customer's traffic would have an
impact on our business."

On this news, Fastly's share price fell $19.28, or approximately
17.7% from the previous trading day's closing price of $108.92, to
close at $89.64 on August 6, 2020. Fastly's shares continued to
decline on August 6, 2020, when President Trump issued an executive
order effectively banning TikTok, dropping another $10.31 per share
from the closing price on August 6, 2020, or approximately 11.5%,
to close at $79.33 on August 7, 2020.

The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative 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. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Defendants' conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.

Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this
advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your
particular case. All communications will be treated in a
confidential manner.

         Richard Gonnello, Esq.
         FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
         685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Tel No: (877) 247-4292
                 (212) 983-9330
         E-mail: rgonnello@faruqilaw. [GN]


FASTLY INC: Levi & Korsinsky Alerts of Class Action Filing
----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Aug. 31 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of shareholders of Fastly 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.

Fastly, Inc. (NYSE:FSLY)

FSLY Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased May 6, 2020 -
August 5, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 26, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/fastly-inc-information-request-form?prid=8929&wire=1

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

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]


FASTLY INC: Schall Law Alerts of Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Fastly, Inc.
("Fastly" or "the Company") (NYSE: FSLY) for violations of Sec10(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 5, 2020, inclusive (the ''Class Period''), are
encouraged to contact the firm before October 26, 2020.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.

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. Fastly's largest customer was TikTok's
owner, ByteDance, which was under serious scrutiny from the U.S.
government as a security risk. Any action taken against ByteDance
would, in turn, be a material risk to the Company's business
prospects. 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 Fastly, investors suffered
damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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


FELTEX: Investors Continues With Appeal Against Strike-Out of Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stuff.co.nz reports that out-of-pocket Feltex investors' legal
battle will continue as they appeal a High Court decision to strike
out their case.

Feltex listed on the NZX sharemarket in 2004, with thousands of
ordinary investors buying shares at $1.70 each, but by September
2006, receivers had been called in.

The collapse sparked a long-running legal battle in which 3,600 mum
and dad investors banded together to try to get their money back
from the $250 million collapse by suing Feltex directors for their
losses.

It looked like they had reached the end of the road on August 11,
when a ruling from Justice Robert Dobson in the High Court in
Wellington dismissed the case after the investors had failed to
meet a July 13 deadline for satisfying a court order they had
sufficient funds to take the case.

But Tony Gavigan, a director of JAFL Litigation Funding Partners,
the company launched to crowd-fund the costs of running the case,
said the strike-out would be appealed.

"It was decided that we will be appealing parts of Justice Dobson's
August 11 decision," he said.

The company had so far raised just under 60 per cent of the money
it sought from investors, and Gavigan said the crowd-funding offer
would be updated after the decision to appeal the strike-out was
made.

If the appeal failed investors who had put money into JAFL would be
given their money back, Gavigan said.

The directors of Feltex at the time of the share offer who
investors want compensation from are Timothy Saunders, Samuel
Magill, John Feeney, Craig Horrocks, Peter Hunter and Joan
Withers.

Investors also want compensation from Credit Suisse Private Equity,
which was involved in the initial public offering of Feltex
shares.

In 2018 a ruling the Supreme Court held Feltex's 2004 prospectus
contained a revenue forecast directors could not reasonably assume
would be achieved.

The former Feltex directors have sought to have the case struck
out, but Dobson ruled the Feltex investors should have "one last
opportunity" to raise the money they needed to take their class
action claim for damages.

On August 11, Dobson ruled the investors had not complied with the
courts' "unless" orders to prove they had the funding to take the
case forward.

"The automatic consequence of non-compliance with the unless
orders, namely that the proceeding is struck out, remains in
effect," Dobson ruled.

Gavigan said: "We feel that the appeal will succeed."

In his judgment dated May 22, Dobson said the directors had
indicated they would challenge claims by individual shareholders
that they would not have invested at all if the untrue statement
had been revealed to them at the point in time they committed to
the purchase.

"The defendants will argue that the untrue statement did not reduce
the fair value of the shares, or not to the extent claimed," Dobson
said.

Gavigan said many of the original investors in Feltex did not live
long enough to see the case concluded.

Investor George Payne died shortly after speaking out on his
motivations for continuing to seek compensation even as the end of
his life approached.

"George Payne will never been heard, but he's never going to be
heard in a court of law, and 700 of George's fellow claimants who
have since died are never going to be heard," Gavigan said. [GN]


FIAT CHRYSLER: Dodge 1500 Truck Owners Sue Firm
-----------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit filed by owners of Dodge Ram 1500 trucks
against Fiat Chrysler (FCA) accuses the automaker of knowingly
selling more than one hundred thousand of Dodge trucks with a
defect that can cause a vehicle fire, according to attorneys at
Hagens Berman.

The lawsuit, filed Aug. 27, 2020, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan, states that all 2014 - 2019 Dodge
Ram 1500 and 1500 Classic trucks equipped with the 3.0L EcoDiesel
engine are potentially affected by a "grossly defective" exhaust
gas recirculation (EGR) cooler. The suit details harrowing accounts
of owners narrowly escaping injury following spontaneous truck
fires.

"These EGR coolers are susceptible to thermal fatigue, leading the
coolers to crack over time and leak coolant, which can cause
combustion within the intake manifold and lead to a vehicle fire,"
the suit states. The defective EGR cooler can also cause owners to
experience sudden loss of power.

If you own a Dodge RAM 1500 or RAM 1500 Classic truck equipped with
an EcoDiesel engine, find out more about the lawsuit and your
rights.

Attorneys say that although FCA issued a voluntary recall, finally
admitting that the defect places vehicle owners and occupants, as
well as those outside the vehicle, at risk of injury and is present
in 100 percent of the affected vehicles, FCA has not made a fix
readily available, and has also made additional misrepresentations
in its recall, compounding the danger.

"Owners of these trucks were already under threat of vehicle fire,
and yet FCA added insult to potential injury by leaving Ram 1500
owners with no meaningful recourse," said Steve Berman, managing
partner of Hagens Berman and attorney representing the class of
vehicle owners. "FCA told 1500 owners no remedy was available,
leaving them waiting in the rafters for a fix that never came. In
the meantime, FCA placed the burden on truck owners to monitor
their coolant levels when the risk of not doing so sufficiently is
a potentially deadly vehicle fire."

"FCA then led owners to believe a fix was available, but proceeded
to put affected owners back on the road without a fix. FCA failed
its customers at every juncture, both by hiding the defect and by
botching the recall," Berman added.

Hagens Berman has a history of representing vehicle owners
subjected to widespread defects in lawsuits against Fiat Chrysler.
The firm also serves as lead counsel in another case against FCA
concerning an emissions cheating device in Dodge 1500 EcoDiesel
trucks, and also recently filed a suit pertaining to a low oil
pressure defect.

Owners Narrowly Escaping Truck Fires

The lawsuit says the response from FCA failed to meet the bare
minimum of honesty owed to vehicle owners: "Customers are entitled
to FCA's honesty-if there isn't a remedy readily available,
customers should be told this and be given a meaningful choice
regarding what to do with their truck."

Instead, the class action states, that Fiat Chrysler placed its
customers in harrowing situations. One of the suit's named
plaintiffs received a call from his local dealership and was told
three recall fixes needed to be done on his 2016 Ram 1500
EcoDiesel. He agreed and paid $367.44. Less than two months later,
he and his family were traveling and experienced sudden loss of
power. The truck's brakes became soft and unresponsive. After
managing to halt the vehicle and park on the side of the highway,
the plaintiff then saw smoke. His daughter and dog were quickly
rescued from the truck shortly before it became "fully engulfed in
flames," the complaint states.

The lawsuit contains images of another plaintiffs' truck fire,
after he narrowly escaped as the entire vehicle was engulfed in
flames. Again, FCA's investigation states there was no
manufacturing defect, the lawsuit says.

The vehicle was inspected and FCA concluded that "the information
at hand would not permit us to associate the fire with a
manufacturing or assembly error." FCA told the plaintiff they
"decline any assistance associated with this matter" but "sincerely
regret the unfortunate fire," according to the suit.

The lawsuit accuses Fiat Chrysler of committing fraudulent
concealment, violating federal warranty laws, as well as state
consumer protection laws among other claims. Attorneys are seeking
monetary relief for owners of the affected vehicles, as well as
punitive damages against the automaker for its fraud.

"In 2015, after other botched recalls that led to penalties from
federal agencies, FCA vowed to ‘improve our handling of recalls
and re-establish the trust' of its customers it had lost," Berman
said. "Clearly that promise was built upon the same reliability as
its vehicles."

Find out more about the class-action lawsuit against Fiat Chrysler
for its EGR cooler defect and related vehicle fires.

                      About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP is a consumer-rights class-action
law firm with nine offices across the country. The firm's tenacious
drive for plaintiffs' rights has earned it numerous national
accolades, awards and titles of "Most Feared Plaintiff's Firm," and
MVPs and Trailblazers of class-action law. More about the law firm
and its successes can be found at www.hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm
for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw. [GN]


FIFTH THIRD: Defends Fox Putative Class Suit Over MB Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp 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
putative class action suit entitled, Dr. Steven Fox, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fifth Third
Bancorp, et al., Case No. 2020CH05219.

On June 24, 2019, MB Financial, Inc. entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with the Bancorp to provide for the merger of MB
Financial, Inc. with and into the Bancorp, with the Bancorp as the
surviving corporation.

A special meeting of MB Financial, Inc.'s stockholders was held on
August 23, 2019 at which the holders of MB Financial, Inc.'s common
stock and preferred stock, voting together as a single class,
approved the merger.

In the merger, each outstanding share of MB Financial, Inc.'s
preferred stock was converted into the right to receive one share
of a newly created series of preferred stock of the Bancorp having
substantially the same terms as the MB Financial, Inc. preferred
stock.

On August 26, 2019, the Bancorp issued 200,000 shares of 6.00%
non-cumulative Class B perpetual preferred stock, Series A. Each
preferred share has a $1,000 liquidation preference. These shares
were issued to the holders of MB Financial, Inc.'s 6.00 percent
non-cumulative Series C perpetual preferred stock in conjunction
with the merger of MB Financial, Inc. with and into Fifth Third
Bancorp.

This transaction resulted in the elimination of the noncontrolling
interest in MB Financial, Inc. which was previously reported in the
Bancorp's Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. The newly
issued shares of Class B preferred stock, Series A were recognized
by the Bancorp at the carrying value previously assigned to the MB
Financial, Inc. Series C preferred stock prior to the transaction.

On July 31, 2020, a putative shareholder class action captioned Dr.
Steven Fox, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Fifth Third Bancorp, et al., Case No. 2020CH05219 was
filed on behalf of former shareholders of MB Financial, Inc. in the
Cook County, Illinois Circuit Court.

The suit brings claims for violation of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of
the Securities Act of 1933, alleging that the Bancorp and certain
of its officers and directors made material misstatements and
omissions regarding the alleged improper cross-selling strategy in
filings made in connection with the Bancorp's merger with MB
Financial, Inc.

Fifth Third Bancorp operates as a diversified financial services
company in the United States. Fifth Third Bancorp was founded in
1858 and is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.


FIFTH THIRD: Lead Plaintiff & Counsel Appointed in "Christakis"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp 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 overseeing the putative class action
suit initiated by Lee Christakis has appointed Heavy & General
Laborers' Local 472 & 172 Pension and Annuity Funds as lead
plaintiff, and Robins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel for
plaintiff.

On April 7, 2020, Plaintiff Lee Christakis filed a putative class
action against Fifth Third Bancorp, Fifth Third President and Chief
Executive Officer Greg D. Carmichael, and Fifth Third Chief
Financial Officer Tayfun Tuzun in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois entitled Lee Christakis, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fifth Third
Bancorp, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-2176 (N.D. Ill).

The case brings two claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that the
Defendants made material misstatements and omissions in connection
with the alleged unauthorized opening of credit card, savings,
checking, online banking and early access accounts from 2010
through 2016.

The plaintiff seeks certification of a class, unspecified damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.

On June 29, 2020, the Court appointed Heavy & General Laborers'
Local 472 & 172 Pension and Annuity Funds as lead plaintiff, and
Robins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel for plaintiff.

Fifth Third Bancorp operates as a diversified financial services
company in the United States. Fifth Third Bancorp was founded in
1858 and is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.


FIRST SOLAR: Smilovits Class Action Dismissed
---------------------------------------------
First Solar, 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 Arizona District Court has entered an order
granting final approval of the settlement in, and dismissed the
class action entitled, Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:12-cv-00555-DGC, with prejudice.

On March 15, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit titled
Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00555-DGC,
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona (hereafter "Arizona District Court") against the Company
and certain of its current and former directors and officers.

The complaint was filed on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities between
April 30, 2008 and February 28, 2012 (the "Class Action").

The complaint generally alleged that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
financial performance and prospects.

The action included claims for damages, including interest, and an
award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees to the putative
class.

On July 23, 2012, the Arizona District Court issued an order
appointing as lead plaintiffs in the Class Action the Mineworkers'
Pension Scheme and British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme
(collectively, the "Pension Schemes"). The Pension Schemes filed an
amended complaint on August 17, 2012, which contains similar
allegations and seeks similar relief as the original complaint.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 14, 2012. On
December 17, 2012, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss.


On October 8, 2013, the Arizona District Court granted the Pension
Schemes' motion for class certification and certified a class
comprised of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of the Company between April 30, 2008
and February 28, 2012 and were damaged thereby, excluding
defendants and certain related parties. Merits discovery closed on
February 27, 2015.

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on March 27, 2015.
On August 11, 2015, the Arizona District Court granted defendants'
motion in part and denied it in part, and certified an issue for
immediate appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (the "Ninth
Circuit"). First Solar filed a petition for interlocutory appeal
with the Ninth Circuit, and that petition was granted on November
18, 2015.

On May 20, 2016, the Pension Schemes moved to vacate the order
granting the petition, dismiss the appeal, and stay the merits
briefing schedule. On December 13, 2016, the Ninth Circuit denied
the Pension Schemes' motion. On January 31, 2018, the Ninth Circuit
issued an opinion affirming the Arizona District Court's order
denying in part defendants' motion for summary judgment.

On March 16, 2018, First Solar filed a petition for panel rehearing
or rehearing en banc with the Ninth Circuit. On May 7, 2018, the
Ninth Circuit denied defendants' petition. On August 6, 2018,
defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S.
Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, in the Arizona District Court, expert discovery was
completed on February 5, 2019. On June 24, 2019, the U.S. Supreme
Court denied the petition. Following the denial of the petition,
the Arizona District Court ordered that the trial begin on January
7, 2020.

On January 5, 2020, First Solar entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU") to settle the Class Action.

First Solar agreed to pay a total of $350 million to settle the
claims in the Class Action brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's shares between April
30, 2008 and February 28, 2012, in exchange for mutual releases and
a dismissal with prejudice of the complaint upon court approval of
the settlement.

The proposed settlement contains no admission of liability,
wrongdoing, or responsibility by any of the parties.

As a result of the entry into the MOU, the accrued a loss for the
above-referenced settlement in our results of operations for the
year ended December 31, 2019. On January 24, 2020, First Solar paid
$350 million to the settlement escrow agent.

On February 13, 2020, First Solar entered into a stipulation of
settlement with certain named plaintiffs on terms and conditions
that are consistent with the MOU. On February 14, 2020, the lead
plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement.

Following a February 27, 2020 hearing, the Arizona District Court
entered an order on March 2, 2020 that granted preliminary approval
of the settlement and permitted notice to the class.

Following a June 30, 2020 hearing, the Arizona District Court
entered an order on June 30, 2020 that granted final approval of
the settlement and dismissed the Class Action with prejudice.

First Solar, Inc. provides photovoltaic (PV) solar energy solutions
in the United States and internationally. It operates in two
segments, Modules and Systems. The company was formerly known as
First Solar Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to First Solar,
Inc. in 2006. First Solar, Inc. was founded in 1999 and is
headquartered in Tempe, Arizona.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: ClaimsFiler Reminds of September 28 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:

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.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-bayer-aktiengesellschaft-american-depositary-shares-securities-litigation

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.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-firstenergy-corp-securities-litigation

If you purchased shares of the above companies 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
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit 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 ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations.

To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit www.claimsfiler.com [GN]


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Faces Two New Shareholder Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
Doug Livingston, writing for Beacon Journal, reports that
FirstEnergy Corp. leaders collected more than $80 million,
including $35 million in stock awards, in the three years that FBI
agents say the Akron energy conglomerate bankrolled the "largest
bribery, money-laundering scheme" in the history of Ohio politics.

That's according to two new class-action lawsuits as shareholders
blame FirstEnergy and its top brass for their investment losses.

The suits, filed July 28 in a federal court in the Southern
District of Ohio and July 31 in Summit County Common Pleas Court,
are the latest civil cases against Akron-based FirstEnergy and its
top executives amid an ongoing political corruption scandal.

The class-action lawsuits cite an anti-fraud statute in the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. While starting with a single
plaintiff, the two SEC class-action cases could attract other
investors seeking collectively to recoup billions of dollars in
losses.

On July 21, federal agents arrested Ohio House Speaker Larry
Householder and four other men, including lobbyists for FirstEnergy
and its former subsidiary FirstEnergy Solutions (now known as
Energy Harbor), which owned two nuclear power plants. Investigators
say FirstEnergy Corp. and its subsidiaries funneled $61 million to
Householder and his team members, who enriched themselves while
pushing a $1.3 billion nuclear energy bailout bill into law.

Within 48 hours of the arrests, FirstEnergy's shareholders
collectively lost $7.6 billion as the parent company's stock price
plummeted 34%, according to one of the class-action lawsuits.

In speaking to investors and stock analysts, FirstEnergy Corp. CEO
Charles Jones denied any wrongdoing. He's said the parent company
contributed about 25% of the $61 million in question.

A spokeswoman for FirstEnergy said Jones and other defendants in
the class-action suits would not be available for interviews and
that the company "is unable to comment on pending litigation."

A third class-action lawsuit was filed July 29 in Summit County
Common Pleas Court on behalf of the company's electric customers.
That suit alleges that the "illegal" passage of House Bill 6
imposed hundreds of millions of dollars in surcharges for
customers.

And a fourth lawsuit, filed July 25 just days after FBI agents took
their investigation public, alleges that a single shareholder from
Euclid was also harmed when company executives and board members
broke their fiduciary responsibility to serve the interests of
investors with proper oversight, transparency and honesty.

FirstEnergy executives and board members "misled investors and
analysts by touting FirstEnergy's attempts at legislative solutions
for its struggling nuclear facilities," according to one of the two
more recent class-action lawsuits, which is a verified stockholder
derivative complaint signed by shareholder Robert Sloan of Boynton
Beach, Florida.

The executives failed "to disclose that these so-called
‘solutions' centered on the illicit campaign to corrupt
high-profile state legislators in order to secure favorable
legislation," Sloan complained.

Sloan's lawsuit in Summit County tallies all the compensation board
members and top executives collected in 2017, 2018 and 2019 when
FBI agents say the pay-to-play scandal unfolded. Fourteen board
members for the publicly traded company earned an average of
$646,000 in that time, with more than half coming from stock
awards.

Board members were encouraged to invest heavily in the company's
stock, which appreciated from news that lawmakers were working on
and eventually passed a $1.3 billion public subsidy to save the
company's failing nuclear reactors. At the time, FirstEnergy owned
the reactors through FirstEnergy Solutions, which emerged from
bankruptcy in February 2020 as Energy Harbor, an independent
company.

Sloan's lawsuit reference the other SEC class action cases filed on
behalf of shareholder Diane Owens. [GN]


FORECLOSURE EXPEDITORS: Deal in Hamilton Suit Entered in Good Faith
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEFFERY S. HAMILTON; and KALEIMAEOLE NOLA LINDSEY
LATRONIC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. FORECLOSURE EXPEDITORS/INITIATORS, LLC, a
Washington limited liability company; NORTHWEST TRUSTEE SERVICES,
INC., a Washington corporation; and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-50,
Defendants, Civil No. 13-00145 DKW-KJM (D. Haw.), Judge Derrick
Watson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii has
adopted the Findings and Recommendations to grant Defendants'
Petition for Determination of Good Faith Settlement.

The Findings and Recommendations was issued by Magistrate Judge
Kenneth J. Mansfield on May 29, 2020.

Plaintiff Gloria Macadangdang Ilar, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed the Complaint on Sept. 4,
2012, in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii,
against Defendants Routh Crabtree Olsen, P.S. ("RCO"); RCO Hawaii,
LLLC ("RCO Hawaii"), Foreclosure Expeditors/Initiators, LLC
("FEI"), Stephen D. Routh, David E. Fennell, Brett P. Ryan, and
Derek W.C. Wong.  The case was removed to the Hawaii District in
March 2013.  Ilar filed a First Amended Complaint in April 2013,
which named Jeffery Hamilton and Kaleimaeole Nola Lindsey Latronic
as additional Plaintiffs, and Northwest Trustee Services, Inc.
(NWTS) as an additional Defendant (all the Defendants identified in
the FAC are collectively referred to as "Co-Defendants").

In April 2014, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of Ilar's
claims against the Co-Defendants with prejudice.  In October 2017,
the parties stipulated to the dismissal of claims against all
Co-Defendants except NWTS and FEI as a result of the Hawaii Supreme
Court's holding in Hungate v. Law Office of David B. Rosen, 139
Haw. 394 (2017) (holding that a mortgagee's attorney agent cannot
be liable for violations of Hawaii Revised Statutes§ 480-2 for an
allegedly wrongful foreclosure).  Thus, the only parties left in
the case are Plaintiffs Hamilton and Latronic and Defendants NWTS
and FEI.  Although the Plaintiffs brought their claims as a
purported class action, the Plaintiffs did not, prior to entering
into the settlement that is the subject of the Findings and
Recommendation, move to certify the class.

All of the Plaintiffs' allegations arise out of the alleged
wrongful foreclosures of their properties.  The First Amended
Complaint ("FAC") alleges that each the Plaintiff executed a
mortgage on respective properties which contained a power of sale
clause.  The mortgagees of each respective mortgagor or assignee
subsequently commenced non-judicial foreclosure proceedings under
each power of sale.  The Plaintiffs allege that each property was
sold at a foreclosure auction.  Each Plaintiff alleges multiple
deficiencies in the foreclosure process.

NWTS and FEI were not the foreclosing financial institutions or
mortgagees under the Plaintiffs' mortgages.  The Plaintiffs brought
claims against all Co-Defendants originally named in the Complaint
and FAC for allegedly carrying out or assisting in the foreclosure
sales on behalf of the mortgagees.  Specifically, as to NWTS and
FEI, the Plaintiffs allege that NWTS was hired by foreclosing
mortgagees to "assist" mortgagees in the non-judicial foreclosures
of their respective properties, that NWTS then retained law firms
RCO and RCO Hawaii to aid in the foreclosures, and that NWTS and
RCO then arranged for FEI to publish notices of foreclosure in the
newspaper.

The Plaintiffs claim that multiple alleged deficiencies in the
foreclosure proceedings made the foreclosures of their properties
"wrongful," constituted violations of Hawaii Revised Statutes
Section 480-2, and/or constituted tortious interference with
prospective economic advantage.

In August 2017, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the FAC.
In November 2017, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was granted
with respect to the claims of wrongful foreclosure and tortious
interference with prospective economic advantage, leaving only the
claim for violations of Haw. Rev. Stat. Section 480-2 remaining.
In its Order Denying in Part and Granting in Part Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss, the district court held that until the
Plaintiffs moved for and obtained class certification, it would
only consider the claims that Plaintiffs brought as individuals.

The Plaintiffs and the Defendants participated in early settlement
conferences with the Court on March 9, 2018 and May 10, 2018.
Following the March 9, 2018 settlement conference, NWTS was placed
into receivership with a receiver being appointed by the Superior
Court of the State of Washington, County of King, on March 28,
2018.

As a result of the settlement discussions with the Court, the
Plaintiffs agreed on May 10, 2018 to settle their remaining claims
against the Defendants subject to certain terms put on the record
and memorialized in a material term sheet submitted to the Court
under seal.  The settlement agreed to at the May 10, 2018
settlement conference, which was to be reduced to a formal
settlement agreement executed by the parties, was conditioned on
the approval of said settlement by the Superior Court of the State
of Washington in the Receivership Proceeding.  That approval was
entered in the Receivership Proceeding on Feb. 28, 2020.

The Defendants subsequently filed in April 2020 a Petition for
Determination of Good Faith Settlement.

After considering the terms of the settlement among the Plaintiffs
and the Defendants, along with the factors set forth in Troyer v.
Adams and Haw. Rev. Stat. Section 663-15.5, Magistrate Judge
Mansfield found and recommended that the material terms of the
settlement meet the purpose of Haw. Rev. Stat. Section 663-15.5 and
that the settlement was entered into in good faith.  The Magistrate
Judge further recommended that other joint tortfeasors or
co-obligors be barred from asserting any future claims against the
settling parties.

The June 15, 2020 Final Order as well as the May 2020 Findings &
Recommendations are available at https://bit.ly/3kh3ZFX and
https://is.gd/OwPzuz from Leagle.com.

GOODSILL ANDERSON QUINN & STIFEL A LIMITED LIABILITY LAW
PARTNERSHIP LLP EDMUND K. SAFFERY -- esaffery@goodsill.com --
Honolulu, Hawaii Attorney for Defendants FORECLOSURE
EXPEDITORS/INITIATORS, LLC and NORTHWEST TRUSTEE SERVICES, INC.


FULTON FINANCIAL: Kress Putative Class Action Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Fulton Financial 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 a
putative class action suit entitled, D. Kress v. Fulton Bank, N.A.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-18985.

On October 15, 2019, a former Fulton Bank teller supervisor, D.
Kress filed a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of herself
and other similarly situated non-exempt, hourly employees in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, D. Kress v.
Fulton Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:19-cv-18985. Fulton Bank accepted
service of process on January 20, 2020.

The lawsuit alleges that Fulton Bank did not record or otherwise
account for the amount of time which non-exempt employees who are
paid based on their time worked, spent conducting branch opening
security procedures. The allegation is that, as a result, Fulton
Bank did not properly compensate those employees for their regular
and overtime wages.

The lawsuit alleges that by doing so, Fulton violated: (i) the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act and seeks back overtime wages for
a period of three years, liquidated damages and attorney fees and
costs; (ii) the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law and seeks back
overtime wages for a period of six years, treble damages and
attorney fees and costs; and (iii) the New Jersey Wage Payment Law
and seeks back wages for a period of six years, treble damages and
attorney fees and costs.

The lawsuit also asserts New Jersey common law claims seeking
compensatory damages and interest.

Fulton Financial Corporation is a multi-bank holding company. The
Banks offer a full range of general retail and commercial banking
services, including deposits, loans, equipment leasing and
financing, and credit cards. Fulton operates in Pennsylvania,
Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey. The company is based in
Lancaster, Pennsylvania.


GENIE ENERGY: Bid to Nix Putative Class Suit v. IDT Energy Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Genie Energy Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that IDT Energy's motion to dismiss filed in the
putative class action suit initiated by Scott Mackey and Daniel
Hernandez remains pending.

On October 5, 2018, named plaintiffs Scott Mackey and Daniel
Hernandez filed a putative class action complaint against IDT
Energy in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 et seq.

The named plaintiffs filed the suit on behalf of: (1) a putative
Cell Phone class consisting of all persons in the U.S. to whom IDT
Energy and/or a third party acting on IDT Energy's behalf allegedly
made one or more telemarketing calls promoting IDT Energy's goods
or services to their cellular telephone number through the use of
an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
prerecorded voice within the four year period preceding the filing
of the complaint and (2) a putative Do-Not-Call class consisting of
all persons in the U.S. who allegedly received more than one call
from IDT Energy and/or some party acting on IDT Energy's behalf
promoting IDT Energy's goods or services in a 12-month period on
their cellular phone or residential telephone line and whose number
appears on the National Do-Not-Call registry within the four year
period preceding the filing of the complaint.

On October 31, 2019, the court granted IDT Energy's motion to
bifurcate individuals and class claims to expedite discovery and
dispositive motions related to the named plaintiffs.

On January 9, 2020, the court granted IDT Energy's motion for
summary judgement to dismiss one of the named plaintiffs for lack
of personal jurisdiction. The remaining named plaintiff filed a
motion to compel class discovery which IDT Energy has opposed.

On July 14, 2020, IDT Energy filed a motion for summary judgment to
dismiss the remaining named plaintiff. IDT Energy denies the
allegations in the complaint, which it believes to be meritless and
plans to vigorously defend this action.

Based upon the Company's preliminary assessment of this matter, a
loss is not considered probable, nor is the amount of loss, if any,
estimable as of June 30, 2020.

Genie Energy Ltd., through its subsidiaries, operates as a retail
energy provider; and an oil and gas exploration company. The
company operates through three segments: Genie Retail Energy; Genie
Energy Services; and Genie Oil and Gas, Inc. Genie Energy Ltd. was
incorporated in 2001 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.


GENIE ENERGY: Davis Class Suit Over TCPA Violations Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Genie Energy Ltd. (GRE) 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 initiated by Danelle Davis.

On February 18, 2020, named Plaintiff Danelle Davis filed a
putative class action complaint against Residents Energy and GRE in
United States District of New Jersey alleging violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C Section 227 et seq.

IDT energy denies allegations in the complaint and plans to
vigorously defend this action.

Based upon the Company's preliminary assessment of this matter, a
loss is not considered probable, nor is the amount of loss if any,
estimable as of June 30, 2020.

Genie Energy Ltd., through its subsidiaries, operates as a retail
energy provider; and an oil and gas exploration company. The
company operates through three segments: Genie Retail Energy; Genie
Energy Services; and Genie Oil and Gas, Inc. Genie Energy Ltd. was
incorporated in 2001 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.


GEO GROUP: Vincent Wong Reminds of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that class actions have
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in GEO Group.  If you
suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will be
no obligation or cost to you.

The GEO Group, Inc. (NYSE:GEO)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/the-geo-group-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8754&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 8, 2020
Class Period: February 27, 2020 - June 16, 2020

Allegations against GEO include that: (i) GEO Group maintained
woefully ineffective COVID-19 response procedures; (ii) those
inadequate procedures subjected residents of the Company's halfway
houses to significant health risks; (iii) accordingly, the Company
was vulnerable to significant financial and/or reputational harm;
and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]

GERMAN AMERICAN: Suit Over Checking Account Practices Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
German American Bancorp 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 in Marion County, Indiana Superior Court
challenging the Company's checking account practices associated
with its assessment of overdraft fees for certain debit card
transactions.

On July 9, 2020, the Company was named in a putative class action
lawsuit filed in Marion County, Indiana Superior Court challenging
the Company's checking account practices associated with its
assessment of overdraft fees for certain debit card transactions.

The relief sought by the plaintiff includes restitution, other
monetary damages, and injunctive and declaratory relief.

The plaintiff also seeks to have the case certified by the Court as
a class action on behalf all citizens of Indiana who are checking
account holders at German American Bank and who were assessed
overdraft fees on certain debit card transactions.

The Company believes the plaintiff's claims are unfounded and
intends to defend against them.

German American said, "At this stage of the litigation, it is not
possible for the Company's management to determine the probability
of a material adverse outcome or reasonably estimate the amount of
any potential loss."

German American Bancorp Inc. is a multi-bank holding company. The
Banks provide a wide range of retail and commercial banking,
mortgage banking, trust and brokerage services, title insurance,
and personal and corporate property and casualty insurance
products. German American Bancorp operates in southwestern Indiana.
The company is based in Jasper, Indiana.


GHIRARDELLI CHOCOLATE: Court Nixes False Advertising Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jaclyn Metzinger, Esq. -- jmetzinger@kelleydrye.com -- and Levi
Downing, Esq. -- ldowning@kelleydrye.com -- of Kelley Drye, report
that in July, a California court, for a second time, dismissed a
class action complaint asserting that Ghirardelli's advertising for
its "Classic White" "Premium Baking Chips" created the false
impression that the product contained real chocolate--this time
with prejudice.  Plaintiffs in Cheslow v. Ghirardelli Chocolate
Co., Case No. 19-cv-07467-PJH, alleged that they purchased
Ghirardelli's product because they believed it contained white
chocolate, when in fact it does not contain any chocolate at all.
The complaint asserted statutory claims under California's Unfair
Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act.

Plaintiffs claimed that they purchased Ghirardelli's "Premium
Baking Chips," which the packaging described as "Classic White
Chips," because they believing that the term "White" described the
type of chocolate in the product, and the term "Premium" denoted
that the product was made with real chocolate, as opposed to a
"cheap knock-off."  In April, the court dismissed the original
Complaint without prejudice on the grounds that (1) reasonable
consumers would not have assumed the term "white" described the
type of chocolate in the product rather than the product's color,
(2) the term "premium" was mere puffery, and (3) because the
packaging did not include any affirmative false statements, the
plaintiffs could not simply ignore the ingredient list, which did
not include the words "chocolate" or "cocoa."

Plaintiffs attempted to address these deficiencies by
commissioning, and attaching to its amended pleading, a consumer
survey that purported to reflect that 92% of respondents that
viewed the front panel of Ghirardelli's product believed it
contained white chocolate.

The court, however, found that the consumer survey results were
insufficient to support the otherwise implausible false advertising
claims.  The court reasoned that while in some cases courts may
rely upon consumer survey evidence to bolster a finding that
product representations could deceive reasonable consumers, such
evidence is legally insufficient on its own to "transform an
unreasonable understanding of a product into a reasonable one."
The court also found that the consumer survey Plaintiffs relied
upon was flawed.  Most importantly, the survey only showed
respondents the front of the product's packaging and not the back
panel, which included important information about the product,
including the ingredient list.

A number of recent lawsuits have been filed that accuse food
product manufacturers (and specifically manufacturers of
chocolate-based products) of misleading consumers about a product's
ingredients.  Advertisers should remain vigilant in ensuring not
only that their product packaging contains no affirmative false
statements, but also that they do not create an overall net
impression about the product that is false or misleading to
reasonable consumers.  The court's decision in Cheslow, however,
emphasizes that the existence of an accurate ingredients
list--while it cannot be used to cure otherwise deceptive claims on
the front of a product's packaging--remains relevant to whether
reasonable consumers would be misled by a product's overall
packaging.  The decision also puts a greater burden on plaintiffs
seeking to avoid dismissal through survey evidence to ensure that
the survey is itself not misleading and presents respondents with
an accurate picture of what they would actually see if they
reviewed the product's packaging in its entirety. [GN]


GODADDY INC: Oct. 7 Deadline for Submission of Claims in Bennett
----------------------------------------------------------------
GoDaddy 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 court has set October 7, 2020 as the deadline for
class members to submit claims in the matter, Jason Bennett v.
GoDaddy.com.

On June 13, 2019, the company entered into an agreement in
principle to settle the class action complaint, Jason Bennett v.
GoDaddy.com (Case No. 2:16-cv-03908-DLR)(U.S.D.C.)(D.AZ), filed on
June 20, 2016. The complaint alleges violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the TCPA).

On September 23, 2019, the parties fully executed a written
settlement agreement. On December 16, 2019, the company amended the
settlement agreement to include two additional putative class
action cases, which also alleged violations of the TCPA: John
Herrick v. GoDaddy.com, LLC, D. Ariz. (Case No. 2:16-cv-00254,
appeal pending 18-16048 (9th Cir.)) and Susan Drazen v.
GoDaddy.com, LLC (Case No 19-cv-00563).

On April 22, 2020, the parties filed statements in response to a
request from the Court to refine the class definition, resulting in
a reduction in the total number of class members from the original
estimated class.

Accordingly, the company recorded a $2.9 million reduction to
general and administrative expenses during the three months ended
March 31, 2020, lowering the Company's estimated loss provision for
this settlement to $15.1 million, which represented the Company's
best estimate of the total settlement costs, inclusive of
attorneys' fees to be paid to legal counsel representing the
class.

On May 14, 2020, the Court granted approval of the plaintiffs'
unopposed motion for preliminary certification of the settlement
class, subject to the parties' execution of an amended settlement
agreement to remove John Herrick as a class representative.

The parties executed such amendment on May 26, 2020, and on June 9,
2020, the Court granted preliminary approval of the final
settlement agreement. The Court's order also set October 7, 2020 as
the deadline for class members to submit claims and December 14,
2020 as the hearing date regarding final approval of the
settlement.

Under the terms of the final settlement agreement, the company will
make available a total of up to $35.0 million to pay: (i) class
members, at their election, either a cash settlement or a credit to
be used for future purchases of products from the company; (ii) an
incentive payment to the class representatives; (iii) notice and
administration costs in connection with the settlement; and (iv)
attorneys' fees to legal counsel representing the class.

Upon final approval, the company will receive a full release from
the settlement class (other than from those class members who
timely elect to opt out of the settlement) concerning the claims
asserted, or that could have been asserted, with respect to the
claims released in the final settlement agreement.

GoDaddy said, "We made no changes to our estimated loss provision
for this settlement during the three months ended June 30, 2020.
Our legal fees associated with this matter have been recorded to
general and administrative expense as incurred and were not
material."

GoDaddy said, "We have denied and continue to deny the allegations
in the complaint. Nothing in the final settlement agreement shall
be deemed to assign or reflect any admission of fault, wrongdoing
or liability, or of the appropriateness of a class action in such
litigation."

GoDaddy Inc., incorporated on May 28, 2014, is a technology
provider to small businesses, Web design professionals and
individuals. The Company delivers cloud-based products and
personalized customer care. The Company operates a domain
marketplace, where its customers can find the digital real estate
that matches their idea. The company is based in Scottsdale,
Arizona.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Accord in Adeptus IPO Suit Wins Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs 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 court has approved a
settlement among the parties in the class action suit related to
Adeptus Health Inc.'s initial public offering (IPO).

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") is among the underwriters named
as defendants in several putative securities class actions, filed
beginning in October 2016 and consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include certain
former directors and officers of Adeptus Health Inc. (Adeptus), as
well as Adeptus' sponsor.

As to the underwriters, the consolidated complaint, filed on
November 21, 2017, relates to the $124 million June 2014 initial
public offering, the $154 million May 2015 secondary equity
offering, the $411 million July 2015 secondary equity offering, and
the $175 million June 2016 secondary equity offering.

GS&Co. underwrote 1.69 million shares of common stock in the June
2014 initial public offering representing an aggregate offering
price of approximately $37 million, 962,378 shares of common stock
in the May 2015 offering representing an aggregate offering price
of approximately $61 million, 1.76 million shares of common stock
in the July 2015 offering representing an aggregate offering price
of approximately $185 million, and all the shares of common stock
in the June 2016 offering representing an aggregate offering price
of approximately $175 million.

On April 19, 2017, Adeptus filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

On May 20, 2020, the court approved a settlement among the parties.
The firm has paid the full amount of its contribution to the
settlement.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Accord Reached in Indirect Forex Purchasers' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs 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 court has preliminarily
approved a settlement in principle in the putative class action
suit filed on behalf of putative indirect purchasers of foreign
exchange instruments.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") and the company (Group Inc.) are
among the defendants named in putative class actions filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York beginning
in September 2016 on behalf of putative indirect purchasers of
foreign exchange instruments.

On August 5, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a third consolidated
amended complaint generally alleging a conspiracy to manipulate the
foreign currency exchange markets, asserting claims under various
state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws and seeking
treble damages in an unspecified amount.

On July 17, 2020, the court preliminarily approved a settlement in
principle.

The firm has reserved the full amount of its proposed contribution
to the settlement.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Suit Over 1MDB Scandal Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs 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's motion to dismiss
the class action suit related to 1MDB remains pending.

On December 20, 2018, a putative securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against Group Inc. and certain former officers of the firm
alleging violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Exchange
Act with respect to Group Inc.'s disclosures concerning 1MDB and
seeking unspecified damages.

The plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint on October 28,
2019, which the defendants moved to dismiss on January 9, 2020.

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

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.

GOLDMAN SACHS: Consolidated Suit Over Mortgage Matters Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs 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 proceedings in the
consolidated suit against Group, Inc. over mortgage-related matters
remain stayed.

Beginning in April 2010, a number of purported securities law class
actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York challenging the adequacy of Group Inc.'s
public disclosure of, among other things, the firm's activities in
the collateralized debt obligation market, and the firm's conflict
of interest management.

The consolidated amended complaint filed on July 25, 2011, which
names as defendants Group Inc. and certain current and former
officers and employees of Group Inc. and its affiliates, generally
alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and seeks unspecified damages.

The defendants have moved for summary judgment. On April 7, 2020,
the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's
August 14, 2018 grant of class certification, and on June 15, 2020,
the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied defendants' motion
seeking rehearing of the April 7, 2020 decision.

On July 16, 2020, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals granted
defendants' motion to stay the proceedings in the litigation,
pending the resolution of a petition for writ of certiorari to the
United States Supreme Court to seek review of the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals' April 7, 2020 decision.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.

GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement in Snap Inc. IPO Suit Wins Initial OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs 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 a district court has preliminarily
approved the settlement in a litigation related to Snap Inc.'s sale
of securities.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") is among the underwriters named
as defendants in putative securities class actions pending in
California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, and the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California beginning in
May 2017, relating to Snap Inc.'s $3.91 billion March 2017 initial
public offering.

In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Snap Inc.
and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote
57,040,000 shares of common stock representing an aggregate
offering price of approximately $970 million.

The underwriter defendants, including GS&Co., were voluntarily
dismissed from the district court action on September 18, 2018.

In the district court action, defendants moved for summary judgment
on December 19, 2019, following the court's November 20, 2019 order
approving plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.

The state court actions have been stayed. On April 27, 2020, the
district court preliminarily approved a settlement among the
parties. Also on April 27, 2020, the state court plaintiffs filed a
motion for preliminary approval of a settlement of the state court
actions.

Under the terms of the federal and state court preliminary
settlements, the firm will not be required to contribute to either
settlement.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Valeant Securities Suit in Canada Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs 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 certain of its affiliates continue
to defend a putative class action lawsuit in Canada related to
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.'s sales of securities.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") and Goldman Sachs Canada Inc.
(GS Canada)  are among the underwriters and initial purchasers
named as defendants in a putative class action filed on March 2,
2016 in the Superior Court of Quebec, Canada.

In addition to the underwriters and initial purchasers, the
defendants include Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.
(Valeant), certain directors and officers of Valeant and Valeant's
auditor.

As to GS&Co. and GS Canada, the complaint relates to the June 2013
public offering of $2.3 billion of common stock, the June 2013 Rule
144A offering of $3.2 billion principal amount of senior notes, and
the November 2013 Rule 144A offering of $900 million principal
amount of senior notes.

The complaint asserts claims under the Quebec Securities Act and
the Civil Code of Quebec. On August 29, 2017, the court certified a
class that includes only non-U.S. purchasers in the offerings.

Defendants' motion for leave to appeal the certification was denied
on November 30, 2017.

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

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOOGLE INC: Google+ Class Action Settlement Notices Sent
--------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Bradshaw, writing for 9to5Google, reports that if you were a
member of Google Plus before it shut down last year, odds are you
got an email informing you that a class-action lawsuit against
Google has been settled.

Back in 2018, Google+ was delivered a deadly blow when it was
discovered that a privacy flaw allowed any third-party developer to
obtain private data from any user profile. Within months, the
service was preparing to shut down, and as reported by Ars
Technica, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Google for their
alleged "law approach" to the security of Google+ data.

Tonight, many received an email stating that the Google Plus
class-action lawsuit has been settled for a total of $7.5m, an
agreement which was originally reached in January of this year,
according to Business Insurance. The email goes on to explain who
is involved in the lawsuit, who qualifies to make a claim, and how
much you can get if you do claim.

Oddly, the links to the official settlement website mentioned
multiple times in the body of the email are all broken. However,
navigating to the website manually seems to work fine. This, along
with the strongly worded subject line, led many online to believe
that the email was potentially a fake.

On Aug. 4, Google was able to confirm to us that the Google Plus
Class Action Settlement email is indeed legitimate. Last night, the
settlement website experienced a brief outage which prevented the
email's links from working as they should.

9to5Google has updated the remainder of this article to reflect the
legitimacy of the email. [GN]


GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Vincent Wong Reminds of September 23 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that class actions have
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the following
companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
There will be no obligation or cost to you.

Guidewire Software, Inc. (NYSE:GWRE)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/guidewire-software-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8754&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 23, 2020
Class Period: March 6, 2019 - March 4, 2020

Allegations against GWRE include that: (1) that the Company's
transition to the cloud was not going well; (2) that Guidewire's
cloud-based products needed to be improved to meet customer needs
and catch up with rival systems; (3) that the Company's failed
transition to the cloud was also hurting Guidewire's traditional
on-premise business; and (4) as a result, Guidewire's revenue
guidance, including guidance principally based on significantly
increasing demand for the Company's cloud-based products, was
baseless and unattainable.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         39 East Broadway
         Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Tel. 212.425.1140
         Fax. 866.699.3880
         E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]

GULFPORT ENERGY: Defending Against Lefort Wage-and-Hour Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Gulfport Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that Bryon Lefort claims that
the company has failed to pay unpaid regular and overtime wages,
liquidated damages in an amount equal to 6% of all unpaid overtime
compensation.

In April 2020, Lefort, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated individuals, filed an action against the company in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Eastern Division.

The complaint alleges that the company violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Ohio Wage Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay
Act by classifying the plaintiffs as independent contractors and
paying them a daily rate with no overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The complaint seeks to recover unpaid regular and overtime wages,
liquidated damages in an amount equal to six percent of all unpaid
overtime compensation, the payment of reasonable attorney fees and
legal expenses and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and
such other damages that may be owed to the workers.

Gulfport Energy Corporation an independent natural gas-weighted
exploration and production company focused on the exploration,
acquisition and production of natural gas, crude oil and natural
gas liquids ("NGL") in the United States with primary focus in the
Appalachia and Mid-Continent basins. The company is based in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


GULFPORT ENERGY: Woodley Securities Suit Underway in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gulfport Energy 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 a
securities class action suit initiated by Robert F. Woodley.

In March 2020, Robert F. Woodley, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed a federal securities class action
against the company, David M. Wood, Keri Crowell and Quentin R.
Hicks in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

The complaint alleges that the company made materially false and
misleading statements regarding its business and operations in
violation of the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified
damages, the payment of reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and
other costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and such
other and further relief that may be deemed just and proper.

Gulfport Energy Corporation an independent natural gas-weighted
exploration and production company focused on the exploration,
acquisition and production of natural gas, crude oil and natural
gas liquids ("NGL") in the United States with primary focus in the
Appalachia and Mid-Continent basins. The company is based in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


H&R BLOCK: Swanson Putative Class Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 31, 2020, that the putative class action suit entitled,
Swanson v. H&R Block, Inc., et al. has been stayed pending the
outcome of arbitration.

On September 26, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed
against H&R Block, Inc., HRB Tax Group, Inc., HRB Digital LLC and
Free File, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Missouri (Case No. 4:19-cv-00788-GAF) styled Swanson v.
H&R Block, Inc., et al.

The plaintiff seeks to represent both a nationwide class and a
California subclass of all persons eligible for the IRS Free File
Program who paid to use an H&R Block product to file an online tax
return for the 2002 through 2018 tax filing years. The plaintiff
generally alleges unlawful, unfair, fraudulent and deceptive
business practices and acts in connection with the IRS Free File
Program in violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, California Civil Code Sections 1750, et seq., California False
Advertising Law, California Business and Professions Code Sections
17500, et seq., California Unfair Competition Law, California
Business and Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq., in addition
to breach of contract and fraud.

The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, disgorgement, compensatory
damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, interest, attorneys'
fees and costs.

The court granted a motion to dismiss filed by defendant Free File,
Inc. for lack of personal jurisdiction. The company filed a motion
to stay the proceedings based on the primary jurisdiction doctrine
and a motion to compel arbitration.

The court granted the company's motion to compel arbitration on
July 27, 2020 and stayed the case pending the outcome of
arbitration.

H&R Block said, "We have not concluded that a loss related to this
matter is probable, nor have we accrued a liability related to this
matter."

H&R Block, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides assisted income
tax return preparation, digital do-it-yourself (DIY) tax solutions,
and other services and products related to income tax return
preparation to the general public primarily in the United States,
Canada, and Australia. H&R Block, Inc. was founded in 1946 and is
headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri.


HAIN CELESTIAL: Appeal in Consolidated Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2020, that the appeal in the consolidated
securities class action suit entitled, In re The Hain Celestial
Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, is pending.

On August 17, 2016, three securities class action complaints were
filed in the Eastern District of New York against the Company
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The three complaints are: (1) Flora v. The Hain Celestial Group,
Inc., et al. (the "Flora Complaint"); (2) Lynn v. The Hain
Celestial Group, Inc., et al. (the "Lynn Complaint"); and (3)
Spadola v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al. (the "Spadola
Complaint" and, together with the Flora and Lynn Complaints, the
"Securities Complaints").

On June 5, 2017, the court issued an order for consolidation,
appointment of Co-Lead Plaintiffs and approval of selection of
co-lead counsel. Pursuant to this order, the Securities Complaints
were consolidated under the caption In re The Hain Celestial Group,
Inc. Securities Litigation (the "Consolidated Securities Action"),
and Rosewood Funeral Home and Salamon Gimpel were appointed as
Co-Lead Plaintiffs.

On June 21, 2017, the Company received notice that plaintiff
Spadola voluntarily dismissed his claims without prejudice to his
ability to participate in the Consolidated Securities Action as an
absent class member.

The Co-Lead Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Securities Action filed
a Consolidated Amended Complaint on August 4, 2017 and a Corrected
Consolidated Amended Complaint on September 7, 2017 on behalf of a
purported class consisting of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired Hain Celestial securities between November 5,
2013 and February 10, 2017 (the "Amended Complaint").

The Amended Complaint named as defendants the Company and certain
of its former officers (collectively, "Defendants") and asserted
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 based on allegedly materially false or misleading
statements and omissions in public statements, press releases and
SEC filings regarding the Company's business, prospects, financial
results and internal controls.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
October 3, 2017 which the Court granted on March 29, 2019,
dismissing the case in its entirety, without prejudice to replead.
Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint on May 6, 2019 (the "Second Amended Complaint"). The
Second Amended Complaint again named as defendants the Company and
certain of its former officers and asserts violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on
allegations similar to those in the Amended Complaint, including
materially false or misleading statements and omissions in public
statements, press releases and SEC filings regarding the Company's
business, prospects, financial results and internal controls.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint
on June 20, 2019. Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an opposition on August
5, 2019, and Defendants submitted a reply on September 3, 2019.

On April 6, 2020, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint in its entirety, with prejudice.
Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on May 5, 2020
indicating their intent to appeal the Court's decision dismissing
the Second Amended Complaint to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.

Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed their appellate brief on August 18, 2020.
Defendants will submit a scheduling request within 14 days after
the filing of Co-Lead Plaintiffs' appellate brief to schedule the
filing of their opposition brief.

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. manufactures, markets, distributes,
and sells organic and natural products. The company operates in
seven segments: the United States, United Kingdom, Tilda, Ella's
Kitchen UK, Canada, Europe, and Cultivate. The Hain Celestial
Group, Inc. was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Lake
Success, New York.


HAIN CELESTIAL: Stockholders' Consolidated Class Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a
consolidated class action suit entitled, In re The Hain Celestial
Group, Inc. Stockholder Class and Derivative Litigation.

On April 19, 2017 and April 26, 2017, two class action and
stockholder derivative complaints were filed in the Eastern
District of New York against the former Board of Directors and
certain former officers of the Company under the captions Silva v.
Simon, et al. (the Silva Complaint) and Barnes v. Simon, et al.
(the Barnes Complaint), respectively. Both the Silva Complaint and
the Barnes Complaint allege violation of securities law, breach of
fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment.

On May 23, 2017, an additional stockholder filed a complaint under
seal in the Eastern District of New York against the former Board
of Directors and certain former officers of the Company.

The complaint alleged that the Company's former directors and
certain former officers made materially false and misleading
statements in press releases and SEC filings regarding the
Company's business, prospects and financial results.

The complaint also alleged that the Company violated its by-laws
and Delaware law by failing to hold its 2016 Annual Stockholders
Meeting and includes claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust
enrichment and corporate waste. On August 9, 2017, the Court
granted an order to unseal this case and reveal Gary Merenstein as
the plaintiff.

On August 10, 2017, the court granted the parties' stipulation to
consolidate the Barnes Complaint, the Silva Complaint and the
Merenstein Complaint under the caption In re The Hain Celestial
Group, Inc. Stockholder Class and Derivative Litigation (the
Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action) and to
appoint Robbins Arroyo LLP and Scott+Scott as Co-Lead Counsel, with
the Law Offices of Thomas G. Amon as Liaison Counsel for
Plaintiffs.

On September 14, 2017, a related complaint was filed under the
caption Oliver v. Berke, et al. (the Oliver Complaint), and on
October 6, 2017, the Oliver Complaint was consolidated with the
Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action.

The Plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint under
seal on October 26, 2017. On December 20, 2017, the parties agreed
to stay Defendants' time to answer, move, or otherwise respond to
the consolidated amended complaint through and including 30 days
after a decision was rendered on the motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint in the Consolidated Securities Action, described above.

On March 29, 2019, the Court in the Consolidated Securities Action
granted Defendants' motion, dismissing the Amended Complaint in its
entirety, without prejudice to replead. Co-Lead Plaintiffs in the
Consolidated Securities Action filed the Second Amended Complaint
on May 6, 2019.

The parties to the Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative
Action agreed to continue the stay of Defendants' time to answer,
move, or otherwise respond to the consolidated amended complaint
through 30 days after a decision on Defendants' motion to dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint in the Consolidated Securities
Action.

On April 6, 2020, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint in the Consolidated Securities Action,
with prejudice. Pursuant to the terms of the stay, Defendants in
the Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action had until
May 6, 2020 to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the complaint
in this matter. This deadline was extended, and Defendants moved to
dismiss the Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action
Complaint on June 23, 2020, with Plaintiffs' opposition due August
7, 2020.

On July 24, 2020, Plaintiffs made a stockholder litigation demand
on the current Board containing overlapping factual allegations to
those set forth in the Consolidated Stockholder Class and
Derivative Action. The Board of Directors will evaluate the demand
and determine what, if any, actions to take in response.

On August 10, 2020, the Court vacated the briefing schedule on
Defendants' pending motion to dismiss in order to give the Board of
Directors time to consider the demand.

The parties must provide the Court with an update on or before
September 7, 2020.

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. manufactures, markets, distributes,
and sells organic and natural products. The company operates in
seven segments: the United States, United Kingdom, Tilda, Ella's
Kitchen UK, Canada, Europe, and Cultivate. The Hain Celestial
Group, Inc. was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Lake
Success, New York.


HERMES LANDSCAPING: Wins Final OK of $415K Deal in Rodriguez Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas issued a
Memorandum and Order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed Motion for
Final Settlement Approval in the case captioned ANTONIO CHAVEZ
RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
et al. v. HERMES LANDSCAPING, INC., Case No. 17-2142-JWB-KGG (D.
Kan.).

District Judge John W. Broomes directs the Parties to implement and
consummate the class settlement according to the terms and
provisions of the Settlement Agreement, under which Hermes agreed
to pay $415,000. The Court dismisses with prejudice all claims in
the action and, except as otherwise explicitly provided for in the
Settlement Agreement, does so without costs awarded to either
side.

The named Plaintiffs in this action--Antonio Chavez Rodriguez,
Isaac Chavez Duarte, and Jose Alfredo Soto Servin--and the class
members are Mexican nationals, who came to Kansas to work for
Defendant Hermes Landscaping, Inc. ("Hermes") as part of the guest
worker visa program commonly known as the "H-2B program." The
Plaintiffs brought this action as both an opt-in collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and as a class action
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 ("Rule 23"). The
Plaintiffs allege violations related to the wages paid to the H-2B
worker class members and the expenses incurred by the workers for
visas, recruitment, and travel.

On September 5, 2018, Judge Carlos Murguia granted Rule 23
certification for three classes under this action a Main Class,
defined as: all employees who worked for Hermes as H-2B or H-2R
visa holders from March 6, 2012, through the date of preliminary
approval of the class; (2) an Hours Worked Subclass, defined as:
all employees who worked for Hermes as H-2B or H-2R visa holders
from March 6, 2012, through the date of preliminary approval of the
class who worked as crew members; and (3) a 2013 Subclass defined
as all employees who worked for Hermes as H-2B or H-2R visa holders
between July 9, 2013 and the end of 2013.

After depositions and significant discovery, the parties settled
all claims through mediation with the assistance of Joe Eischens,
an experienced labor and employment attorney and mediator. Under
the agreement, Hermes will pay, in two installments, a total of
$415,000, in addition to bearing the cost of mediation. The
settlement benefits as many as 154 current and former employees and
will resolve all claims in the case.

Attorneys' fees will comprise 33% of the funds to be paid under the
Settlement--an amount of $133,333--after deduction of expenses in
the amount of $15,000 from the common fund. Although the settlement
primarily disposes of the Plaintiffs' Rule 23 class action claims,
the six individuals, who joined the action as opt-in plaintiffs
under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) will also release their FLSA
claims.

Class members and opt-in Plaintiffs will receive settlement amounts
ranging from a minimum of $250 to a maximum of $4,200 (before
required withholdings). As provided by the agreement, the amounts
are determined primarily by the length of time that class members
worked for Hermes. The six opt-in Plaintiffs receive additional
compensation for their FLSA claims while the three named Plaintiffs
each receive an additional $7,500 as service awards. The notice
provided to the class members informed them of the specific amount
they would receive under the agreement and provided a method by
which they could object to the agreement.

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


HEWLETT PACKARD: Continues to Defend Forsyth Suit in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended July 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a
purported and collective class action suit entitled, Forsyth, et
al. vs. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise.

This purported class and collective action was filed on August 18,
2016 and an amended complaint was filed on December 19, 2016 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, against HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise alleging
defendants violated the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment
Act ("ADEA"), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act,
California public policy and the California Business and
Professions Code by terminating older workers and replacing them
with younger workers.

Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide collective action under the
ADEA comprised of all individuals aged 40 and older who had their
employment terminated by an HP entity pursuant to a work force
reduction ("WFR") plan on or after December 9, 2014 for individuals
terminated in deferral states and on or after April 8, 2015 in
non-deferral states. Plaintiffs also seek to certify a Rule 23
class under California law comprised of all persons 40 years or
older employed by defendants in the state of California and
terminated pursuant to a WFR plan on or after August 18, 2012.

On September 20, 2017, the court granted the defendants' motion to
compel arbitration and administratively closed the case pending
resolution of the arbitration proceedings.

On November 30, 2017, three named plaintiffs filed a single
arbitration demand. Thirteen additional plaintiffs later joined the
arbitration.

On December 22, 2017, defendants filed a motion to (1) stay the
case pending arbitrations and (2) enjoin the demanded arbitration
and require each plaintiff to file a separate arbitration demand.
On February 6, 2018, the court granted the motion to stay and
denied the motion to enjoin.

The claims of these sixteen arbitration named plaintiffs have been
resolved. Additional opt-in plaintiffs were added to the litigation
and these claims also were resolved as part of the arbitration
process.

The stay of the Forsyth class action has been lifted and a Third
Amended Complaint was filed on January 7, 2020. Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint on February 6, 2020.


On May 18, 2020, the court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part Defendants' motion to dismiss. The court granted
Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint.

On July 9, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Complaint.

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company operates as a technology
company. The company operates through four segments: Hybrid IT,
Intelligent Edge, Financial Services, and Corporate Investments.
The company serves small and medium-sized businesses and large
enterprises. It has strategic alliance with ABB Ltd. Hewlett
Packard Enterprise Company was founded in 1939 and is headquartered
in Palo Alto, California.


HEWLETT PACKARD: Jackson Putative Class Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended July 31, 2020, that the putative nationwide class
action suit entitled, Jackson, et al. v. HP Inc. and Hewlett
Packard Enterprise, had been dismissed.

This putative nationwide class action was filed on July 24, 2017 in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division.

Plaintiffs purport to bring the lawsuit on behalf of themselves and
other similarly situated African-Americans and individuals over the
age of forty. Plaintiffs allege that defendants engaged in a
pattern and practice of racial and age discrimination in lay-offs
and promotions. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September
29, 2017.


Plaintiffs seek damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and declaratory
and injunctive relief.

On January 12, 2018, defendants moved to transfer the matter to the
federal district court in the Northern District of Georgia.
Defendants also moved to dismiss the claims on various grounds and
to strike certain aspects of the proposed class definition.

On July 11, 2018, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
this action for improper venue, and also partially dismissed and
struck certain claims without prejudice to re-filing in the
appropriate venue. On July 23, 2018, plaintiffs re-filed their
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.

On August 9, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
dismissal of the Northern District of California action with the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On August 15, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion to stay their lawsuit
in the Northern District of Georgia, which was granted by the
court.

On February 7, 2020, Defendants resolved the claims of the
individual plaintiffs and the matters were dismissed.

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company operates as a technology
company. The company operates through four segments: Hybrid IT,
Intelligent Edge, Financial Services, and Corporate Investments.
The company serves small and medium-sized businesses and large
enterprises. It has strategic alliance with ABB Ltd. Hewlett
Packard Enterprise Company was founded in 1939 and is headquartered
in Palo Alto, California.


HEWLETT PACKARD: Ross and Rogus Putative Class Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (HPE) said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit entitled, Ross and Rogus v.
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company.

On November 8, 2018, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara alleging
that HPE pays its California-based female employees "systemically
lower compensation" than HPE pays male employees performing
substantially similar work.

On November 8, 2018, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara alleging
that HPE pays its California-based female employees "systemically
lower compensation" than HPE pays male employees performing
substantially similar work.

The complaint alleges various California state law claims,
including California's Equal Pay Act, Fair Employment and Housing
Act, and Unfair Competition Law, and seeks certification of a
California-only class of female employees employed in certain
"Covered Positions."

The complaint seeks damages, statutory and civil penalties,
attorneys' fees and costs.

On April 2, 2019, HPE filed a demurrer to all causes of action and
an alternative motion to strike portions of the complaint.

On July 2, 2019, the court denied HPE's demurrer as to the claims
of the putative class and granted HPE's demurrer as to the claims
of the individual plaintiffs.

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

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company operates as a technology
company. The company operates through four segments: Hybrid IT,
Intelligent Edge, Financial Services, and Corporate Investments.
The company serves small and medium-sized businesses and large
enterprises. It has strategic alliance with ABB Ltd. Hewlett
Packard Enterprise Company was founded in 1939 and is headquartered
in Palo Alto, California.


HEWLETT PACKARD: Says Wall Class Action Closed
----------------------------------------------
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended July 31, 2020, that the court in the case, Wall v.
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company and HP Inc., signed an Amendment
to Final Approval Order and Judgment, directing that the matter be
closed.

This certified California class action and Private Attorney General
Act action was filed against Hewlett-Packard Company on January 17,
2012 and the fifth amended (and operative) complaint was filed
against HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise on June 28, 2016 in
the Superior Court of California, County of Orange.

The complaint alleges that the defendants paid earned incentive
compensation late and failed to timely pay final wages in violation
of the California Labor Code.

On August 9, 2016, the court ordered the class certified without
prejudice to a future motion to amend or modify the class
certification order or to decertify.

The scheduled January 22, 2018 trial date was vacated following the
parties’ notification to the court that they had reached a
preliminary agreement to resolve the dispute.

The parties subsequently finalized and executed a settlement
agreement and, on May 9, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion seeking
preliminary approval of the settlement. On July 2, 2018, the court
issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement.

On December 21, 2018, the court issued an order granting final
approval.

A Qualified Settlement Fund has been fully funded and distributed
to class members.

On March 5, 2020, the Court signed an Amendment to Final Approval
Order and Judgment, directing that the matter be closed.

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company operates as a technology
company. The company operates through four segments: Hybrid IT,
Intelligent Edge, Financial Services, and Corporate Investments.
The company serves small and medium-sized businesses and large
enterprises. It has strategic alliance with ABB Ltd. Hewlett
Packard Enterprise Company was founded in 1939 and is headquartered
in Palo Alto, California.


HP INC: Consolidated Gensin Class Suit in Israel Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
HP Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2020,
that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action
suit in Israel entitled, Gensin v. HP Inc.

On October 25, 2017, a purported consumer class action, captioned
Gensin v. HP Inc., was filed in the District Court in Jerusalem
against HP arising out of the use of Dynamic Security in certain
OfficeJet printers.

The petition and motion for certification as a class action
alleges: (1) tortious wrongdoing in violation of the Computers Law,
5755-1995; (2) breach of Contracts Law, 5731-1970; (3) breach of
the Consumer Protection Law, 5741-1981; (4) negligence; and (5)
improper enrichment.

The named petitioner initially sought to represent nationwide
classes comprised of anyone who "owns an HP printer that has been
blocked, disrupted, or interfered with by HP in the use of ink
cartridges not manufactured by HP" or who "purchased ink cartridges
not manufactured by HP for use in the blocked printers."

Plaintiff seeks class relief, injunctive relief, damages, and
attorneys' fees.

On November 16, 2017, a second purported consumer class action was
filed against HP in the Central District Court, captioned Dror v.
HP, Inc., also arising out of the use of Dynamic Security in
certain OfficeJet printers. The petition and motion allege similar
causes of action on behalf of similar nationwide classes.

After the Dror case was consolidated with the Gensin case in
Jerusalem, the District Court on June 24, 2018 dismissed the Dror
case and designated Gensin as the lead matter.

On March 9, 2020, the petitioner moved to modify the proposed
nationwide class to be comprised of "all persons who have an HP
printer and whose printer was blocked or rendered unusable by HP
with any ink cartridge that is not made by HP" and "all persons who
purchased ink cartridges that are not made by HP, for use in the
Blocked Printers."

On July 2, 2020, HP filed its response to the amended petition.

HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices,
imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions,
and services in the United States and internationally. The company
operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and
Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as
Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October
2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo
Alto, California.


HP INC: Suit by Electrical Workers Pension Fund Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
HP Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2020,
that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit
entitled, Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. v.
HP Inc., et al.  

Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. v. HP Inc., et
al.  On February 19, 2020, Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local
103, I.B.E.W. filed a putative class action complaint against HP,
Dion Weisler, Catherine Lesjak, and Steven Fieler in U.S. District
Court in the Northern District of California.

On May 20, 2020, the court appointed the State of Rhode Island,
Office of the General Treasurer, on behalf of the Employees'
Retirement System of Rhode Island and Iron Workers Local 580 Joint
Funds as Lead Plaintiffs.

On July 20, 2020, Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which
additionally names as defendants Enrique Lores and Christoph
Schell.

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that from
February 23, 2017 to October 3, 2019, HP and the named officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making
false or misleading statements about HP's printing supplies
business, including HP's use of its four-box model to predict the
demand for supplies.

It further alleges that Dion Weisler and Enrique Lores violated
Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act by allegedly selling
shares of HP common stock during this period while in possession of
material, non-public adverse information about HP's print business.


Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and other relief.

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

HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices,
imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions,
and services in the United States and internationally. The company
operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and
Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as
Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October
2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo
Alto, California.


IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Must Face Securities Fraud Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
David McAfee, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Immunomedics
Inc. must face a proposed securities fraud class action brought
against the biopharmaceutical company in New Jersey federal court
by investors who say they were misled about a breast cancer drug
for which the FDA withheld approval, a judge held.

Immunomedics, which develops "monoclonal antibody-based" cancer
treatments, was sued along with several of its senior officers and
directors by purchasers of the company's common stock in connection
with disclosures regarding the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's
inspection and approval process for IMMU-132. [GN]


INSULET CORP: Bid for Fees & Expenses in ATRS Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Insulet 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 plaintiffs' motion for fees and expenses in
Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Insulet, et al.,
1:15-cv-12345, is still under advisement.

Between May 5, 2015 and June 16, 2015, three class action lawsuits
were filed by shareholders in the U.S. District Court, for the
District of Massachusetts, against the Company and certain then
current and former executives of the Company.

Two suits subsequently were voluntarily dismissed.

Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Insulet, et al.,
1:15-cv-12345, ("ATRS") alleged that the Company (and certain then
current and former executives) committed violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by making allegedly false and misleading statements about the
Company's business, operations and prospects.

On February 8, 2018, the parties executed a binding stipulation of
settlement, under which all claims were released, and a payment was
made into an escrow account for the plaintiffs and the class they
purport to represent.

On August 6, 2018, the Court issued an order approving the
settlement, but took the plaintiffs' motion for fees and expenses
under advisement, which motion remains pending.

The Company had previously accrued fees and expenses in connection
with this matter for the amount of the final settlement liability
that was not covered by insurance, the amount of which was not
material to the Company's consolidated financial statements.

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

Insulet Corporation develops, manufactures, and sells insulin
delivery systems for people with insulin-dependent diabetes.
Insulet Corporation was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in
Acton, Massachusetts.


INTEL CORP: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of September 28 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 10 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Intel Corporation ("Intel" or the
"Company")(NASDAQ: INTC) and certain of its officers.   The class
action, filed in United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, and indexed under 20-cv-05549, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants who purchased or otherwise, acquired Intel securities
between April 23, 2020, and July 23, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Intel securities during the
class period, you have until September 28, 2020, to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Intel is a technology company that provides computing, networking,
data storage, and communication solutions worldwide.  It operates
through Data Center Group, Internet of Things Group, Non-Volatile
Memory Solutions Group, Programmable Solutions Group, Client
Computing Group, and All Other segments.

According to Intel, its 7-nanometer CPU technology is the next
generation following Intel's 10-nanometer technology.  Intel claims
that 7-nanometer technology offers double the area efficiency of
10-nanometer products, and will offer 20% higher performance per
watt.  In May 2019, Intel projected to ship its first 7-nanometer
products in 2021.

The complaint 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: (i) that Intel had identified a
defect mode in its 7-nanometer process that resulted in yield
degradation; (ii) that, as a result, the Company would experience a
six-month delay in its production schedule for 7-nanometer
products; (iii) that Intel was reasonably likely to rely on
third-party foundries for manufacturing its 7-nanometer products;
(iv) that, as a result of the foregoing, Intel was reasonably
likely to lose market share to its competitors who are already
selling 7-nanometer products; and (v) 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.

On July 23, 2020, after the market closed, Intel disclosed
production delays for its 7-nanometer products after the Company
had "identified a defect mode in [its] seven-nanometer process that
resulted in yield degradation."

On this news, Intel's share price fell $9.81 per share, or
approximately 16%, to close at $50.59 per share on July 24, 2020,
on unusually heavy trading volume.

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

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN]


JELD-WEN HOLDING: Settlement Entered in Molded Doors Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated September 4, 2020, that
JELD-WEN, Inc. a company subsidiary, has entered into a settlement
agreement with Grubb Lumber Company and Philadelphia Reserve Supply
Company, on behalf of themselves and the class of direct purchasers
of interior molded doors, in In re Interior Molded Doors Antitrust
Litigation and with the class of indirect purchaser plaintiffs in
In re Interior Molded Doors Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation
(the "Indirect Purchaser Action").

On August 31, 2020, JELD-WEN, Inc. (the "Company"), a subsidiary of
JELD-WEN Holding, Inc., and its co-defendant, Masonite Corporation
("Masonite"), entered into a settlement agreement with Grubb Lumber
Company and Philadelphia Reserve Supply Company, on behalf of
themselves and the class of direct purchasers of interior molded
doors, in In re Interior Molded Doors Antitrust Litigation (the
"Direct Purchaser Action"), a consolidated antitrust class action
pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia.

In the Direct Purchaser Action, the Company and Masonite agreed to
make a payment of $28 million each to the named plaintiffs and the
settlement class of direct purchasers in exchange for a full
release of claims through the date of preliminary Court approval.

In addition, on September 4, 2020, the Company and Masonite entered
into a separate settlement agreement with the class of indirect
purchaser plaintiffs in In re Interior Molded Doors Indirect
Purchaser Antitrust Litigation (the "Indirect Purchaser Action"), a
separate consolidated antitrust class action pending in the Court.


In the Indirect Purchaser Action, the Company and Masonite agreed
to make a payment of $9.75 million each to the named plaintiffs and
the settlement class of indirect purchasers in exchange for a full
release of claims through the date of the settlement agreement.

In entering into the settlement agreements, the Company continues
to believe that the claims lack merit and has denied any liability
or wrongdoing for the claims made against the Company.

The settlement agreements remain subject to preliminary and final
Court approval and other conditions.

JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. manufactures and sells doors and windows
primarily in North America, Europe, and Australasia. The company
was founded in 1960 and is headquartered in Charlotte, North
Carolina.


JONES DAY: Judge Orders Plaintiffs to be Specific in Equal Pay Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Packel, writing for Law.com, reports that three female former
Jones Day associates need to be more specific about the information
they need from the firm before a Washington, D.C., federal judge is
willing to delay a ruling on the merits of their class action
claims that the firm systematically underpaid its female lawyers.

A Washington, D.C., federal judge worried that the women were
seeking more discovery than is seen in "30 cases combined." But he
allowed them to come back with a more focused request, which will
likely focus on deposing three firm leaders. [GN]




KENT STATE: Class Action Seeks Refund of Tuition, Mandatory Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paige Bennett, writing for KentWired.com, reports that a
class-action lawsuit was filed against Kent State for not fully
refunding tuition and fees after in-person classes were canceled in
spring due to the coronavirus pandemic.

The complaint, filed June 17 by junior finance major Caitlyn Waitt
in the Ohio Court of Claims, states the university violated its
contract with students by not reimbursing them for tuition and
mandatory fees despite canceling face-to-face classes.

"In short, plaintiff and the members of the class have paid tuition
for a first-rate education and an on-campus, in-person educational
experience, with all the appurtenant benefits offered by a
first-rate university, and were provided a materially deficient and
insufficient alternative," the complaint states.

The mandatory fees include the general fee and enrollment fee. The
general fee typically covers costs such as recreation services,
health center services, student organizations and intercollegiate
athletics, according to the university website.

"Because of the university's response to the coronavirus disease
2019 pandemic, on or about March 16, 2020, the university also
stopped providing any of the services or facilities the mandatory
fee was intended to cover," the complaint states.

In an email, Eric Mansfield, executive director of university media
relations, stated the university received the complaint and does
not comment on pending litigation.

The complaint was filed on behalf of all students who paid to take
in-person classes at Kent State during the spring semester, summer
semester and any future semesters where classes move to online
learning.

Kent State "failed to provide the quality of education and services
and facilities for which tuition and the mandatory fees were paid,
including those for an in-person and on-campus live education and
access to the university's services and facilities," according to
the complaint.

It also states the university should:

Reimburse students for mandatory fees and a prorated portion of
tuition for the time after in-person classes were canceled during
the spring and summer semesters.

Provide prorated refunds for unused housing and meal plans to
students who lived on campus, but did not vacate their housing
before March 30, the deadline Kent State set for students to move
out and receive a prorated refund.

Waitt did not respond to requests for comment. James Simon and
Clifford Bendau, two of Waitt's attorneys who submitted the
complaint, said they had no comment on the case. Attorney Carlson
Lynch, who is also listed on the complaint, did not respond to a
request for comment.

Simon, Bendau and Lynch also filed a class action complaint June 12
against Ohio University on behalf of 2020 alumna Lily Zahn that
asks for a partial refund of tuition and fees following the
university's shift of academic instruction online.

Another class-action complaint was filed against Ohio State
University [OSU] and the Ohio Department of Higher Education on
behalf of Morgan McDermott and all students enrolled in a graduate
or undergraduate program on the main Columbus campus during the
spring 2020 semester. The complaint includes a "subclass of all
students enrolled in the Ohio State College of Dentistry's DDS
program" during the spring and summer 2020 semesters.

The complaint states OSU failed to "offer any refund of any portion
of the Student Union Facility Fee it charges all students attending
classes at its Columbus campus or any portion of the Clinical
Support Fee it charges all DDS candidates, despite OSU's closing of
the Ohio Union and of the DDS clinics on March 16, 2020" due to the
COVID-19 pandemic.

The complaint asks that OSU return a prorated portion of the
Student Union Facility Fee, as well as a prorated portion of the
Clinical Support Fee.

The University of Toledo also faces a complaint filed by Trevor
Cross on behalf of "himself and all others similarly situated." The
complaint seeks refunds of the amounts students paid for tuition,
room and board, fees and other applicable costs on a prorated
basis, or an "equivalent reduction in amounts owing as well as
other damages to be elaborated on herein."

This article was produced through a reporting partnership with the
Collaborative News Lab @ Kent State University. [GN]


KENTUCKY: 6th Cir. Upholds House Bill 454 Enjoinment in EMW Womens
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EMW WOMEN'S SURGICAL CENTER, P.S.C., on behalf of
itself, its staff, and its patients; ASHLEE BERGIN, M.D., M.P.H.
and TANYA FRANKLIN, M.D., M.S.P.H., on behalf of themselves and
their patients, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ERIC FRIEDLANDER, in his
official capacity as Acting Secretary of Kentucky's Cabinet for
Health and Family Services, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 19-5516
(6th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
affirmed a district court decision permanently enjoining Kentucky
from enforcing Kentucky House Bill 454.

The case asks whether a state can require patients to undergo a
procedure to end potential fetal life before they may receive an
abortion performed through the method most common in the second
trimester of pregnancy -- dilation and evacuation.  Kentucky House
Bill 454 does just that.  The Plaintiffs, Kentucky's sole abortion
clinic and two of its doctors, argue that House Bill 454 violates
patients' constitutional right to abortion access prior to fetal
viability because the burdens the law imposes significantly
outweigh its benefits.  Defendant Eric Friedlander, the Acting
Secretary of Kentucky's Cabinet for Health and Family Services,
disagrees.  He contends that Kentucky may constitutionally require
patients to undergo such a procedure because it is a reasonable
alternative to the standard dilation and evacuation abortion.  

On the day H.B. 454 was signed, Plaintiffs EMW Women's Surgical
Center ("EMW") and its two obstetrician-gynecologists, Dr. Ashlee
Bergin and Dr. Tanya Franklin, commenced a lawsuit against various
Kentucky officials to challenge it.  EMW is Kentucky's only
licensed outpatient abortion facility, and Dr. Bergin and Dr.
Franklin are the only doctors providing surgical abortions at EMW.
The Plaintiffs argued that H.B. 454 is facially unconstitutional
because it effectively bans the most common second-trimester
abortion procedure -- the D&E -- and therefore imposes an undue
burden on the right to elect abortion prior to viability, in
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.  The Plaintiffs moved for a
temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction shortly
thereafter.

The parties entered a joint consent order, under which the
Commonwealth Defendants agreed that they would not take steps to
enforce H.B. 454 until the district court ruled upon the
Plaintiffs' motions.  The court later ordered the parties to
continue following the terms of the consent order until the case
was tried on the merits.

Aside from then-Secretary of Kentucky's Cabinet for Health and
Family Services, Adam Meier, and Commonwealth Attorney Thomas B.
Wine, all of the Defendants were voluntarily dismissed prior to
trial.  The district court heard the Plaintiffs' case in a five-day
bench trial in November 2018.

Before the court, the Plaintiffs presented their argument as to
H.B. 454's unconstitutionality.  Defendants Meier and Wine, for
their part, argued that H.B. 454 did not ban D&E abortions, but
simply required individuals seeking a D&E abortion after thirteen
weeks to first undergo a procedure to induce fetal demise.  They
identified three possible methods of inducing fetal demise: by
injecting digoxin into the fetus or amniotic sac; by injecting
potassium chloride into the fetal heart; or by cutting the
umbilical cord in utero.  The Plaintiffs responded that none of
these three procedures was a feasible workaround to H.B. 454.  Both
parties presented substantial expert testimony and evidence about
the safety, efficacy, and feasibility of each of these procedures.

On May 8, 2019, the district court entered judgment for the
Plaintiffs and an order permanently enjoining the enforcement of
H.B. 454.  At bottom, the district court found that H.B. 454
imposed an undue burden on one's right to elect an abortion prior
to viability, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.  In
particular, the district court concluded that none of the three
identified procedures was a feasible option for inducing fetal
demise and, therefore, H.B. 454 effectively banned D&E abortions.

The timely appeal followed.  Former Defendant Commonwealth Attorney
Wine did not join the appeal.  Due to the recent change in
administration from prior Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin to current Gov.
Andy Beshear, now-Acting Secretary of Kentucky's Cabinet for Health
and Family Services Eric Friedlander has replaced Adam Meier as the
named Defendant-Appellant in the case.

The Sixth Circuit holds that the district court correctly found
that none of the proposed means of inducing fetal demise is a
feasible workaround to H.B. 454.  Altogether, H.B. 454 imposes
substantial burdens on the right to choose.  Because none of the
fetal-demise procedures proposed by the Secretary provides a
feasible workaround to H.B. 454's restrictions, it effectively
prohibits the most common second-trimester abortion method, the
D&E.  In the balance against these burdens, the Sixth Circuit
weighed the minimal benefits that H.B. 454 provides with respect to
the Commonwealth's asserted interests.  These benefits are vastly
outweighed by the burdens imposed by H.B. 454.  Thus, H.B. 454
unduly burdens the right to choose, in violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment.

Should H.B. 454 be allowed to go into effect, it would cause the
Plaintiffs' patients to suffer continuing irreparable injury for
which there is no adequate remedy at law.  The Secretary does not
dispute the district court's determinations as to any of the other
elements of the permanent injunction analysis.  In any event, those
arguments would be without merit.

Because the burdens imposed by H.B. 454 dramatically outweigh any
benefit it provides, H.B. 454 unduly burdens an individual's right
to elect to have an abortion prior to viability.  Thus, H.B. 454
violates the Fourteenth Amendment.  Hence, the Sixth Circuit
affirms.

The Sixth Circuit then turns to the appropriate relief.  The
Plaintiffs sought -- and the district court granted -- facial
relief in the form of a declaration that H.B. 454 is
unconstitutional and a permanent injunction against the enforcement
of H.B. 454.  The Sixth Circuit concludes that H.B. 454 imposes an
undue burden on not just a large fraction, but all of the
individuals it restricts, and so facial relief is appropriate.  The
Court cannot rewrite H.B. 454 in order to limit that relief to
certain especially unconstitutional applications of the law.
Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit affirms the district court's grant
of facial relief in the form of a permanent injunction.

For these reasons, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's
decision.

A full-text copy of the Sixth Circuit's June 2, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/gZhMd1 from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Matthew F. Kuhn, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, Frankfort,
Kentucky, for Appellant.

Andrew D. Beck, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEW YORK, New
York, New York, for Appellees.

ON BRIEF: Matthew F. Kuhn, M. Stephen Pitt, S. Chad Meredith, Brett
R. Nolan, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, Frankfort, Kentucky, for
Appellant.

Andrew D. Beck, Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, Meagan M. Burrow, Elizabeth
Watson, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEW YORK, New York, New
York, Amy D. Cubbage, ACKERSON & YANN, Louisville, Kentucky,
Heather Lynn Gatnarek, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF KENTUCKY,
Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellees.

Benjamin M. Flowers, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus,
Ohio, Ester Murdukhayeva, OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL,
New York, New York, Alexandria Preece -- apreece@mofo.com --
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP, San Diego, California, Roxann E. Henry --
rhenry@mofo.com -- MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP, Washington, D.C.,
Kimberly A. Parker -- kimberly.parker@wilmerhale.com -- WILMER
CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amici
Curiae.


KIA MOTORS: Sup. Ct. Reinstates Individualized Damages in Little
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of New Jersey issued an Opinion reversing the
Appellate Court's ruling reversing the Trial Court's Order
determining that it should have required individualized proof of
damages for the class members' brake repairs in the case captioned
Regina Little, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Kia Motors America, Inc.,
Defendant-Appellant, Case Nos. A-24-18, 081691 (N.J.).

The determination of the Appellate Division is reversed, and the
final judgment entered by the Trial Court on September 10, 2015, is
reinstated.

Justice Anne M. Patterson delivered the opinion of the Court. Chief
Justice Stuart Jeff Rabner and Justices Jaynee LaVecchia, Barry T.
Albin, Faustino J. Fernandez-Vina and Walter Francis Timpone join
in Justice Patterson's opinion. Justice Lee A. Solomon did not
participate.

In this class action, Plaintiff Regina Little asserted breach of
warranty and other claims on her own behalf and on behalf of other
New Jersey owners and lessees of 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 Kia
Sephia vehicles distributed by Defendant Kia Motors America, Inc.
The Plaintiff alleged that Kia Sephias in those model years had a
defective brake system.

At trial, the Plaintiff presented two distinct claims for damages.
First, she alleged that the class members suffered damages because
the defective brakes hastened each Kia Sephia's depreciation,
diminishing the vehicle's value, and that all class members had
thus overpaid for their vehicles. Second, the Plaintiff asserted
that the class members incurred out-of-pocket costs due to the
brake defect because the cars required more frequent brake repairs
than they would have required absent the defect. The Plaintiff
premised that second damages claim not on individualized proof of
class members' repair costs, but on an expert's estimate of the
amount of money an average Kia Sephia owner would pay for brake
repairs over the vehicle's life as a result of the defect alleged.

The jury agreed with the Plaintiff that the Kia Sephia had a brake
defect, found that the Defendant had breached express and implied
warranties, and determined that the class had sustained damages
because of the brake defect. The jury decided that the class
members suffered no damages due to their vehicles' diminution in
value. The jury nevertheless awarded damages in the amount of $750
per class member based on the Plaintiff's claim for the cost of
repairs.

After the jury verdict, the Trial Court determined that it should
have required individualized proof of damages for the class
members' brake repairs. The Trial Court left the jury's liability
verdict undisturbed. However, the Trial Court granted the
Defendant's motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 4:49-1, as to
the amount of out-of-pocket damages incurred by class members. The
Trial Court decertified the class as to that limited issue and
ordered individualized assessments of out-of-pocket expenses
incurred by the class members. A court-appointed Special Master
conducted a claims process, evaluated the class members' individual
claims and recommended to the Trial Court that it award damages in
the amount of $46,197.03 for the cost of repairs.

The Trial Court accepted that recommendation, and final judgment
was entered in the Plaintiff's favor in that amount plus attorneys'
fees and costs.

The Parties cross-appealed. The Appellate Division reversed the
Trial Court's post-trial determinations, reinstated the jury's
award for out-of-pocket repair costs based on the Plaintiff's
aggregate proofs, and remanded for an award of attorneys' fees
(Little v. Kia Motors Am., Inc., 455 N.J.Super. 411, 416-36 (App.
Div. 2018)). The Supreme Court granted the Defendant's petition for
certification.

Although aggregate proof of damages can be appropriate in some
settings, the Supreme Court considers such proof improper as
presented in this case. The Supreme Court concurs with the Trial
Court that it erred when it allowed the Plaintiff to prove
class-members' out-of-pocket costs for brake repairs based on an
estimate untethered to the experience of the Plaintiff's class.

The Supreme Court holds that the Trial Court properly ordered
individualized proof of damages based on the actual costs incurred
by the class members. The Supreme Court views the Trial Court's
grant of the Defendant's motions for a new trial and for partial
decertification of the class as a proper exercise of its
discretion. The claims proceeding that followed, carefully
conducted by a Special Master whose Report and Recommendations were
adopted by the Trial Court, was equitable to all parties.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court reverses the Appellate Division's
judgment and reinstates the final judgment entered by the Trial
Court.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's June 25, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8ws6xuo from Leagle.com.

Roberto A. Rivera-Soto -- riverasotor@ballardspahr.com -- argued
the cause for appellant (Ballard Spahr and Patterson Belknap Webb &
Tyler, attorneys; Roberto A. Rivera-Soto, Neal D. Walters --
waltersn@ballardspahr.com -- Casey G. Watkins
watkinsc@ballardspahr.com -- and Peter C. Harvey, 895 Indian Hill
Rd., in Orange, Connecticut, of counsel and on the briefs).

Michael D. Donovan (Donovan Litigation Group), 1885 Swedesford
Road, in Malvern, Pennsylvania, of the Pennsylvania bar, admitted
pro hac vice, argued the cause for respondent (Donovan Litigation
Group; Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis; Feldman, Shepherd,
Wohlgelertner, Tanner, Weinstock & Dodig; and Francis & Mailman,
attorneys -- ljrodriguez@schnader.com -- James A. Francis, 1600
Market Street, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Michael D. Donovan,
and Alan M. Feldman, 1845 Walnut Street, in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania ( Feldman, Shepherd, Wohlgelertner, Tanner, Weinstock
& Dodig) of the Pennsylvania bar, admitted pro hac vice, on the
briefs).


KIDS BEHAVIORAL: Fails to Obtain Dismissal of Bonanini WARN Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALERIE BONANINI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KIDS
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH OF MONTANA, INC., dba ACADIA MONTANA, dba
ALTACARE OF MONTANA, Defendants. MONTANA FEDERATION OF PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES, Plaintiff, v. KIDS BEHAVIORAL HEALTH OF MONTANA, INC.,
dba ACADIA MONTANA, dba ALTACARE OF MONTANA, Defendant, Case No. CV
19-33-BU-BMM-KLD (lead case), consolidated with No. CV 19-35-BU-BMM
(D. Mont.), Chief District Judge Brian Morris of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Montana adopted in full the June 5, 2020
Findings and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Kathleen DeSoto.

Accordingly, Judge Morris denied without prejudice as premature
Kids Behavioral Health of Montana's Motion to Dismiss, subject to
renewal if and when Plaintiffs' proposed class of former employees
is certified.  Judge Morris' June 24, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y2rellzy from PacerMonitor.com.

Magistrate Judge Kathleen L. DeSoto's June 5 Findings &
Recommendation is available at https://is.gd/1enKiH from
Leagle.com.  It recommended the Defendant's motion to dismiss
Plaintiffs Montana Federation of Public Employees ("Union") as a
party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) based on lack
of standing and, alternatively, the rule against claim splitting,
be denied with prejudice.

The Union and several former employees of Defendant Kids Behavioral
commenced the consolidated action seeking to recover unpaid wages
and benefits under the Worker Adjustment Retraining and
Notification Act ("WARN Act").

On July 14, 2019, Acadia Montana Treatment Center, a business
enterprise of Defendant located in Butte, Montana, ceased
operations.  On July 19, 2019, the 30 individually named Plaintiffs
filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Defendant,
asserting WARN Act violations on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated individuals employed by the Defendant at the
Acadia Montana facility.  Approximately one week later, on July 25,
2019, the Union filed its own lawsuit asserting similar WARN Act
violations on behalf of itself and its members employed at Acadia
Montana.

The Plaintiffs in the putative class action subsequently filed an
unopposed motion to consolidate both cases pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 42(a).  The Court granted the motion, and on Oct. 15, 2019, the
individual Plaintiffs, as the putative class representatives, and
the Union, jointly filed an Amended Complaint.

As alleged in the Amended Complaint, the Union is a labor
organization that serves as the exclusive bargaining representative
of almost all of the employees at Acadia's Butte, Montana facility.
The individual Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of over 130
employees of Acadia, which the parties agree includes both union
and non-union members.

The Union and the putative class representatives are asserting
identical WARN Act claims, and the Union's members are all included
in the proposed class.  Because a union's standing under the WARN
Act is representational, the Defendant argues the fact that the
Union's members are already being represented in the putative class
deprives the Union of standing in the case.  Even if the Union does
have standing, the Defendant asks the Court to exercise its
discretion to dismiss the Union under the doctrine against claim
splitting.

In her Recommendation, Magistrate Judge DeSoto opined that whether
the Union's members will be allowed to proceed in their own right
as part of a certified class, however, is not yet clear.  The
Amended Complaint is filed as a class action, and seeks relief on
behalf of a proposed class of over 130 employees of Acadia, which
the parties agree includes both union and non-union members.  But
at this point, the Plaintiffs have not filed a motion to certify
the proposed class and the issue of class certification has yet to
be decided.  The Defendant's Answer suggests it will oppose class
certification.  In the event the Defendant successfully opposes
class certification, the Union might well be in the position of
proceeding under the WARN Act on behalf of its members and have
standing to do so.  Accordingly, the Magistrate finds that the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the Union based on lack of standing
under WARN Act is premature and should be denied without prejudice,
subject to renewal if and when the Plaintiffs' proposed class of
former employees is certified.

Even assuming the Union has standing to remain in the case, the
Defendant argued the Court should dismiss the Union under the
doctrine against claim splitting.  The Magistrate Judge found that
the Defendant points out that the Union's lawsuit was the
later-filed action, and asks the Court to dismiss the Union based
on the anti-claim splitting doctrine because the claims and relief
sought, as well as the parties or privies, in the two lawsuits are
all the same.  But because there are no longer two separate
actions, the rule against claim splitting does not apply.  As
Battle Adams v. California Dep't of Health Servs. recognized, one
remedy available when there are two separate actions pending at the
same time in the same court, involving the same subject matter and
the same parties or their privies, is for the court to consolidate
both actions.

That is exactly what happened in the case.  The Plaintiffs moved to
consolidate the Union's WARN Act complaint with the putative class
action, and the Defendant did not object.  On Oct. 8, 2019, the
Court issued an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion and
consolidating the two cases.  Under the circumstances, the
Magistrate Judge found that the doctrine against claim splitting
does not apply.


KIRKLAND'S INC: Gennock Suit Over Credit Card Info Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Kirkland's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
August 1, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative
class action suit entitled, Gennock v. Kirkland's, Inc.

The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action
filed in April 2017 in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania, Gennock v. Kirkland's, Inc.

The complaint alleged that the Company, in violation of federal
law, published more than the last five digits of a credit or debit
card number on customers' receipts.

On October 21, 2019, the District Court dismissed the matter and
ruled that the Plaintiffs did not have standing based on the Third
Circuit's recent decision in Kamal v. J. Crew Group, Inc., 918 F.3d
102 (3d. Cir. 2019).

Following the dismissal in federal court, on October 25, 2019, the
Plaintiffs filed a Praecipe to Transfer the case to Pennsylvania
state court, and on August 20, 2020, the court ruled that the
Plaintiffs have standing. However, the court also certified the
standing issue for an interlocutory appeal, and the Company intends
to file a petition for appeal with the Pennsylvania Superior Court.


The Company continues to believe that the case is without merit and
intends to continue to vigorously defend itself against the
allegations.

Kirkland's said, "The matter is covered by insurance, and the
Company does not believe that the case will have a material adverse
effect on its consolidated financial condition, operating results
or cash flows."

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

Kirkland's, Inc. operates as a specialty retailer of home decor in
the United States. The company's stores provide various
merchandise, including holiday decor, framed arts, furniture,
ornamental wall decor, fragrance and accessories, mirrors, lamps,
decorative accessories, textiles, housewares, gifts, artificial
floral products, frames, clocks, and outdoor living items.
Kirkland's, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is based in Brentwood,
Tennessee.



L BRANDS: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Ohio Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
L Brands, Inc.  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
August 1, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the consolidated class
action suit before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio remains pending.

In July 2019, a plaintiff shareholder filed a putative class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio alleging that the company made false and/or misleading
statements relating to the November 2018 announcement that the
company was reducing its quarterly dividend.

In September 2019, a different plaintiff shareholder filed a second
putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio containing substantially the same
allegations and seeking substantially the same relief.  

In October 2019, the Court issued an order consolidating the two
putative class actions, appointing a lead plaintiff, and approving
that lead plaintiff's selection of lead counsel.  

The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on
December 20, 2019 that asserted substantially the same allegations
and sought substantially the same relief as the initial complaint.


The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on February 18, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an
opposition to the company's  motion to dismiss on May 4, 2020, and
the company filed a reply brief in further support of its motion to
dismiss on June 3, 2020.  

The company's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint
is now fully briefed and pending before the court. The court will
hear oral argument on the motion to dismiss on September 23, 2020.


L Brands said, "We view this lawsuit as meritless and intend to
defend against this lawsuit vigorously."

L Brands, Inc. sells women's apparel and beauty products. The
Company offers various products including women's apparel, women's
lingerie, beauty and personal care products, home fragrances, and
other related products and accessories. L Brands serves customers
in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom through
specialty retail stores, websites, and catalogues. The company is
based in Columbus, Ohio.


LANNETT CO: Securities Suit Over Drug Pricing Ongoing in E.D. Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lannett Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2020, that the company remains a defendant in a class
action suit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

In November 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and two of its former officers in the federal court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that the Company,
its former Chief Executive Officer, and its former Chief Financial
Officer damaged the purported class by including in its securities
filings false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
drug pricing methodologies and internal controls.  

An amended complaint was filed in May 2017, and the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint in September 2017.  

In December 2017, counsel for the putative class filed a second
amended complaint, and the Court denied as moot the Company’s
motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in February 2018. In
July 2018, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint.

In September 2018, counsel for the putative class filed a third
amended complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the third
amended complaint in November 2018. In May 2019, the court denied
the Company's motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. In
July 2019, the Company filed an answer to the third amended
complaint.

The Company believes it acted in compliance with all applicable
laws and plans to vigorously defend itself from these claims. The
Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the suit at this
time.

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

Lannett Company, Inc. develops, manufactures, packages, markets,
and distributes generic versions of brand pharmaceutical products
in the United States. The company offers solid oral and extended
release, topical, liquid, nasal, and oral solution finished dosage
forms of drugs that address a range of therapeutic areas, as well
as ophthalmic, patch, foam, buccal, sublingual, suspension, soft
gel, and injectable dosages. Lannett Company, Inc. was founded in
1942 and is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.


LANNETT CO: Suits Over Contaminated Ranitidine Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Lannett Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend class action
suits related to Ranitidine.

On June 1, 2020, a class action Complaint was served upon the
Company and approximately 45 other companies asserting claims for
personal injury arising from the presence of
N-Nitrosodimethylamine ("NDMA") in Ranitidine products.

A similar complaint was served upon the Company by the State of
Mexico in July 2020.  

The Company has learned that several other similar class action
complaints naming the Company and others were filed but, to date,
none of those complaints have been served upon the Company.  

The Company has placed its insurance carrier on notice of the claim
and the carrier has appointed counsel to defend the Company.  

The Company has not yet responded to the Complaint.  

Lannett Company, Inc. develops, manufactures, packages, markets,
and distributes generic versions of brand pharmaceutical products
in the United States. The company offers solid oral and extended
release, topical, liquid, nasal, and oral solution finished dosage
forms of drugs that address a range of therapeutic areas, as well
as ophthalmic, patch, foam, buccal, sublingual, suspension, soft
gel, and injectable dosages. Lannett Company, Inc. was founded in
1942 and is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.


LILAH BEAUTY: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Paguada Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
DILENIA PAGUADA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. LILAH BEAUTY, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-07158 (S.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 2, 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.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

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

The Plaintiff is a resident of Astoria, New York. She is a blind,
visually-impaired handicapped person and a member of member of a
protected class of individuals under the ADA.

Lilah Beauty, Inc., is a skin care products manufacturing company
that owns and operates said Web site.[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


LIPOCINE INC: Bid to Dismiss Abady Class Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Lipocine 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's motion to dismiss the class action
suit entitled, Solomon Abady v. Lipocine Inc. et al.,
2:19-cv-00906-PMW, remains pending.

On November 14, 2019, the Company and certain of its officers were
named as defendants in a purported shareholder class action
lawsuit, Solomon Abady v. Lipocine Inc. et al., 2:19-cv-00906-PMW,
filed in the United District Court for the District of Utah.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that the company's
filing of the New Drug Application (NDA) for TLANDO to the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) contained deficiencies and as a result
the defendants' statements about the company's business and
operations were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis in violation of federal securities laws.

The lawsuit seeks certification as a class action (for a purported
class of purchasers of the Company's securities from March 27, 2019
through November 8, 2019), compensatory damages in an unspecified
amount, and unspecified equitable or injunctive relief.

The Company has insurance that covers claims of this nature. The
retention amount payable by the Company under our policy is $1.25
million.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit on
July 24, 2020.

Further, the Company intends to vigorously defend itself and its
current and former officers and directors against these allegations
and has not recorded a liability related to this shareholder class
action lawsuit as the outcome is not probable nor can an estimate
be made of loss, if any.

Lipocine Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on
applying oral drug delivery technology for the development of
pharmaceutical products in the area of men's and women's health.
The company is based in Salt Lake City, Utah.


LOS ANGELES, CA: Police Sued Over Gang Member Misclassification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fred Shuster, writing for Los Angeles Daily News, reports that five
local residents sued the Los Angeles Police Department and its
chief early on Aug. 3, alleging they were falsely classified by
officers as gang members or associates, causing job losses and
damage to their reputations.

According to the proposed class action complaint filed in Los
Angeles federal court, LAPD officers "routinely" falsified field
interview cards and entered the information into a statewide
database.

An LAPD spokesman said the department does not comment on pending
litigation.

The suit names three LAPD officers--Braxton Shaw, 37, Michael
Coblentz, 43, and Nicolas Martinez, 36--who were charged in July
with conspiracy to obstruct justice and multiple counts of filing a
false police report and preparing false documentary evidence.

LAPD Chief Michel Moore subsequently withdrew from the CalGang
database program, and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra
revoked access by any agency to CalGang records generated by the
LAPD. Officials said it appears the ripples from the alleged
misconduct could upend criminal cases against as many as 750
defendants.

Among the plaintiffs named in the lawsuit is Sara Ochoa, described
as a young Latina woman who grew up in East Los Angeles and worked
as a correctional officer.

According to the lawsuit, Ochoa held the state job until she became
"a victim of LAPD officers" on Jan. 18, when she was misclassified
as a gang associate "simply for going back to visit the
neighborhood she grew up in."

The suit alleges that not only was Ochoa falsely classified, she
was subjected to an "unreasonable detention by being handcuffed on
the street in public display" for 20 minutes while her vehicle and
belongings were searched.

In another example cited in the complaint, college student Jajuan
Johnson alleges he was a passenger in a car when LAPD officers
initiated a stop, ostensibly for tinted windows, and then
"blatantly lied" in a police report contending that the Jamba Juice
employee was a gang member.

"The LAPD officers reasoned that because Mr. Johnson's cousin was
an alleged gang member, he too must be gang-affiliated," the suit
contends. "As a result, Mr. Johnson is currently being prosecuted
by the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office pursuant to a fabricated
gang allegation."

Although Johnson consistently denied gang membership, and due to
the alleged misclassification, the plaintiff lost his job, suffered
damage to his reputation and now deals with "severe depression,"
the lawsuit alleges. If convicted, he will be required to register
as a gang member.

The complaint stems from the "misclassification of hundreds, if not
thousands" of Los Angeles residents as gang members by at least 27
officers, including Shaw, Coblentz and Martinez, according to the
document.

"In many instances, LAPD officers falsely stated in official
records that the individuals had ‘self-admitted' gang affiliation
when no such admissions had occurred," according to the suit. "This
resulted in devastating consequences to putative class members,
almost all of whom were Black and Latino, including imprisonment,
deprivation of civil rights, and practical consequences such as not
being able to obtain a job, rent an apartment, or receive financial
aid for college." [GN]


LOUISIANA: Bar Owners File Class Action
---------------------------------------
Britt Lofaso, writing for KLFY, reports that after Governor John
Bel Edwards announced that bars had to close for a second time, bar
owners across Louisiana joined together to file a class-action
lawsuit against the state.

On July 31, the bar owners' attorney went in front of a federal
judge.

The judge denied the injunction to have bars re-open again, but he
did grant them another hearing.

"If he had granted the injunction, we would have been able to open
up immediately, so we could have been open last weekend," Ty
Boudoin said.

Instead of granting the injunction on July 31, the federal judge
denied it, but Ty Boudoin, owner of Quarter Tavern bar in New
Iberia, says he did so with good reason.

"The reason he denied it is because he wants more information from
the governor and from bar owners. He just didn't want to make a
decision without having enough information," Boudoin told News
Ten.

He says the judge set another hearing for the class-action lawsuit
in a few weeks.

In the meantime, the bar owners are working together to help the
federal judges as well as Governor Edwards understand why they feel
it's unfair they have to close.

"All weekend long, people are sending me stuff from casinos and
restaurants. We're not trying to get these places shut down. All
we're trying to do is be on the same playing field as them. That's
all we're asking for. People that normally come to my bar are now
going to restaurants. They're over there drinking because they
can't drink here, but they can go over there and drink. It's just
not fair to bar owners," Boudoin added.

He says the attorney would be able to present the injunction to a
federal judge again at a hearing last August 17. [GN]


LOYOLA MARYMOUNT: McCarthy Suit Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
--------------------------------------------------------
Bridget McCarthy, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Loyola Marymount University, Defendant, Case
No. 20-cv-04668 (C.D. Cal., May 26, 2020), seeks disgorgement of
all amounts wrongfully obtained for tuition, fees, on-campus
housing, and meals, injunctive relief including enjoining the
Loyola from retaining the pro-rated, unused monies paid for
tuition, fees, on-campus housing and meals, reasonable attorney's
fees, costs and expenses, prejudgment and post-judgment interest on
any amounts awarded and such other and further relief as may be
just and proper, refunds of all tuition fees paid on a pro-rata
basis, together with other damages resulting from breach of
contract and unjust enrichment.

Loyola Marymount University is an institution of higher learning
located in Los Angeles, California where McCarthy is currently
enrolled as a full-time student in an undergraduate program in
marketing and studio arts. McCarthy has already paid substantial
tuition for the Spring 2020 semester. Loyola decided to close
campus, constructively evict students, and transition all classes
to an online/remote format as a result of the Novel Coronavirus
Disease. McCarthy claims to be deprived the benefits of in-person
instruction, access to campus facilities, student activities and
other benefits and services in exchange for which they had already
paid fees and tuition. Loyola refused to provide reimbursement for
the tuition, fees and other costs. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric M. Poulin, Esq.
      Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq.
      ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM
      32 Ann Street
      Charleston, SC 29403
      Tel: (843) 614-8888

             - and -

      John C. Bohren, Esq.
      Bohren Law
      501 W. Broadway Suite 800
      San Diego CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 433-2803


LUMENTUM HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Karri Class Action Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lumentum Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, for the fiscal year ended
June 27, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the amended complaint in
SaiSravan B. Karri v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-03435-JD,
has been fully briefed and is pending.

On December 10, 2018, the company completed a merger with Oclaro,
Inc., a provider of optical components and modules for the
long-haul, metro and data center markets. Oclaro's products provide
differentiated solutions for optical networks and high-speed
interconnects driving the next wave of streaming video, cloud
computing, application virtualization and other bandwidth-intensive
and high-speed applications.

In connection with the company's acquisition of Oclaro, seven
lawsuits were filed by purported stockholders of Oclaro challenging
the proposed merger (the "Merger"). Two of the seven suits were
putative class actions filed against Oclaro, its directors,
Lumentum, Prota Merger Sub, Inc. and Prota Merger, LLC: Nicholas
Neinast v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-03112-VC, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (filed May 24, 2018) (the "Neinast Lawsuit"); and Adam
Franchi v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-00817-GMS, in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware (filed
June 9, 2018) (the "Franchi Lawsuit"). Both the Neinast Lawsuit and
the Franchi Lawsuit were voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.

The other five suits, styled as Gerald F. Wordehoff v. Oclaro,
Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03148-NC (the "Wordehoff Lawsuit"),
Walter Ryan v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-03174-VC (the
"Ryan Lawsuit"), Jayme Walker v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No.
5:18-cv-03203-EJD (the "Walker Lawsuit"), Kevin Garcia v. Oclaro,
Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03262-VKD (the "Garcia Lawsuit"), and
SaiSravan B. Karri v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-03435-JD
(the "Karri Lawsuit" and, together with the other six lawsuits, the
"Lawsuits"), were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on May 25, 2018, May 29, 2018, May
30, 2018, May 31, 2018, and June 9, 2018, respectively.

These five Lawsuits named Oclaro and its directors as defendants
only and did not name Lumentum. The Wordehoff, Ryan, Walker, and
Garcia Lawsuits have been voluntarily dismissed, and the Wordehoff,
Ryan, and Walker dismissals were with prejudice.

The Karri Lawsuit has not yet been dismissed. The Ryan Lawsuit was,
and the Karri Lawsuit is, a putative class action.

The Lawsuits generally alleged, among other things, that Oclaro and
its directors violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder by disseminating an incomplete and
misleading Form S-4, including proxy statement/prospectus.

The Lawsuits further alleged that Oclaro's directors violated
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by failing to exercise proper
control over the person(s) who violated Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act.

The remaining Lawsuit (the Karri Lawsuit) currently purports to
seek, among other things, damages to be awarded to the plaintiff
and any class, if a class is certified, and litigation costs,
including attorneys' fees.

A lead plaintiff and counsel has been selected, and an amended
complaint was filed on April 15, 2019, which also names Lumentum as
a defendant.

A motion to dismiss the amended complaint has been fully briefed
and is currently pending, and defendants intend to defend the Karri
Lawsuit vigorously.

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

Lumentum Holdings Inc. manufactures and sells optical and photonic
products in the Americas, the Asia-Pacific, Europe, the Middle
East, and Africa. The company operates through two segments,
Optical Communications and Commercial Lasers. Lumentum Holdings
Inc. was incorporated in 2015 and is headquartered in Milpitas,
California.


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Moves to Dismiss Data Breach Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kirsten Errick, writing for Law Street, reports that Marriott
International, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss Patti Springmeyer and
Joe Lopez's amended complaint, claiming that the plaintiffs lack
Article III standing and failed to adequately plead their causes of
action. Springmeyer and Lopez previously brought a nationwide
putative class action against Marriott over a data breach, during
which two Marriott employees "improperly accessed" certain guest
information.

The defendants first addressed standing, claiming the plaintiffs
have not alleged an injury-in-fact because they did not claim that
Marriot's systems were hacked or vulnerable or that the improper
access affected sensitive personal information such as social
security numbers, credit card information, passport information and
other sensitive information. The defendants also argued that the
plaintiffs do not claim that the accessed information has been
misused.

Marriott stated that the plaintiffs only asserted that their
personal information, such as name, address, birthday, and loyalty
number, was compromised. They said this information is often
voluntarily disclosed and the plaintiffs did not allege an imminent
threat of misuse. Moreover, the plaintiffs cannot create standing
by claiming "increased risk of identity theft" or by voluntarily
spending money and that the plaintiffs cannot assert "diminished
value" or "that they lost benefit of their bargain" because they
have not shown that their personal information, such as name and
address decreased in value. The defendants also argued that the
plaintiffs did not claim that any injury is fairly traceable to the
conduct alleged in the complaint. Consequently, the plaintiffs lack
standing for an injunction.

Marriot declared that the plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract
and breach of implied contract fail because they have not alleged a
breach of contract or breach of implied contract. Consequently, the
claim for unjust enrichment must be dismissed, according to the
hotel giant. They also contended that the plaintiffs failed to
plead their state law breach of confidence and unfair competition
claims adequately.

Lastly, Marriott added that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring
claims for a nationwide class, instead stating that any putative
class should be limited to Nevada and California, where the
plaintiffs reside. As a result, Marriott argued that the court
should not award the plaintiffs' requested declaratory judgment,
stating that it is "not appropriate."

Marriott is represented by Jenner & Block LLP. The plaintiffs are
represented by Murphy, Falcon & Murphy, P.A. with Morgan & Morgan
Complex Litigation Group. [GN]

MCDERMOTT INT'L: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 16 Bid Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP reminds shareholders of McDermott
International, Inc. of a class action lawsuit and a lead plaintiff
deadline of Sept. 16, 2020.

The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of McDermott International, Inc. (OTC PINK:MDRIQ)
between September 20, 2019 and January 23, 2020. You are hereby
notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas. To get more information go to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/mcdermott-international-inc-loss-submission-form?wire=5&prid=8112

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500.There is
no cost or obligation to you.

A complaint has been filed against McDermott's President, Chief
Executive Officer and Board Member David Dickson, its Former
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Stuart A.
Spence, and its Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer Christopher A. Krummel. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made and caused McDermott to make materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
facts regarding the Company's sale of its asset Lummus Technology.
Plaintiffs allege that 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.

If you suffered a loss in McDermott you have until September 16,
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.

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. [GN]


MEDTRONIC PLC: Suit Over Covidien Acquisition Underway
------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend itself in a
consolidated class action suit involving the acquisition of
Covidien PLC.

On July 2, 2014, Lewis Merenstein filed a putative shareholder
class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court seeking
to enjoin the then-potential acquisition of Covidien.

The lawsuit named Medtronic, Inc., Covidien, and each member of the
Medtronic, Inc. Board of Directors at the time as defendants, and
alleged that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to
shareholders with regard to the then-potential acquisition.

On August 21, 2014, Kenneth Steiner filed a putative shareholder
class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court, also
seeking an injunction to prevent the potential Covidien
acquisition.

In September 2014, the Merenstein and Steiner matters were
consolidated and in December 2014, the plaintiffs filed a
preliminary injunction motion seeking to enjoin the Covidien
transaction. On March 20, 2015, the District Court issued an order
and opinion granting Medtronic's motion to dismiss the case.

In May 2015, the plaintiffs filed an appeal, and, in January 2016,
the Minnesota State Court of Appeals affirmed in part, and reversed
in part. On April 19, 2016 the Minnesota Supreme Court granted the
Company's petition to review the issue of whether most of the
original claims are properly characterized as direct or derivative
under Minnesota law.

In August 2017, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the decision
of the Minnesota State Court of Appeals, sending the matter back to
the trial court for further proceedings, which are ongoing.

In April 2020, the District Court issued an order and opinion
denying the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The Company has not recognized an expense related to damages in
connection with this matter, because any potential loss is not
currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP.
Additionally, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the
range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters.

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

Medtronic plc develops, manufactures, distributes, and sells
device-based medical therapies to hospitals, physicians,
clinicians, and patients worldwide. It operates through four
segments: Cardiac and Vascular Group, Minimally Invasive Therapies
Group, Restorative Therapies Group, and Diabetes Group. The company
was founded in 1949 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


MEET GROUP: Putative Class Suits Related to Parship Merger Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Meet 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 three putative class action suits related to
its merger with Parship Group GmbH, entitled,  Post v. The Meet
Group, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-00479-LPS, Paskowitz v. The Meet
Group, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-00481-LPS and Mowry v. The Meet
Group, Inc. et al., No. 2:20-cv-02092, have been dismissed.

On March 5, 2020, the Company entered into a definitive agreement
to be acquired by ProSiebenSat.1 Media SE's and General Atlantic
Coöperatief U.A.'s joint company, NCG – NUCOM GROUP SE, a
European stock corporation (NuCom), through eHarmony Holding, Inc.,
a subsidiary of NuCom's platform company Parship Group GmbH
(Buyer).

Pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger (Merger Agreement'),
by and among the Company, Buyer, Holly Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of Buyer (Merger
Sub), and NuCom, solely for the purpose of guaranteeing Buyer's
obligations under the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub shall merge with
and into the Company (Merger).

As a result of the Merger, the separate corporate existence of
Merger Sub shall cease, the Company shall continue as the surviving
corporation in the Merger (Surviving Corporation) and the Surviving
Corporation shall become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Buyer.

The Company recorded $1.2 million and $4.3 million of acquisition,
restructuring and other expenses related to the Merger Agreement
during the three and six months ended June 30, 2020, respectively.

The Company expects the Merger to close by the end of 2020, subject
to the satisfaction of all closing conditions.

Since April 6, 2020, three putative class actions, (i) Post v. The
Meet Group, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-00479-LPS, (ii) Paskowitz v.
The Meet Group, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-00481-LPS and (iii) Mowry
v. The Meet Group, Inc. et al., No. 2:20-cv-02092, and eight
individual actions, (i) Wang v. The Meet Group, Inc., et al., No.
1:20-cv-00475-LPS, (ii) Bayer v. The Meet Group, Inc., et al., No.
1:20-cv-02873-AKH, (iii) Gurian v. The Meet Group, Inc., et al.,
No. 1:20-cv-02855-AKH, (iv) Cole v. The Meet Group, Inc., et al.,
No. 1:20-cv-02987-AKH, (v) Justus v. The Meet Group, Inc., et al.,
No 2:20-cv-04314, (vi) Respler v. The Meet Group, Inc., et al., No.
3:20-cv-02841-JSC, (vii) Miles v. The Meet Group, Inc., et al., No.
1:20-cv-03301 and (viii) Lee v. The Meet Group, Inc., et al., No.
1:20-cv-03850-AKH (S.D.N.Y.) were filed by purported stockholders
of the Company against the company and the members of the Board of
the Directors.

Post, Paskowitz and Wang were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware; Bayer, Gurian, Cole, Miles and Lee were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York; Justus was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey; Respler was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California; and Mowry was filed in U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The complaints generally allege that the company's preliminary
proxy statement filed with the SEC on April 2, 2020 or definitive
proxy statement filed with the SEC on April 22, 2020 (collectively,
"Proxy Statement") contained false or misleading statements
regarding the Merger in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and that the Board breached its fiduciary duty of
candor/disclosure.

As of August 4, 2020, all of the complaints, with the exception of
the Lee and Miles complaints, which were filed without service of
process, had been dismissed.

The Meet Group, Inc. operates as a social medial technology
company. The Company offers information sharing, social
interaction, and mobile application development services. Meet
Group serves customers in the United States. The company is based
in New Hope, Pennsylvania.


MEI PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of October 9 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announced the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of MEI Pharma, Inc. (NASDAQ: MEIP) between August 2,
2017 and July 1, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for MEI Pharma investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the MEI Pharma class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1919.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) MEI Pharma overstated Pracinostat's potential efficacy as
an acute myeloid leukemia ("AML"), treatment for the target
population; (2) consequently, the Phase 3 Pracinostat Trial was
unlikely to meet its primary endpoint of overall survival; (3) 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 (4) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 9,
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-1919.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.

Contacts
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]


MENLO THERAPEUTICS: Awaits Final Court Approval of Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Menlo 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 awaiting the court's decision
whether to grant final approval of the settlement in the
consolidated Savelstrov v. Menlo Therapeutics Inc., et al.

On November 8, 2018 and January 28, 2019, two purported class
actions were filed in the Superior Court of California, San Mateo
County, against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors.

The actions are entitled Savelstrov v. Menlo Therapeutics Inc., et
al., and McKay v. Menlo Therapeutics Inc., et al. The underwriters
for the company's initial public offering were also named as
defendants in these lawsuits.

The complaints contain identical allegations against the same
defendants. Both complaints alleged that the Registration Statement
and prospectus for our initial public offering contained false and
misleading statements in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 due to allegedly false and misleading
statements in connection with our initial public offering.

The complaints seek, among other things, an award of damages in an
amount to be proven at trial, along with reimbursement of
reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert
fees. The McKay action has been consolidated with the Savelstrov
action and the claim for violations of Section 12(a)(2) has been
dismissed.

The parties have mediated the consolidated lawsuit and reached a
settlement, providing for payment to the class of plaintiffs in the
amount of $9.5 million, the vast majority of which will be paid by
the Company's insurance carriers, in return for a release of all
claims against the defendants, including the Company and its
current and former officers and directors.

The settlement is subject to final documentation and Court
approval.

The Court preliminarily approved the settlement on April 24, 2020,
and will consider whether to grant final approval of the settlement
at a hearing scheduled for August 14, 2020.

Menlo accrued for the remaining settlement amount that is not
covered by insurance carriers as of December 31, 2019, which did
not have a material impact on its financial statements.

Menlo Therapeutics Inc., a late-stage biopharmaceutical company,
focuses on the development and commercialization of serlopitant for
the treatment of pruritus associated with dermatologic conditions
in the United States. Menlo Therapeutics Inc. was founded in 2011
and is headquartered in Redwood City, California.


METLIFE INC: Asks Court to Approve Settlement Notice
----------------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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 plaintiff in City of Westland Police and
Fire Retirement System v. MetLife, Inc., et al. (S.D.N.Y., filed
January 12, 2012), has asked the district court to approve notice
of a proposed settlement.

Plaintiff filed this class action on behalf of a class of persons
who either purchased MetLife, Inc. common shares between February
9, 2011 and October 6, 2011, or purchased or acquired MetLife, Inc.
common stock in the Company's August 3, 2010 offering or the
Company's March 4, 2011 offering.

Plaintiff alleges that MetLife, Inc. and several current and former
directors and executive officers of MetLife, Inc. violated the
Securities Act of 1933, as well as the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to
issue, materially false and misleading statements concerning
MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions of dollars in
insurance benefits that should have purportedly been paid to
beneficiaries or escheated to the states.

The parties reached an agreement on a class settlement of the case,
and on June 17, 2020, plaintiff filed with the district court a
motion to approve notice of the proposed settlement to the classes.


The Company has accrued the full amount of the settlement payment.

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York.


METLIFE INC: MLIC Still Defends Julian & McKinney Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MLIC)
remains a defendant in a class action lawsuit styled, Julian &
McKinney v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

Plaintiffs filed this putative class and collective action on
behalf of themselves and all current and former long-term
disability ("LTD") claims specialists between February 2011 and the
present for alleged wage and hour violations under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Connecticut Minimum
Wage Act.

The suit alleges that MLIC improperly reclassified the plaintiffs
and similarly situated LTD claims specialists from non-exempt to
exempt from overtime pay in November 2013.

As a result, they and members of the putative class were no longer
eligible for overtime pay even though they allege they continued to
work more than 40 hours per week.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, as
well as other relief.

On March 22, 2018, the court conditionally certified the case as a
collective action, requiring that notice be mailed to LTD claims
specialists who worked for MLIC from February 8, 2014 to the
present.

MLIC intends to defend this action vigorously.

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

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York.


METLIFE INC: Parchmann Class Action Ongoing in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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 in the
putative class action entitled, Parchmann v. MetLife, Inc., et al.
(E.D.N.Y., filed February 5, 2018).

Plaintiff filed this putative class action seeking to represent a
class of persons who purchased MetLife, Inc. common stock from
February 27, 2013 through January 29, 2018.

Plaintiff alleges that MetLife, Inc., its former Chief Executive
Officer and Chairman of the Board, and its former Chief Financial
Officer violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by issuing materially false and/or
misleading financial statements.

Plaintiff alleges that MetLife's practices and procedures for
estimating reserves for certain group annuity benefits were
inadequate, and that MetLife had inadequate internal control over
financial reporting.

Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.
Defendants intend to defend this action vigorously.

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

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York.


METLIFE INC: Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal Filed in Atkins
---------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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 parties in Atkins et al. v. MetLife, Inc.,
et. al. (D.Nev., filed November 18, 2019), filed a stipulation of
voluntarily dismissal of the action without prejudice.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on behalf of all
persons due benefits under group annuity contracts but who did not
receive the entire amount to which they were entitled. Plaintiffs
assert claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty,
breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust
enrichment, and conversion based on allegations that the defendants
failed to timely pay annuity benefits to certain group annuitants.


Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and other relief.

On April 17, 2020, the parties filed a stipulation of voluntarily
dismissal of the action without prejudice.

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

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York.


MICHIGAN: Fails to Obtain Summary Judgment on Count VI of Hill Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HENRY HILL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GRETCHEN WHITMER,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 10-14568 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Mark A.
Goldsmith of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, denied the Defendants' second motion
for summary judgment with respect to Count VI.

In response to the Supreme Court's decisions in Montgomery v.
Louisiana and Miller v. Alabama, the Michigan state legislature
amended its statutory scheme that previously excluded juvenile
offenders convicted of first-degree murder from the jurisdiction of
the Michigan Parole Board.  The amended statute mandates
resentencing for all juveniles who were convicted of first-degree
homicide offenses before Miller and who received mandatory
life-without-parole sentences.  

The statute requires these individuals to be resentenced either to
life without parole or to a term of years.  Prosecutors seeking
imposition of a life-without-parole sentence must file a motion
specifying the grounds for imposing such a punishment, and the
sentencing court must hold a hearing on the motion to consider the
factors set forth in Miller and other relevant criteria such as the
individual's institutional record.

In the class action, the named Plaintiffs and the class members are
juvenile homicide offenders who, prior to the Supreme Court's
decisions, were sentenced to mandatory life without parole.  Now,
in light of the Montgomery and Miller cases, they are being
resentenced and will, in all likelihood, have the opportunity to
appear before the Michigan Parole Board.  

At the time the present motion was filed, 178 class members had
been resentenced out of a total class of 373 individuals.  The vast
majority of these class members were resentenced to a term of
years.  Upon being resentenced to a term of years, the class
members become subject to the parole board's jurisdiction and are
assigned an earliest release date ("ERD").  Some resentenced class
members have been immediately eligible for parole consideration
based on their ERDs, while others have not yet reached their ERDs.
All the class members who have reached their ERDs have had parole
hearings.

In Count VI of the second amended complaint, the Plaintiffs claim
that they are being deprived of a meaningful opportunity to obtain
release because of policies denying them access to certain
rehabilitative programs. Defendants have filed a second motion for
summary judgment with respect to Count VI.  They argue that summary
judgment is warranted on the grounds that class members are not
prevented from accessing rehabilitative programming and that, in
any event, unfulfilled programming recommendations have not
deterred the class members from obtaining parole.

On July 12, 2019, the Court entered an opinion and order granting
in part and denying in part the Defendants' first motion for
summary judgment with respect to Count VI.  In its opinion, the
Court held that the Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on
Count VI to the extent that the Plaintiffs alleged that the denial
of access to core programming deprives them of a meaningful
opportunity to obtain release at the resentencing stage.  

The Court concluded that the Plaintiffs had failed to proffer any
evidence supporting their theory that judges take completion of
core programming into account as part of the resentencing decision.
In fact, there was no evidence from any of the 139 resentencing
hearings that had occurred as of the date of the July 12 Opinion
that core programming played any role in those resentencing
decisions.  But the Court also held that lingering factual
uncertainties precluded summary judgment as to whether a denial of
access to core programming results in deprivation of a meaningful
opportunity to obtain release at the parole hearing stage.

In their second motion for summary judgment, the Defendants provide
additional argument and evidence addressing the concerns identified
in the Court's July 12 Opinion.  Specifically, Defendants contend
that MDOC's policies do not exclude the class members from
accessing core programming.  Additionally, the Defendants claim to
proffer evidence demonstrating that unfulfilled programming
recommendations have not prevented the class members from obtaining
parole.

In addressing these arguments, Judge Goldsmith first examines the
underpinnings and scope of juvenile offenders' right to a
meaningful opportunity to obtain release and concludes that access
to rehabilitative programming is an important element of that
right.  Next, he considers the evidence regarding the class
members' access to core programming and the role programming has
played in their parole decisions.  

The Judge finds access to the very programming that enables
juvenile offenders to demonstrate their rehabilitation can be a
fundamental component of a meaningful opportunity to obtain
release.  Therefore, in evaluating whether the class members in the
present case are being denied a meaningful opportunity to obtain
release, the Judge must examine (i) whether class members are
denied access to core programming, and (ii) the evidence submitted
regarding the role core programming plays in the Michigan Parole
Board's decisions.

Although the class members may eventually gain access to core
programming after they have been resentenced and receive ERDs, the
access may not be timely for those individuals whose parole
hearings take place shortly after resentencing.  Indeed, as
acknowledged by the Defendants, those individuals may be unable to
complete core programming in advance of parole hearings.
Therefore, they would be deprived of a meaningful opportunity to
demonstrate their maturity and rehabilitation.  The Defendants'
argument that all prisoners ultimately have the ability to receive
programming with appropriate approvals does not address the
priority barrier that the Defendants have erected.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Goldsmith denied the Defendants'
second motion for summary judgment.  All but the most irredeemable
juvenile offenders are entitled to a meaningful opportunity to
obtain release based on their demonstrated maturity and
rehabilitation.  Access to the very programming that enables
juvenile offenders to make such a showing of rehabilitation -- and
that can play a significant role in parole hearings -- is an
important component of a meaningful opportunity.  

The evidence demonstrates that the class members are being denied
timely access to programming and that non-completion of programming
has served as a basis for denying or deferring parole for some
class members.  The fact that some class members are thereafter
provided a later opportunity to obtain parole is of no moment, as
states must ensure that all opportunities to obtain release are
meaningful.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 2, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/a3mUt8 from Leagle.com.


MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Class Action Over Privacy Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Ed Bott, writing for The Ed Bott Report, reports that on July 17,
2020, three individuals filed a lawsuit against Microsoft
Corporation in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, with a request for class action
certification.

The plaintiffs contend that Microsoft is routinely violating the
privacy of customers who pay for business subscriptions to
Microsoft 365 (formerly Office 365). They allege that "Microsoft
shares its business customers' data with Facebook and other third
parties, without its business customers' consent." The complaint
also accuses Microsoft of sharing business customers' data with
third-party developers and with "hundreds of subcontractors . . .
without requiring the subcontractors to keep the data private and
secure." And they maintain that Microsoft uses their business
customers' private data "to develop and sell new products and
services -- and otherwise benefit itself."

Those charges would be explosive, if true. (The most important part
of that sentence is "if true." Hold that thought.)

But after digging into the complaint and doing my own research, I'm
convinced that none of their allegations are true. This lawsuit is
predicated on embarrassing technical errors and almost comical
misreadings of technical documentation.

And yet the plaintiffs have received their share of headlines from
mainstream technical publications like The Register, which reported
the allegations without even a pretense of research or fact
checking.

FRANK D. RUSSO, KOONAN LITIGATION CONSULTING, LLC, and SUMNER M.
DAVENPORT & ASSOCIATES, LLC vs. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Case
3:20-cv-04818. But I need to issue my own legal disclaimer first:
If you have a technical understanding of how Microsoft cloud
services work and you take medication to keep your blood pressure
in check.

Before we get to the substance of the complaint, consider a few
important facts here:

These shocking allegations are accompanied by no evidence. None.

You will find no technical detail in this pleading. No reports of
expert forensic examinations. No casual descriptions of observed
data transfers. No anecdotes, even. It's remarkable.

What's even more remarkable is that, if these allegations are true
(again, a very very very big if), then multiple other sources with
far more technical resources have somehow missed Microsoft's
blatant violations of their business customers' privacy.

No security/privacy experts have ever flagged any untoward behavior
in Office 365 that matches these accusations. No one in the Fortune
500 noticed Microsoft casually giving their data to Facebook, even
after five long years. The extremely aggressive EU authorities, who
have dragged Microsoft through the muck for technical privacy
violations, totally missed this. No whistleblowers from Facebook
have come forward. No actual victims have told their stories.

The plaintiffs, by the way, are not computer security experts or
even amateur hackers. They are, respectively, a lawyer, a
litigation consultant, and a web designer.

There are no footnotes.*

I am not a lawyer, but I read a lot of legal filings as part of my
work. And the paucity of footnotes in this filing is noteworthy.

Most notably, as I went through the allegations trying to figure
out what they really meant, I didn't have the luxury of footnotes
that would include links to the Microsoft-owned web pages that
purportedly prove these privacy violations. I had to search using
snippets of quoted text to find the original documents. This sounds
like a minor detail but it's actually a pretty big deal.

* Ok, in the interests of technical accuracy, I confess that this
complaint includes three footnotes at the very beginning, one of
which alerts the court to the fact that Office 365 was recently
renamed to Microsoft 365. But once they get into detailed
accusations, there are no footnotes to be found. If opposing
counsel and the judge and interested observers (like yours truly)
have to use Google to find the context for your quotations, you
might have a problem.

There's no demonstration of actual harm.

The entire section that sets out how Microsoft's actions have
allegedly injured the plaintiffs is two sentences long. Here it is,
in its entirety:

Plaintiffs and Microsoft's other business customers would not have
purchased (or would have paid less for) Microsoft's services if
Microsoft had not made the misrepresentations discussed above and
had disclosed its sharing and use of its customers' data.

Microsoft's use and sharing of Plaintiffs' and Microsoft's other
business customers' data also reduced their data's privacy and
security.

To their credit, a Microsoft spokesperson resisted the urge to
reply "LOLwut?" when asked for comment; instead, they told The
Register: "We're aware of the suit and will review it carefully.
However, while the allegations themselves are not very specific, as
we understand them we don't believe they have merit. We have an
established history of both robust privacy protections and
transparency, and we're confident that our use of customer data is
consistent with the instructions of our customers and our
contractual commitments."

The three defendants have paid between $120 and $150 a year for
three individual subscriptions to Microsoft 365/Office 365 Business
editions over the past four to five years. That's a total of
roughly $2000. Meanwhile, in the just-concluded 2020 fiscal year,
Microsoft's other, mostly much larger customers sent $20 billion in
revenue to Redmond for Microsoft 365 commercial subscriptions.
(That's out of $50 billion in overall cloud revenue.) And yet none
of those customers, many of them with small armies of security
experts on their payroll, seem to have noticed.

In fact, when I looked into the specifics of these allegations, I
found them to be facepalm-worthy in the extreme. In many cases,
they're based on a naïve misreading of various support documents
and are just profoundly ignorant of how modern cloud computing
works.

Let's start with the Facebook accusation.

DOES MICROSOFT SHARE CUSTOMER DATA WITH FACEBOOK?
The plaintiffs say, "Microsoft shares its business customers' data
with Facebook and other third parties, without its business
customers' consent." Here's the relevant portion from the
complaint:

Microsoft routinely and automatically shares its business
customers' contacts with Facebook—without those customers'
consent— whether or not the customers or their contacts are
Facebook users.

Even if a customer discovers and disables this Facebook-sharing
"feature" after activating Office 365 or Exchange Online services,
the damage has already been done. At that point, the business
customer's contacts have been shared with Facebook. As Microsoft
explains in an obscure technical instruction, "[o]nce contacts are
transferred to Facebook, they cannot be deleted from Facebook's
systems except by Facebook."

Well, that's not very specific, and the absence of footnotes makes
it hard to figure out exactly what they're talking about. But a
search for the quoted portion of that "obscure technical
instruction" turns up a 2014 post from an Office 365 MVP in
Portugal, Nuno Silva. His post appears to be a copy of a Microsoft
Exchange Online support document titled "Advanced Privacy Options
for Administrators."

Skip down to Section 2.2, "Facebook Contact Sync," which contains
this text:

What does this feature do?   

This feature shares information in your Outlook Contacts folder
with Facebook, and imports your Facebook friends' contact
information into your Outlook Contacts folder. Once contacts are
transferred to Facebook, they cannot be deleted from Facebook's
systems except by Facebook, even after the Contacts sharing feature
is turned off by a user.

How do I turn this feature on/off?

This feature may be turned on by default. Administrators can turn
this feature off by following the steps provided below or by using
a powershell cmdlet.

I suppose if you know nothing about how Office 365 works, that
might sound pretty damning. Indeed, in my Office 365 commercial
account (a subscription that's identical to those used by the
plaintiffs), the admin panel contains this exact setting:

But if I want to change the Outlook Web App mailbox policy to
exclude Facebook contact sync, the option isn't there at all.

That seems very strange, unless you've been covering Office for a
couple decades, as I have, and you remember the history of the
Outlook Social Connector program. It ran on older versions of
Microsoft Office and was briefly supported on Office 365. But
Microsoft killed the Facebook Connect option in 2015.

My fellow Microsoft watcher, Mary Jo Foley, reported on this
development more than five years ago: "Facebook integration no
longer available for several Microsoft services." And you can read
the official support document on Microsoft.com, which is bluntly
titled "Facebook Connect is no longer available."

Scroll down to the "Microsoft 365 Outlook on the web" section and
you'll see this text:  

The following features will no longer be available:

* Facebook Connect – If you've connected to Facebook in Outlook
on the web, your Facebook contacts will no longer be synchronized
to your Microsoft 365 account.

* If you're a new user, you won't be able to connect to Facebook
using Outlook on the web.


And sure enough, when I check Outlook on the Web, there are no
Facebook options.

So, what happened? Back in 2007, Microsoft paid $240 million for a
1.6% stake in Facebook, and the two companies found ways to do
business online. Facebook used Microsoft's online advertising
service and its Bing search results. Microsoft integrated the
social network into Outlook, introducing the Outlook Social
Connector, which displayed activity for social media accounts in a
People Pane when you viewed an email message from someone who you
were friends with on Facebook. Outlook on the Web offered a similar
feature.

But Facebook stopped using Microsoft's ad network in 2010 (and
Microsoft took a $6.2 billion writeoff against its ad division in
2012). Facebook dumped Bing in 2014. By 2015 the two companies had
mostly parted ways. Any business connections between the two
companies and their respective customers dissolved into thin air.
Microsoft appears to have sold all its Facebook stock.

Even in the heyday of that partnership, though, there was no
automatic data exchange. Microsoft's customers had to configure
Outlook on the Web or download the Facebook connector tool, sign
in, and create a connection between Facebook and Outlook.

I am not sure why that setting in the Office 365 admin panel is
still there, but it certainly wouldn't be the first time an
outdated setting survived for years before being officially removed
from a Microsoft control panel.

Meanwhile, if you are using a current version of Office 365, that
setting has no effect, and your contacts stay within your
organization, exactly as you would expect.

(It's also worth noting that according to the lawsuit, all three of
the plaintiffs in this case began their subscriptions to Office 365
after this feature had been officially killed, so there's no way
their contacts could ever have been synced to Facebook, even if
they had wanted them to.)

DOES MICROSOFT SHARE CUSTOMER DATA WITH DEVELOPERS?
The next accusation is that "Microsoft shares its business
customers' data with third-party developers, without its business
customers' consent."

Oh lord. I wanted to slap someone as I read this section, because
it is based on a complete misunderstanding of how third-party
developers work with Microsoft cloud services. Here's the key
paragraph from the complaint:

[E]ven if a business customer did not download a third-party
application (and thus did not consent to sharing its data with the
third-party), Microsoft nonetheless transmits the non-consenting
business customer's data to third-party developers if another
Office 365 user consented to the application.

Among other things, Microsoft gives third-party developers
information about the documents and projects those non-consenting
business customers worked on. Microsoft allows those third-party
developers to search the content of its business customers' emails
and to access their schedules, locations, and availability status,
i.e., whether they are "available" or "away."

[. . .]

Microsoft explains to developers that they can "perform searches
for people who are relevant to the [Microsoft] user and have
expressed an interest in communicating with that user" about
specific topics, such as pizzas. Microsoft explains that "[t]opics
in this context are just words that have been used most by users in
email conversations. Microsoft extracts such words and creates an
index for this data to facilitate . . . searches."

Again, there's no footnote, but the quoted text appears to be from
a developer document titled "Overview of people and workplace
intelligence in Microsoft Graph." It's an extremely thorough
document and well worth reading if you want to understand these
issues.

Where do I even begin to describe how incredibly wrongheaded this
entire section is? The plaintiffs seem to think that developers can
write a few lines of code and thereby gain access to email
messages, contact information, and other data from anyone in the
world. ("Microsoft allows those third-party developers to search
the content of its business customers' emails…")

That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works. (Sorry,
I didn't mean to scream.)

Developers write apps that incorporate Microsoft APIs. Enterprise
customers can then use those apps to perform searches on their own
organization's data. If I install one of those apps and then sign
in using my Office 365 work account, I can use the app to organize
and extract information from my own organization and my own inbox.
So if I have a meeting with my team coming up, the app can find
emails from other team members and can also find related files from
a SharePoint site, making it easier for me to prepare for the
meeting.

The developer doesn't get that data. People within the organization
can access that data through the app, but only if they have the
appropriate authorization.

DOES MICROSOFT SHARE BUSINESS CUSTOMERS' DATA WITH SUBCONTRACTORS?
The complaint alleges that Microsoft "shares its business
customers' data with hundreds of subcontractors when sharing is not
needed to provide the services, and without requiring the
subcontractors to keep the data private and secure."

This one goes on for four paragraphs, boldly declaring that
Microsoft gives away business data to subcontractors, doesn't
anonymize the data, and doesn't require subcontractors to use
encryption.

There's no way to fact-check this accusation, but based on my
experience with Microsoft's data handling policies, I find it
literally impossible to believe. Business customer data is stored
within the tenant, not intermingled with the Microsoft cloud at
large (And if it were genuinely happening, I suspect it would have
drawn serious attention from EU privacy agencies long ago.)

DOES MICROSOFT USE BUSINESS CUSTOMERS' DATA TO DEVELOP AND SELL NEW
PRODUCTS AND SERVICES?
This portion of the complaint hopscotches through at least three
different, completely separate regions of Microsoft's cloud,
displaying a profound misunderstanding of what each one does.

The overarching charge goes like this: "Despite Microsoft's
repeated assurances that it will use its business customers' data
only to provide them with the services they purchased, Microsoft
mines that data to develop new products that it sells to other
customers."

The complaint then goes on to list three products.

The first is the Microsoft Security Graph API, which the
complainants describe as "an application program interface
Microsoft sells to software developers so they can create new
security-related products." Just as a fact-checking point, I feel
compelled to note that Microsoft doesn't "sell" this API to
anyone.

Microsoft boasts that Security Graph API is built off the "uniquely
broad and deep" insights Microsoft obtained for itself by scanning
"400 billion" of its customers' emails and "data from 700 million
Azure user accounts."

Those scans are designed to detect, intercept, and block malicious
code, including malware, ransomware, and phishing attempts. They're
a standard part of every modern email server and cloud storage
service. (For details about how these scans work, see this support
document: "Malware and Ransomware Protection in Microsoft 365.")
The Security Graph API aggregates data about those threats, their
points of origin, and their effects, as collected by Microsoft's
security team and its partners.

If you think that collecting and sharing data about external
attackers targeting your infrastructure and your users is a
violation of your privacy, you're just wrong.

Next, the plaintiffs throw in a completely random reference to the
"Microsoft Audience Network," an online advertising tool that uses
data from Microsoft consumer services and has nothing to do with
the business services they're using. You can read all about it at
the network's welcome page, which makes clear that it is "anchored
in the consumer understanding provided by the Microsoft Graph [and
designed to reach] hundreds of millions of people through
brand-safe environments or placements on premium sites including
MSN, Outlook.com, Microsoft Edge and other partners."

It's an understandable confusion (I'm being charitable here),
because Microsoft has separate versions of the Microsoft Graph for
personal, work, and educational services. The Microsoft Audience
Network has nothing to do with business customers.

And then there's Cortana. This one's especially weird, because the
transition of Cortana to the enterprise is relatively recent. (As
an aside, I was extremely disappointed that there was no footnote
explaining the origin of the Cortana brand.)

According to this pleading, "[T]hrough a default setting that
applies when the customer first installs Office 365, Microsoft
collects and uses business customer data (including documents,
contacts, and calendar information) to develop and improve its
virtual personal assistant 'Cortana.' It does so even if the
customer is not using Cortana."

There's a scintilla of a glimmer of a tiny ray of accuracy in that
accusation. Yes, Microsoft does use customer data for machine
learning as part of its enterprise-based Cortana service. That's
documented in the terms of service and in a detailed support
document titled "Cortana enterprise services in Microsoft 365
experiences."

Microsoft uses Customer Data only to provide the services agreed
upon, and for purposes that are compatible with those services.
Machine learning to develop and improve models is one of those
purposes. Machine learning is done inside the Office 365 cloud, and
there is no human viewing, review or labeling of your Customer
Data.

Your data is not used to target advertising.

One could make a case for opting an organization out of Cortana's
machine learning, but I'd be hard-pressed to identify the damage
caused by not opting out.

And that's it. That's the entire lawsuit. It is, to use a decidedly
non-legal term, a hot mess.

I will continue to follow this case as it proceeds, but I fully
expect it to be dismissed with prejudice early in its life. I'll
keep you posted. [GN]


MIDWEST WATER: Settlement in Varble Labor Suit Gets Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TRAVIS VARBLE, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MIDWEST WATER & CONCRETE, INC.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00247-GCS (S.D. Ill.),
Magistrate Judge Gilbert C. Sison of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois granted the Plaintiff's Consent
Motion for Final Certification of Class Action Settlement, Approval
of a Collective Action Settlement, and Dismissal of the Claims with
Prejudice.

Upon review, Magistrate Judge Sison certified, as set forth in the
parties' settlement agreement, an Illinois class action for
purposes of settlement.  The class is defined as:

  All laborers who have worked for Midwest Water & Concrete, Inc.
  at any time from Feb. 28, 2016 to Nov. 22, 2019.

Judge Sison also certified a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
collective action.  The collective action class is defined as:

  All laborers who have worked for Midwest Water & Concrete, Inc.
  at any time from Feb. 28, 2016 to Nov. 22, 2019 who timely
  filed a claim.

The Judge granted approval of the settlement pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. Proc. 23(e) and Section 16(b) of the FLSA.  

Named Plaintiff Travis Varble is awarded a $2,000 service award for
his initiative, services to the Class, and taking the risks of
bringing the Action as a class action, which has resulted in
substantial benefits to the Class.

The Plaintiff's Counsel is awarded their reasonable attorneys' fees
of $39,705 and their reasonable costs of $491.78 incurred in
pursuing the claims.

The Parties are to implement the terms of the Settlement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 5, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/zmLG3o from Leagle.com.


MORGAN STANLEY: Faces Second Data Breach Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Jed Horowitz, writing for AdvisorHub, reports that another law firm
has asked a court to allow current and former customers of Morgan
Stanley Smith Barney to sue the wirehouse for failing to ensure
that their social security numbers, account numbers and other
"personal identifiable information" was scrubbed from hardware that
was decommissioned.

Morgan Stanley on July 9 began notifying customers that an outside
contractor failed to completely scrub hardware from two data
centers that were closed in 2016, and discovered in 2019 that old
servers in some branches that cannot be located may have
unencrypted customer data, according to letters and emails the firm
has sent customers and brokers.

A federal lawsuit in New York City's Second Circuit seeking to
certify a national and California class of customers claiming
negligence and invasion of privacy was followed on July 31 by a
second one making similar claims, excluding violation of the state
unfair competition law.

Neither complaint claims breaches of computer systems but both
allege unauthorized disclosures of the data to unknown third
parties.

Morgan Stanley informed brokers, customers and some state attorneys
general that it has not detected unauthorized use of the data, but
has offered two years of free credit monitoring services from
Experian.

"Morgan Stanley's current and former customers face a lifetime risk
of identify theft, which is heightened here by the loss of
customers' Social Security number [sic]," lawyers representing
named plaintiffs Richard Grossman of Coral Gables, Florida, and
Howard Katz of Philadelphia, wrote in the complaint filed on
July 31. "In addition to Morgan Stanley's failure to prevent the
Data Breach, Defendant failed to detect the Data Breach for years,
and when they did discover the Data Breach, it took them over a
year, possibly longer, to report it to the affected individuals and
the states' Attorney General."

John Schnagl, a Morgan Stanley customer in the state of Washington,
said he was "livid" when he received notification of the potential
breach from his advisor and then by mail, primarily because of the
delay between the firm's discovery of the events and the notices.

"I would say that the investigation they made into whether they
should be held responsible is worse than a data breach," said
Schnagl, who has not been in contact with lawyers. "I trust my
financial advisor, but Morgan Stanley as an entity shows a lack of
moral integrity and I am looking into switching my account to
somewhere else."

A Morgan Stanley spokeswoman declined to comment on the lawsuits,
other than to repeat previous statements to the press and clients
that no harm has been discovered to date.

"We have continuously monitored the situation and have not detected
any unauthorized activity related to the matter, nor access to or
misuse of personal client data," she said.

Lawyers at Nussbaum Law Group in New York who filed the July 31
suit along with lawyers at Criden & Love in Miami did not respond
to requests for comment or said they do not as a matter of policy
comment on ongoing litigation. Lawyers at Morgan & Morgan in New
York who filed the earlier suit did not return requests for
comment.

Under standard class-action courtroom procedures, the two suits and
others that may follow are likely to be consolidated, said several
attorneys.

Neither suit estimated the size of the potential customer classes,
but said that Morgan Stanley has identified "thousands of customers
whose PII may have been improperly accessed." [GN]


MYLAN NV: Class Suit over Valsartan Recalls Ongoing in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. 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 over
personal injuries related to Valsartan.

Mylan N.V., and certain of its subsidiaries, along with numerous
other manufacturers, retailers and others, have been named (or
plaintiffs are seeking to name certain Mylan entities) as
defendants in lawsuits in the United States, Canada and other
countries stemming from recalls of valsartan-containing
medications.

The vast majority of these lawsuits have been consolidated in an
MDL in the District of New Jersey, which includes class action and
individual allegations seeking the refund of the purchase price and
other economic damages allegedly sustained by consumers who
purchased valsartan-containing products as well as claims for
personal injuries allegedly caused by ingestion of the medication.


Moreover, Mylan has received requests to indemnify purchasers of
Mylan's active pharmaceutical ingredient and/or finished dose forms
of the product.

Mylan said, "We believe that the claims in these lawsuits are
without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously."

Mylan N.V., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, and distributes generic, branded-generic,
brand-name, and over-the-counter (OTC) pharmaceutical products in
North America, Europe, and internationally. The company was founded
in 1961 and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.


MYLAN NV: Class Suits Over Opioid Sales Underway
------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. 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 sales, marketing and/or distribution practices with
respect to prescription opioid products.

Mylan along with other manufacturers, distributors, pharmacies,
pharmacy benefit managers, and individual healthcare providers is a
defendant in more than 1,000 cases in the United States and Canada
filed by various plaintiffs, including counties, cities and other
local governmental entities, asserting civil claims related to
sales, marketing and/or distribution practices with respect to
prescription opioid products.

In addition, lawsuits have been filed as putative class actions
including on behalf of children with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome
due to alleged exposure to opioids.

The lawsuits generally seek equitable relief and monetary damages
(including punitive and/or exemplary damages) based on a variety of
legal theories, including various statutory and/or common law
claims, such as negligence, public nuisance and unjust enrichment.


The vast majority of these lawsuits have been consolidated in an
MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District Court of
Ohio.

A liability-only trial has been scheduled for March 2021 in a
coordinated proceeding in West Virginia state court involving Mylan
and numerous other manufacturers, distributors, and pharmacies.

Mylan believes that the claims in these lawsuits are without merit
and intends to defend against them vigorously.

Mylan N.V., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, and distributes generic, branded-generic,
brand-name, and over-the-counter (OTC) pharmaceutical products in
North America, Europe, and internationally. The company was founded
in 1961 and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.


MYLAN NV: EpiPen Direct Purchasers' Suit Pending in Kansas
----------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. 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 direct purchaser class action against the
company related to the pricing and/or marketing of the EpiPen(R)
Auto-Injector has been stayed.

On February 14, 2020, Mylan Specialty and other Mylan-affiliated
entities, together with other non-Mylan affiliated companies, were
named as defendants in a putative direct purchaser class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
relating to the pricing and/or marketing of the EpiPen(R)
Auto-Injector.

The plaintiff in this case asserts federal antitrust claims which
are based on allegations that are similar to those in the putative
indirect purchaser class actions. On June 18, 2020, the District
Court granted Mylan’s motion to compel pre-suit mediation; the
litigation is stayed pending completion of pre-suit mediation.

Mylan said, "We believe that the claims in this lawsuit are without
merit and intend to defend against them vigorously."

Mylan N.V., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, and distributes generic, branded-generic,
brand-name, and over-the-counter (OTC) pharmaceutical products in
North America, Europe, and internationally. The company was founded
in 1961 and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.


MYLAN NV: Israeli Securities Suit Still Stayed
----------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2020, that the IEC Fund securities action remains stayed in the Tel
Aviv District Court (Economic Division) until a judgment is issued
in a securities litigation pending in the United States.

On October 13, 2016, a purported shareholder of Mylan N.V. filed a
lawsuit, together with a motion to certify the lawsuit as a class
action on behalf of certain Mylan N.V. shareholders on the Tel Aviv
Stock Exchange, against Mylan N.V. and four of its directors and
officers (collectively, for purposes of this paragraph, the
"defendants") in the Tel Aviv District Court (Economic Division)
(the "Friedman Action").

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made false or misleading
statements and omissions of purportedly material fact in Mylan
N.V.'s reports to the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange regarding Mylan
N.V.'s classification of its EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector for purposes
of the maximum drug retail prices (MDRP), in violation of both U.S.
and Israeli securities laws, the Israeli Companies Law and the
Israeli Torts Ordinance.

The plaintiff seeks damages, among other remedies.

On April 30, 2017, another purported shareholder of Mylan N.V.
filed a separate lawsuit, together with a motion to certify the
lawsuit as a class action on behalf of certain Mylan N.V.
shareholders on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange, in the Tel Aviv
District Court (Economic Division), alleging substantially similar
claims and seeking substantially similar relief against the
defendants and other directors and officers of Mylan N.V., but
alleging also that this group of defendants made false or
misleading statements and omissions of purportedly material fact in
connection with allegedly anticompetitive conduct with respect to
EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector and certain generic drugs, and alleging
violations of both U.S. federal securities laws and Israeli law
(the "IEC Fund Action").

On April 10, 2018, the Tel Aviv District Court granted the motion
filed by plaintiffs in both the Friedman Action and the IEC Fund
Action, voluntarily dismissing the Friedman Action and staying the
IEC Fund Action until a judgment is issued in the purported class
action securities litigation pending in the U.S.

Mylan said, "We believe that the claims in the IEC Fund Action are
without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously."

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

Mylan N.V., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, and distributes generic, branded-generic,
brand-name, and over-the-counter (OTC) pharmaceutical products in
North America, Europe, and internationally. The company was founded
in 1961 and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.


MYLAN NV: PERS Mississippi Putative Class Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. 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
complaint filed by the Public Employees Retirement System of
Mississippi.

On June 26, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed by
the Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi against Mylan
N.V. and certain of its directors and officers (collectively for
the purposes of this paragraph, the "defendants") in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of certain purchasers of securities of Mylan N.V.

The complaint alleges that defendants made false or misleading
statements and omissions of purportedly material fact, in violation
of federal securities laws, in connection with disclosures relating
to Mylan's Morgantown manufacturing plant and inspections at the
plant by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The complaint alleges that Mylan N.V.'s stock traded at
artificially inflated prices as a result of the allegedly
misleading statements and omissions.

Plaintiff seeks certification of a class of purchasers of Mylan
N.V. securities between February 16, 2016 and May 7, 2019. The
complaint seeks damages, as well as the plaintiff's fees and
costs.

Mylan N.V., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, and distributes generic, branded-generic,
brand-name, and over-the-counter (OTC) pharmaceutical products in
North America, Europe, and internationally. The company was founded
in 1961 and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.


MYLAN NV: Suit Over Reverse Morris Trust Transaction Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. 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 suit against the company
related to a Reverse Morris Trust transaction has been voluntarily
dismissed.

On July 29, 2019, the Company, Pfizer Inc. ("Pfizer"), Upjohn Inc.,
a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pfizer ("Upjohn" or "Newco"), and
certain other affiliated entities entered into a Business
Combination Agreement (as amended, the "Business Combination
Agreement) pursuant to which the Company will combine with Pfizer's
Upjohn Business (the "Upjohn Business") in a Reverse Morris Trust
transaction (the "Combination"). Newco, which will be the parent
entity of the combined Upjohn Business and Mylan business, will be
renamed "Viatris" effective as of the closing of the Combination.
The Upjohn Business is a global, primarily off-patent branded and
generic established medicines business, which includes 20 primarily
off-patent solid oral dose legacy brands, such as Lyrica, Lipitor,
Celebrex and Viagra.

Beginning in April 2020, Mylan N.V., its directors and certain of
its officers were named as defendants in lawsuits filed in federal
court, including a putative class action, alleging certain federal
securities law violations for purportedly failing to disclose or
misrepresenting material information in the definitive proxy
statement filed by Mylan N.V. with the SEC in connection with the
Combination.

The lawsuits generally seek various relief including (i) enjoining
the defendants from proceeding with consummating, or closing the
Combination and any vote on the Combination unless and until Mylan
discloses and disseminates the purportedly material information;
(ii) in the event the Combination is consummated, rescinding it and
setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages; and (iii)
reasonable attorneys and expert fees.

Plaintiffs in each of these cases have dismissed their cases
against defendants.

Mylan N.V., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, and distributes generic, branded-generic,
brand-name, and over-the-counter (OTC) pharmaceutical products in
North America, Europe, and internationally. The company was founded
in 1961 and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.


NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS: Litigation Over CONTEPO Reports Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nabriva Therapeutics plc 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
putative class action suit over disclosures related to CONTEPO.

On May 8, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and its Chief Executive Officer in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned
Larry Enriquez v. Nabriva Therapeutics PLC, and Ted Schroeder, No.
19-cv-04183.

The complaint purported to be brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the Company's securities between November 1, 2018 and
April 30, 2019. The complaint generally alleged that the Company
and its Chief Executive Officer 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 and omitting to disclose material facts concerning the
Company's submission of a New Drug Application (NDA) to the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) for marketing approval of CONTEPO for
the treatment of cUTI in the United States and the likelihood of
such approval.

The complaint sought unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, and
other costs.

On May 22, 2019, a second putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
captioned Anthony Manna v. Nabriva Therapeutics PLC, and Ted
Schroeder, No. 19-cv-04713. The complaint purported to be brought
on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's securities
between November 1, 2018 and April 30, 2019.

The allegations made in the Manna complaint were similar to those
made in the Enriquez complaint, and the Manna complaint sought
similar relief.

On May 24, 2019, these two lawsuits were consolidated by the court.
The court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved plaintiff's
selection of lead counsel on July 22, 2019.

On September 23, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding
the Company's Chief Financial Officer and Chief Medical Officer as
defendants; the amended complaint purports to be brought on behalf
of shareholders who purchased the Company's securities between
January 4, 2019 through April 30, 2019, and otherwise includes
allegations similar to those made in the original complaints and
seeks similar relief.

The Company's pre-motion letter to dismiss the amended complaint
was due to plaintiff on October 21, 2019, and plaintiff responded
to the Company via a letter on November 4, 2019. On November 18,
2019, the Company filed a pre-motion letter to dismiss with the
Court, seeking leave to move to dismiss and setting forth why a
motion to dismiss is warranted.

On April 28, 2020, the Court dismissed the amended complaint
without prejudice and granted plaintiff twenty days to show cause
why the lawsuit should not be dismissed with prejudice. On May 8,
2020, the Court granted plaintiff a 21-day extension to show cause.


On June 8, 2020, plaintiff filed a letter application to the court
seeking leave to file a proposed second amended complaint, and on
June 23, 2020, the court directed plaintiff to file the proposed
second amended complaint.  Plaintiff did so on June 24, 2020. The
Company filed an answer to the second amended complaint on July 8,
2020.

This case is currently in the discovery phase.

Nabriva said, "The Company denies any and all allegations of
wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit.
The Company is unable, however, to predict the outcome of this
matter at this time. Moreover, any conclusion of this matter in a
manner adverse to the Company and for which it incurs substantial
costs or damages not covered by the Company's directors' and
officers' liability insurance would have a material adverse effect
on its financial condition and business. In addition, the
litigation could adversely impact the Company's reputation and
divert management's attention and resources from other priorities,
including the execution of its business plan and strategies that
are important to the Company's ability to grow its business, any of
which could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business."

Nabriva Therapeutics plc, a biopharmaceutical company, engages in
the research and development of anti-infective agents to treat
infections in humans. The company was formerly known as Nabriva
Therapeutics Forschungs GmbH and changed its name to Nabriva
Therapeutics plc in 2007. Nabriva Therapeutics plc was incorporated
in 2005 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Painkiller Culture Suit Revived by 9th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News reports that after six years of litigation and two
appeals, the Ninth Circuit revived a class action claiming the
National Football League negligently allowed teams to push
painkillers on hurt athletes, causing permanent injuries and drug
addictions for players.

"Despite the NFL's one-step-removed relationship to the players, it
was within the NFL's control to promulgate rules or guidelines that
could improve safety for players across the league," Senior U.S.
Circuit Judge Richard Tallman, a Bill Clinton appointee, wrote in a
20-page opinion.

Lead plaintiff Richard Dent, a former Chicago Bear and NFL Hall of
Famer, sued the league in May 2014. He claimed the NFL instructed
team doctors from at least 1969 to 2012 to dole out unprescribed
drugs without warning players of harmful side effects. Dent says he
ended his career with an enlarged heart, permanent nerve damage in
his foot and an addiction to painkillers.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup dismissed the lawsuit in 2014,
finding because the claims were governed by labor contracts between
players and 32 individual NFL teams, the case must go to
arbitration.

In 2018, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel reversed Alsup's
decision, finding the NFL's duty to handle drugs with reasonable
care was governed by federal laws, not labor contracts.

A year later, Alsup again dismissed the case, finding the former
players lacked sufficient allegations to support their claim that
the NFL played a role in team doctors doling out unprescribed
medications to hurt athletes.

The Ninth Circuit partly reversed that decision, finding the league
could be liable under a "voluntary undertaking theory of
negligence" under California law.

The three-judge panel cited the Ninth Circuit's 2018 decision in
Mayall v. USA Water Polo, which found the governing body for water
polo in the U.S. could be liable for failing to do more to protect
young athletes from concussions.

Tallman and his colleagues found the NFL voluntarily took steps to
prevent the misuse of prescription painkillers, but those steps
were inadequate. The NFL allegedly created a drug oversight program
in 1973. According to the lawsuit, the league required teams to
report the volume of drugs given to players, funded studies and
commissions to prevent the misuse of drugs, performed audits of
each team's practices, required each club to register storage
facilities for medications, and forced teams to make players sign
waivers before they could receive Toradol, a strong prescription
painkiller.

Despite those actions by the NFL, teams continued to dole out
prescription drugs and put hurt players back on the field,
exacerbating injuries and increasing each player's dependence on
painkillers, according to the lawsuit.

"The NFL allegedly was aware of this from its audit results but
nonetheless turned a blind eye to maximize its revenues," Tallman
wrote.

However, the NFL could still escape liability if the negligence
claims are pre-empted by medical care provisions in collective
bargaining agreements between players and teams. Because the Ninth
Circuit did not have the labor contracts before it on this appeal,
it remanded the case to Judge Alsup to determine if the state-law
negligence claim is pre-empted by those agreements.

"The district court should examine afresh whether the NFL's general
disclaimer of liability for individual players' medical treatment
is relevant to the sufficiently pled allegations of the
organization's inaction, where audit results demonstrate failure to
safely distribute pain killers to keep marquee players in the game
and maximize television revenues," Tallman wrote.

The panel affirmed Alsup's dismissal of a separate negligence per
se claim based on the NFL's alleged involvement in the handling,
distribution and administration of controlled substances. The panel
found the players failed to specify what behavior by the league
supported that claim.

Senior U.S. Circuit Judges Jay Bybee and N. Randy Smith, both
George W. Bush appointees, joined Tallman on the panel.

Plaintiffs' attorney Steve Silverman, of Silverman Thompson Slutkin
White, said his clients are pleased with the Ninth Circuit's
decision.

"Richard Dent and the other plaintiffs have already changed the
game for the better by bringing the leagues practices to light with
this lawsuit, and collectively are committed to a successful
resolution on behalf of themselves and the more than 2,000 former
NFL players who have joined this litigation," Silverman said in an
emailed statement.

The NFL's corporate office and NFL attorney Allen Ruby, of Skadden
Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, did not immediately return emails and
phone calls requesting comment.

Last year, the Ninth Circuit affirmed Alsup's dismissal of a
separate class action seeking to hold individual NFL teams liable
for pushing painkillers on hurt athletes. The appeals court found
the players waited too long to file their lawsuit. [GN]

NATIONAL RURAL: Settles 401(k) Plan Class Action for $10MM
----------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a trade
association representing more than 900 local electric cooperatives
and public utility districts will pay $10 million to settle a class
action challenging the fees tied to its 401(k) plan, according to
court papers filed in the Eastern District of Virginia.

The deal, announced July 31, is expected to benefit about 93,000
people who invested retirement money in the National Rural Electric
Cooperative Association's 401(k) plan. The deal also requires the
association to appoint independent third parties to review its plan
fees and how expenses are shared among the 401(k) plan and other
benefit plans sponsored by the association. [GN]


NATIONWIDE BIWEEKLY: Missed Chance to Dismiss Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Evan Weinberger at Bloomberg Law reports that Nationwide Biweekly
Administration Inc. and its founder waited too long to seek
dismissal of a class action complaint they're facing over a
discontinued mortgage offering, a federal judge ruled.

Nationwide Biweekly and its founder missed their chance to argue
for the case to be thrown out on personal jurisdiction grounds
because of the company's various legal maneuvers following the
filing of the complaint in 2015, Judge Andrew P. Gordon of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada ruled on Aug. 3. [GN]



NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Suit Over Bempegaldesleukin Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Nektar Therapeutics 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 securities
class action suit related to bempegaldesleukin.

On October 30, 2018, the company and certain of its executives were
named in a putative securities class action complaint filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (U.S.
District Court in California), which complaint was subsequently
amended on May 15, 2019.

Also, on February 13, 2019, and February 18, 2019, shareholder
derivative complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware naming the CEO, CFO and certain members of
Nektar's board.

These class action and shareholder derivative actions assert, among
other things, that for a period beginning at least from November
11, 2017 through October 2, 2018, the company's stock was inflated
due to alleged misrepresentations about the efficacy and safety of
bempegaldesleukin. On July 13, 2020, the U.S. District Court in
California Court granted Nektar's motion to dismiss all claims in
this securities class action filing, stating (among other things)
that the amended complaint failed "to adequately allege that any of
the statements … identified by Plaintiffs were false or
misleading."

The plaintiffs in this matter have 28 days from July 13, 2020, to
file another amended complaint.

In addition, on August 19, 2019, the company and certain of its
executives were named in a putative securities class action
complaint filed in U.S. District Court in California, which
complaint was subsequently amended on January 24, 2020.

Also, on February 11, 2020, and on February 20, 2020, shareholder
derivative complaints were filed in U.S. District Court in
California naming the CEO, CFO and certain members of Nektar's
board, which derivative complaints were consolidated and
subsequently amended on July 1, 2020. The class action and
shareholder derivative complaints assert, among other things, that
for a period between February 15, 2019 and August 8, 2019,
inclusive, the company's stock was inflated due to an alleged
failure to disclose a reduction in the planned number of
bempegaldesleukin clinical trials and a bempegaldesleukin
manufacturing issue.

Nektar Therapeutics is a research-based biopharmaceutical company
that discovers and develops innovative new medicines in areas of
high unmet medical need. Our research and development pipeline of
new investigational drugs includes treatments for cancer and
autoimmune disease. The company is based in San Francisco,
California.


NEONODE INC: Defends Purported Class Suit in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------
Neonode Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission dated September 4, 2020, that the Company
and its Board of Directors had been served with a purported class
action lawsuit (C.A. No. 2020-0701-AGB) in the Delaware Court of
Chancery.

On August 31, 2020, management of Neonode Inc. received
notification that the Company and its Board of Directors had been
served with a purported class action lawsuit (C.A. No.
2020-0701-AGB) in the Delaware Court of Chancery for breach of
fiduciary duty in connection with disclosure of information
concerning Proposals 5 and 6 at the 2020 Annual Meeting of
Stockholders to be held on September 29, 2020.

These proposals for shareholder approval relate to a private
placement of common stock and preferred stock by the Company on
August 5, 2020 in which two directors and the chief executive
officer of the Company participated.

The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit.

Neonode Inc. develops and licenses user interfaces and optical
multi-touch solutions for consumer brands. The Company is focused
on licensing its technology to Original Equipment Manufacturers and
("OEMs") and Original Design Manufacturers ("ODMs") who embed their
technology into electronic devices.


NEW YORK TRANSIT: Court Denies Bid for Protective Order in Robinson
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBINSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT
AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-1404 (AT) (BCM) (S.D.
N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York denied New York City Transit
Authority's ("NYCTA") motion for protective order that would block
the Plaintiffs from taking the depositions of two employees of the
Defendant.

The letter-motion sought a protective order that would block the
Plaintiffs from taking the depositions of two employees of the
Defendant NYCTA: Dierdre David and Martilee McDermott.  The
Defendants argued that David and McDermott possess little relevant
information; that any relevant information that would be obtained
from them can or should have been obtained from the witnesses whose
depositions have already been taken and the documents that have
been produced; and that it would be burdensome for the witnesses to
testify, and a "significant hardship" for the Defendants to prepare
them for deposition, during what is already a very difficult time"
due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Plaintiffs opposed the protective order application in a
responding letter filed.  Thereafter, the Defendants filed a reply
letter, which the Court did not see until after its initial order
was posted, denying the Defendant's application without prejudice
as to McDermott after the conclusion of David's deposition.

The Magistrate Judge notes that the Defendants' inclusion of David
and McDermott in their initial disclosures, the Court's prior
determination that they must be treated as custodians for purposes
of ESI discovery, and the Defendants' failure to raise a relevance
objection (as distinguished from concerns about duplicative
testimony) until very late in the day significantly undercut their
current claim that testimony from David and McDermott would not
advance the Plaintiffs' case.  Nor may the Defendants be heard, at
this late date, to complain that it would be unduly burdensome to
require that two duly noticed and long-anticipated depositions of
current NYCTA employees proceed remotely; that is, in the same
manner that all depositions in the case are necessarily proceeding
during the current public health crisis.

The Defendants' delay in making the present application also
undercuts their argument that the proposed deposition would be
duplicative of testimony that either was obtained or "should have
been obtained" from Mary-Ann Maloney, the executive director of
NYCTA's Transit Adjudication Bureau ("TAB"), who testified pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6).

Finally, the Magistrate Judge notes that David and McDermott would
be only the third and fourth NYCTA employees to sit for deposition
in this putative class action, which challenges the lack of due
process afforded individuals by NYCTA in connection with default
judgments for alleged violations of transit rules of conduct.
There is thus no claim that the Plaintiffs have exceeded the number
of depositions contemplated by Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(i) or
have otherwise engaged in abusive deposition discovery.

The Magistrate Judge having concluded that the deposition testimony
sought will be relevant to the claims and defenses asserted herein
and proportional to the needs of the case, and the Defendants
having failed to show good cause for an order forbidding the
testimony altogether, denied the Defendants' application.  The
David deposition may proceed.

The Magistrate noted, however, that the Plaintiffs are willing to
reconsider their request to depose Ms. McDermott after having the
benefit of information learned in Ms. David's deposition.
Consequently, the parties are directed to meet and confer promptly
and in good faith after the David deposition to determine whether
McDermott's testimony would, at that point, be inappropriately
cumulative.  If no agreement can be reached, defendants may renew
their protective order application as to McDermott.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 5, 2020 Amended Order
is available at https://is.gd/2W6Pwc from Leagle.com.


NEW YORK: Families of Special Needs Kids File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
TEGNA reports that parents around the country who have children
with disabilities have filed a class-action lawsuit urging schools
to reopen immediately.

The complaint claims that when school districts closed for the
coronavirus pandemic, they ignored federal law by failing to
provide adequate services for students who have developmental or
physical disabilities.

Patrick Donahue, a New York City lawyer and founder of the Brain
Injury Rights Group, filed the lawsuit and told NY 1 there are more
than 500 plaintiffs from 25 states who have signed onto the
complaint. The complaint specifically names New York City Mayor
Bill de Blasio, New York City Schools Chancellor Richard Carranza
and school districts in all 50 states.

"There are over 7 million students nationwide receiving special
education services and it's absolutely horrible what's going on for
these kids and these school districts have in essence very simply
violated federal law," Donahue said to NY 1.

The lawsuit calls on school districts to immediately reopen or asks
for parents to be given "Pendency Vouchers" to pay for the services
needed along with their students' Individualized Education Plans.

Donahue, who also founded a New York school for students with brain
injury and brain-based disorders, told NBC New York it was
reasonable to close schools for a few weeks due to health concerns.
He says it's now putting kids' health at risk by keeping schools
closed.

"This is beyond negligent, it's borderline criminal what's
happening," Donahue claimed.

The lawsuit also seeks new evaluations for students and
compensation for parents who may have suffered "employment loss or
out-of-pocket expenses" while trying to provide their children with
the services they needed. [GN]


NN INC: Still Defends Class Action by Erie County ERS
-----------------------------------------------------
NN, 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 still defends itself against a class action
lawsuit filed by Erie County Employees' Retirement System.

On November 1, 2019, Erie County Employees' Retirement System, on
behalf of a purported class of plaintiffs, filed a complaint in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, against
the Company, certain of the Company's current and former officers
and directors, and each of the underwriters involved in the
Company's public offering and sale of 14.4 million shares of its
common stock pursuant to a preliminary prospectus supplement, dated
September 10, 2018, a final prospectus supplement, dated September
13, 2018, and a base prospectus, dated April 19, 2017, relating to
the Company's effective shelf registration statement on Form S-3
(File No. 333-216737) (the "Offering"), which complaint was amended
on January 24, 2020.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the Offering.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of stockholders who
purchased shares of the Company's common stock in the Offering.

The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.


The Company believes the complaint and allegations to be without
merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against these
actions.

The Company is unable at this time to determine whether the outcome
of the litigation would have a material impact on the Company's
financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

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

NN, Inc., a diversified industrial company, combines advanced
engineering and production capabilities with in-depth materials
science expertise, to design and manufacture high-precision
components and assemblies for a variety of markets on a global
basis. The company is based in Charlotte, North Carolina.


NORTHLAND AUTO: Ohio App. Affirms Class Certification in Goree
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County,
issued a Journal Entry and Opinion affirming the Trial Court's
Order granting the Plaintiff-Appellee's Motion for Class
Certification in the case captioned SHANELL GOREE,
Plaintiff-Appellee v. NORTHLAND AUTO ENTERPRISES INC., ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 108881 (Ohio App.).

Defendants-Appellants Northland Auto Enterprises, Inc., North Coast
Auto Sales, Inc., Al Lentsch, Joe Zawatski and LTO Financial,
L.L.C., appeal from the order of the trial court granting
Plaintiff-Appellee Shanell Goree's motion for class certification.

Judge Mary Eileen Kilbane ruled that the Appellee recover from the
Appellants costs herein taxed. The Appellate Court finds there were
reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special
mandate be sent to the Trial Court to carry this judgment into
execution.

Background

Northland is a Minnesota corporation and Defendant Lentsch is its
CEO. Northland created the "Ren'T'Own(R)" and "Lease'T'Own(TM)"
programs and provides services to help auto dealers implement those
programs. Cleveland-based North Coast is one such auto dealer that
implemented Northland's Ren'T'Own program. Zawatski owns North
Coast. LTO is a Minnesota corporation, owned and operated by
Lentsch. It provided financing to North Coast related to the
Ren'T'Own program and sometimes would take title of vehicles under
the Ren'T'Own program. Plaintiff Goree was a North Coast customer,
who entered into an agreement to lease a 1999 Dodge Intrepid
through Northland's Ren'T'Own program.

Ms. Goree filed her complaint against the Appellants on June 20,
2011. The original complaint was not a class action. North Coast
moved to stay proceedings and compel arbitration on August 3, 2011.
Northland, North Coast, and Lentsch answered on August 3, 2011. She
moved for leave to file a first amended class action complaint on
October 14, 2011. She filed the first amended complaint after her
motion was granted. The Appellants answered the class action
complaint on November 28, 2011, and filed an amended answer on
January 13, 2012.

Ms. Goree alleges that many of the charges associated with her
lease were imposed unlawfully and without proper disclosure. She
alleges that (1) the $925 origination fee exceeded the maximum
amount permitted in R.C. 1317.07, which is $250; (2) the amount she
was charged for sales tax, title transfer, and license fees was
greater than what was actually remitted to the state; (3) the $239
cost of the GPS was built into the cash price of the $12,790.36,
but was not disclosed to her nor reflected on the Agreement or
promissory note; and (4) she was required to purchase the $399
warranty, rental insurance, and the GPS device even though those
charges were not separately disclosed, but rather were rolled into
the cash price of the vehicle.

Ms. Goree filed her motion for class certification on January 31,
2018. The Appellants filed an opposition to class certification on
April 23, 2018. The Trial Court granted class certification on July
11, 2019, concluding that she satisfied the requirements of Civ.R.
23(A) and (B)(3), but not 23(B)(2) and certified two classes:

   (1) The Fraud Class:

       All Ohio residents, who from June 21, 2007, to the
       present, entered into a transaction to purchase, rent or
       lease a vehicle from any Ohio dealer that utilizes
       Northland's Ren'T'Own program, where:

       a. the cash price of the vehicle included charges for
          goods or services that are in addition to the cost of
          the vehicle, and/or;

       b. the amount charged for the title transfer and/or
          license fees is in excess of the amount actually paid
          to the State of Ohio, and/or;

       c. the charge for an origination fee exceeded $250; and

   (2) The CSPA Class:

       All Ohio residents, who from June 21, 2009, to the
       present, entered into a transaction to purchase, rent or
       lease a vehicle from any Ohio dealer that utilized
       Northland's Ren'T'Own program, where:

       a. the case price of the vehicle included charges for
          goods or services that are in addition to the cost of
          the vehicle, and/or;

       b. the amount charged for the title transfer and/or
          license fees is in excess of the amount actually paid
          to the State of Ohio, and/or;

       c. the charge for an origination fee exceeded $250.

Conclusion

The Appellate Court affirms class certification in the lawsuit. The
Appellate Court finds that the Trial Court did not abuse its
discretion in finding that a class claim would be superior to other
methods in this case.

In line with the Trial Court's analysis, the Appellate Court notes
that concentrating this litigation as a single case in state court
appears to be superior because common issues predominate, the
alleged transactions occurred in Ohio, and violations of Ohio law
are alleged. Regarding the Appellants' argument about damages,
managing these claims as a class action where the hypothetical
alternative is hundreds or thousands of individual lawsuits does
not present any special difficulty that would make individual cases
superior, citing Cantlin, 2018-Ohio-4607, 114 N.E.3d 1260, at 51.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' June 25, 2020 Entry and
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8p74ey5 from
Leagle.com.

Frederick & Berler, L.L.C., Ronald I. Frederick, Michael L. Berler,
and Michael L. Fine, 767 E 185th St., in Cleveland, Ohio, for
appellee.

Gallagher Sharp L.L.P., Clark D. Rice -- CRICE@GALLAGHERSHARP.COM
-- Richard C.O. Rezie -- rrezie@gallaghersharp.com -- and Thomas G.
Lobe, 1215 Superior Ave., in Cleveland, Ohio, for appellants.


O'REILLY AUTO: Averts Class Action Over Rest-Break Policy
---------------------------------------------------------
Holly Barker, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a bid to
revive a class action alleging that O'Reilly Auto Enterprises LLC's
rest-break policy violated California law was denied by the Ninth
Circuit on Aug. 3.

Proposed class plaintiff Kia Davidson argued that the district
court abused its discretion by declining to extend a 90-day
deadline for filing her class certification motion. But Davidson
wasn't prevented from reasonably developing her claims, the court
said. [GN]



OLAPLEX INC: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Paguada Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
DILENIA PAGUADA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. OLAPLEX, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-07159 (S.D.N.Y., Sept.
2, 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.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

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

The Plaintiff is a resident of Astoria, New York. She is a blind,
visually-impaired handicapped person and a member of member of a
protected class of individuals under the ADA.

Olaplex, Inc., is a hair product manufacturing company that owns
and operates said Web site.[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


OLIN CORP: Suits Against Unit Over Sale of Caustic Soda Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Olin Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that Olin, K.A. Steel Chemicals continues to defend
several class action suits related to the sale of caustic soda.

Olin, K.A. Steel Chemicals (a wholly owned subsidiary of Olin) and
other caustic soda producers were named as defendants in six
purported class action civil lawsuits filed March 22, 25 and 26,
2019 and April 12, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York on behalf of the respective named plaintiffs
and a putative class comprised of all persons and entities who
purchased caustic soda in the U.S. directly from one or more of the
defendants, their parents, predecessors, subsidiaries or affiliates
at any time between October 1, 2015 and the present.  

Olin, K.A. Steel Chemicals and other caustic soda producers were
also named as defendants in two purported class action civil
lawsuits filed July 25 and 29, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of New York on behalf of the respective named
plaintiffs and a putative class comprised of all persons and
entities who purchased caustic soda in the U.S. indirectly from
distributors at any time between October 1, 2015 and the present.


The other defendants named in the lawsuits are Occidental Petroleum
Corporation, Occidental Chemical Corporation d/b/a OxyChem,
Westlake Chemical Corporation, Shin-Etsu Chemical Co., Ltd.,
Shintech Incorporated, Formosa Plastics Corporation, and Formosa
Plastics Corporation, U.S.A.

The lawsuits allege the defendants conspired to fix, raise,
maintain and stabilize the price of caustic soda, restrict domestic
(U.S.) supply of caustic soda and allocate caustic soda customers.
Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages and injunctive
relief.

Olin said, "We believe we have meritorious legal positions and will
continue to represent our interests vigorously in this matter. Any
losses related to this matter are not currently estimable because
of unresolved questions of fact and law, but if resolved
unfavorably to Olin, could have a material adverse effect on our
financial position, cash flows or results of operations."

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

Olin Corporation, incorporated on August 13, 1892, is a
manufacturer and distributor of chemical products, and ammunition.
The Company operates through three segments: Chlor Alkali Products
and Vinyls, Epoxy and Winchester. The company is based in Clayton
Missouri.


OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Bid to Dismiss Stirling Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ollie's Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended August 1, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the
complaint in the case, Robert Stirling et al. v. Ollie's Bargain
Outlet Holdings, Inc. et al., Civ. No. 1:19-cv-08647-JPO, is
pending.

On September 17, 2019, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
captioned Robert Stirling et al. v. Ollie's Bargain Outlet
Holdings, Inc. et al., Civ. No. 1:19-cv-08647-JPO was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company, Mark Butler (then serving as the Company's
Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors),
Jay Stasz (the Company's Chief Financial Officer), and John Swygert
(then serving as the Company's Chief Operational Officer).

The complaint alleges that, in public statements between June 6,
2019, and August 28, 2019, the defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
information about the Company's earnings, projections, supply
chain, and inventory. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary
damages and other relief.

On December 5, 2019, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs Bernard L.
Maloney and Nathan Severe to act on behalf of the putative class of
Ollie's stockholders. On February 20, 2020, the lead plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint extending the class period to March 26,
2019 through August 28, 2019, alleging substantially similar claims
as the initial complaint, and seeking the same relief.

On March 6, 2020, the court ordered that Michael L. Bangs, Executor
of the Estate of Mark L. Butler be substituted as party for Mark
Butler.

On May 8, 2020, Ollie's and the individual defendants moved to
dismiss the action in its entirety.

As of July 22, 2020, the motion to dismiss is fully briefed.

Ollie's Bargain said, "We believe the case to be without merit."

Ollie's Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc. is a highly differentiated
and fast-growing, extreme value retailer of brand name merchandise
at drastically reduced prices. Known for its assortment of products
offered as "Good Stuff Cheap," the company offers customers a broad
selection of brand name products, including housewares, food, books
and stationery, bed and bath, flooring, toys and hardware. The
company is based in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.


OMNICOM GROUP: Faces New Class Action Over 401(k) Plan
------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that marketing
firm Omnicom Group Inc. was sued for the second time in three
months over the fees and investment options in its $2.7 billion
401(k) plan, the latest being a proposed class action filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The new lawsuit, filed July 31 by Omnicom plan participant Carol
Maisonette, centers on a suite of actively managed target date
funds from Fidelity Management Trust Co., which isn't named as a
defendant. These funds, which Maisonette says serve as the plan's
default investment option, are more expensive and riskier than a
similar suite of passively managed Fidelity funds, and their "lack
of downside protection" has been magnified by the recent Covid-19
related market downturn, Maisonette says.

Maisonette's suit is one of at least six proposed class actions
filed in the past two months challenging an employer's decision to
offer the Fidelity Freedom funds in its retirement plans. The
cases, which also target Quest Diagnostics Inc., Paychex Inc.,
Eversource Energy Service Co., CommonSpirit Health, and MedStar
Health Inc., were filed by Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah LLP.

Maisonette's lawsuit comes two months after a different Omnicom
plan participant filed a proposed class action challenging the
plan's fees and investment options more generally. Both cases are
part of an ongoing flurry of 401(k) fee litigation in which more
than 40 employers have been sued in 2020 alone. Omnicom now joins
Quest Diagnostics and Estée Lauder in being hit with multiple
proposed class actions over a three-month span.

Causes of Action: Breach of fiduciary duty and failure to monitor
fiduciaries in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act, or, alternatively, liability for knowing breach of trust.

Relief: Declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief, damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.

Potential Class Size: Thousands of participants and beneficiaries
in Omnicom's 401(k) plan.

Response: Omnicom didn't immediately respond to a request for
comment.

The case is Maisonette v. Omnicom Grp., S.D.N.Y., No.
1:20-cv-06007, complaint 7/31/20. [GN]


ONECOIN: Founder's Brother Dismissed From Civil Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Coin Telegraph reports that Konstantin Ignatov, a major figure
behind OneCoin cryptocurrency exit scam, was dismissed from a civil
class action brought by OneCoin victims.

According to an Aug. 7 report by Finance Magnates, OneCoin
investors have agreed for a settlement with Ignatov. In a court
filing on Aug. 6, plaintiffs Donald Berdeaux and Christine Grablis
agreed to discontinue the claims asserted against Ignatov.

Still facing up to 90 years in jail in a legal action brought by
the United States' Department of Justice (DOJ), Ignatov is
apparently no longer one of the key figures in a civil case, which
is related to financial compensation. A sentencing date is yet to
be determined.

While the details of the civil case's settlement remain unclear,
court documents indicate that the case will continue to target
Ignatova. Also referred to as "crypto queen" in the crypto
community, Ignatova went missing in 2017 after a secret U.S.
warrant was filed for her arrest. In representing all investors who
suffered major financial losses in the $4 billion scam, Berdeaux
and Grablis said that they are still "not impeding in any way"
further prosecution against other defendants.

In April 2020, a U.S. court judge warned plaintiffs that the
class-action lawsuit could be dismissed unless they provided good
reasons for not doing so. Previously, the New York Southern
District Court also postponed Ignatov's sentencing for three months
at the request of the U.S. government.

While the exact reasons for settling the case are not clear so far,
Ignatov is known for speaking against his missing sister. In
November 2019, Ignatov revealed that she obtained a passport and
tickets to Austria and Greece from her home in Bulgaria before
disappearing in 2017. Ignatov also allegedly hired a private
investigator to find Ignatova, but he claims to not have spoken to
her since she disappeared.

As reported earlier, the United Kingdom's financial regulator, the
Financial Conduct Authority, removed a scam warning about OneCoin,
following pressure from the project's lawyers. Earlier in July, two
promoters of the $4 billion crypto exit scam were found dead in
Mexico. [GN]

ONESPAN INC: Bernstein Liebhard Announces Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action has been filed on
behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of
OneSpan Inc. ("OneSpan" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: OSPN) between
May 9, 2018 and August 11, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The case
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

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

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

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

On this news, OneSpan's share price fell $12.36 per share, or over
39%, to close at $18.84 per share on August 12, 2020.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 19, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased OneSpan securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/onespaninc-ospn-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-294/apply/
contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

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

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


ONESPAN 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 OneSpan, Inc. 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.

OneSpan, Inc. (NASDAQ: OSPN)

Class Period: May 9, 2018 and August 11, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

                   About Bragar Eagel & Squire

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. [GN]


ONESPAN INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Oct. 19 Motion Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming October 19, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased
OneSpan Inc. ("OneSpan" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: OSPN) securities
between May 9, 2018, and August 11, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

If you suffered a loss on your OneSpan investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/onespan-inc/. You
can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.

On August 4, 2020, OneSpan announced that it had identified errors
related to certain contracts with customers involving software
licenses. As a result, the Company estimated that it had overstated
revenue by $2 to $2.5 million between first quarter 2018 and first
quarter 2020.

Then, on August 11, 2020, OneSpan disclosed that it could not
timely file its quarterly report for the period ended June 30,
2020. According to the Company, revenue had been overstated by $2.2
million from the first quarter in the year ended December 31, 2018
to the quarter ended March 31, 2020. OneSpan also withdrew its
fiscal 2020 guidance.

On this news, the Company's shares fell $12.36, or nearly 40%, to
close at $18.84 per share on August 12, 2020.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that OneSpan had inadequate disclosure controls and
procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (2) as a
result, OneSpan overstated its revenue relating to certain
contracts with customers involving software licenses in its
financial statements spread out over the quarters from the first
quarter of 2018 to the first quarter of 2020; (3) that as a result,
it was foreseeably likely that the Company would eventually have to
delay one or more scheduled earnings releases, conference calls,
and/or financial filings with the SEC; (4) that OneSpan downplayed
the negative impacts of errors in its financial statements; (5)
that all the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to
have a material negative impact on the Company's financial results
and reputation; and (6) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired OneSpan securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than October 19,
2020 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative
class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class
action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if
you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit,
please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased. [GN]


ONESPAN INC: Robbins Geller Alerts of Class Action Filing
---------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the Northern District of Illinois on
behalf of purchasers of OneSpan Inc. (NASDAQ:OSPN) securities
between May 9, 2018 and August 11, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The case is captioned Almendariz v. OneSpan Inc., No.
20-cv-04906, and is assigned to Judge Joan B. Gottschall. The
OneSpan class action lawsuit charges OneSpan and certain of its
officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased OneSpan securities during the Class Period
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the OneSpan class action
lawsuit. A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class
members in directing the OneSpan class action lawsuit. The lead
plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the
OneSpan class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery of the OneSpan class action lawsuit is
not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff of the OneSpan class action lawsuit or have
questions concerning your rights regarding the OneSpan class action
lawsuit, please provide your information here or contact counsel,
J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or
via e-mail at -- jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com -- .  Lead plaintiff motions
for the OneSpan class action lawsuit must be filed with the court
no later than October 19, 2020.

OneSpan, together with its subsidiaries, designs, develops, and
markets digital solutions for identity, security, and business
productivity worldwide.

The OneSpan class action lawsuit alleges that during the Class
Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose, among other things, that OneSpan had inadequate
disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over
financial reporting and that OneSpan had overstated its revenue
relating to certain contracts with customers involving software
licenses in its financial statements spread out over the quarters
from the first quarter of 2018 to the first quarter of 2020.

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

Then, on August 11, 2020, OneSpan disclosed that it would not
timely file its quarterly report for the quarter ended June 30,
2020, that same-quarter year-over-year revenues had declined, and
that it was withdrawing its full year 2020 earnings guidance, which
OneSpan had affirmed one quarter earlier. On this news, the price
of OneSpan shares fell nearly 40%, damaging investors.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities class action litigation.
With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of
the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For
seven consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has
ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top
law firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders
and total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller
attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered
tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond
securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins
Geller also specializes in implementing corporate governance
reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors
worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by
courts, professional organizations, and the media as leading
lawyers in the industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor
more information.

         J.C. Sanchez
         Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
         Tel No: 800-449-4900
         E-mail: jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]


ONESPAN INC: Rosen Law Alerts of Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of OneSpan Inc. (NASDAQ: OSPN) between May 9, 2018 and
August 11, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks
to recover damages for OneSpan investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the OneSpan class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1937.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) OneSpan had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures
and internal control over financial reporting; (2) as a result,
OneSpan overstated its revenue relating to certain contracts with
customers involving software licenses in its financial statements
spread out over the quarters from the first quarter of 2018 to the
first quarter of 2020; (3) as a result, it was foreseeably likely
that the Company would eventually have to delay one or more
scheduled earnings releases, conference calls, and/or financial
filings with the SEC; (4) OneSpan downplayed the negative impacts
of errors in its financial statements; (5) all the foregoing, once
revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact
on the Company's financial results and reputation; and (6) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October
19, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1937.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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


PAM TRANSPORT: Court Approves $16.5MM Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Fisher, writing for Land Line, reports that after nearly four
years of litigation, PAM Transport truckers will finally get to
collect money owed to them after a federal court approved of a
$16.5 million settlement on July 31.

On July 31, Judge Timothy L. Brooks of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Arkansas granted final approval of a
settlement between PAM Transport and more than 16,000 of its
drivers. The settlement agreement was reached in February just one
day before the trial was scheduled to begin.

PAM Transport had notified the court of its current "precarious
financial situation," according to the court order. The affidavit
informs the court that the truckers would likely not get any more
than the $16.5 million if the case were to proceed and end with a
higher judgment. Of the more than 16,000 truckers in the class
action, not one objection was filed and only two opted out of the
settlement. Under those conditions, Judge Brooks was "confident
that the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate."

After attorneys take their one-third cut of $5.5 million, the three
named plaintiffs collect their $40,000 each, plaintiffs who sat for
deposition receive $1,000 ($31,000 total) and plaintiffs who
prepared to testify at trial get $2,500 ($17,500 total), the
average amount for each driver comes to around $600. Each class
member will receive a minimum of $150 plus a pro-rated amount based
on the number of weeks employed as a trucker. According to the
settlement, any unclaimed funds will be donated to the St.
Christopher Truckers Development and Relief Fund.

In addition to the monetary terms, PAM Transport has agreed to end
its practice of charging $10 for wage advances. The company also
will stop withholding wages on payday as a result of late
paperwork. PAM Transport denies all allegations within the
complaint. It also denies that it is liable or owes damages to
anyone with respect to the allegations.

On Feb. 6, the court ordered PAM Transport to pay a class of
truckers nearly $2 million. The order came after the court granted
the drivers summary judgment for some of its claims.

More specifically, the $2 million judgment is for all time logged
as "driving" and "on duty not driving" that led to less than
minimum wage when accounted for. The order also includes wages not
paid for rest breaks of 20 minutes or less. Both claims fall under
the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage
Act.

The court denied summary judgment for claims that truckers must be
paid minimum wage for 16 hours of every day on tour. Drivers also
are not automatically entitled to damages stemming from alleged
violations of last-payment rules. Also, the court did not decide
whether PAM Transport's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
were willful or a good-faith error.

According to the complaint, drivers were required to remain
over-the-road in or in the general proximity of their assigned
truck for more than 24 consecutive hours. Allegedly, drivers were
on duty "continually for days and weeks on end."

Per Arkansas regulations, the maximum amount of time an employer
may dock an employee who is on duty for more than 24 hours for time
spent in a sleeper berth is eight hours per day. The remaining 16
hours is work time and must be paid, minus meal periods. Plaintiffs
argue they are entitled to 16 hours of pay because they were
required to do the following during that time:

Drive a PAM Transport truck.

Remain in the truck while the truck was moving so they could assist
in transporting the cargo (team drivers).

Wait for cargo to be loaded or unloaded while in the truck or its
immediate vicinity.

Fuel up the truck and perform routine maintenance.

Remain in the vicinity of the truck to help protect PAM Transport's
customers' property.

Remain inside the truck when stopped to log time in the sleeper
berth and to help protect customer's property.

Drivers also cite another Arkansas law that states travel that
keeps an employee away from home overnight which is completed
during regular working hours is work time and must be paid. [GN]


PAM TRANSPORT: Judge in Settled Wage Case Concerned of Co. Finances
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Freight Waves reports that as settlement between PAM Transport and
drivers of a class action lawsuit related to wages revealed that
the company described its financial position to the court in a way
that the presiding judge described as "precarious."

Judge Timothy Brooks of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Arkansas approved the settlement late last month.
Truckload carrier PAM is headquartered in Tontitown, Arkansas.

Allen West, the PAM CFO, suggested in a phone interview with
FreightWaves that the judge's use of that term was his alone and
that PAM had not said anything that dire in any of its filings.
Brooks had cited a PAM affidavit in his statement.

"The judge took it on himself to make the assumption based on what
we had filed," West said.

What PAM did say in the filing was that if the defendants in the
case had prevailed on all of the complaints and for all of the
money requested--or as West put it, "if they had their best day in
court"--a verdict of $90 million would have been facing the
truckload carrier, which has a market capitalization of about $180
million.

"If that happens and we have to post cash bond for the whole $90
million, that could cause some of our lenders to get nervous and
they could call in some other debt," West said.

The settlement eliminates that concern. Roughly 16,000 drivers will
be eligible to receive payments from the $16.5 million settlement.
Of that, one-third, or $5.5 million, will go to the attorneys who
represented the class action, first filed in December 2016. The New
Jersey firm of Swartz Swidler represented the first three "named"
defendants, with the class action being certified later to include
the wide swath of drivers who drove for PAM.

The settlement was agreed to in February, soon after the court
granted approval to turn the initial lawsuit into a class action.

Brooks' ruling spells out the reasons why he approved the
settlement "on the eve of trial after extensive discovery, dozens
of depositions, expert reports and a ruling on a motion for summary
judgment." (That motion was mostly denied.)

But one of the reasons he gives for approving the settlement was
the financial state of PAM. "The Court also notes that PAM
submitted an affidavit attesting to its precarious financial
position, which suggested that Plaintiffs likely would not have
been able to secure any more relief than this Agreement awards
them," Brooks writes.

The possibility that a larger award would put PAM into bankruptcy
also was noted back in February, when the plaintiffs in the case,
in a document asking the court to approve the settlement, said a
bigger award might result in the truckload carrier taking that
action.

The lawsuit was over an issue that has been a frequent subject of
litigation between drivers and their employers: whether the
drivers' over-the-road pay meets minimum wage standards based on
hours worked, with the hours-worked definition impacted by whether
time spent in the sleeper berth can be considered on duty for
determining pay.

Had the plaintiffs prevailed on that, their lawyers said, they
"would have obtained a verdict of more than $25 million, with the
potential for liquidated damages. However, PAM claimed that it
would likely seek bankruptcy protection if Plaintiffs prevailed to
such degree."

In a deposition from Feb. 18, the issue of bankruptcy came up
again. Justin Swidler, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, said
that if the drivers had won full damages from PAM if all their
claims on hours and minimum wage prevailed, "PAM was facing a
verdict in excess of $50 million. We understood if they got that,
they would be going into bankruptcy protection." And in the
subsequent sentence, before being cut off by Brooks, Swidler said
"we have taken their financial condition … ."

Brooks a few minutes later said of PAM's financial condition that
he "understand(s) … there's an affidavit attached from a PAM
executive who talked about what it would mean for the company if
the plaintiffs were fully successful on their damages, so I
understand all of that part." That appears to be the same affidavit
the judge referred to earlier when he described the company's
financial status as "precarious."

For the quarter ended June 30, PAM saw its revenue fall 30% to
$92.97 million. It posted an operating loss of just over $2 million
and a net loss of $823,000.

Liquidity is called "ample"

In a prepared statement released with the quarterly earnings, the
company said it did not have a liquidity issue. West was quoted in
that statement as saying the company had "ample liquidity through
the second quarter" and is continuing with its capital expenditure
plans for new trucks.

Liquidity proved to be substantial enough that the company bought
back 9,175 of its shares in the first half of the year. It also
bought a former Celadon terminal in Laredo, Texas, for roughly $20
million. PAM does not pay a dividend.

In the PAM 10-K for the first quarter, the company was said that
"based on our recent operating results, current cash position,
anticipated future cash flows, and sources of financing that we
expect will be available to us, we do not expect that we will
experience any significant liquidity constraints in the foreseeable
future."

With PAM 68% owned by interests of Matthew Moroun, who died
recently, it isn't a stock that gets a lot of analyst coverage. It
doesn't hold a call with analysts when it releases its earnings.

But in April, the SeekingAlpha website had a critique of PAM's
finances from Jeremy Blum, one of the many SeekingAlpha
contributors who write about various stocks. Blum was decidedly
bearish and his commentary came in a section called Short Ideas,
about companies that the authors believe are ripe for short sales.

His primary concerns were debt maturities of $67 million due by the
end of this year (confirmed in PAM's 10-K statement form last year)
and whether a debt covenant of a permissible debt to earnings
before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization ratio of four
would be breached later this year.

In an earlier email to FreightWaves, West said internal projections
at PAM "show we will not breach the covenant at any time this
year." He added that the $16.5 million settlement is an "unusual or
extraordinary event," which would be excluded in any sort of
calculation of adherence to a covenant.

West also said the Celadon terminal acquisition is a sign of a
company that isn't concerned by liquidity or covenant concerns. He
also said that at a recently completed board of directors meeting
for the company, the $16.5 million settlement was considered in the
rearview mirror and that it would be paid out the week of Aug. 10.

Under the terms of the settlement, the three named plaintiffs in
the case each get $40,000, knocked down by the court from the
originally proposed $50,000. There are 38 "opt-in" plaintiffs who
will get either $2,500 or $1,000, depending upon their role. And
then there are more than 16,000 class action plaintiffs who will
receive a minimum of $150 plus a prorated amount based on tenure
with the company.

The settlement also involves PAM not admitting any wrongdoing in
its payment practices. [GN]

PATTERSON COS: Plymouth Retirement System Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Patterson Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended July 25, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class
action suit captioned as Plymouth County Retirement System v.
Patterson Companies, Inc., Scott P. Anderson and Ann B. Gugino,
Case No. 0:18-CV-00871 MJD/SER.

On March 28, 2018, Plymouth County Retirement System (Plymouth)
filed a federal securities class action complaint against Patterson
Companies, Inc. and its former CEO Scott P. Anderson and former CFO
Ann B. Gugino in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota in a case captioned Plymouth County Retirement System v.
Patterson Companies, Inc., Scott P. Anderson and Ann B. Gugino,
Case No. 0:18-cv-00871 MJD/SER.

On November 9, 2018, the complaint was amended to add former CEO
James W. Wiltz and former CFO R. Stephen Armstrong as individual
defendants. Under the amended complaint, on behalf of all persons
or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Patterson's common
stock between June 26, 2013 and February 28, 2018, Plymouth alleges
that Patterson violated federal securities laws by failing to
disclose that Patterson’s revenue and earnings were "artificially
inflated by Defendants' illicit, anti-competitive scheme with its
purported competitors, Benco and Schein, to prevent the formation
of buying groups that would allow its customers who were
office-based practitioners to take advantage of pricing
arrangements identical or comparable to those enjoyed by
large-group customers."

In its class action complaint, Plymouth asserts one count against
Patterson for violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and a second,
related count against the individual defendants for violating
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plymouth seeks compensatory
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest and reasonable attorneys'
fees and experts' witness fees and costs.

On August 30, 2018, Gwinnett County Public Employees Retirement
System and Plymouth County Retirement System, Pembroke Pines
Pension Fund for Firefighters and Police Officers, Central Laborers
Pension Fund were appointed lead plaintiffs.

On January 18, 2019, Patterson and the individual defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 25, 2019, the
U.S. Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation that the
motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. The report
and recommendation, among other things, recommends the dismissal of
all claims against individuals defendants Ann B. Gugino, R. Stephen
Armstrong and James W. Wiltz.

On September 10, 2019, the District Court adopted the Magistrate
Judge's report and recommendation.

Patterson said, "While the outcome of litigation is inherently
uncertain, we believe that the class action complaint is without
merit, and we are vigorously defending ourselves in this
litigation. We do not anticipate that this matter will have a
material adverse effect on our financial statements. Patterson has
also received, and responded to, requests under Minnesota Business
Corporation Act Section 302A.461 to inspect corporate books and
records relating to the issues raised in the securities class
action complaint and certain antitrust litigation."

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

Patterson Companies, Inc. distributes and sells dental and animal
health products in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
Canada. It operates through Dental and Animal Health segments. The
company was formerly known as Patterson Dental Company and changed
its name to Patterson Companies, Inc. in June 2004. Patterson
Companies, Inc. was founded in 1877 and is headquartered in St.
Paul, Minnesota.


PERSPECTA INC: 142 of 145 Opt-In Plaintiffs Agree to Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Perspecta Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 3, 2020, that a settlement has been reached with 142 of the
145 opt-in plaintiffs in the class action suit entitled, Forsyth,
et al. v. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise.

This purported class and collective action was filed on August 18,
2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, against HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company
("HPE") alleging violations of the Federal Age Discrimination in
Employment Act ("ADEA"), the California Fair Employment and Housing
Act, California public policy and the California Business and
Professions Code. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December
19, 2016.

Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class action under the ADEA
comprised of all U.S. residents employed by defendants who had
their employment terminated pursuant to a work force reduction
("WFR) plan on or after December 9, 2014 (deferral states) and
April 8, 2015 (non-deferral states), and who were 40 years of age
or older at the time of termination.

Plaintiffs also seek to represent a Rule 23 class under California
law comprised of all persons 40 years or older employed by
defendants in the state of California and terminated pursuant to a
WFR plan on or after August 18, 2012.

The case has remained stayed while the parties have engaged in
mediation with opt-in plaintiffs who are subject to mandatory,
individual arbitration agreements. Two mediation sessions have
taken place.

In October 2018, a settlement was reached with 16 named and opt-in
plaintiffs; that settlement has been completed. On June 26-27,
2019, a second mediation was held, involving 145 opt-in plaintiffs.
On December 23, 2019, a settlement was reached with 142 of the 145
opt-in plaintiffs.

Former business units of HPE now owned by the Company will be
liable in this matter for any recovery by plaintiffs previously
associated with the USPS business of HPE.

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

Perspecta Inc. provides enterprise information technology (IT)
services to government customers in the United States federal,
state, and local markets. Perspecta Inc. is headquartered in
Chantilly, Virginia.


PINNACLE FINANCIAL: Bank Unit Sued Over PPP Loan Agent Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that Pinnacle Bank continues to defend
a putative class action suit related to its failure to pay fees to
purported agents of Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) borrowers.

In June 2020, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
Pinnacle Bank alleging, among other claims, that Pinnacle Bank
failed to pay fees to purported agents of Paycheck Protection
Program (PPP) borrowers that the plaintiff alleges were owed under
the PPP in violation of Small Business Administration (SBA)
regulations.

Pinnacle Bank disputes the plaintiff's claims and intends to
vigorously defend itself in connection with this proceeding.

Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc. is a holding company for Pinnacle
National Bank. The Bank operates as a community bank emphasizing
personal banking relationships with individuals and businesses
located in its primary service area, which is comprised of the
metropolitan Nashville, Tennessee area and surrounding counties.
The company is based in Nashville, Tennessee.

PINTEREST INC: Faces Class Action Over Misuse of Pictures for Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Blake Brittain, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Pinterest
Inc. has been wrongly integrating images posted to the site with
targeted ads to effectively make the pictures part of its ad
campaigns, according to a complaint filed by a photographer on
behalf of a purported class of copyright owners in California
federal court.

"The result is often the grotesque misuse of artistic works to
peddle products in a manner to which the copyright owner has never
and would never consent," the complaint filed on July 31 in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California says.
[GN]


PROPETRO HOLDING: Continues to Defend Logan Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
ProPetro Holding 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 continues to defend a class action
suit initiated by Richard Logan.

In September 2019, a complaint, captioned Richard Logan,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. ProPetro Holding Corp., et al., (the "Logan
Lawsuit"), was filed against the Company and certain of its then
current and former officers and directors in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas.
          
In July 2020, Lead Plaintiffs Nykredit Portefolje Administration
A/S, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, Oklahoma
Law Enforcement Retirement System, Oklahoma Police Pension and
Retirement System, and Oklahoma City Employee Retirement System,
and additional named plaintiff Police and Fire Retirement System of
the City of Detroit, individually and on behalf of a putative class
of shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock between
March 17, 2017 and March 13, 2020, filed a third amended class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas in the Logan Lawsuit, alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as amended, and Rule
l0b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act, as amended, based on allegedly inaccurate or
misleading statements, or omissions of material facts, about the
Company's business, operations and prospects against the Company,
certain former officers and current and former directors.

ProPetro Holding Corp. operates as a holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, offers well drilling, stimulation,
cementing, and coiled tubing services. ProPetro Holding serves
customers in North America. The company is based in Midland, Texas.

PROSHARES ULTRA: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that class action
lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of ProShares
Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil.  Investors have until the deadlines
listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion.

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

ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil (NYSEArca: UCO)

Class Period: March 6, 2020 - April 27, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 28, 2020

Shareholders with losses exceeding $1,000,000 are encouraged to
contact the firm

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that extraordinary market volatility caused by
decreased demand for oil from the coronavirus pandemic and
increased oil supply and diminished oil prices caused by the
Russia/Saudi oil price war; (2) that a massive influx of investor
capital into the Fund, totaling hundreds of millions of dollars, in
a matter of days, which increased Fund inefficiencies, heightened
illiquidity in the WTI futures contract markets in which the Fund
invested, and caused the Fund to approach positional and regulatory
limits (adverse trends exacerbated by the Offering itself); and (3)
that a sharp divergence between spot and future prices in the WTI
oil markets, leading to a super contango market dynamic as oil
storage space in Cushing, Oklahoma dwindled and was insufficient to
account for the excess supply expected to be delivered pursuant to
the WTI May 2020 futures contract; (4) as a result, UCO could not
continue to pursue the passive investment strategy represented in
the Registration Statement, causing its results to significantly
deviate from its purported benchmark.

To be a member of these class actions, you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish
to learn more about these class actions, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith,
Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike,
Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215)
638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.

         Howard G. Smith, Esquire
         Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
         Tel No: 215-638-4847
         E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com [GN]


PURDUE PHARMA: Minnetonka Schools Join Opioid Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason Jenkins, writing for Sun Sailor, reports that the Minnetonka
School Board voted unanimously Aug. 6 to approve the district
joining a class-action lawsuit against companies that sold opioids
and did not provide appropriate warnings to users.

According to a fact sheet for the lawsuit, a growing number of
public school districts around the country have filed or are
preparing to file claims in the litigation against major
pharmaceutical companies and related groups for damages caused by
the U.S. opioid epidemic.

In November 2019, Chicago Public Schools filed a claim in the
National Prescription Opiate Multi-District Litigation on behalf of
state and national classes of public schools to recover damages.
Since then, the coalition of public school districts has expanded
to include districts nationwide that have filed or are preparing to
file claims in the Purdue Pharma bankruptcy proceedings.

The lawsuit contends that in the 1990s, pharmaceutical companies
that manufacture and distribute prescription opioids began
marketing the drugs to be used by chronic pain patients while
knowingly making false claims about the lack of addictive
properties of the pills. According to the lawsuit, the false claims
were used by distributors' sales representatives to convince
doctors and pharmacists to aggressively order and prescribe opiates
for chronic pain as sales representatives downplayed or dismissed
the risks of opioid addiction for chronic pain patients.

According to the resolution approved by the Minnetonka School
Board, the "school board believes that the school districts of this
nation, including this school district, have suffered significant
damages as a result of this national opioid epidemic, including
expenditures of public funds to address the impact of this epidemic
on students, teachers, other staff, and the taxpayers of this
district."

With the resolution, the school district appoints law firms in
Chicago, Washington, D.C. and Jacksonville, Florida to represent
its interests in the lawsuit.

According to Minnetonka Superintendent Dennis Peterson, there are
no up-front costs for the district to join the lawsuit, and there
is a potential of receiving a settlement to mitigate damages that
can be used to support students impacted by opioid abuse.

"We think there are damages in the district, and there's no
up-front cost to the district if there's success in gaining
favorable judgment," Peterson said.

A major focus of the claims is the increased expense of special
education and additional education costs caused by the growing
number of children born with disabilities as a result of maternal
opioid use during pregnancy.

According to 2016 data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization
Project, seven newborns were diagnosed with Neonatal Abstinence
Syndrome for every 1,000 newborn hospital stays in the U.S.

Nationwide, fatal overdoses from prescription opioids more than
doubled between 2005 and 2016. More than 218,000 people have died
in the United States between 1999 and 2017 from overdoses directly
tied to prescription opioids. [GN]


RESTAURANTS BRANDS: Latifi Suit Against TDL Group Corp. Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that The TDL Group
Corp. ("TDL") continues to defend a class action suit initiated by
Samir Latifi.

In July 2019, a class action complaint was filed against The TDL
Group Corp. ("TDL") in the Supreme Court of British Columbia by
Samir Latifi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated.

The complaint alleges that TDL violated the Canadian Competition
Act by incorporating an employee no-solicitation and no-hiring
clause in the standard form franchise agreement all Tim Hortons
franchisees are required to sign.

The plaintiff seeks damages and restitution, on behalf of himself
and other members of the class.

Restaurant Brands said, "While we currently believe this claim is
without merit, we are unable to predict the ultimate outcome of
this case or estimate the range of possible loss, if any."

Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership operates and
franchises quick service restaurants. The company operates through
three segments: Tim Hortons, Burger King, and Popeyes. The company
was formerly known as New Red Canada Limited Partnership and
changed its name to Restaurant Brands International Limited
Partnership in December 2014. The company was founded in 1954 and
is headquartered in Toronto, Canada. Restaurant Brands
International Limited Partnership is a subsidiary of Restaurant
Brands International Inc.


RESTAURANTS BRANDS: Suit Over Non-Compete Policy Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that Burger King
Corporation is opposing the motion for leave to amend the class
action suit over employee no-solicitation and no-hiring policies in
all Burger King franchisees.

On October 5, 2018, a class action complaint was filed against
Burger King Worldwide, Inc. ("BKW") and Burger King Corporation
("BKC") in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida by Jarvis Arrington, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated.

On October 18, 2018, a second class action complaint was filed
against Restaurant Brands International Inc. ("RBI"), BKW and BKC
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida by
Monique Michel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated.

On October 31, 2018, a third class action complaint was filed
against BKC and BKW in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida by Geneva Blanchard and Tiffany Miller,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated.

On November 2, 2018, a fourth class action complaint was filed
against RBI, BKW and BKC in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida by Sandra Muster, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated.

These complaints have been consolidated and allege that the
defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by incorporating
an employee no-solicitation and no-hiring clause in the standard
form franchise agreement all Burger King franchisees are required
to sign.

Each plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages for himself or
herself and other members of the class. On March 24, 2020, the
Court granted BKC's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
and on April 20, 2020 the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
amend their complaint.

On April 27, 2020, BKC filed a motion opposing the motion for leave
to amend.

Restaurant Brands said, "While we currently believe these claims
are without merit, we are unable to predict the ultimate outcome of
these cases or estimate the range of possible loss, if any."

Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership operates and
franchises quick service restaurants. The company operates through
three segments: Tim Hortons, Burger King, and Popeyes. The company
was formerly known as New Red Canada Limited Partnership and
changed its name to Restaurant Brands International Limited
Partnership in December 2014. The company was founded in 1954 and
is headquartered in Toronto, Canada. Restaurant Brands
International Limited Partnership is a subsidiary of Restaurant
Brands International Inc.


RESTAURANTS BRANDS: Suits Over Data Collection Underway in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership 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 class action suits related to its alleged
collection of geolocation data through the Tim Hortons mobile
application.

On June 30, 2020, a class action complaint was filed against
Restaurant Brands International Inc., Restaurant Brands
International Limited Partnership and The TDL Group Corp. in the
Quebec Superior Court by Steve Holcman, individually and on behalf
of all Quebec residents who downloaded the Tim Hortons mobile
application.

On July 2, 2020, a Notice of Action related to a second class
action complaint was filed against Restaurant Brands International
Inc., in the Ontario Superior Court by Ashley Sitko and Ashley
Cadeau, individually and on behalf of all Canadian residents who
downloaded the Tim Hortons mobile application.

Both of the complaints allege that the defendants violated the
plaintiff's privacy rights, the Personal Information Protection and
Electronic Documents Act, consumer protection and competition laws
or app-based undertakings to users, in each case in connection with
the collection of geolocation data through the Tim Hortons mobile
application.

Each plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages for
himself or herself and other members of the class.

Restaurant Brands said, "We intend to vigorously defend against
these lawsuits, but we are unable to predict the ultimate outcome
of either case."

Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership operates and
franchises quick service restaurants. The company operates through
three segments: Tim Hortons, Burger King, and Popeyes. The company
was formerly known as New Red Canada Limited Partnership and
changed its name to Restaurant Brands International Limited
Partnership in December 2014. The company was founded in 1954 and
is headquartered in Toronto, Canada. Restaurant Brands
International Limited Partnership is a subsidiary of Restaurant
Brands International Inc.


SALESFORCE.COM INC: Continues to Defend Suit Over Tableau Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Salesforce.com, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on for the quarterly period
ended July 31, 2020, that a trial court has not yet set a trial
date in the class action suit related to the Company's merger deal
with Tableau Software, Inc.

On August 1, 2019, pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger
dated June 9, 2019, the Company acquired all of the outstanding
capital stock of  Tableau Software, which provides a self-service
analytics platform that enables users to easily access, prepare,
analyze, and present findings in their data.

In July and August 2017, two substantially similar securities class
action complaints were filed against Tableau and two of its now
former executive officers. The first complaint was filed in the
U.S. District for the Southern District of New York.

The second complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington and was voluntarily dismissed on
October 17, 2017. In December 2017, the lead plaintiff in the
Scheufele Action filed an amended complaint, which alleged that
between February 5, 2015 and February 4, 2016, Tableau and certain
of its executive officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, in connection with statements regarding
Tableau's business and operations by allegedly failing to disclose,
among other things, that product launches and software upgrades by
competitors were negatively impacting Tableau's competitive
position and profitability.

The amended complaint sought unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and other costs. In February 2018, the lead
plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (the "SAC"), which
contains substantially similar allegations as the amended
complaint, and added as defendants two more of Tableau's now former
executive officers and directors. Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the SAC in March 2018, which was denied in February 2019.

Defendants filed an answer to the SAC in March 2019, and
subsequently amended their answer in April 2019. On January 15,
2020, the court granted lead plaintiff's motion for class
certification. The parties have completed fact and expert
discovery.

Motions for summary judgment were due September 11, 2020. The court
has not yet set a trial date.

Salesforce.com, Inc. develops enterprise cloud computing solutions
with a focus on customer relationship management. The company
offers Sales Cloud to store data, monitor leads and progress,
forecast opportunities, and gain insights through analytics and
relationship intelligence, as well as deliver quotes, contracts,
and invoices. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered
in San Francisco, California.


SANDERSON FARMS: Discovery in Broiler Chicken Litigation Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the class action suit
entitled, In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation.

Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, Sanderson Farms,
Inc. and its subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with 13
other poultry producers and certain of their affiliated companies,
in multiple putative class action lawsuits filed by direct and
indirect purchasers of broiler chickens in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The complaints allege that the defendants conspired to unlawfully
fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of broiler chickens,
thereby violating federal and certain states' antitrust laws, and
also allege certain related state-law claims. The complaints also
allege that the defendants fraudulently concealed the alleged
anticompetitive conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy.

The complaints seek damages, including treble damages for the
antitrust claims, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys' fees.

The Court has consolidated all of the direct purchaser complaints
into one case, and the indirect purchaser complaints into two
cases, one on behalf of commercial and institutional indirect
purchaser plaintiffs and one on behalf of end-user consumer
plaintiffs.

The cases are part of a coordinated proceeding captioned In re
Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation.

On October 28, 2016, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs
filed consolidated, amended complaints, and on November 23, 2016,
the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed second amended
complaints.

On December 16, 2016, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs separated
into two cases. On that date, the commercial and institutional
indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, and
the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

On January 27, 2017, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaints in all of the cases, and on November 20, 2017,
the motions to dismiss were denied. On February 7, 2018, the direct
purchaser plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint, adding
three additional poultry producers as defendants.

On February 12, 2018, the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed their
second amended complaint, in which they also added three additional
poultry producers as defendants, along with Agri Stats, Inc.

On February 20, 2018, the commercial and institutional indirect
purchaser plaintiffs filed their fourth amended complaint. On
November 13, 2018, the commercial and institutional indirect
purchaser plaintiffs filed their fifth amended complaint, adding
three additional poultry producers as defendants.

On November 28, 2018, the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed their
third amended complaint.

On January 15, 2019, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed their
fourth amended complaint, and the commercial and institutional
indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their sixth amended complaint.


Both the direct purchaser plaintiffs and the commercial and
institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs added two new poultry
producers as defendants, as well as Agri Stats, Inc. On August 6,
2020, the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
file a fifth amended complaint. Defendants' opposition is due
August 28, 2020, and end-user consumer plaintiffs' reply is due
September 11, 2020. The parties are currently engaged in
discovery.

Sanderson Farms, Inc., an integrated poultry processing company,
produces, processes, markets, and distributes fresh, frozen, and
prepared chicken products in the United States. Sanderson Farms,
Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Laurel,
Mississippi.


SARATOGA DIAGNOSTICS: Floyd May Serve Pallone by Certified Mail
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LOUIS FLOYD, Plaintiff, v. SARATOGA DIAGNOSTICS, INC.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-CV-01520-LHK (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Lucy H. Koh of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, granted in part and denied without
prejudice in part the Plaintiff's motion for alternative service
upon Saratoga and its CEO, Thomas Pallone.

Louis Floyd filed the putative class action alleging violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") against Defendants
Saratoga and its chief executive officer, Thomas Pallone.  The
Plaintiff is a resident of California.

Saratoga Diagnostics is a California corporation with its principal
place of business in Saratoga, California.  Thomas Pallone is a
resident of California.  Saratoga's corporate registration with the
California Secretary of State identifies Pallone as Saratoga's CEO,
Secretary, Chief Financial Officer, and agent for service of
process.  Saratoga's corporate registration does not identify any
other officer or any other person authorized to accept service on
behalf of Saratoga.  In the same registration, the address listed
for service of process on Saratoga is Pallone's home address of
12619 Paseo Olivos, Saratoga, California 95070.

The Plaintiff filed the instant case on March 1, 2020.  After
which, the Plaintiff's process server made four attempts at
different times of the day and on different days of the week to
serve Pallone and Saratoga at Pallone's home address, consistent
with Saratoga's corporate registration.  The Plaintiff was unable
to effectuate service during the first three visits.

On March 17, the fourth visit, the Plaintiff's process server spoke
with someone identified in the process server's declaration as
"John Doe," a "co-occupant" of Pallone's home.  John Doe refused to
provide his name and stated that Pallone was not available.  The
Plaintiff's process server served a copy of the complaint and
summons on the "John Doe."  The process server also mailed a copy
of the documents to Pallone.

Subsequently, the Plaintiff made five additional attempts at
service in April 2020, on different days of the week and at
different times of the day, but was ultimately unable to serve
Pallone personally.  The process server noted on several occasions
that there were cars in the driveway and voices inside the house.

On May 20, 2020, following the Plaintiff's unsuccessful attempts to
serve Saratoga and Pallone, the Plaintiff filed the instant motion.
He moves the Court to authorize alternative service on Saratoga
via the California Secretary of State under California Corporations
Code section 1702(a).  He further moves the Court to authorize
service on Pallone by certified mail.

Judge Koh holds that although the affidavits the Plaintiff filed
show substantial efforts to serve Saratoga, the Plaintiff has not
established by affidavit his attempts to effectuate service via
mail to Pallone at his address according to section 415.30(a).
Accordingly, the Judge denies without prejudice the Plaintiff's
request to serve Saratoga via the California Secretary of State.
The Plaintiff may cure the deficiency by refiling a motion that
includes an affidavit that shows that service by mail under section
415.30 is not possible with reasonable diligence.

The Plaintiff's process server has made nine unsuccessful attempts
to serve Pallone over a two-month period, at different times of the
day and on different days of the week.  The process server noted on
several occasions that there were cars in the driveway and voices
inside the house.  Additionally, on March 17, 2020, the process
server served a copy of the complaint and summons on "John Doe,"
who refused to identify himself and who stated that Pallone was
"not available," at Pallone's residence.  On that basis, the
Plaintiff has adequately alleged that Pallone lives in the property
and has avoided service.  Therefore, certified mail appears
reasonably calculated to give actual notice to the party to be
served.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Koh denied without prejudice the
Plaintiff's motion to serve process on Saratoga via the California
Secretary of State.  The Judge granted the Plaintiff's motion to
serve Pallone by certified mail.

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


SENSEONICS HOLDINGS: Purcell Investigates Fiduciary Duty Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
Purcell Julie & Lefkowitz LLP, a class action law firm dedicated to
representing shareholders nationwide, is investigating a potential
breach of fiduciary duty claim involving the board of directors of
Senseonics Holdings, Inc. (NYSE American: SENS).

If you are a shareholder of Senseonics Holdings, Inc. and are
interested in obtaining additional information regarding this
investigation, free of charge, please visit us at:

http://pjlfirm.com/senseonics-holdings-inc/

You may also contact Robert H. Lefkowitz, Esq. either via email at
rl@pjlfirm.com or by telephone at 212-725-1000.  One of our
attorneys will personally speak with you about the case at no cost
or obligation.

Purcell Julie & Lefkowitz LLP -- http://www.pjlfirm.com-- is a law
firm exclusively committed to representing shareholders nationwide
who are victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty and
other types of corporate misconduct. For more information about the
firm and its attorneys, please visit http://pjlfirm.com.  Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN]

SHELBY COUNTY, TN: Bid to Compel Depositions in Powell Suit Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ISSACCA POWELL et. al, Plaintiffs, v. BILL OLDHAM et.
al, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-2907-SHM-tmp (W.D. Tenn.), Chief
Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee, Western Division, granted in part
and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for a discovery
conference, to permit merits-based discovery, to compel
depositions, and for sanctions and fees.

The Plaintiffs in the putative class action are detainees who were
at one point incarcerated in the Shelby County Jail.  They allege
that due to a problem with the computer system the county used to
keep track of detainees, they were held for longer than the law
allows, sometimes in spite of court orders for their release.  The
Plaintiffs assert it violated their constitutional rights.  They
are asserting claims against Shelby County, a variety of officials
employed by Shelby County, and the private vendors who sold the
system to the County.  Defendants deny these allegations.

The instant motion is the result of a dispute about the timing of
depositions.  Negotiations on when depositions would take place
began in May 2019 and continued for the next ten months.  Those
negotiations were contentious.  The Plaintiffs claim that Shelby
County refused to cooperate, ignoring requests to set dates for
depositions, asking that noticed depositions be reset, and
generally attempting to delay the process as much as possible.
Shelby County denies it acted improperly and argues that the
depositions could not reasonably have been set as early as the
plaintiffs wanted because, among other things, the pleadings were
not yet closed and because the Plaintiffs would not provide
adequate assurances that deposition questions would be limited to
issues related to class certification.

Matters reached a boiling point when Ed Raper, the County's chief
information technology officer, died unexpectedly due to side
effects of a medication.  The Plaintiffs claim that Raper was
uniquely important to the case because he is probably the only
individual witness with a complete picture of what happened when
Shelby County launched the relevant computer system, what was
supposed to happen, and how Shelby County responded to the chaos
that ensued after the launch was an abysmal disaster.

In their initial brief, the Plaintiffs claimed that Shelby County
knew of Raper's illness and sought to prevent his testimony through
this tactic of delay.  Shelby County vehemently denies it and
presents evidence that Raper's death was unexpected.  The Court
held a hearing on the motion.  At the hearing, the Plaintiffs
conceded that they have no evidence and no longer believe that
Shelby County sought to prevent Raper from testifying by delaying
his deposition.  The Plaintiffs argue that sanctions are still
warranted based on Shelby County's alleged failure to cooperate in
discovery.

The Plaintiffs further argue that the incident demonstrates that
the bifurcation of class and merits discovery is not working.  At
the outset of the case, the parties agreed that bifurcation of
class and merits discovery was appropriate and the Court ordered
bifurcation in multiple successive scheduling orders.  However,
disputes about the appropriate scope of class versus merits
discovery have arisen often, many of which have been resolved by
Magistrate Judge Pham.  The Plaintiffs argue ending bifurcation
would speed up the progress of the now four-year-old case.  They
also seek judicial intervention to assist in setting deposition
dates.

The Plaintiffs argue that the Court should use its inherent powers
to sanction Shelby County and those Defendants who are employed by
it to punish them for failing to cooperate in discovery.  They seek
three sanctions: (1) a default judgment against Shelby County, or,
in the alternative, (2) an adverse inference instruction regarding
Raper's testimony, and (3) for the notes of any interview defense
counsel may have conducted with Raper to be deemed no longer
protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product
doctrine.

Magistrate Judge Pham finds no evidence the Shelby County
Defendants acted with a culpable state of mind.  All the evidence
in the record indicates that Raper's death was unexpected.  There
was thus no reason to think that a delay in depositions would lead
to the unavailability of Raper's testimony.  Given this, the
culpable state of mind factor is not satisfied and the Plaintiffs
are not entitled to either an adverse inference or default
judgment.  

The Plaintiffs are also not entitled to have privileged materials
declared unprotected.  They did not argue in favor of the sanction
in their briefing and raised it for the first time at the hearing
on this motion.  The Court will not consider an argument that is
raised for the first time at oral argument.  To allow such
arguments would subject the other party to unfair surprise.  The
motion for sanctions is denied.

It is clear that there is significant overlap between class and
merits issues in the case.  Were he making a decision on
bifurcation on a blank slate, the Magistrate Judge would not
bifurcate the case.  However, the case has been bifurcated and the
parties have relied on bifurcation in crafting their written
discovery responses and in deciding their case strategies.  Ending
bifurcation would risk reopening previously resolved disputes about
the scope of document discovery and potentially force an effective
reset of the discovery process.  The Plaintiffs have not offered a
satisfactory explanation of how bifurcation could be ended without
the risk of reset.  Four years into the case, the Magistrate Judge
is unwilling to risk losing the progress that has already been made
in discovery by ending bifurcation.

Finally, the Plaintiffs seek the Court's intervention to order the
Defendants to agree to deposition dates.  The Magistrate Judge
agrees that judicial intervention is necessary to ensure the speedy
progress of the case.

As such, Magistrate Judge Pham ordered, among other things, that:

  -- The Plaintiffs will identify to the Defendants those fact
     witnesses they seek to depose who are in the Defendants'
     control as soon as practicable.  The Plaintiffs will also
     identify what dates within the next three months they are
     unavailable to depose witnesses.

  -- Within seven days of receiving the list of fact witnesses, the

     Defendants will provide multiple possible dates for each
     witness's deposition falling within the next three months.

  -- The Plaintiffs may then choose a date for each deposition in
     that list of possible dates and notice each deposition.

  -- After these depositions are noticed, the depositions may not
be
     canceled by any party unilaterally.  Depositions may be reset

     by the agreement of all relevant parties or by Court order.

  -- All depositions will be conducted via videoconference unless
     the parties and the witness agree otherwise.

  -- The parties will meet and confer to agree on a process for
     establishing dates for Rule 30(b)(6) depositions.

For these reasons, Magistrate Judge Pham granted in part and denied
in part Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 29, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/oVTr2E from Leagle.com.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Settlement in Shareholder Suit Wins Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
August 1, 2020, that a court has granted final approval of the
settlement in a consolidated shareholder class action suit.

In August 2016, two alleged Company shareholders each filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York against the Company and its
then-current Chief Executive Officer and current Chief Financial
Officer (Nos. 16-cv-6728 and 16-cv-6861, the "S.D.N.Y. cases").

On September 16, 2016, the Court consolidated the S.D.N.Y. cases
under case number 16-cv-6728. On April 3, 2017, the plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint, purportedly on behalf of persons
that acquired the Company's securities on or between August 29,
2013, and February 27, 2017, naming as defendants the Company, its
then-current and former Chief Executive Officers, and its current
and former Chief Financial Officers.

The second amended complaint alleged that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by,
among other things, misrepresenting the Company's business and
earnings by (i) failing to disclose that the Company was allegedly
having issues ensuring the safety of customers' jewelry while in
the Company's custody for repairs, which allegedly damaged customer
confidence; (ii) making misleading statements about the Company's
credit portfolio; and (iii) failing to disclose reports of sexual
harassment allegations that were raised by claimants in an ongoing
pay and promotion gender discrimination class arbitration (the
"Arbitration").

The second amended complaint alleged that the Company's share price
was artificially inflated as a result of the alleged
misrepresentations and sought unspecified compensatory damages and
costs and expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees.

In March 2017, two other alleged Company shareholders each filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas against the Company and its
then-current and former Chief Executive Officers (Nos. 17-cv-875
and 17-cv-923, the "N.D. Tex. cases").

Those complaints were nearly identical to each other and alleged
that the defendants' statements concerning the Arbitration violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The N.D. Tex. cases were subsequently transferred to the Southern
District of New York and consolidated with the S.D.N.Y. cases (the
"Consolidated Action").

On July 27, 2017, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel in the Consolidated Action. On August 3, 2017,
the Court ordered the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Action to
file a third amended complaint by September 29, 2017.

On September 29, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed a third amended
complaint that covered a putative class period of August 29, 2013,
through May 24, 2017, and that asserted substantially similar
claims to the second amended complaint, except that it omitted the
claim based on defendants' alleged misstatements concerning the
security of customers' jewelry while in the Company's custody for
repairs. The defendants moved to dismiss the third amended
complaint on December 1, 2017.

On December 4, 2017, the Court entered an order permitting the lead
plaintiff to amend its complaint as of right by December 22, 2017,
and providing that the lead plaintiff would not be given any
further opportunity to amend its complaint to address the issues
raised in the defendants' motion to dismiss.

On December 15, 2017, another alleged Company shareholder filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York against the Company and its
current Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer (No.
17-cv-9853).

This complaint alleged that the defendants made misleading
statements regarding the Company's credit portfolio between August
24, 2017, and November 21, 2017, in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and sought
unspecified compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including
attorneys' and experts' fees.

On January 7, 2018, this case was consolidated into the
Consolidated Action.

On December 22, 2017, the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Action
filed its fourth amended complaint, which asserted substantially
the same claims as its third amended complaint for an expanded
class period of August 28, 2013, through December 1, 2017. On
January 26, 2017, the defendants moved to dismiss the fourth
amended complaint. This motion was fully briefed as of March 9,
2018.

On March 20, 2018, the Court granted the lead plaintiff leave to
file a fifth amended complaint. On March 22, 2018, the lead
plaintiff in the Consolidated Action filed its fifth amended
complaint which asserts substantially the same claims as its fourth
amended complaint for an expanded class period of August 29, 2013,
through March 13, 2018.

The prior motion to dismiss was denied as moot. On March 30, 2018,
the defendants moved to dismiss the fifth amended complaint. On
November 26, 2018, the Court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss.

On March 15, 2019, the lead plaintiff moved for appointment of a
class representative and class counsel and for certification of a
class period of August 29, 2013, through March 13, 2018.

On July 10, 2019, the Court granted the motion and certified a
class of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Signet common stock from August 29, 2013 to May 25, 2017.
The Court also appointed a class representative and class counsel.

On May 9, 2019, the defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings
with respect to certain alleged misstatements. On June 11, 2019,
the Court denied the defendants' motion for judgment on the
pleadings. The defendants moved for reconsideration on June 18,
2019. The Court denied that motion on June 20, 2019.

On July 24, 2019, the defendants filed with the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit a petition for permission to
appeal the District Court's class certification decision. On
November 19, 2019, the Court of Appeals granted that petition.

On November 20, 2019, the parties jointly moved to stay proceedings
in the District Court while the appeal is pending. On November 21,
2019, the District Court granted that motion.

On January 16, 2020, the lead plaintiff and defendants filed a
joint stipulation in the Court of Appeals withdrawing the appeal
without costs or attorneys' fees and providing that the defendants
may reinstate the appeal by filing written notice by August 28,
2020. The Court of Appeals granted the stipulation on January 16,
2020.

On March 16, 2020, the Company, all of the other defendant parties
to the Consolidated Action, and the lead plaintiff entered into a
settlement agreement in the Consolidated Action. The settlement of
$240 million provides for the dismissal of the Consolidated Action
with prejudice.

The settlement agreement also states that the Company and all the
other defendants expressly deny any and all allegations of fault,
liability, wrongdoing, or damages whatsoever, and that defendants
are entering into the settlement solely to eliminate the
uncertainty, burden, and expense of further protracted litigation.


As a result of the settlement, the Company recorded a charge of
$33.2 million during the fourth quarter of Fiscal 2020 in other
operating income (loss), which includes administration costs of
$0.6 million and is recorded net of expected recoveries from the
Company's insurance carriers of $207.4 million.

As of May 2, 2020 and February 1, 2020, the liability related to
settlement and administration fees was recorded in other current
liabilities, and the expected insurance recoveries are recorded in
other current assets in the condensed consolidated balance sheet.

The settlement was fully funded in the second quarter of Fiscal
2021, and the Company contributed approximately $35 million of the
$240 million settlement payment, net of insurance proceeds and
including the impact of foreign currency.

The court granted final approval of the settlement on July 21,
2020.

Signet Jewelers Limited engages in the retail sale of diamond
jewelry, watches, and other products. Signet Jewelers Limited was
founded in 1950 and is based in Hamilton, Bermuda.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Suit Against SJI Ongoing in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
August 1, 2020, that SJI, a company subsidiary, continues to defend
a class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

On March 2008, a group of private plaintiffs (the "Claimants")
filed a class action lawsuit for an unspecified amount against SJI,
a subsidiary of Signet, in the US District Court for the Southern
District of New York alleging that US store-level employment
practices are discriminatory as to compensation and promotional
activities with respect to gender.

In June 2008, the District Court referred the matter to private
arbitration where the Claimants sought to proceed on a class-wide
basis. The Claimants filed a motion for class certification and SJI
opposed the motion.

On February 2, 2015, the arbitrator issued a Class Determination
Award in which she certified for
a class-wide hearing Claimants’ disparate impact declaratory and
injunctive relief class claim under Title VII, with a class period
of July 22, 2004 through date of trial for the Claimants'
compensation claims and December 7, 2004 through date of trial for
Claimants’ promotion claims.

The arbitrator otherwise denied Claimants' motion to certify a
disparate treatment class alleged under Title VII, denied a
disparate impact monetary damages class alleged under Title VII,
and denied an opt-out monetary damages class under the Equal Pay
Act.

On February 9, 2015, Claimants filed an Emergency Motion To
Restrict Communications With The Certified Class And For Corrective
Notice. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants' emergency motion on
February 17, 2015, and a hearing was held on February 18, 2015.
Claimants' motion was granted in part and denied in part in an
order issued on March 16, 2015.

Claimants filed a Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Title VII
Claims for Disparate Treatment in Compensation on February 11,
2015, which SJI opposed. April 27, 2015, the arbitrator issued an
order denying the Claimants' Motion. SJI filed with the US District
Court for the Southern District of New York a Motion to Vacate the
Arbitrator's Class Certification Award on March 3, 2015, which
Claimants opposed.

On November 16, 2015, the US District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted SJI's Motion to Vacate the
Arbitrator's Class Certification Award in part and denied it in
part. On December 3, 2015, SJI filed with the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit SJI's Notice of Appeal of the
District Court's November 16, 2015 Opinion and Order.

On November 25, 2015, SJI filed a Motion to Stay the AAA
Proceedings while SJI appeals the decision of the US District Court
for the Southern District of New York to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, which Claimants opposed. The
arbitrator issued an order denying SJI's Motion to Stay on February
22, 2016. SJI filed its Brief and Special Appendix with the Second
Circuit on March 16, 2016. The matter was fully briefed, and oral
argument was heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit on November 2, 2016.

On April 6, 2015, Claimants filed in the AAA Claimants' Motion for
Clarification or in the Alternative Motion for Stay of the Effect
of the Class Certification Award as to the Individual Intentional
Discrimination Claims, which SJI opposed. On June 15, 2015, the
arbitrator granted the Claimants' motion.

On March 6, 2017, Claimants filed Claimants' Motion for Conditional
Certification of Claimants' Equal Pay Act Claims and Authorization
of Notice, which SJI opposed The arbitrator heard oral argument on
Claimants' Motion on December 18, 2015 and, on February 29, 2016,
issued an Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification
Award and Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations
Period, conditionally certifying Claimants' Equal Pay Act claims as
a collective action, and tolling the statute of limitations on EPA
claims to October 16, 2003 to ninety days after notice issues to
the putative members of the collective action. SJI filed in the AAA
a Motion To Stay Arbitration Pending The District Court's
Consideration Of Respondent's Motion To Vacate Arbitrator's Equal
Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award And Order
Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period on March
10, 2016.

SJI filed in the AAA a Renewed Motion To Stay Arbitration Pending
The District Court's Resolution Of Sterling’s Motion To Vacate
Arbitrator's Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional
Certification Award And Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of
EPA Limitations Period on March 31, 2016, which Claimants opposed.


On April 5, 2016, the arbitrator denied SJI's Motion. On March 23,
2016 SJI filed with the US District Court for the Southern District
of New York a Motion To Vacate The Arbitrator's Equal Pay Act
Collective Action Conditional Certification Award And Order Re
Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period, which
Claimants opposed. SJI's Motion was denied on May 22, 2016.

On May 31, 2016, SJI filed a Notice Of Appeal of Judge Rakoff's
opinion and order to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which
Claimant's opposed. On June 1, 2017, the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals dismissed SJI's appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
Claimants filed a Motion For Amended Class Determination Award on
November 18, 2015, and on March 31, 2016 the arbitrator entered an
order amending the Title VII class certification award to preclude
class members from requesting exclusion from the injunctive and
declaratory relief class certified in the arbitration.

The arbitrator issued a Bifurcated Case Management Plan on April 5,
2016 and ordered into effect the parties’ Stipulation Regarding
Notice Of Equal Pay Act Collective Action And Related Notice
Administrative Procedures on April 7, 2016. SJI filed in the AAA a
Motion For Protective Order on May 2, 2016, which Claimants
opposed. The matter was fully briefed, and oral argument was heard
on July 22, 2016. The motion was granted in part on January 27,
2017. Notice to EPA collective action members was issued on May 3,
2016, and the opt-in period for these notice recipients closed on
August 1, 2016.

Approximately, 10,314 current and former employees submitted
consent forms to opt in to the collective action; however, some
have withdrawn their consents. The number of valid consents is
disputed and yet to be determined.

SJI believes the number of valid consents to be approximately
9,124. On July 24, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit issued its unanimous Summary Order that held that
the absent class members "never consented" to the Arbitrator
determining the permissibility of class arbitration under the
agreements, and remanded the matter to the District Court to
determine whether the Arbitrator exceeded her authority by
certifying the Title VII class that contained absent class members
who had not opted in the litigation.

On August 7, 2017, SJI filed its Renewed Motion to Vacate the Class
Determination Award relative to absent class members with the
District Court. The matter was fully briefed, and an oral argument
was heard on October 16, 2017.

On November 10, 2017, SJI filed in the arbitration motions for
summary judgment, and for decertification, of Claimants' Equal Pay
Act and Title VII promotions claims. On January 30, 2018, oral
argument on SJI's motions was heard.

On January 26, 2018, SJI filed in the arbitration a Motion to
Vacate The Equal Pay Act Collective Action Award And Tolling Order
asserting that the Arbitrator exceeded her authority by
conditionally certifying the Equal Pay Act claim and allowing the
absent claimants to opt-in the litigation.

On March 12, 2018, the Arbitrator denied SJI's Motion to Vacate The
Equal Pay Act Collective Action Award and Tolling Order. SJI still
has a pending motion seeking decertification of the EPA Collective
Action before the Arbitrator. On March 19, 2018, the Arbitrator
issued an Order partially granting SJI's Motion to Amend the
Arbitrator’s November 2, 2017, Bifurcated Seventh Amended Case
Management Plan resulting in a continuance of the May 14, 2018
trial date.

A new trial date has not been set. On January 15, 2018, District
Court granted SJI's August 17, 2017 Renewed Motion to Vacate the
Class Determination Award finding that the Arbitrator exceeded her
authority by binding non-parties (absent class members) to the
Title VII claim. The District Court further held that the RESOLVE
Agreement does not permit class action procedures, thereby,
reducing the Claimants in the Title VII matter from 70,000 to
potentially 254. Claimants dispute that the number of claimants in
the Title VII is 254.

On January 18, 2018, the Claimants filed a Notice of Appeal with
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The
appeal was fully briefed and oral argument before the Second
Circuit occurred on May 7, 2018.

On May 17, 2019, SJI submitted a Rule 28(j) letter to the Second
Circuit addressing the effects of the Supreme Court's ruling in
Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, No. 17-988 (S. Ct. Apr. 24, 2019), on
the pending appeal.

The Second Circuit then issued an order directing the parties to
submit additional arguments on that issue, which were submitted. On
November 18, 2019 the Second Circuit issued an order reversing and
remanding the District Court's January 15, 2018 Order that vacated
the Arbitrator's Class Determination Award certifying for
declaratory and injunctive relief a Title VII pay and promotions
class of female retail sales employees. The Second Circuit held
that the District Court erred when it concluded that the Arbitrator
exceeded her authority in purporting to bind absent class members
to the Class Determination Award.

The Second Circuit remanded the case to the District Court to
decide the narrower question of whether the Arbitrator erred in
certifying an opt-out, as opposed to a mandatory, class for
declaratory and injunctive relief.

On December 2, 2019, SJI filed a petition for a hearing en banc
with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On
January 15, 2020, SJI filed a Rule 28(j) letter in the Second
Circuit. On that same day the Second Circuit denied the petition
for rehearing en banc.

On January 21, 2020, Sterling filed its motion for stay of mandate
with the Second Circuit pending the filing of a petition for writ
of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. On January 22, 2020, the
Second Circuit granted Sterling's motion for stay of mandate. The
petition for a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court was
filed on June 12, 2020. Claimants filed their reply brief on August
17, 2020.

SJI denies the allegations of the Claimants and has been defending
the case vigorously. At this point, no outcome or possible loss or
range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation is able to be
estimated.

Signet Jewelers Limited engages in the retail sale of diamond
jewelry, watches, and other products. Signet Jewelers Limited was
founded in 1950 and is based in Hamilton, Bermuda.


SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Continues to Defend Gentry Homes
-------------------------------------------------------
Simpson Manufacturing Co., 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 remains a defendant in
the case, Gentry Homes, Ltd. v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc., et
al., Case No. 17-cv-00566, filed in a federal district court in
Hawaii against Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. and the Company on
November 20, 2017.

The Company admits no liability and will vigorously defend the
claims brought against it.  

The Gentry case is a product of a previous state court class
action, Nishimura v. Gentry Homes, Ltd., et al., Civil No.
11-1-1522-07, which is now closed. The Nishimura case concerned
alleged corrosion of the Company's galvanized "hurricane straps"
and mudsill anchor products used in a residential project in Ewa by
Gentry, Honolulu, Hawaii.

In the Nishimura case, the plaintiff homeowners and the developer,
Gentry Homes, Ltd. ("Gentry"), arbitrated their dispute and agreed
on a settlement in the amount of approximately $90 million.

In the subsequent Gentry case, Gentry alleges breach of warranty
and negligent misrepresentation by the Company related to its
"hurricane strap" and mudsill anchor products, and demands general,
special, and consequential damages from the Company in an amount to
be proven at trial.

Gentry also seeks pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,
attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief.

Simpson Manufacturing said, "At this time, the Company cannot
reasonably ascertain the likelihood that it will be found
responsible for substantial damages to Gentry. Based on the facts
currently known, and subject to future events and circumstances,
the Company believes that all or part of the claims brought against
it in the Gentry case may be covered by its insurance policies."

Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc., through its subsidiaries, designs,
engineers, manufactures, and sells building construction products.
Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. was founded in 1956 and is
headquartered in Pleasanton, California.


SKECHERS USA: Appeal in Steamfitters Local 449 Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A. 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 from a court decision in the case,
Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan v. Skechers USA, Inc., Robert
Greenberg and David Weinberg, is ongoing.

On October 20, 2017, the Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan filed
a securities class action, on behalf of itself and purportedly on
behalf of other shareholders who purchased Skechers stock in a
five-month period in 2015, against the company and certain of its
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, case number 1:17-cv-08107.

In April 4, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended and consolidated
complaint and on July 24, 2018 plaintiffs filed a second amended
and consolidated complaint.

The lawsuit alleges that, between April 23 and October 22, 2015,
the company made materially false statements or omissions of
material fact about the anticipated performance of its Domestic
Wholesale segment and asserts claims for unspecified damages,
attorneys' fees and equitable relief based on two counts for
alleged violations of federal securities laws.

On November 21, 2018 the company filed a motion to dismiss.

On January 10, 2019 plaintiffs filed an opposition and on February
11, 2019, the company filed a reply. On September 23, 2019, the
court granted the company's motion to dismiss without leave to
amend and on October 22, 2019, the plaintiffs appealed it to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and on
February 4, 2020, filed appellants' opening brief.

Defendant Respondents filed their opposition on May 26, 2020 and
plaintiffs filed appellants' reply on June 16, 2020.

Skechers said, "Given the early stage of this proceeding and the
limited information available, we cannot predict the outcome of
this legal proceeding or whether an adverse result in this case
would have a material adverse impact on our operations or financial
position. We believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to
defend this matter vigorously."

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes
footwear for men, women, and children; and performance footwear for
men and women under the Skechers GO brand worldwide. It operates
through three segments: Domestic Wholesale Sales, International
Wholesale Sales, and Retail Sales. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. was
founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Manhattan Beach,
California.


SKECHERS USA: Guzman Class Action Settled
-----------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A. 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 entitled, Jose Zavala
Guzman v. Team One Employment Specialists, Skechers USA, Inc. et.
al., has been settled.

On April 2, 2019, Jose Guzman, a Team One employee, filed a class
action lawsuit against Team One and the company in the Superior
Court of California, County of Los Angeles County, Case No.
19STCV11006.

The complaint alleges various wage and hour violations, and seeks
compensatory damages, liquidated damages, penalties, interest and
restitution.

This complaint was followed by a Private Attorney General's Act
Notice, specifying the same allegations raised in the complaint.

This matter has been settled by the parties.

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes
footwear for men, women, and children; and performance footwear for
men and women under the Skechers GO brand worldwide. It operates
through three segments: Domestic Wholesale Sales, International
Wholesale Sales, and Retail Sales. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. was
founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Manhattan Beach,
California.


SKECHERS USA: Settlement in Principle Reached in Wilk Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A. 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, Ealeen Wilk v.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc., have reached a settlement in principle.  

On September 10, 2018, Ealeen Wilk filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the company in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, Case No. 5:18-cv-01921,
alleging violations of the California Labor Code, including unpaid
overtime, unpaid wages due upon termination and unfair business
practices.

The complaint seeks actual, compensatory, special and general
damages; penalties and liquidated damages; restitutionary and
injunctive relief; attorneys' fees and costs; and interest as
permitted by law. On July 5, 2019, the court granted, in part,
plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) collective action.

On July 22, 2019, the parties submitted to the court an agreed upon
notice to be sent to members of the collective. The parties are
delaying the mailing of the Belaire-West privacy opt out notice
until after mediation. The parties have agreed to an informal stay
of discovery and have stipulated to continue all relevant discovery
and motion deadlines accordingly.

The parties reached a settlement in principle as a result of a
January 27, 2020 mediation but the details of the settlement still
need to be worked out and the settlement has to be documented.

Skechers said, "In the event the settlement is not concluded
successfully, it is too early to predict the outcome of the
litigation or a reasonable range of potential losses and whether an
adverse result would have a material adverse impact on our results
of operations or financial position, we believe that we have
meritorious defenses, vehemently deny the allegations, and intend
to defend the case vigorously."

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

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes
footwear for men, women, and children; and performance footwear for
men and women under the Skechers GO brand worldwide. It operates
through three segments: Domestic Wholesale Sales, International
Wholesale Sales, and Retail Sales. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. was
founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Manhattan Beach,
California.


SMITH & WESSON: Shooting Victims Putative Class Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc.  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended July 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a
putative class action suit in Canada by two victims of a shooting
that took place in Toronto.

The company is a defendant in a putative class proceeding before
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Canada. The
action was filed on December 16, 2019.  

The action claims CAD$50 million in aggregate general damages,
CAD$100 million in aggregate punitive damages, special damages in
an unspecified amount, together with interest and legal costs.  

The named plaintiffs are two victims of a shooting that took place
in Toronto on July 22, 2018, and their family members. One victim
was shot and injured during the shooting. The other suffered
unspecified injuries while fleeing the shooting.  

The plaintiffs are seeking to certify a claim on behalf of classes
that include all persons who were killed or injured in the shooting
and their immediate family members. The plaintiffs allege negligent
design and public nuisance. The case has not been certified as a
class action.  

On July 13, 2020, the company filed a Notice of Motion for an order
striking the claim and dismissing the action in its entirety.

Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. manufactures firearms. The Company
offers pistols, revolvers, rifles, handcuffs, and other related
products and accessories for consumers, law enforcement, and
security agencies. Smith & Wesson Brands serves customers in the
United States. The company is based in Springfield, Massachusetts.


STABILIS ENERGY: Barrett Class Suit vs. M&I Electric Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Stabilis Energy, 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's subsidiary  M&I Electric
Industries, Inc. ("M&I") has been named as a defendant in a class
action lawsuit Pelton Ray Barrett, et al. v. Arkema, Inc., et al.

In January of 2020, the Company received notification that its
subsidiary, M&I Electric Industries, Inc. (M&I) has been named as a
defendant in a class action lawsuit "Pelton Ray Barrett, et al. v.
Arkema, Inc., et al." as the result of a fire on August 31, 2017,
on a site owned or operated by Arkema, Inc. allegedly resulting in
chemical exposure.

Other defendants in the suit, including M&I are alleged to have
been responsible for the installation, repair, design, and/or
maintenance of the electrical, refrigeration and environmental
systems required to mitigate damages from the release of chemicals.


The Company, through its insurance providers, has engaged outside
legal counsel to defend against these claims.

The Company believes the ultimate resolution of this matter will
not have a material adverse impact of the Company's condensed
consolidated financial position, results of operations, or
liquidity.

Stabilis Energy, Inc. provides integrated LNG fueling solutions.
The Company specializes in the production and distribution of
liquefied natural gas (LNG), as well as offers technical support
services. Stabilis Energy operates in North America. The company is
based in Houston, Texas.


STAMPS.COM INC: Karinski Putative Class Action Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Stamps.com 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, Karinski v. Stamps.com, Inc. et al,
Case 2:19-cv-01828.

On February 28, 2019 and March 13, 2019, two putative class action
complaints were filed against the company in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, Western
Division.

One of the two putative class actions was dismissed without
prejudice, and in the other case, styled as Karinski v. Stamps.com,
Inc. et al, Case 2:19-cv-01828 (the "Securities Class Action"), the
Court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved lead plaintiff's
selection of lead counsel.

Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint in August 2019,
purportedly on behalf of all those who purchased, or otherwise
acquired, Stamps.com common stock between May 3, 2017 and May 8,
2019, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
based on public disclosures that were purportedly rendered
misleading based on certain uses of reseller rates.

The company filed a motion to dismiss in October 2019, and its
motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part in January
2020.

Stamps.com said, "We believe that the case is without merit and
intend to defend it vigorously. Due to the early stage of the case,
neither the likelihood that a loss, if any, will be realized, nor
an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, can be
determined."

Stamps.com Inc. provides Internet-based mailing and shipping
solutions in the United States and Europe. The company offers
mailing and shipping solutions to mail and ship various mail pieces
and packages through the United States Postal Service (USPS) under
the Stamps.com and Endicia brands. The company was formerly known
as StampMaster, Inc. and changed its name to Stamps.com Inc. in
December 1998. Stamps.com Inc. was founded in 1996 and is
headquartered in El Segundo, California.


SUPER MICRO: Bid to Nix Consolidated NY Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Super Micro Computer, Inc. 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 the company's motion to dismiss the
further amended complaint in the consolidated putative class action
suit led by New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of
New York City, Inc. Pension, remains pending.

On February 8, 2018, two putative class action complaints were
filed against the company, its CEO, and its former CFO in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (Hessefort
v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-00838 and United
Union of Roofers v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., et al., No.
18-cv-00850).

The complaints contain similar allegations, claiming that the
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
due to alleged misrepresentations and/or omissions in public
statements regarding recognition of revenue.

The court subsequently appointed New York Hotel Trades Council &
Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund as lead
plaintiff.

The lead plaintiff then filed an amended complaint naming the
company's Senior Vice President of Investor Relations as an
additional defendant. On June 21, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a
further amended complaint naming the company's former Senior Vice
President of International Sales, Corporate Secretary, and Director
as an additional defendant.

On July 26, 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. On March 23, 2020, the Court granted the company's
motion to dismiss the complaint, with leave for lead plaintiff to
file an amended complaint within 30 days. On April 22, 2020, lead
plaintiff filed a further amended complaint.

On June 15, 2020, the company filed a motion to dismiss the further
amended complaint, the hearing for which is calendared for
September 23, 2020.

Super Micro said, "We believe the claims are without merit and
intend to vigorously defend against the lawsuit."

Super Micro Computer, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops and manufactures high performance server and storage
solutions based on modular and open architecture. Its solutions
range from complete server, storage, modular blade servers, blades,
and workstations to full racks, networking devices, server
management software, server sub-systems, and support and services.
It sells its products through direct sales force, distributors,
value added resellers, system integrators, and original equipment
manufacturers. The company has operations primarily in the United
States, Europe, Asia, and internationally. Super Micro Computer,
Inc. was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in San Jose,
California.


SUR: Faces Another Labor Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------
McKenna Aiello, writing for E! News, reports that Lisa Vanderpump
is facing yet another class action lawsuit from a former employee
of SUR.

Olivia Beverly Hanson filed the lawsuit on behalf July 31 on behalf
of herself and others who worked at Vanderpump's West Hollywood,
Calif. restaurant, which is featured on Vanderpump Rules. According
to the documents obtained by E! News, Hanson is accusing Vanderpump
and her husband, fellow restaurateur Ken Todd, of breaking multiple
California labor laws.

The filing claims that for at least the past one to four years,
Vanderpump and Todd failed to pay workers minimum and overtime
wages, provide proper meal and rest breaks, provide accurate wage
statements or provide workers with pay stubs at the end of their
employment.

Hanson claims she worked at SUR from Oct. 2019 to Jan. 2020. Her
responsibilities at the upscale eatery included "seating patrons,
confirming reservations and answering phones," the lawsuit states.

She is requesting a jury trial and is seeking damages for all wages
earned and owed, including minimum and overtime wages, damages for
unpaid premium wages from missed meal and rest periods, and damaged
for gratuities earned but not received, among related reparations.

In Jan. 2020, another former employee of SUR and the couple's other
restaurants, Tom Tom and Pump, filed a class action lawsuit against
Vanderpump and Todd. The suit, which is still ongoing, also alleged
the violation of labor laws.

A source told E! News at the time, "These were two disgruntled
ex-employees that had been written up with many warnings by
management and subsequently let go. Lisa and Ken do not tolerate
anyone that may be abusive to their staff or to patrons."

E! News has reached out to Vanderpump's attorney for comment, but
have not heard back.  [GN]


SYNEOS HEALTH: Vaitkuviene Class Action Remain Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------
Syneos Health, 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 entitled, Vaitkuviene v.
Syneos Health, Inc., et al., remains stayed.

On December 1, 2017, the first of two virtually identical actions
alleging federal securities law claims was filed against the
Company and certain of its officers on behalf of a putative class
of its shareholders.

The first action, captioned Bermudez v. INC Research, Inc., et al,
No. 17-09457 (S.D.N.Y.) in the Southern District of New York, names
as defendants the Company, Michael Bell, Alistair MacDonald,
Michael Gilbertini, and Gregory S. Rush (the "Bermudez action"),
and the second action, Vaitkuviene v. Syneos Health, Inc., et al,
No. 18-0029 (E.D.N.C.) in the Eastern District of North Carolina,
filed on January 25, 2018 (the "Vaitkuviene action"), names as
defendants the Company, Alistair MacDonald, and Gregory S. Rush
(the "Initial Defendants").

Both complaints allege similar claims under Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a
putative class of purchasers of the Company's common stock between
May 10, 2017 and November 8, 2017 and November 9, 2017.

The complaints allege that the Company published inaccurate or
incomplete information regarding, among other things, the financial
performance and business outlook for inVentiv's business prior to
the Merger and with respect to the combined company following the
Merger.

On January 30, 2018, two alleged shareholders separately filed
motions seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff and approving the
selection of lead counsel.

On March 30, 2018, Plaintiff Bermudez filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of the Bermudez action, without prejudice, and as to all
defendants.

On May 29, 2018, the Court in the Vaitkuviene action appointed the
San Antonio Fire & Police Pension Fund and El Paso Firemen &
Policemen's Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiffs and, on June 7, 2018,
the Court entered a schedule providing for, among other things,
Lead Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by July 23, 2018
(later extended to July 30, 2018).

Lead Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on July 30, 2018,
which also includes a claim against the Initial Defendants, as well
as each member of the board of directors at the time of the INC
Research - inVentiv Health merger vote in July 2017 (the
"Defendants"), contending that the inVentiv merger proxy was
misleading under Section 14(a) of the Act.

Lead Plaintiffs seek, among other things, orders (i) declaring that
the lawsuit is a proper class action and (ii) awarding compensatory
damages in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest
thereon, and reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action,
including attorneys' fees and expert fees, to Lead Plaintiffs and
other class members. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint on September 20, 2018.

Lead Plaintiffs filed a Response in Opposition to such motion on
November 21, 2018, and Defendants filed a Reply to such response on
December 5, 2018. On September 26, 2019, the Court ordered, among
other things, that this action be stayed.

The Company and the other defendants deny the allegations in these
complaints and intend to defend vigorously against these claims.

The Company is presently unable to predict the duration, scope, or
result of the Vaitkuviene action, or any other related lawsuit. As
such, the Company is presently unable to develop a reasonable
estimate of a possible loss or range of losses, if any, related to
this matter.

While the Company intends to defend the putative class action
litigation vigorously, the outcome of such litigation or any other
litigation is necessarily uncertain.

The Company could be forced to expend significant resources in the
defense of this lawsuit or future ones, and it may not prevail.

As such, these matters could have a significant adverse effect on
the Company's business, annual, or interim results of operations,
cash flows, or its financial condition.

Syneos Health, Inc. operates as an integrated biopharmaceutical
solutions company in North America, Europe, the Middle East,
Africa, the Asia-Pacific, and Latin America. It operates through
two segments, Clinical Solutions and Commercial Solutions. The
company was formerly known as INC Research Holdings, Inc. and
changed its name to Syneos Health, Inc. in January 2018. Syneos
Health, Inc. was incorporated in 2010 and is headquartered in
Morrisville, North Carolina.


TACTILE SYSTEMS: Glancy Prongay Probes for Securities Law Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investor rights law
firm, continues its investigation on behalf of Tactile Systems
Technology, Inc. ("Tactile" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: TCMD)
investors concerning the Company and its officers' possible
violations of the federal securities laws.

If you suffered a loss on your Tactile investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at
https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/tactile-systems-technology-inc/.You
can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.

On June 8, 2020, the investment analyst OSS Research issued a
report on Tactile Medical entitled "Strong Sell On Tactile Systems
(TCMD): Bloated Stock Needs Compression Therapy." The OSS Research
report claimed that "the true source of Tactile's growth" is "a
kick-back scheme that has resulted in rampant overprescribing." The
OSS Research report also alleged that "Medicare has recently
launched an industry-wide audit in which Tactile has been
disproportionately targeted. 70% of Tactile's claims audited so far
have been retroactively denied."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $5.28 per share, or
over 10%, to close at $47.26 per share on June 8, 2020, thereby
injuring investors.

On August 3, 2020, after the market closed, Tactile announced its
second quarter 2020 financial results, reporting a 22%
year-over-year decrease in total revenue.

On this news, the Company's share price fell more than 16% during
intraday trading on August 4, 2020.

Whistleblower Notice: Persons with non-public information regarding
Tactile should consider their options to aid the investigation or
take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower Program. Under the 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 Charles H. Linehan at 310-201-9150
or 888-773-9224 or email shareholders@glancylaw.com.

                             About GPM

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP is a premier law firm representing
investors and consumers in securities litigation and other complex
class action litigation. ISS Securities Class Action Services has
consistently ranked GPM in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report. In 2018,
GPM was ranked a top five law firm in number of securities class
action settlements, and a top six law firm for total dollar size of
settlements. With four offices across the country, GPM's nearly 40
attorneys have won groundbreaking rulings and recovered billions of
dollars for investors and consumers in securities, antitrust,
consumer, and employment class actions. GPM's lawyers have handled
cases covering a wide spectrum of corporate misconduct including
cases involving financial restatements, internal control
weaknesses, earnings management, fraudulent earnings guidance and
forward looking statements, auditor misconduct, insider trading,
violations of FDA regulations, actions resulting in FDA and DOJ
investigations, and many other forms of corporate misconduct. GPM's
attorneys have worked on securities cases relating to nearly all
industries and sectors in the financial markets, including, energy,
consumer discretionary, consumer staples, real estate and REITs,
financial, insurance, information technology, health care, biotech,
cryptocurrency, medical devices, and many more. GPM's past
successes have been widely covered by leading news and industry
publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times,
Bloomberg Businessweek, Reuters, the Associated Press, Barron's,
Investor's Business Daily, Forbes, and Money.

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


TIVITY HEALTH: Appointment of Lead Plaintiff & Counsel Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tivity Health, 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 seeking to be appointed lead
plaintiff and counsel in the class action suit initiated by Robert
Strougo is still pending.

On February 25, 2020, Robert Strougo, claiming to be a stockholder
of the Company, filed a complaint on behalf of stockholders who
purchased Common Stock between March 8, 2019 and February 19, 2020
(the "Strougo Lawsuit").  

The Strougo Lawsuit was filed as a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, naming the
Company, the Company's chief financial officer and former chief
executive officer as defendants.  

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the
Exchange Act in making false and misleading statements and
omissions related to the performance of the Nutrisystem business
that the Company acquired on March 8, 2019.  

The complaint seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported
class.  

Three parties have filed a motion seeking to be appointed lead
plaintiff and counsel, but the Court has not ruled on those
motions.  

Given the uncertainty of litigation and the preliminary stage of
the case, we are currently not able to predict the probable outcome
of the matter or to reasonably estimate a range of potential loss,
if any.

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

Tivity Health, Inc. provides fitness and health improvement
programs in the United States. The company was formerly known as
Healthways, Inc. and changed its name to Tivity Health, Inc. in
January 2017. Tivity Health, Inc. was founded in 1981 and is
headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee.


TIVITY HEALTH: Weiner Class Action Ongoing in Tennessee
-------------------------------------------------------
Tivity Health, 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 Eric Weiner.

On November 20, 2017, Eric Weiner, claiming to be a stockholder of
the Company, filed a complaint on behalf of stockholders who
purchased Common Stock between February 24, 2017 and November 3,
2017 ("Weiner Lawsuit").  

The Weiner Lawsuit was filed as a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, naming as defendants
the Company, the Company's chief executive officer, chief financial
officer and a former executive who served as both chief accounting
officer and interim chief financial officer.  

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act
in making false and misleading statements and omissions related to
the United Press Release.  The complaint seeks monetary damages on
behalf of the purported class.  

On April 3, 2018, the Court entered an order appointing the
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System as lead
plaintiff, designated counsel for the lead plaintiff, and
established certain deadlines for the case.  

On June 4, 2018, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. The
Court denied the Company's Motion to Dismiss on March 18, 2019 and
the Company's Motion to Reconsider on May 22, 2019. On January 29,
2020, the Court granted lead plaintiff's motion to certify the
class.

On July 23, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit denied the Company's application for permission to appeal
the class certification ruling.  

The case is currently set for trial on May 18, 2021.

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

Tivity Health, Inc. provides fitness and health improvement
programs in the United States. The company was formerly known as
Healthways, Inc. and changed its name to Tivity Health, Inc. in
January 2017. Tivity Health, Inc. was founded in 1981 and is
headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee.


TOKYO BAY: Ortega Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages for Delivery Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RAUL ORTEGA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. TOKYO BAY ENTERPRISE NY, INC. (D/B/A TOKYO BAY) and
BILLY RIU, Case No. 1:20-cv-07140 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 2, 2020), seeks
to recover for delivery workers unpaid minimum wages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the
Plaintiff and other employees to work without providing the minimum
wage compensation required by federal and state law and
regulations, the complaint alleges. The Defendant also failed to
maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and to pay
Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked at the straight rate
of pay. The Defendants rather paid Plaintiff at a rate that was
lower than the required tip-credit rate. Further, the Defendants
failed to provide the Plaintiff and other employees with accurate
wage statements at the time of their payment of wages, containing
the dates of work covered by that payment of wages.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a delivery worker
at Tokyo Bay from October 15, 2016, until March 13, 2020.

Tokyo Bay Enterprise NY, Inc., operates a Japanese Restaurant
located in the Tribeca section of Manhattan 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
          E-mail: michael@faillacelaw.com


TOOTSIE ROLL: Faces "Slack Fill" Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that in an era of
empty movie theaters, another lawsuit alleges theater candy is too
empty.

A California class action complains that boxes of Junior Mints and
Sugar Babies sold in movie theaters have too much empty
space--called "slack fill." The defendant, Tootsie Roll Industries,
removed the case to federal court on July 29.

"To increase profits at the expense of consumers and fair
competition, Tootsie participated in a scheme to deceptively sell
candy in oversized, opaque boxes that do not reasonably inform
consumers that they are half empty," the lawsuit says.

"Defendant's 'slack-fill' scam dupes unsuspecting consumers across
America to pay for empty space at premium prices."

Attorneys are Clarkson Law Firm filed the case on May 29, two weeks
after they sued Nestle and Ferrera Candy Company in New Jersey over
slack fill in Raisinettes, Butterfinger Bites and Gobstoppers.
[GN]


TUFIN SOFTWARE: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 21 Bid Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Aug. 30 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of Tufin Software
Technologies Ltd.  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.

Tufin Software Technologies Ltd. (NYSE:TUFN)

Affected investors purchased TUFN securities pursuant and/or
traceable to documents issued in connection with the Company's
April 2019 initial public offering and/or its December 2019
secondary public offering.

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 21, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/tufin-software-technologies-ltd-loss-form?prid=8922&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, (i) Tufin's customer
relationships and growth metrics were overstated, particularly with
respect to North America; (ii) Tufin's business was deteriorating,
primarily in North America; (iii) as a result, Tufin's
representations regarding its sustainable financial prospects were
overly optimistic; and (iv) as a result, the documents issued in
connection with the Company's initial public offering were
materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information
required to be stated therein.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
https://www.zlk.com [GN]


TUFIN SOFTWARE: Scott+Scott Reminds of Sept. 21 Motion Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, an international securities and
consumer rights litigation firm, reminds investors that it filed a
class action lawsuit against Tufin Software Technologies Ltd.
("Tufin" or the "Company") (NYSE: TUFN), certain directors and
officers of the Company, and the underwriters of Tufin's April 2019
initial public offering ("IPO") and its December 2019 secondary
public offering ("SPO").  Lead plaintiff motions are due September
21, 2020.  If you purchased Tufin stock, you are encouraged to
contact a Scott+Scott attorney for additional information at (844)
818-6980 or rswartz@scott-scott.com.

Tufin is an Israeli company that develops, markets, and sells
software and cloud-based security solutions primarily in the United
States, Europe, and Asia.

The complaint alleges that Tufin and the other defendants issued
false and misleading registration statements and prospectuses in
connection with both the Company's IPO and its SPO.  Specifically,
the complaint states that Defendants misled investors with respect
to the Company's North American business, customer relationships,
and growth metrics, and the fact that Tufin's business was
deteriorating, and, as a result, Tufin's representations regarding
its sustainable financial prospects were overly optimistic.

On January 9, 2020, Tufin released preliminary unaudited revenue
and non-GAAP operating loss estimates for the fourth fiscal quarter
of 2019, revealing total revenue in the range of $29.5 million to
$30.1 million, compared to its previous guidance of total revenue
in the range of $34.0 million to $38.0 million, and an anticipated
non-GAAP operating loss in the range of $1.1 million to $2.6
million, compared to the Company's previous guidance of non-GAAP
operating profit in the range of $0.0 million to $3.0 million.
Tufin's "inability to close a number of transactions, primarily in
North America" was cited as the primary reason for Tufin's revenue
shortfall.

On this news, Tufin's share price fell $4.14 per share, or 24.04%,
to close at $13.08 per share on January 9, 2020.

What You Can Do

If you purchased Tufin stock and have questions about this notice
or your legal rights, you are encouraged to contact Rhiana Swartz
at (844) 818-6980 or rswartz@scott-scott.com.

                About Scott+Scott Attorneys

Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP has significant experience in
prosecuting major securities, antitrust, and employee retirement
plan actions throughout the United States.  The firm represents
pension funds, foundations, individuals, and other entities
worldwide with offices in New York, London, Connecticut,
California, and Ohio.

         Rhiana Swartz
         Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
         230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
         New York, NY 10169-1820
         Tel No: (844) 818-6980
         E-mail: rswartz@scott-scott.com [GN]


UBER INC: Arbitrator's Remarks Won't Wipe Out Award, Judge Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McParland, writing for Law.com, reports that an arbitrator's
remarks that he feared ruling against Uber Inc. in a class action
over its "surge" pricing model were simply a poor attempt at humor
that did not warrant wiping out an award in favor of the
multinational ride-hailing company, a Manhattan federal judge ruled
on Aug. 3.

Attorneys moved to vacate the award on the basis that the
court-appointed arbitrator was "starstruck" by Kalanick and had
expressed his "fear" that ruling against Uber could jeopardize his
safety. U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff dismissed the concerns as
unfounded. [GN]


UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA: Seyfarth Shaw Attorneys Discuss Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Maatman, Jr., Esq., and Jennifer Riley, Esq., of Seyfarth
Shaw LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that in the first
ruling in response to the slew of room and board refund class
actions filed in the wake of COVID-19, on July 29, 2020, in
Rosenkrantz v. Arizona Board of Regents, No. 2:20-CV-01203 (D.
Ariz.), Judge John Tuchi of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona granted the Universities' Rule 12(b)(6) motion
to dismiss for failure to state a claim.  Judge Tuchi held that
Plaintiffs failed to comply with an Arizona statute that required
them to file a notice of claim with a public entity prior to filing
suit.  The Court's ruling may prove useful for other colleges and
universities sued in states with similar prerequisites.  Because
the ruling depends on a state-specific technicality, however, it is
unlikely to quell the tide of similar class actions filed across
the country.

Factual Background

Plaintiffs, parents of students enrolled at one of three public
universities--the University of Arizona, Arizona State University,
and Northern Arizona (the "Universities")--during Spring 2020,
filed a putative class action on behalf of all persons who paid the
cost of room and board or fees for the Spring 2020 semester at the
Universities.  Id. at 2.

Plaintiffs claimed that, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the
Universities forced students to move out of on-campus housing,
moved all classes online, cancelled campus events, and ceased
providing various services.  Plaintiffs asserted that, despite
these actions, the Universities failed to return or refund the cost
of room and board or the fees for services.  Id. at 1-2.

Plaintiffs alleged claims for breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, and conversion seeking the return of pro-rated, unused
funds, a declaration that the Universities wrongfully kept the
monies paid for room and board and fees, and injunctive relief
enjoining the Universities from retaining the pro-rated, unused
portion of monies paid.  Id. at 2.

The Universities moved to dismiss on the grounds that Plaintiffs
failed to file a pre-suit notice of claim as required by A.R.S.
12-821.01(A).  The Court granted the motion.

The Court's Opinion

At the outset, the Court recognized that Arizona law requires a
plaintiff to file a notice of claim with a public entity before
suing it for damages.  In the notice of claim, the claimant must
set forth "facts sufficient to permit the public entity . . . to
understand the basis on which liability is claimed" and "a specific
amount for which the claim can be settled and the facts supporting
that amount."  Id. at 3.

The Court noted that, because the statute functions to allow public
entities to investigate and assess liability and to "assist in
financial planning and budgeting," which are fiscal considerations,
the statute applies only to claims for money damages and does not
apply when declaratory or injunctive relief is the "primary purpose
of the litigation."  Id.  A plaintiff, however, cannot circumvent
the notice requirement by maintaining claims for monetary damages
"under the guise of seeking declaratory relief."  Id.

Here, although Plaintiffs sought "disgorgement" of the pro-rated
unused monies already paid, a "declaration" that the Universities
are unlawfully withholding the funds, and an "injunction" enjoining
the Universities from retaining them, the Court held that an
equitable remedy is inappropriate where, as here, "an adequate
legal remedy exists in the form of money damages."  Id. at 4.  The
Court concluded that all six of Plaintiffs' claims, regardless of
the label that Plaintiffs used, directly involved government funds
and, therefore, were subject to the notice of claim requirement.
Id. at 5.

The Court concluded that, although Plaintiffs alleged that they
demanded the return of money through multiple channels, they did
not allege that they had filed a notice of claim.  The Court,
therefore, found their action barred.  Id. at 6-7.

Implications

Members of the plaintiffs' class action bar have filed nearly 200
lawsuits seeking corona-virus related refunds to date, many against
colleges and universities for failing to refund tuition, room and
board, or other fees.  Although Defendants scored the first win, in
the form of a dismissal of one of the largest reimbursement class
actions filed to date, the ruling's usefulness may be limited for
defense purposes.  The Court relied upon a state-specific
prerequisite to suit and did not reject the claims on their merits.
Thus, it remains to be seen whether the Universities' strategy of
invoking the notice requirement at the motion to dismiss stage will
impact the ultimate outcome of similar claims asserted on behalf of
these or other putative class members.  As a result, it is unlikely
that this bellwether ruling will slow the fervor with which the
plaintiffs' class action bar continues to pursue similar cases.
[GN]


UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Must Tell Alumni About Abuse Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
News Radio reports that a judge has ordered the University of
Michigan to inform alumni about a class-action lawsuit against the
school over sexual abuse by a longtime campus doctor.

U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts intervened after lawyers
argued that the university shouldn't be communicating with people
who could become plaintiffs in the case. The school had sent
letters to more than 300,000 former students seeking information
that could help an investigation being conducted by the WilmerHale
law firm.

Dr. Robert Anderson, who died in 2008, worked at Michigan from the
mid-1960s through 2003. The university believes he assaulted
athletes, especially males, during routine physicals and injury
exams.

The university must follow up and tell people that participation
with WilmerHale is voluntary and that lawsuits are pending in
federal court in Detroit. Roberts said WilmerHale can't share any
work with a separate team of lawyers that is defending the
university.

"If you are not already represented by counsel in connection with
one of those cases, you may wish to consult your own legal counsel
regarding your rights, or you may wish to contact any of the
lawyers who are representing the existing claimants," the new
letter to alumni states. [GN]

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA: Class Action Seeks to Delay Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Colleen Flaherty, writing for Inside Higher Ed, reports that many
professors think their institutions' fall reopening plans are
foolhardy, dangerous or even unethical. But a group of tenured
faculty members at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
took the unprecedented step on July 31 of directly telling students
not to come back to campus next semester.

"We recognize that some of you will have to live on campus this
fall semester for financial or personal reasons, and we want to
help ensure that campus is safe for you," the 30 professors wrote
in an open letter to undergraduates, published in the Charlotte
Observer. "We implore the rest of you to stay home this fall."

Keeping one another "safe and healthy over the next several months
has to be our collective goal," the letter says. "We are teaching
online as part of our contribution to that effort, and we invite
you to join us. We have spent much of the summer working hard to
ensure that our online classes are the best that they can be."

Contradicting the basic institutional rationale for reopening
campuses during the ongoing coronavirus crisis -- that the benefits
outweigh the risks -- the North Carolina professors wrote they are
"confident that what we offer you, safely, online, will be better
than what we can do under the compromised conditions of the face to
face classroom during the pandemic."

Faculty members at Chapel Hill previously petitioned administrators
with some demands about the fall, including that no faculty member
be required to teach in person or disclose personal health
information in order to teach remotely. The chair of the faculty,
who did not sign the Observer letter, also recently wrote to the
University of North Carolina's Board of Governors asking for more
local campus control over reopening plans.

Chapel Hill said in a statement on July 31 that it is as "flexible
as guidance allows for those who need to teach, work or learn away
from campus."

Teaching assignments are managed at the department or college or
school level, "and professors are encouraged to talk with their
deans so accommodations can be made if necessary," it said.
"Students also have the flexibility of studying remotely or
on-campus this term."

The state board says that campuses may not decide on their own to
go entirely online for fall.

While all 30 signers of the new letter plan to teach remotely,
faculty members continue to reject the concept of asking for
accommodations, which makes age a medical issue and can put faculty
members and their chairs and deans in otherwise awkward positions.

Faculty continue to object to Chapel Hill's plan to reopen
residences halls at full capacity, against the recommendations of
public health agencies. The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention says the full dorm model amounts to "highest risk" for
spreading the virus. Sports, social and other potential
super-spreader events, and whether or not students wear masks and
social distance in neighborhoods surrounding campus are among other
worries.

Faculty and staff members across the state university system's 16
campuses are also reportedly preparing a class action lawsuit to
delay in-person classes this fall.

María DeGuzmán, Eugene H. Falk Distinguished Professor of English
and Comparative Literature, and one of the 30 professors who signed
the new letter, said on July 31 that despite faculty concern and
the CDC guidance, the university's "official policy is still to
have full capacity dorms."

As faculty members, she said, "we felt ethically bound to tell
undergraduate students to stay home and take classes remotely."

DeGuzman, an organizer of an earlier faculty petition about the
fall, told Inside Higher Ed in late June, "When we shut down in
March, there were 25 people in the hospital. Now in our state 890
people are in the hospital for COVID-19, so why are we trying to
return people to campus with surging cases?"

North Carolina now has 1,151 COVID-19-related hospitalizations,
according to the CDC.

Sue Estroff, a professor of social medicine who signed the new
letter to students, said she's "fortunate" to teach in Chapel
Hill's medical school, which already put 18 months of curriculum
online, save autopsy. But many of her colleagues aren't in that
position.

As a member of the Faculty Executive Committee of the Faculty
Council, Estroff said she and others have shared their concerns
with administrators multiple times, in multiple venues. Among them
are dorms, athletics -- including outbreaks in summer practice --
and staff safety, "particularly housekeeping and other employees
who have close contact with students."

Estroff's biggest concern, though, is "of being haunted by looking
back at this time -- gasping with regret, shame, disbelief and
grief -- that we were reckless, wrong, unwise and driven by all the
wrong values in what is proposed."

Chapel Hill did not comment on the letter to students specifically
when asked. Reeves Moseley, incoming student body president and
Undergraduate Student Government president, did not immediately
respond to a request for comment.

Michael Olivas, who recently retired as the William B. Bates
Distinguished Chair in Law at the University of Houston, and a
former general counsel for the American Association of University
Professors, said it's "wrong for 30 faculty to arrogate such a
decision to themselves." He added, "If they feel so strongly, they
could persuade the entire faculty to act, with some widespread
support."

Olivas said the faculty signers also open themselves up to a remote
but real legal risk, in the form of tortious interference with
contract suits by the university or, more likely in his view,
withdrawing students who blame their withdrawals on these
professors. Better than a letter to students, Olivas said the
faculty lawsuit is the place for such a sentiment.

Maxine Eichner, Graham Kenan Distinguished Professor of Law at
Chapel Hill and a signer of the letter, said such an argument is
"blowing smoke" and that students would in this case be the third
party -- not the faculty. Moreover, she said, students don't have a
cause of action against the faculty since students themselves
ultimately will decide to return to campus or not.

As for only 30 professors acting on their own, the letter says that
as "tenured faculty, we are among the most privileged members of
the UNC-Chapel Hill community. One of the greatest benefits of our
position is having the chance to share ideas, and discover new
knowledge, with you. But neither our research nor our teaching is
as important to us as the health, safety, and well-being of our
students and our colleagues, including the staff and campus workers
who make our teaching and research possible." [GN]


US OIL FUND: Bid to Dismiss Ephrati Putative Class Action Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
United States Oil Fund, LP ("USO") 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 complaint in the purported stockholder class action suit
initiated by Moshe Ephrati remains pending.

USO was named as a defendant in a purported stockholder class
action on July 31, 2020 by Moshe Ephrati, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, against defendants United
States Commodity Funds LLC ("USCF"), USO, John P. Love and Stuart
P. Crumbaugh.

The stockholder class action is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York as Civil Action No.
1:20-cv-06010.

The putative class action complaint alleges that beginning in March
2020, in connection with USO's registration and issuance of
additional USO shares, defendants failed to disclose to investors
certain extraordinary market conditions and the attendant risks
that caused the demand for oil to fall precipitously, including the
COVID-19 global pandemic and the Saudi Arabia-Russia oil price war.


Plaintiff alleges that defendants possessed inside knowledge about
the consequences of these converging adverse events on USO and did
not sufficiently acknowledge them until late April and May 2020,
after USO suffered losses and was allegedly forced to abandon its
investment strategy.

The complaint seeks to certify a class and award the class
compensatory damages at an amount to be determined at trial.

Since this stockholder class action makes the same substantive
claims made against the same defendants in the stockholder class
action commenced by Robert Lucas on June 19, 2020, and is also
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York as Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-04740, it is expected that these
two stockholder class actions will be consolidated.  

The defendants intend to vigorously contest the claims and move for
their dismissal.

United States Oil Fund, LP ("USO") is a Delaware limited
partnership organized on May 12, 2005. USO maintains its main
business office at 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1530, Oakland,
California 94612. USO is a commodity pool that issues limited
partnership interests ("shares") traded on the NYSE Arca, Inc. (the
"NYSE Arca"). It operates pursuant to the terms of the Sixth
Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership dated as of
March 1, 2013 (as amended from time to time, the "LP Agreement"),
which grants full management control to its general partner, United
States Commodity Funds LLC ("USCF").


US OIL FUND: Bid to Dismiss Lucas Putative Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
United States Oil Fund, LP ("USO") 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 complaint in the purported stockholder class action suit
initiated by Robert Lucas remains pending.

USO was named as a defendant in a purported stockholder class
action on June 19, 2020 by Robert Lucas, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, against defendants USO, United States
Commodity Funds LLC ("USCF"), John P. Love and Stuart P. Crumbaugh.


The stockholder class action is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York as Civil Action No.
1:20-cv-04740.

The putative class action complaint alleges that beginning in March
2020, in connection with USO's registration and issuance of
additional USO shares, defendants failed to disclose to investors
certain extraordinary market conditions and the attendant risks
that caused the demand for oil to fall precipitously, including the
COVID-19 global pandemic and the Saudi Arabia-Russia oil price war.


Plaintiff alleges that defendants possessed inside knowledge about
the consequences of these converging adverse events on USO and did
not sufficiently acknowledge them until late April and May 2020,
after USO suffered losses and was allegedly forced to abandon its
investment strategy.

The complaint seeks to certify a class and award the class
compensatory damages at an amount to be determined at trial.

The defendants intend to vigorously contest the claims and move for
their dismissal.

United States Oil Fund, LP ("USO") is a Delaware limited
partnership organized on May 12, 2005. USO maintains its main
business office at 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1530, Oakland,
California 94612. USO is a commodity pool that issues limited
partnership interests ("shares") traded on the NYSE Arca, Inc. (the
"NYSE Arca"). It operates pursuant to the terms of the Sixth
Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership dated as of
March 1, 2013 (as amended from time to time, the "LP Agreement"),
which grants full management control to its general partner, United
States Commodity Funds LLC ("USCF").

US OIL FUND: Wang Putative Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
United States Oil Fund, LP ("USO") 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 suit
initiated by Momo Wang has been voluntarily dismissed.

USO was named as a defendant in a putative stockholder class action
on July 10, 2020 by Momo Wang, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, against defendants USO, United States Commodity
Funds LLC ("USCF"), John P. Love, Stuart P. Crumbaugh, Nicholas D.
Gerber, Andrew F. Ngim, Robert L. Nguyen, Peter M. Robinson, Gordon
L. Ellis, Malcolm R. Fobes III, ABN Amro, BNP Paribas Securities
Corp., Citadel Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Market Inc., Credit
Suisse Securities USA LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Goldman
Sachs & Company, JP Morgan Securities Inc., Merrill Lynch
Professional Clearing Corp., Morgan Stanley & Company Inc., Nomura
Securities International Inc., RBC Capital Markets LLC, SG Americas
Securities LLC, UBS Securities LLC, and Virtu Financial BD LLC.

The putative class action complaint alleged that beginning in March
2020, in connection with USO's registration and issuance of
additional USO shares, defendants failed to disclose to investors
certain extraordinary market conditions and the attendant risks
that caused the demand for oil to fall precipitously, including the
COVID-19 global pandemic and the Saudi Arabia-Russia oil price war.
The plaintiff alleged that defendants possessed inside knowledge
about the consequences of these converging adverse events on USO
and did not sufficiently acknowledge them until late April and May
2020, after USO suffered losses and was allegedly forced to abandon
its investment strategy.

The putative stockholder class action was pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California as Case No.
3:20-cv-4596 but was voluntarily dismissed effective August 4,
2020.

United States Oil Fund, LP ("USO") is a Delaware limited
partnership organized on May 12, 2005. USO maintains its main
business office at 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1530, Oakland,
California 94612. USO is a commodity pool that issues limited
partnership interests ("shares") traded on the NYSE Arca, Inc. (the
"NYSE Arca"). It operates pursuant to the terms of the Sixth
Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership dated as of
March 1, 2013 (as amended from time to time, the "LP Agreement"),
which grants full management control to its general partner, United
States Commodity Funds LLC ("USCF").


VALEANT PHARMA: Canadian Securities Class Action Resolved
---------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. ("Bausch Health" or the "Company"), on
Aug. 5 disclosed that the parties in the Canadian securities class
action (Cattuci et al. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International
Inc. et. al., Court File No.: 500-06-000783-163)) (the "Action")
have agreed to resolve the Action for $94 million CAD
(approximately $69 million USD), plus an additional amount for
settlement administration costs, subject to court approval. The
Action, filed in the Quebec Superior Court in 2015, alleged
violations of Canadian securities laws regarding substantively the
same matters as in the U.S. securities class action, which the
Company also successfully settled. Once approved by the court, the
settlement will resolve and discharge all class claims against the
Company and the other defendants in the Action (the "Settlement").

"This Settlement, together with our U.S. securities class action
settlement and recent successful resolution of the legacy SEC
investigation, puts an end to several of the more significant legal
matters from the Valeant era and enables us to continue to focus
our attention on Bausch Health today and our future," said Joseph
C. Papa, chairman and CEO of Bausch Health.

As part of the Settlement, the Company and the other defendants
admit no liability and deny all allegations of wrongdoing
whatsoever.

                       About Bausch Health

Bausch Health Companies Inc. (NYSE/TSX: BHC) is a global company
whose mission is to improve people's lives with our health care
products. We develop, manufacture and market a range of
pharmaceutical, medical device and over-the-counter products,
primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health, gastroenterology
and dermatology. We are delivering on our commitments as we build
an innovative company dedicated to advancing global health. More
information can be found at www.bauschhealth.com. [GN]


VAXART 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 Vaxart, Inc. 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.

Vaxart, Inc. (NADSAQ: VXRT)

Class Period: June 25, 2020 and July 25, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 23, 2020

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, including its purported
involvement in the government funded "Operation Warp Speed."

In furtherance of the scheme, defendants amended controlling
shareholder Armistice Capital LLC'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.

The complaint, filed on August 24, 2020, alleges that during the
Class Period, defendants engaged in a scheme to deceive the market
and a course of conduct that artificially inflated the prices of
Vaxart's securities and operated as a fraud or deceit on Class
Period purchasers of Vaxart's securities by failing to disclose to
investors that the Company's financial results were materially
misleading and misrepresented material information. When
defendants' misrepresentations and fraudulent conduct were
disclosed and became apparent to the market, the prices of Vaxart's
securities fell precipitously as the prior inflation came out of
the Company's stock price.

                   About Bragar Eagel & Squire

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. Attorney advertising.  Prior results do
not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]


VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming September 28, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in the class action filed on behalf of Velocity Financial,
Inc. ("Velocity" or the "Company") (NYSE: VEL) securities pursuant
and/or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in connection
with the Company's January 2020 initial public offering ("IPO").

If you suffered a loss on your Velocity investments or would like
to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at
https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/velocity-financial-inc/. You can
also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to
learn more about your rights.

In January 2020, Velocity completed its initial public offering
("IPO"), selling 7,250,000 shares at $13 per share and raising
approximately $94 million.

On May 13, 2020, the Company announced its financial results for
first quarter 2020, the same quarter in which the IPO was
conducted. Velocity reported a 50% decrease in net income and
disclosed that its loan originations would remain suspended
indefinitely, effectively halting potential growth in the Company's
loan portfolio. Moreover, the Company stated that its proportion of
non-performing loans had accelerated to $174 million, nearly double
the unpaid principal amount year over year.

Since the IPO, the Company's shares have traded as low as $2.47 per
share, or 80% below the $13 IPO price.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that, 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 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; (2) that 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; (3) as a result, 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.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Velocity securities pursuant
and/or traceable to the IPO, you may move the Court no later than
September 28, 2020 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this
putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or
if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to the pending class action
lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at
310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.

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

Contacts:

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com [GN]


VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Sept 28 Bid Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that class action
lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of Velocity
Financial, Inc.  Investors have until the deadlines listed below to
file a lead plaintiff motion.

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

Velocity Financial, Inc. (NYSE: VEL)
IPO: January 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 28, 2020

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that, 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 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; (2)  that 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; (3) as a result, 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.

To be a member of these class actions, you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish
to learn more about these class actions, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith,
Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike,
Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215)
638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.

         Howard G. Smith, Esquire
         Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
         Tel No: 215-638-4847
         E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com [GN]


VISA INC: B&R's Motion to Certify Class Terminated
--------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as B & R Supermarket, Inc., et
al. v. Visa, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-02738 (E.D.N.Y., Filed
Filed May 05, 2017), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an
order dated August 28, 2020, terminating B&R's motion to certify
class.

B&R, doing business as Miliam's Market, operates a supermarket.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in Foster City, California, United
States.[CC]


VMWARE INC: Defends Lopez-Howarth Consolidated Suit
---------------------------------------------------
VMware, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31,
2020, that the company continues to defend a consolidated
securities class action suit initiated by Kenia Lopez and Stephanie
Howarth.

On June 4, 2020, purported Software, Inc. (Pivotal) stockholder
Kenia Lopez filed a lawsuit in the Delaware Chancery Court against
Dell Technologies Inc. ("Dell"), VMware, Michael Dell, Robert Mee
and Cynthia Gaylor.

The claims include breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and
abetting, all tied to VMware's acquisition of Pivotal.

On July 16, 2020, purported Pivotal stockholder Stephanie Howarth
filed a similar lawsuit in the Delaware Chancery Court against the
same defendants asserting the same types of claims.

These matters have been consolidated and are in the early stages of
litigation.

The Company is unable at this time to assess whether or to what
extent it may be found liable and, if found liable, what the
damages may be, and believes a loss is not probable and reasonably
estimable.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against these securities
class actions.  

VMware, Inc. ("VMware") pioneered the development and application
of virtualization technologies with x86 server-based computing,
separating application software from the underlying hardware. The
company is based in Palo Alto, California.


WAITR HOLDINGS: Amended Halley Settlement Wins Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Halley, et al v. Waitr Holdings, Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:19-cv-01800 (E.D. La., Filed February 27, 2019), the
Honorable Eldon E. Fallon entered a final judgment dated September
2, 2020, approving the parties' Amended and Restated Settlement
Agreement as fair, reasonable, and adequate.

Waitr Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that in February 2019, the Company was named a
defendant in a lawsuit titled Halley, et al vs. Waitr Holdings Inc.
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana on behalf of plaintiff and similarly situated drivers
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and
in March 2019, the Company was named a defendant in a lawsuit
titled Montgomery v. Waitr Holdings Inc. filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of
plaintiff and similarly situated drivers, alleging violations of
FLSA and Louisiana Wage Payment Act.

The parties to the Halley and Montgomery matters jointly filed with
the court a motion for preliminary approval of a settlement
agreement (the "Motion") whereby the Halley and Montgomery
plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated drivers,
will dismiss the lawsuits against the Company in consideration for
the Company issuing up to 1,556,420 shares of Waitr common stock to
be allocated to participating class members pursuant to a formula
set forth in the settlement agreement. On April 28, 2020, the court
granted the Motion and scheduled a fairness hearing for August 19,
2020.

Waitr Holdings Inc. operates an online food ordering and delivery
platform, connecting local restaurants with hungry diners in cities
across the United States. The company is based in Lafayette,
Louisiana.


WAITR HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Welch and Bates Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Waitr 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 two putative
class action suits initiated by Walter Welch and Kelly Bates.

On September 26, 2019, Christopher Meaux, David Pringle, Jeff
Yurecko, Tilman J. Fertitta, Richard Handler, Waitr Holdings Inc.
f/k/a Landcadia Holdings Inc., Jefferies Financial Group, Inc. and
Jefferies, LLC were named as defendants in a putative class action
lawsuit entitled Walter Welch, Individually and on Behalf of all
Others Similarly Situated vs. Christopher Meaux, David Pringle,
Jeff Yurecko, Tilman J. Fertitta, Richard Handler, Waitr Holdings
Inc. f/k/a Landcadia Holdings Inc., Jefferies Financial Group, Inc.
and Jefferies, LLC.  The case was filed in the Western District of
Louisiana, Lake Charles Division.  

In the lawsuit, the plaintiff asserts putative class action claims
alleging, inter alia, that various defendants made false and
misleading statements in securities filings, engaged in fraud, and
violated accounting and securities rules.

A similar putative class action lawsuit, entitled Kelly Bates,
Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated vs.
Christopher Meaux, David Pringle, Jeff Yurecko, Tilman J. Fertitta,
Richard Handler, Waitr Holdings Inc. f/k/a Landcadia Holdings Inc.,
Jefferies Financial Group, Inc. and Jefferies, LLC, was filed in
that same court on November 4, 2019.  

Waitr believes that these cases lack merit and that it has strong
defenses to all of the claims alleged.

Waitr intends to vigorously defend both lawsuits.

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

Waitr Holdings Inc. operates an online food ordering and delivery
platform, connecting local restaurants with hungry diners in cities
across the United States. The company is based in Lafayette,
Louisiana.


WASHINGTON: Supreme Court Affirms Judgment Denial in Davison Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Washington issued an Opinion affirming the
Superior Court's denial of summary judgment in part in the case
captioned COLLEEN DAVISON, legal guardian for K.B., a minor, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, and GARY
MURRELL, Respondents v. STATE OF WASHINGTON and WASHINGTON STATE
OFFICE OF PUBLIC DEFENSE, Petitioners. Case No. 96766-1 (Wash.).

This class action cuts to the heart of Washington's system of
indigent criminal defense. The Plaintiff Class sued the State of
Washington and the Office of Public Defense (OPD), alleging ongoing
violations of the right to counsel in Grays Harbor County Juvenile
Court. They premise state liability not only on alleged systemic,
structural deficiencies in the state system, which currently offers
indigent public defense services at the local level, but also on
the State and OPD's alleged knowledge of Grays Harbor County's
specific failures to safeguard the constitutional right to
counsel.

The Superior Court certified a class composed of:

     All indigent persons who have or will have juvenile offender
     cases pending in pretrial status in Grays Harbor County
     Juvenile Court since April 3, 2017, and who have the
     constitutional right to appointment of counsel.

According to the Opinion, the legislature has delegated the duty to
enforce the right to counsel to local governments--counties and
cities. While the State bears responsibility to enact a statutory
scheme under which local governments can adequately fund and
administer a system of indigent public defense, it is not directly
answerable for aggregated claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel. Rather, to prevail on their claims against the State, the
Plaintiff Class must show that the current statutory scheme
systemically fails to provide local governments, across Washington,
with the authority and means necessary to furnish constitutionally
adequate indigent public defense services.

Given that standard, the Supreme Court rejects the Plaintiffs'
claims premised on the State and OPD's alleged knowledge or
awareness of Grays Harbor County's failure to provide adequate
public defense services. Such an allegation cannot support state
liability even if the Supreme Court could fairly impute knowledge
or awareness of a particular county's failings to the State. That
said, the Plaintiffs' claims alleging systemic, structural
deficiencies in the state system of public defense remain viable.

The Supreme Court, therefore, affirms the Superior Court's denial
of the State's motion for summary judgment in part on other grounds
and remands for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's June 25, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7xe9yje from Leagle.com.

Jeffrey Todd Even, Office of the Attorney General, PO Box 40100,
1125 Washington St. SE, in Olympia, Washington; Eric Andrew
Mentzer, Office of the Attorney General, 7141 Cleanwater Dr. SW, in
Tumwater, Washington; Solicitor General Division Attorney General,
Attorney at Law, 1125 Washington Street, PO Box 40100, in Olympia,
Washington, Counsel for Petitioner(s).

Mathew Lane Harrington, Theresa Hsin-Yi Wang and Lance Alan
Pelletier, Stokes Lawrence PS, 1420 5th Ave., in Seattle,
Washington; Nancy Lynn Talner, Breanne Schuster, Jaime Michelle
Hawk and John Ballif Midgley, ACLU-WA, PO Box 2728, in Seattle,
Washington, Counsel for Respondent(s).


WATERSTONE FINANCIAL: Seeks to Vacate Award in Herrington Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Waterstone 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 has moved to vacate an award
entered in the class action suit entitled, Herrington et al. v.
Waterstone Mortgage Corporation.

Waterstone Mortgage Corporation was a defendant in a class action
lawsuit that was filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin and subsequently compelled to
arbitration before the American Arbitration Association.

The plaintiff class alleged that Waterstone Mortgage Corporation
violated certain provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
and failed to pay loan officers consistent with their employment
agreements.

On July 5, 2017, the arbitrator issued a Final Award finding
Waterstone Mortgage Corporation liable for unpaid minimum wages,
overtime, unreimbursed business expenses, and liquidated damages
under the FLSA.

On December 8, 2017, the District Court confirmed the award in
large part, and entered a judgment against Waterstone in the amount
of $7.3 milllion in damages to Claimants, $3.3 million in attorney
fees and costs, and a $20,000 incentive fee to Plaintiff
Herrington.

Subsequently, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling
in October 2018 vacating the District Court's order enforcing the
arbitration award, and remanded the case to the District Court.   

On April 25, 2019, the District Court held that Plaintiff's claims
must be resolved through single-plaintiff arbitration. As a result,
it vacated the July 5, 2017 arbitration award in its entirety, and
issued a revised judgement in Waterstone's favor.

In May 2019, Herrington re-initiated her individual arbitration.
The arbitrator issued a written award on February 18, 2020 and in
which he found Waterstone liable for damages, based on an assumed
workweek of 50 hours and $100 in unreimbursed expenses per
workweek, awarding Herrington $14,952 in damages on her claims.  

Herrington has since sought $4.9 million in fees and costs on her
award, which includes fees dating back to 2011 and the vacated
proceeding. On May 6, 2020, the arbitrator issued an award that
would allow Herrington to recover $1.1 million in attorney fees and
costs.

Herrington has moved to confirm the award and Waterstone has
subsequently moved to vacate the award in court.  

If the award is confirmed, Waterstone retains its appellate rights
to challenge the award before the Seventh Circuit.

Waterstone believes that it has meaningful avenues to vacate the
award.  However, given the details of these recent developments,
Waterstone does believe that it has met the criteria with respect
to recognizing a loss contingency under relevant accounting
principles.

As such, the Company recorded a loss reserve with respect to this
matter for approximately $1.1 million during the three months ended
March 31, 2020.

Waterstone is actively pursuing claims against its former attorneys
related to their prior representation of Waterstone in the
Herrington v. Waterstone arbitration and related matters.

Waterstone Financial, Inc. operates as a bank holding company for
WaterStone Bank SSB that provides various financial services to
customers in southeastern Wisconsin, the United States. It operates
through two segments, Community Banking and Mortgage Banking. The
company was formerly known as Wauwatosa Holdings, Inc. and changed
its name to Waterstone Financial, Inc. in August 2008. Waterstone
Financial, Inc. was founded in 1921 and is based in Wauwatosa,
Wisconsin.



WINNEBAGO COUNTY, IL: Protesters File Class Suit v. Judge, Sheriff
------------------------------------------------------------------
WTVO reports that protesters arrested in Rockford have filed a
class-action lawsuit against 17th Circuit Court Judge Eugene
Doherty, Winnebago County Sheriff Gary Caruana and Winnebago
County, alleging they were denied their Fourth Amendment right to a
timely probable cause hearing.

The lawsuit cites a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that detainees have a
right to a probable cause hearing within 48 hours of their arrest.

The 17th Judicial Court operates Monday through Friday, so the
lawsuit claims the protesters were held 66 hours before they were
granted a court appearance.

The suit seeks to have the policy declared unconstitutional.

The lawsuit was filed on Aug. 3 by Chicago attorneys Adele Nicholas
and Brad Thompson in the United States District Court on behalf of
Dylan Mitchell, 26, Dayna Schultz, 23, Larissa Walston, 23, Michael
Riggs, 20, and Ivan Holland, 25.

On July 31, the protesters were demanding the charges against Black
Lives Matter protesters, arrested on May 30th in Rockford, be
dropped. They were arrested after blocking traffic on E. State
Street.

"Individuals were advised prior to any arrests being made that they
were to disperse," said Winnebago County State's Attorney Marilyn
Hite-Ross of the July 31 arrests. "They did not disperse and
impeded traffic."

"The citizens of Rockford, the businesses of Rockford have been
more patient over the last couple of weeks, actually months, of
tolerating people who want to push the envelope right to the end,"
said Rockford Police Chief Dan O'Shea. "Now, they've crossed the
line and they're going to get arrested." [GN]


WINS FINANCE: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 23 Motion Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Wins Finance Holdings 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.

Wins Finance Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ:WINS)

WINS Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased October 31, 2018
- July 6, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline : September 23, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/wins-finance-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8865&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Wins
Finance Holdings Inc. made materially 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.

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. [GN]


WIRECARD AG: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Aug. 3 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Wirecard AG ("Wirecard" or "the Company") (OTC PINK:WCAGY)(OTC
PINK:WRCDF) 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 August 17,
2015 and June 24, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before September 8, 2020.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Wirecard overstated its cash balances,
claiming without basis to hold EUR1.9 billion. The Company also
inflated its financial results, including revenues and EBITDA. The
Company failed to maintain appropriate risk management. The
Company's auditor failed to detect these false statements and
failed to perform its auditors in accordance with accepted auditing
principles. 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 Wirecard, investors
suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

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


YALE UNIVERSITY: Student's Class Action Seeks Tuition Refund
------------------------------------------------------------
David Owens, writing for Hartford Courant, reports that a Yale
University student from Ohio has sued the Ivy League school in
federal court seeking a refund of tuition from when the university
went from in-person learning to online this past spring.

Jonathan Michel claims the online experience was inferior and that
Yale breached its contract with him and other students and unjustly
enriched itself when it did not refund tuition. His lawyers are
seeking class action status so that they can represent other
students.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in New Haven.

Karen Peart, a spokeswoman for Yale, said the university believes
the lawsuit is legally and factually baseless and that it intends
to mount a vigorous defense.

"Yale acted to protect the community by moving quickly and
effectively to online classes, which allowed students to complete
the semester safely," Peart said. "Yale also provided students with
prorated refunds for the room and board that they were unable to
use."

Similar lawsuits have been filed against colleges and universities
across Connecticut and the nation in the aftermath of the
coronavirus pandemic. In addition to Yale, UConn, Columbia,
Cornell, Pace, Fordham, Michigan State, Drexel and Vanderbilt
universities as well as the California State University system and
the University of California have been sued.

In his lawsuit, Michel claims that the online learning Yale
instituted March 23 "cannot replace the comprehensive educational
experience promised by" Yale, such as "access to facilities,
materials, and faculty, and the opportunity for on campus living,
school events, collaborative learning, dialogue, feedback and
critique are essential to the in-person educational experience."

It is improper, the lawsuit claims, for Yale to pass the costs of
the closure onto students and their families and that they are
entitled to a partial refund of tuition and fees, which total about
$55,000.

"While this step to close campus and end in-person classes was
necessitated by circumstances, [Yale] effectively breached or
terminated the contract Yale had with each and every student and
tuition provider, who paid for the opportunity to participate fully
in the academic life on the Yale campus," the lawsuit claims.

The lawsuit further claims that Yale believes it is upholding its
end of its agreement with students by providing online courses.

Yale "is attempting to replace the irreplaceable--on-campus life at
an elite university--with 'virtual learning' via online classes,
and is attempting to pass off this substitute educational
experience as the same as or just as good as fully participation in
the university's academic life," the lawsuit claims.

Those who attend Yale specifically chose not to attend an online
university, the suit claims.

Yale plans to allow part of its undergraduate student body to
return to campus this fall but most classes will continue to be
held online. [GN]


ZAAPPAAZ INC: Burns Charest Alerts of Proposed Deal in Kjessler
---------------------------------------------------------------
Burns Charest LLP announced a proposed class action settlement in
Kjessler, et al., v. Zaappaaz, Inc., et al., Civil Action No:
4-18-cv-0430 (Consolidated) (S.D. Tex.).

If You Bought Customized Silicone Wristbands or Customized Pin
Buttons Since 2014, You Could Be Eligible for a Payment from a
Class Action Settlement

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, a settlement has been reached in a class
action lawsuit about fixing the prices of customized promotional
products (CPPs), including customized silicon wristbands or
customized pin buttons. The lawsuit claims that Defendants (listed
below) engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or
stabilize the prices of CPPs. Defendants deny Plaintiffs' claims.
The case is called Kjessler, et al. v. Zaappaaz, Inc., et al., No.
4:18-cv-0430, and is before Judge Nancy Atlas of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

The Defendants are: (1) Zaappaaz, Inc. and its president Azim
Makanojiya (together, "Zaappaaz"); (2) Netbrands Media Corp. and
its president Mashnoon Ahmed (together, "Netbrands"); (3) Gennex
Media, LLC (aka Brandeco L.L.C.) and its CEO Akil Kurji (together,
"Gennex"); and (4) Custom Wristbands and its CEO Christopher
Angeles (together, "Custom Wristbands").

Am I included?

You are included in the Settlement if you or your company directly
purchased customized silicon wristbands or customized pin buttons
from one or more Defendants during periods listed below:

Class Period

Defendant               Class Period
---------               ------------
Netbrands          June 1, 2014 to February 19, 2020
Gennex             June 1, 2014 to January 23, 2020
Custom Wristbands  June 1, 2014 to February 6, 2020
Zaappaaz           June 1, 2014 to June 23, 2020

A direct purchaser is a person or business who bought customized
silicon wristbands or customized pin buttons directly from one or
more of the Defendants, co-conspirators, affiliates, or
subsidiaries themselves, as opposed to an intermediary (such as a
retail store).   

What does the Settlement provide?

The Settlement will create a $3.5 million Settlement Fund that will
be used to pay eligible Class Members who submit valid claims. More
details are in a document called the Settlement Agreement, which is
available at www.CPPDirectPurchaserLitigation.com.

How can I get a payment?

You will need to complete and submit a Proof of Claim by December
13, 2020. Claims may be submitted online at
www.CPPDirectPurchaserLitigation.com. If you submit a Proof of
Claim with your contact information, you will receive future
notifications containing additional important information,
including with respect to any future Settlements. You may also
download and mail your completed Proof of Claim to: Zaappaaz
Settlement, 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2200, Philadelphia, PA 19103.

What are my rights?

If you don't want any benefits from this Settlement, and you want
to keep the right to sue Defendants about the issues in this case,
then you must take steps to get out of the Settlement. This. is
called excluding yourself-or it is sometimes referred to as "opting
out" of the Class. If you want to keep your right to sue
Defendants, you must exclude yourself from the Settlement Class by
September 23, 2020. If you stay in the Settlement Class, you may
object to the Settlement by September 23, 2020. If you do nothing,
you will forgo any of the benefits from this Settlement, lose your
right to sue Defendants for the alleged conduct, and be bound by
the Court's decisions concerning the Settlement.

The Court will hold a hearing on October 14, 2020 to consider
whether to approve the Settlement and approve Class Counsel's
request of attorneys' fees of up to one-third of the Settlement
Fund, plus reimbursement of costs and expenses. You or your own
lawyer may appear and speak at the hearing at your own expense.
Contact the Claims Administrator at Zaappaaz Settlement, 1650 Arch
Street, Suite 2200, Philadelphia, PA 19103, or email
info@CPPDirectPurchaserLitigation.com, or call the toll-free
number, (833) 661-0707 for more information. Please do not contact
the court with questions about the settlement.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL
REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

By Order of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas [GN]


ZILLOW GROUP: Shotwell Class Certification Bid Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Zillow 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 motion for class certification filed in the
consolidated purported class action suit entitled, Shotwell v.
Zillow Group, Inc. et al, is pending.

In August and September 2017, two purported class action lawsuits
were filed against the company and certain of its executive
officers, alleging, among other things, violations of federal
securities laws on behalf of a class of those who purchased the
company's common stock between February 12, 2016 and August 8,
2017.

One of those purported class actions, captioned Vargosko v. Zillow
Group, Inc. et al, was brought in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California. The other purported class action
lawsuit, captioned Shotwell v. Zillow Group, Inc. et al, was
brought in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington.

The complaints allege, among other things, that during the period
between February 12, 2016 and August 8, 2017, the company issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding its business
practices.

The complaints seek to recover, among other things, alleged damages
sustained by the purported class members as a result of the alleged
misconduct. In November 2017, an amended complaint was filed
against the company and certain of its executive officers in the
Shotwell v. Zillow Group purported class action lawsuit, extending
the beginning of the class period to November 17, 2014.

In January 2018, the Vargosko v. Zillow Group purported class
action lawsuit was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington and consolidated with the Shotwell
v. Zillow Group purported class action lawsuit.

In February 2018, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, and in April 2018, the company filed its motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. In October 2018, the
company's motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice, and in
November 2018, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended
complaint, which the company moved to dismiss in December 2018.

On April 19, 2019, the company's motion to dismiss the second
consolidated amended complaint was denied, and the company filed
its answer to the second amended complaint on May 3, 2019.

On October 11, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, and the company filed its motion in opposition on
March 20, 2020.

The plaintiffs filed a reply in further support of their motion on
May 29, 2020.

Zillow said, "We have denied the allegations of wrongdoing and
intend to vigorously defend the claims in this lawsuit. We do not
believe a loss related to this lawsuit is probable."

Zillow Group, Inc. operates real estate and home-related brands on
mobile and the Web in the United States. Zillow Group, Inc. was
incorporated in 2004 and is headquartered in Seattle, Washington.

ZOOM VIDEO: Continues to Defend Suits Over Alleged Data Sharing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zoom Video Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 3, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend multiple putative class action suits related to
its alleged data sharing with third parties.

Beginning on March 30, 2020, multiple putative class actions have
been filed against the company in various U.S. federal district
courts and state courts relating to the company's alleged privacy
and security practices, including alleged data sharing with third
parties (the "U.S. Privacy Class Actions").

The company had also been sued under the DC private attorney
general statute on behalf of members of the general public. The
plaintiffs claim violations of a variety of state consumer
protection and privacy laws, and also assert state constitutional
and common law claims such as negligence and unjust enrichment.

The U.S. Privacy Class Actions seek to certify both nationwide and
state-specific classes of individuals using our services in certain
time periods.

The plaintiffs seek various forms of injunctive and monetary
relief, including restitution, statutory and actual damages,
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.

The federal cases have been transferred to and consolidated in the
Northern District of California with the company's consent; lead
plaintiffs' counsel have been appointed; and plaintiffs'
consolidated amended complaint was filed on July 30, 2020, with the
company's response due September 14, 2020.

Zoom Video Communications, Inc. provides a video-first
communications platform that delivers happiness and fundamentally
changes how people interact. The company connects people through
frictionless and secure video, voice, chat, and content sharing and
enable face-to-face video experiences for thousands of people in a
single meeting across disparate devices and locations. The company
is based in San Jose, California.


ZOOM VIDEO: Data Privacy & Security Measures Suits Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zoom Video Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 3, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2020, that the class action
suits related to the company's data privacy and security measures
have been consolidated.

On April 7, 2020, and April 8, 2020, securities class action
complaints were filed against the company and two of its officers
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The plaintiffs are purported stockholders of the company.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the company
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 by making false and misleading statements and
omissions of material fact about the company's data privacy and
security measures.

The complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, fees, and costs.


On May 18, 2020, the actions were consolidated.

Zoom Video Communications, Inc. provides a video-first
communications platform that delivers happiness and fundamentally
changes how people interact. The company connects people through
frictionless and secure video, voice, chat, and content sharing and
enable face-to-face video experiences for thousands of people in a
single meeting across disparate devices and locations. The company
is based in San Jose, California.


ZUORA INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit in Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zuora, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31,
2020, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class
action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

In June 2019, a securities class action lawsuit 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 purports to bring suit on behalf of stockholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between
April 12, 2018 and May 30, 2019.

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements about the Company's business, operations and prospects
in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act), and seeks unspecified
compensatory damages, fees and costs.

In November 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint asserting the same claims.

In April 2020, the Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss.

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

Zuora, Inc. is a leading cloud-based subscription management
platform. The company provides software that enables companies
across multiple industries and geographies to launch, manage or
transform to a subscription business model. Architected
specifically for dynamic, recurring subscription business models,
the company's cloud-based software functions as an intelligent
subscription management hub that automates and orchestrates the
entire subscription order-to-revenue process, including billing and
revenue recognition. The company is based in San Mateo,
California.



ZUORA INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated IPO Related Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Zuora, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31,
2020, that the company continues to defend a putative consolidated
class action suit related to the company's initial public offering
(IPO).

In April and May 2020, two putative securities class action
lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Mateo, naming as defendants the Company
and certain of its current and former officers, its directors and
the underwriters of the Company's IPO.

The complaints purport to bring suit on behalf of stockholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities pursuant
or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with the Company's IPO and allege claims under Sections
11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The suits seek unspecified damages and other relief.

In July 2020, the court entered an order consolidating the two
lawsuits, and the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class action
complaint asserting the same claims.

Zuora, Inc. is a leading cloud-based subscription management
platform. The company provides software that enables companies
across multiple industries and geographies to launch, manage or
transform to a subscription business model. Architected
specifically for dynamic, recurring subscription business models,
the company's cloud-based software functions as an intelligent
subscription management hub that automates and orchestrates the
entire subscription order-to-revenue process, including billing and
revenue recognition. The company is based in San Mateo,
California.


[*] Airlines Face Class Action as Passengers Fight for Refunds
--------------------------------------------------------------
bc.ctvnews.ca reports that the COVID-19 pandemic changed everything
for commercial aviation, with airlines now constantly adjusting
schedules based on demand and profitability.

And when a flight is cancelled, instead of refunds, they might be
handing you a travel voucher. But that doesn't work for everyone,
so how can you book with confidence?

In June, WestJet was supposed to take off from Vancouver to Cancun
with Ron Anganu's family on board.

"We had kids excited," he says. "It was going to be a family
vacation."

The WestJet vacation package, for 12 people, cost him $18,000. It
was booked before COVID-19 but after the pandemic hit, the airline
cancelled the family's flight.

And now, Anganu says, they're charging him cancellation fees - $250
for each of the tickets.

"They want to keep $3,000 for themselves," he says, even though it
was the airline that cancelled.

Simon Lin with Evolink Law says the airlines can't just take the
money and not deliver the product.

"It's not the passengers' fault," he says. "It's (in) no way the
passengers' fault. Passengers have fundamental rights to refunds
for unused fares."

But the Canadian Transportation Agency has said it is appropriate
for the airlines to offer travel vouchers instead of refunds to
help give the airlines a break, forcing passengers who don't like
it to file a complaint and wait.

Anganu disagrees with that position.

"We're not a relief bank," he says. "I just want my money back.
That's a significant amount of money."

When McLaughlin On Your Side reached out to WestJet, a spokesperson
pointed to the CTA's position on vouchers and told us all future
bookings that are cancelled would only get credit for future travel
to be used within two years.

But Lin says that's not enough.

"If you do not receive a service, you should be entitled to a
refund," the lawyer says.

He's initiated a class action lawsuit against all Canadian airlines
to get a court ruling on refunds, which he believes airlines don't
legally have a right to keep.

So how do you book future airline travel with any confidence? Air
Canada is offering more expensive fares that are refundable
regardless of who cancels the flight. And unlike WestJet, Air
Canada's travel credits don't expire for non-refundable tickets.
WestJet isn't offering refundable fares.

But Flight Centre's Amanda Grewall says both airlines are offering
a lot more flexibility on future bookings.

"Consumers, for the first time in airline industry history, have
the most flexibility as far as changes and cancellations are
concerned," she says, though there is some risk.

Travel credits are only worth something if the airline can stay in
business.

In a statement to CTV News Vancouver, WestJet said: "While our
industry grapples with the effects of the pandemic, WestJet has not
wavered from its commitment to ensuring Canadians have access to
affordable air service. Until a vaccine has been produced our
airline is working to balance the economic necessity that airlines
are to our country with responsibly living with the virus for the
foreseeable future."

Anganu wasn't willing to take the risk on his $18,000 because he
doesn't know what the airline's financial future looks like. In the
end, WestJet forgave one $250 cancellation fee and he gave up
$2,750 to the airline in order to get most of his money back.

"There are no guarantees right now," he says, adding he's glad the
lawsuit is going ahead. "We need someone to look out for Canadians
because we have no voice otherwise." [GN]


[*] Beauty Companies Hit with False-Labeling Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------
Abby Meyer, Esq.-- ameyer@sheppardmullin.com -- of Sheppard Mullin,
in an article for Happi, reports that beauty companies face an
uptick in alleged false-labeling class actions. Whether the actions
are justified or vexatious, one thing is certain: they are
expensive to defend. By keeping the following labeling-related
litigation trends in mind when considering and reviewing product
labels and marketing, beauty companies can, hopefully, avoid
becoming a litigation target.

All-Natural Claims

This most common type of false labeling-related lawsuit targets
products that are labeled as containing a natural ingredient or as
being all-natural. Targeted companies and claims have included:

   * An entire baby care products line that had both natural
ingredient and organic ingredient label claims, but also allegedly
had synthetic ingredients. Mayhew v. KAS Direct, LLC, Case No.
7:16-cv-06981 (S.D.N.Y.). The company settled on a class-wide basis
for more than $2.2 million.

   * A "pioneer" in the area of "natural cosmetics" whose bath and
body products were labeled with the claim "nourish naturally" --
but allegedly contained phenoxyethanol and/or ethylhexylglycerin.
Gasser v. Kiss My Face LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-1675 (N.D. Cal.). This
case settled prior to any class being certified. The apparent
driver for this litigation was a letter sent by the Federal Trade
Commission to other cosmetics manufacturers who had represented
their products were "natural" when they contained one or both of
these ingredients.

   * An entire product line of baby washes, shampoos, conditioners,
sprays and creams that were labeled with the claims  "natural
cleansers,"  "safe, natural, fun" and  "naturally perfect" -- but
allegedly contained synthetic ingredients such as decyl glucoside,
lauryl glucoside, panthenol and sodium benzoate. Suarez v. Ralph,
Paco & Roberto, Inc. et al, Case No. 7:17-cv-09847 (S.D.N.Y.).
After nearly two years of litigation, the plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed the action prior to any class being certified (possibly
after obtaining an individual settlement).

The attorneys who seem to most often bring these actions also have
filed lawsuits against food and beverage companies based on the
same or similar label claims. The firms are leveraging their
experience litigating against food and beverage to pursue the
beauty industry.

Beauty companies should bear in mind that on Nov. 8, 2019, HR 5017
was introduced in the House of Representatives. This bill would
amend the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to define "natural"
with a certain set of standards. As currently drafted, the bill's
definition of "natural" identifies a variety of characteristics
that the product must have, for instance, it would have to contain
at least 70% natural substances and cannot be made using any of
seven processes, such as ionizing radiation. There is no present
timeline for a vote on the bill, but companies should assume that
its adoption will stoke litigation in this category.

Claims v. Labels

For a few thousand dollars or less, anyone can have a product
lab-tested to learn whether it contains the ingredients or
attributes claimed on the product label. The cases teach a variety
of lessons for both labeling and playing class action defense.

In Forouzesh v. CVS Pharm., Inc., Case No. 2:18-CV-04090 (C.D.
Cal), the plaintiff purchased a bottle of "CVS Sport SPF 100+
Sunscreen Spray," but testing showed that the sunscreen only had an
SPF of 29. CVS argued that the plaintiff's claims were preempted
(in other words, that the plaintiff sought to impose on CVS a
requirement "that is different from or in addition to, or that is
otherwise not identical with" a requirement contained in the
FDCA).

Ultimately, the court dismissed the lawsuit, finding the consumer
did not adequately show that the product he purchased was in fact
the one that his counsel tested, and, the testing methodology did
not appear to comply with FDA regulations. The court gave the
consumer an opportunity to amend to show such compliance, but the
consumer did not timely file an amended complaint.

Sunscreens claiming to be mineral-based are also a target. For
instance, in Prescott v. Bayer Healthcare et al., Case No.
5:20-cv-00102 (N.D. Cal.), plaintiffs claim that, "Defendants are
exposing babies and children to harmful chemical-based ingredients
hidden in their sunscreens by fraudulently passing them off as safe
mineral-based ingredients."

Aloe vera has also been targeted. In Kalajian v. Rite Aid Corp.,
Case No. 2:17-cv-06777 (C.D. Cal.), the consumer alleged that
"according to independent lab tests," the aloe vera products had
"no actual aloe vera at all." In a parallel case filed in the
Northern District of Illinois, consumers argued that there was not
"enough" of aloe's active ingredient (acemannan). In this latter
case, following several years of litigation, the court found,
"there is no evidence that a certain amount of acemannan must be
present in the finished product for it to be aloe."

Companies intending to infuse their products with CBD should be
aware that CBD-related class action litigation has been red hot.
Actions have been filed in multiple states with consumers claiming
that the CBD content listed on product labels and packaging does
not match the actual CBD content. Other CBD-related class actions
attack label claims stating that CBD will cure, mitigate, treat or
prevent disease, or is intended to affect the structure or function
of the body, in violation of FDA regulations. One topical cream has
already been targeted. Dasilva v. Infinite Product Co. LLC, Case
No. 2:19-cv-10148 (C.D. Cal.) ("freezing point cream" alleged to
"freeze away all aches and pains," and an "afterglow healing oil"
alleged to be "great for new tattoos, eczema, acne, scarring or
open wounds.").

These cases serve as a reminder that, for companies using a
"marketing" amount of an ingredient which requires a higher
"therapeutic" amount to be efficacious, some thought should be
given about positioning that ingredient in labeling statements and
marketing materials.

Buyer's Remorse

The idea of caveat emptor doesn't hold up in a courtroom when it
comes to personal care product performance. Consumers have asserted
that a wide range of products have not performed as expected (and
therefore are falsely labeled), including:

   * A "repairing" line of shampoo, conditioner and hair mask
products which allegedly did not contain any ingredient that could
repair damaged hair. Manier v. Juice Beauty, Inc., Case No.
3:18-cv-06834 (N.D. Cal.) (this case was dismissed as not enough
product units were sold during the class period);

   * Product lines labeled as having "plant stem cells" that were
supposed to renew or slow the aging process, but allegedly the
claims were not backed by clinical trials and the plaintiffs
asserted that plant stem cells could not interact with human stem
cells. Mollicone v. Universal Handicraft, Inc., Case No.
2:16-cv-07322 (C.D. Cal.) (settled for approximately $840,000);

   * A line of lotion containing CoQ10 that was supposed to improve
skin firmness within two weeks but did not work as promised. Franz
v. Beiersdorf, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-02241 (S.D. Cal.) (pending).

Cases in this category are unique to their facts, making it hard to
state a uniform defense to them. Legal departments should
coordinate with their product managers and marketers to understand
why certain label claims are made to ensure they are defensible.

Undisclosed Side Effects

This trend encompasses products that have caused actual alleged
harm and those which are alleged to be dangerous but which may not
have caused identifiable physical harm.

In the former category is a case against Rodan & Fields for its
Lash Boost product. Lewis v. Rodan & Fields, Case No. 18-cv-02248
(N.D. Cal.). Consumers alleged that the Lash Boost eye serum had
harmful side effects linked to the ingredient isopropyl
closprostenate (ICP). ICP is a type of synthetic prostaglandin
analog, a class of drugs used to manage glaucoma. The consumers
alleged a variety of harms which were known side effects of this
class of drugs, including changes in eye color, lashes falling out
and not growing back, and one plaintiff had her vision damaged.
While printed warnings appeared on the outside of the product
container and inside on an insert, none referred to the side
effects associated with ICP. The complaint referred the court to a
warning letter that FDA sent to another maker of cosmetic lash
enhancement products that used ICP without including warnings about
the possible adverse effects associated with ICP. Based on these
allegations, the court found the consumers plausibly alleged
violations of five states' false advertising laws.

Other cases are based on "bare" allegations that product
ingredients are harmful without parallel allegations of personal
injury (only economic damages are asserted). For instance, in Clark
v. Kendo Holdings Inc., Case No. CGC-17-562492 (S.F. Super. Ct.),
the consumer alleged that certain Ole Henriksen cosmetic products
that contained alpha hydroxy acid ("AHA") were falsely labeled. AHA
in cosmetic products is said to remove the outermost layer of dead
skin cells, which produces a short-term cosmetic benefit, but can
also increase the damage sun-exposed skin suffers from ultraviolet
radiation. The consumer alleged that this causes permanent damage
and increases the risk of cancer. He also alleged that the FDA
recommends that manufacturers using AHA label their products with a
specific sunburn alert, and the products in question did not
contain the recommended warning. The parties reached a settlement
prior to class certification.

These cases are similar in that the plaintiffs' attorneys expressly
pointed the courts to FDA enforcement actions or advice (not taken)
to bolster the complaints. As described in this article, the same
has been done with FTC warnings. The attorneys are plainly using
FDA and FTC guidance to guide their litigation strategy. Beauty
companies' legal departments should stay abreast of FDA and FTC
enforcement actions and advice, as these could be harbingers of
litigation trends.

If you've ever used a cosmetic product down to the last drop, then
you've experienced the tipping and tapping involved in trying to
get that last bit of product out of the container. This common
consumer experience has proven useful in defeating this final
false-labeling class action trend.

In Ebner v. Fresh, Inc., 838 F.3d 958, 965-66 (9th Cir. 2016), the
plaintiff complained that only a portion of Fresh's "Sugar" lip
product was accessible. Allegedly, "the tube's screw mechanism
permits only 75% of the total lip product to advance past the top
of the tube. A plastic stop device prevents the remaining 25% of
the product" from advancing, preventing direct application from the
tube to the lips. The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of this
lawsuit, finding that, "[d]ispenser tubes that use a screw
mechanism to push up a solid bullet of lip product are commonplace
in the market. The reasonable consumer understands the general
mechanics of these dispenser tubes and further understands that
some product may be left in the tube to anchor the bullet in
place." Critically, the label disclosed the correct weight of
included lip product.

Despite the favorable defense outcome, plaintiffs have not
abandoned this litigation theory. Subsequent lawsuits have targeted
a medicated lip balm dispensed through a flexible tube, and a
purveyor of cosmetics whose products are sold in sealed bottles,
often made of glass, dispensed with a pump.

These cases teach two important defense lessons:

   * One, it is critical for the product's label to correctly state
the product weight (or amount) included in the container; and

   * Two, if not all of the product is easily accessible, this must
result from a feature of the container that consumers are
reasonably familiar with.

"Slack fill" lawsuits are a related litigation concept. Slack fill
is the difference between the actual capacity of a container and
the volume of product contained therein. Some slack fill has a
legitimate purpose in product packaging, but nonfunctional slack
fill is impermissible. If a cosmetic's (opaque) packaging suggests
that there is more product inside than there actually is, a beauty
company may find itself facing a slack fill class action.

To conclude, by watching trends in related spaces such as food and
beverage, noting FTC and FDA enforcement actions against industry
peers, and revisiting product labeling with product managers and
the marketing team, beauty companies can help to set themselves up
to minimize the risk of litigation. [GN]


[*] No Clarity Yet on Third-Party Cookies Class Action Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Clark, writing for Law.com, reports that although the
California Consumer Privacy Act has been in effect since January,
there is still no clarity on how judges will rule in some of the
class action lawsuits over third-party cookies collecting data and
what constitutes a reasonable effort to protect personally
identifiable information.

"That is how they're constructing that fact pattern into what was
supposed to be a clear data breach," Dominique Shelton Leipzig, a
partner at Perkins Coie in Los Angeles, said. "The private right of
action was supposed to limited to a negligent breach." [GN]



[*] Wisconsin Sees Dramatic Increase in ERISA Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bernard J. Bobber, Esq. -- bernard.bobber@ogletree.com -- Mark E.
Schmidtke, Esq. -- mark.schmidtke@ogletree.com -- and Jesse R.
Dill, Esq. -- jesse.dill@ogletree.com -- of Ogletree, Deakins,
Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., in an article for The National Law
Review, report that in recent months, Wisconsin federal courts have
witnessed a dramatic increase in class litigation raising breach of
fiduciary duty claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (ERISA). These claims target sponsoring employers and
individuals who oversee plan investments and plan fees for
employer-sponsored 401(k) plans. Generally summarized, the causes
of action typically claim that plan managers and administrators
chose excessively expensive investment options and/or incurred high
administrative fees that caused plan participants to suffer losses
compared to other less expensive options available on the open
market. A particular target of plaintiffs is the method of paying
third-party recordkeepers known as "revenue sharing," which
compensates recordkeepers based on the value of plan investments
rather than a flat fee. Plaintiffs have sued company boards of
directors as well. The relief sought includes the money that plan
participants allegedly lost because of the fiduciaries' faulty
decisions, as well as attorneys' fees. Due to the number of alleged
class members, and a damages period typically running six years
prior to the filing of a complaint, defendants face claims
asserting that plan participants incurred losses of up to millions
of dollars in deficient investments or excessive fees.

The Relevant Law
Under ERISA § 1002(21)(A), individuals have a fiduciary duty with
respect to a qualifying benefit plan if they exercise discretionary
authority or control to manage or administer the plan or control of
plan assets. ERISA § 1104(a)(1) requires that such individuals
(i.e., plan fiduciaries) discharge their duties "solely in the
interest of the participants and beneficiaries and for the
exclusive purpose of (i) providing benefits to participants and
their beneficiaries; and (ii) defraying reasonable expenses of
administering the plan." Under ERISA's regulations at 29 C.F.R. §
2250.404a-1(b)(1), with respect to plan expenses, a fiduciary
satisfies its duties if it "(i) [h]as given appropriate
consideration to those facts and circumstances that . . . are
relevant to the particular investment or investment course of
action involved . . . and (ii) [h]as acted accordingly."
Ultimately, ERISA requires a fiduciary to act in a prudent manner,
given the facts and circumstances at the time of the fiduciary's
action. A fiduciary that breaches the duty of prudence may be
personally liable for damages that include, but are not limited to,
losses caused to the plan by the breach, as well as the plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees.

In 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a watershed
decision in Tibble v. Edison International addressing 401(k) breach
of fiduciary duty claims under ERISA. In Tibble, the Court
addressed whether the imprudent retention of an investment was an
event that started the statute of limitations period or whether the
statute of limitations expired six years after the fiduciary first
included the investment option in the plan menu. The Court held
that a fiduciary of a 401(k) plan has an ongoing duty to monitor
investments and that an ERISA plaintiff may timely raise a claim
for breach of fiduciary duty by alleging the fiduciary failed to
properly monitor and remove imprudent investments if such breach
occurred within the statute of limitations period. That is, the
Court found that the accrual of ERISA's statute of limitations for
fiduciary breaches is not limited to the date when an investment
was first included in a plan but instead continues as the fiduciary
monitors the investment over time.

In March 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit narrowed options for plan participants suing 401(k) plan
sponsors and fiduciaries in a case alleging that a plan had
included too many investment options—investment options that were
allegedly too expensive because they included actively managed
mutual funds rather than less expensive index funds—and that the
recordkeeper should have been compensated based on a flat fee
rather than revenue sharing. In Divane v. Northwestern University,
the court affirmed a lower court's decision that had granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The Seventh Circuit
rejected the plaintiffs' contention that a flat-fee structure was
always preferable to pay a plan's recordkeeping expenses, rejected
the plaintiffs' claim that the plan had too many investment
options, and rejected the plaintiffs' claim that it was imprudent
to have included more expensive actively managed funds when the
plan also included index funds and participants were free to choose
among options to invest their money.

Despite the decision in Divane, the state of the case law regarding
401(k) fee allegations remains a mixed bag. In contrast to the
defendants' victory in the Divane case, a class of plan
participants in May 2020 obtained judgment regarding excessive plan
administrative fees before the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado. In Ramos v. Banner Health, a class made up of
current and former employees brought suit alleging breaches of
fiduciary duties that included, but were not limited to, failing to
monitor plan offerings, paying excessive recordkeeping fees, and
using plan assets to pay prohibited expenses. The plaintiffs
sought, among other things, a recovery of approximately $85 million
in plan losses as relief.

Following a bench trial, the court rejected the plaintiffs' claim
that the defendants had breached their fiduciary duties with
respect to the funds offered by the plan. However, the court
granted judgment to the plaintiffs with respect to administrative
fees after it faulted the defendants for not having changed to a
per-participant fee model sooner. A key point for the court on this
claim was its conclusion that the defendants had not undertaken a
request for proposal for recordkeeping services in nearly 20 years.
The court concluded that the lack of regular review of
recordkeeping fees was imprudent. On this claim, the court awarded
the plaintiffs losses of nearly $1,662,000 and invited briefing to
support an award of attorneys' fees.

In terms of the ERISA breach of fiduciary duty cases filed in
Wisconsin, the significant uptick in case filings is recent and can
be traced to a common source. Prior to June 2020, there had been
only four cases claiming breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA filed
in Wisconsin since the Supreme Court's 2015 decision in Tibble.
However, in June and July 2020, the same plaintiffs' counsel, a
longtime professor of law who recently returned to private
practice, filed six new cases.

Key Takeaways
Employers and fiduciaries that maintain 401(k) or 403(b) retirement
plans may want to diligently monitor investment options and
periodically compare administrative fees on the open market. Given
the recent upturn in court filings, including in Wisconsin, plan
fiduciaries are clearly under a microscope when making decisions
about what investment options to include in their plans and what
recordkeepers to hire to provide services to the plans. Moreover,
these duties are ongoing, as circumstances may change and require
plan administrators to make different investment and administrative
services decisions to meet their fiduciary duty obligations.
ERISA's venue provision is very generous, allowing suit to be filed
wherever a plan is administered, meaning that plan sponsors with
Wisconsin operations now find themselves in a jurisdiction with
plaintiffs' counsel who are actively pursuing claims and litigation
on behalf of plan participants and beneficiaries. [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 ***