---

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

              Wednesday, September 23, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 191

                            Headlines

4E BRANDS: Faces Class Action Over Hand Sanitizers
ABBVIE INC: Faces Malek Antitrust Suit Over Generic Bystolic
ABBVIE INC: Must Face Humira Kickbacks Class Action
ADT LLC: Faces Naiman Suit in California Over Unsolicited Calls
AIR EVAC: BakerHostetler Attorney Discusses Ruling in Buchta Case

AIRBUS SE: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Oct. 5 Motion Deadline
ALPHERA INTERNATIONAL: Castelluccio Seeks to Recover Proper Wages
ALTERYX INC: Klein Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
ALTERYX INC: Vincent Wong Law Firm Reminds of October 19 Deadline
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of October 19 Deadline

AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Oct. 19 Deadline
ANAPLAN INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action Filing
APPLE INC: 9th Circuit Revives Employee Bag Check Class Action
APPLE INC: Settles Powerbeats2 Headphone Class Action
APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Reaches $15.5MM Securities Suit Settlement

ARCHDIOCESE OF VANCOUVER: K.S. Files Negligence Class Action
ASTROS: Ticket-Holder Class Action Can Proceed, Court Says
ATLANTA POSTAL: Faces Class Action Over Unfounded Overdraft Fees
AUSTRALIA: Class Action Filed Over Second Round of Lockdowns
AUSTRALIA: Victorian Gov't. Sued Over Hotel Quarantine Mishandling

AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL: Concussion Class Action Not Too Far Away
BAGEL HUT INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Chavez FLSA Suit Says
BAHAMA PARADISE: Settles Wage Class Action for $875,000
BAIDU INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Oct. 19 Deadline
BANK OF AMERICA: 9th Cir. Expresses Concern in Castillo OT Lawsuit

BANK OF AMERICA: 9th Cir. Upholds Deal in 2017 Class Suit
BAYER AG: Seattle Objects to $650MM PCB Class Action Settlement
BIG 5 SPORTING: Graciano Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
BIG FISH: Two Class Action Settlements Get Prelim. Court Okay
BLACKBAUD INC: Eisen Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info

BLACKBIRD LENDING: Naiman Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
BLACKBIRD LENDING: Naiman Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
BLINK CHARGING: Bragar Eagel Alerts of Class Action Filing
BMW: MINI Cooper Defective Steering Systems Class Suit Certified
BRASKEM S.A.: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of Oct. 26 Deadline

BRASKEM SA: Bragar Eagel Alerts of Class Action Filing
BURGER KING: Court Dismisses Williams' Whopper Class Action
CABOT OIL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Oct. 13 Motion Deadline
CANADA: Faces Class Action Over COVID-19 Benefit Cyberattacks
CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Prolonged Solitary Confinement

CANADA: Government Named in Privacy Breach Class Action
CANADA: New Brunswick May Face Suit for Limiting Abortion Access
CANADA: Proposed Class Action Targets Revenue Agency
CARIBOU COFFEE: Dec. 1 Hearing Set for $5.8MM Deal in Village Bank
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Chavez Seeks to Certify Employees Class

CHINA: Ruocchio Files Personal Injury Class Suit in S.D. New York
CIGNA HEALTH: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Wage Class Action
COLONY CREDIT: Peters Sues Over 78% Decline in Securities Price
COMMONWEALTH BANK: Faces Class Action Over CommInsure Policies
COOKWARE COMPANY: Sticky Frying Pan Lawsuit Settled

CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Settles Lawsuit Over Retirement Plan Fees
CORNERSTONE SERVICES: Faces Green Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Smyth Sues Over Deceptive Sale of Optifiber
COUNT FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Financial Advice
COUNT FINANCIAL: Piper Alderman Files Class Action

CVS HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Aetna Merger-related Stock Drop
DAVANTAGE GROUP: Clyde & Co Discusses Discovery Ruling in Lawsuit
DELOITTE: Faces Discrimination Class Action Over Leave Policy
DEUTSCHE BANK: Portnoy Law Reminds of Class Action Filing
DOE MEDICAL: Court Dismisses Bedford's Motion to Certify Class

DOWNEY RESTAURANT: Gutierrez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Fines
DPD: Driver Fired for Having Depression Joins Class Action
EARNIN: Settles Overdraft Fee Class Action for $12.5 Million
EMBLEMHEALTH INC: Retired High-Ranking Execs Seek Class Status
EPIC GAMES: Can't Dodge Class Action Over Claims

EPISCOPAL HEALTH: Fails to Protect Sensitive Info, Dumay Alleges
ERII SHAREHOLDERS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 21 Deadline
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed in Mader FCRA Suit
FACEBOOK INC: Court Okays Enhanced BIPA Class Action Settlement
FACEBOOK INC: Wins Dismissal of False Ad Clicks Class Action

FACEBOOK: Ballard Discusses BIPA Suit Settlement Initial Approval
FASTLY INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action Filing
FASTLY INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of Oct. 26 Motion Deadline
FASTLY INC: Klein Law Reminds of October 26 Deadline
FASTLY INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of October 26 Deadline

FDM GROUP: Settles Contingent Worker Class Action for $4.1MM
FENNEC PHARMACEUTICALS: Gainey McKenna Announces Class Action
FENNEC PHARMACEUTICALS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit
FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Class Action Over Ram 1500 EGR Fire Issues
FIAT CHRYSLER: Sued Over Ram, Cherokee Air Suspension Problems

FIRSTENERGY CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 28 Bid Deadline
FORD MOTOR: Faces Second Class Action Over Fuel Economy Issue
FORESCOUT TECH: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
FRANCOIS LAMARRE: Class Suit Filed on Behalf of Sex Assault Victims
FRITO-LAY INC: LaRocca Sues Over Ruffles Potato Crisps Marketing

G4S SECURE: Xiong Suit Seeks Class Certification
GENIUS BRANDS: Gross Law Alerts of Shareholder Class Action
GENIUS BRANDS: Kirby McInerney Reminds of October 19 Deadline
GENIUS BRANDS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Oct. 19 Deadline
GENIUS BRANDS: Schall Law Firm Reminds of October 19 Deadline

GOL LINHAS: Faces Hornea Securities Suit Over Drop in Share Value
GOLUB CORPORATION: Parmely Sues Over False Marketing of Soymilk
GOODMAN GROUP: Faces Kaintz Suit Over Deficient COBRA Notice
GOOGLE INC: Canadian Law Firms Team Up to File Class-Action Suit
GOOGLE INC: King & Wood Attorney Discusses Ruling in Lloyd Case

GOOGLE INC: Legal Consultant in Class Action Files Suit
GOYARD SF: Brooks Sues Over Web Site Inaccessible to Blind Users
GRAND GIFTS: Cruz Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Faces Class Action Over Stench Smell, Dust
HC2 HOLDINGS: Awaits Court's OK of Settlement in DBMG Suit

HC2 HOLDINGS: Plaintiff's Bid for Legal Fees in Tera Suit Pending
HDFC BANK: Bragar Eagel Announces Securities Class Action
HELVEY & ASSOCIATES: Faces Bradburn FDCA Suit in S.D. Indiana
HL WELDING: Yanez Sues Over Tradespeople's Unpaid Overtime Wages
HUNTING CREEK: Thompson Files Suit in Maryland

HUNTINGTON INGALLS: Class Action Should Advance Towards Trial
IAS LOGISTICS: Parker Seeks Overtime Wages for Warehouse Staff
IHEART COMMUNICATIONS: Hit With ERISA Class Suit Over 401(k) Plan
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Appeal in Marentes Class Suit Still Ongoing
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Writ of Certiorari in Timm Suit Granted

IMPINJ INC: Nov. 19 Hearing Set for $20MM Deal in Securities Suit
INSPERITY INC: Gross Law Alerts of Shareholder Class Action
J2 GLOBAL: Gross Law Alerts of Shareholder Class Action
JAMES GIBSON: Court Denies Roos' Motion to Certify Class
JLJ IV ENTERPRISES: Court Certifies Class in Moran Wage Class Suit

KINGSTONE COS: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
LEE ENTERPRISES: Goldsmith Can Conduct Discovery in Class Suit
LEXINFINTECH HOLDINGS: Vela Sues Over Decline in Share Value
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Seeks 4th Cir. Review of Ruling in Gaston Suit
LHC GROUP: George Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime Wages

LIVONGO HEALTH: Raheja Suit Challenges $18.5-Bil. Sale to Teladoc
LOOMIS ARMORED: Simmons Seeks Unpaid OT Wages for AS Technicians
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA: Rivas Sports Challenges Business Closure
LOWE'S HOME: Finch Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
MARRIOTT EMPLOYEES FCU: Settles Class Action for More Than $200,000

MASSACHUSETTS: 'Flu You Baker' Group Intends to File Class Suit
MASSACHUSETTS: Some Parents Signs Onto Flu You Baker Class Action
MAYNE PHARMA: Must Face Generic Drug Price-Fixing Class Action
MED-1 SOLUTIONS: Dietz Sues in S.D. Indiana Over FDCPA Violation
MISSISSIPPI: Class Action Against MDOC Pending

MUNDI 910: Faces Class Action Over Econo Lodge July Fire
NEW YORK: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed v. Ortiz in Gulino Bias Suit
NEW YORK: Class Action Filed to Force Return of Indoor Dining
NEW YORK: Restaurants Planning to Sue City Over Indoor Dining Ban
NEW YORK: Wedding Venues Sue Over Pandemic Restrictions

NIALAYA JEWELRY: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, Guglielmo Claims
NORWEGIAN CRUISE: 11th Cir. Affirms Arbitration Ruling in Phillips
NUTECH NATIONAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Kern Suit Claims
NVIDIA CORP: Faces Class Action Over 401(k) Plan Mismanagement
OASIS PETROLEUM: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Cox Labor Suit Says

OCWEN LOAN: Bardak Appeals Ruling in FDCPA Suit to 11th Circuit
ONESPAN INC: Rosen Law Announces Securities Class Action
OVINTIV USA: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Buffington Suit Alleges
PEERLESS-PREMIER APPLIANCE: Jaquez Sues Over Inaccessible Website
PETER NYGARD: Assault Suit on Hold After Court Stays Proceedings

PORTLAND GENERAL: Bragar Eagel Announces Securities Class Action
PORTLAND GENERAL: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
PORTLAND GENERAL: Kirby McInerney Announces Class Action Lawsuit
PRICE CHOPPER: Falsely Markets Vanilla Ice Cream, Magnuson Claims
PRINCESS CRUISE: Passengers Seek Class Certif. in Archer Covid Suit

PROGENITY INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of October 27 Deadline
PROGENITY INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of October 27 Deadline
PROSHARES ULTRA: Klein Law Reminds of Sept. 28 Motion Deadline
QIHOO 360: Altimeo Asset & ODS Appeal Rulings in Securities Suit
QUTOUTIAO INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Oct. 19 Motion Deadline

READING INTERNATIONAL: Still Faces Brown & Wagner Class Lawsuits
RIO TINTO: Appeals Court Rejects Arguments in Shareholders' Appeal
ROYAL CANADIAN: Families of Mass Shooting Victims Amend Suit
RUSHMORE LOAN: Panzarella Sues Over Inaccurate Quote and Errors
SASOL LTD: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action

SIMCO ELECTRONICS: Faces Kelly Wage and Hour Suit in California
SIMPLE HOUSE: Albert Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Bid to Nix Illinois Combined Suit Fully Briefed
SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Remaining Claims in Securities Suit Tossed
SMART UNION: Inglima Sues Over Denied Claim for VSTD Benefits

SOCIETY INSURANCE: T & J's 5th Down Suit Removed to N.D. Indiana
SOLIANT HEALTH: Terry Sues in Calif. Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
STAAR SURGICAL: Block & Leviton Reminds of October 19 Deadline
STAAR SURGICAL: Klein Law Firm Reminds of October 19 Deadline
STAAR SURGICAL: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims

STEINHOFF: Period for Appealing Class Action Ruling Lapses
TEXAS: FMC Carswell Faces Class Action Over Inmate Mistreatment
TEZOS: Swiss Foundation to Pay $25MM to Investors to Settle Suit
TILE SHOP: Reaches Settlement in K-Bar Derivative and Class Suit
TOOTSIE ROLL: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Want Case Heard in State Court

TYSON FOODS: Faces McEntire Antitrust Suit Over Broiler Services
ULTRA PETROLEUM: Bragar Eagel Alerts of Class Action Filing
ULTRA PETROLEUM: Schall Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
UNITED STATES: Agencies Sued Over Vessel Monitoring System
UNITED STATES: Veterans Affairs Sued on Benefits Over 1966 Accident

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Plan Beneficiaries Class Cert. Sought
US CORRECTIONS: Fiveash Seeks to Recover Back Wages Under FLSA
VALLEY NATIONAL: Faces Turner Suit Over Fraudulent Loan Services
VAXART INC: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action
VAXART INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Oct. 23 Motion Deadline

VAXART: Class Action Over Funding-Related Mixup Pending
VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Klein Law Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
VERATIP CORP: Bronstein Appeals Ruling in Sarikaputar Labor Suit
WABASH, IN: Class Certification Bid in Copeland Case Denied
WARNER MUSIC: Combs Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII

WEINSTEIN CO: Attorneys Present Revised Bankruptcy Plan
WELLS FARGO: Judge Trims Class Action Over Auto Loans
WEST BEND MUTUAL: Little Ones Sues Over Refusal to Pay Insureds
WESTERN PETROLEUM: Foster Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Larchuk Suit Over Defective Dishwashers

WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Bid to Drop 2nd Amended Suit vs. Unit Pending
WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Unit Still Defends Suit over PPP Agent Fees
[*] Class Actions Against CBD Companies Face Challenges
[*] Companies Must Comply with CCPA Rules to Avert Class Actions
[*] HESTA Now Funding 21 Shareholder Class Actions

[*] Tsunami of COVID-19 Investment Securities Lawsuits Expected

                            *********

4E BRANDS: Faces Class Action Over Hand Sanitizers
--------------------------------------------------
Christian Sheckler, writing for South Bend Tribune, reports that a
lawsuit filed in St. Joseph County asks for penalties against a
Texas-based company that distributes hand sanitizers found to
contain toxic methanol and linked to at least one death
nationally.

The suit against 4e Brands North America, the distributor of Blumen
hand sanitizer, stems from findings by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration that two varieties of the product contained
methanol, or wood alcohol, which is poisonous and can be fatal if
ingested.

The lawsuit filed in St. Joseph Circuit Court names an Osceola
woman as the main plaintiff but also seeks class-action status to
represent an unknown number of people who bought or used the Blumen
hand sanitizer in Indiana.

The suit accuses 4e Brands of violating Indiana's Products
Liability Act and Deceptive Consumer Sales Act.

"It's about protecting the public from products with toxic,
poisonous chemicals," said Douglas Sakaguchi, the lawyer who filed
the lawsuit, "especially when those chemicals are hidden by lack of
being listed in the ingredients."

Along with the presence of methanol, tests by the FDA found two
varieties of Blumen hand sanitizer contained less than the
advertised amount of ethyl alcohol, or ethanol, which is supposed
to be the active ingredient in the product. The varieties were
advertised as 70% ethanol.

The FDA added 32 varieties of hand sanitizer made for 4e Brands to
a list of products that consumers should avoid, and imposed an
import ban on the products, which are made in Mexico. The company
issued a voluntary recall, first for 10 different bottle sizes and
later expanding the recall to all its hand sanitizers.

"Out of an abundance of caution, we decided to recall all lots due
to potential contamination of methanol," 4e Brands said in a
statement posted on its website. "We are very sorry that this
series of sanitizers did not meet our quality standards, and we are
undertaking an investigation and working hard to rectify the
situation."

No attorney was listed for 4e Brands in court filings. The
company's website does not list a spokesperson. Messages left at a
company email address and customer-service telephone number were
not returned.

Blumen hand sanitizers, according to the lawsuit, were distributed
widely, including at Costco warehouses. Melody Callantine, the
Osceola woman named as the main plaintiff, bought a 33.8-ounce
bottle at Costco to protect her family against COVID-19, according
to the suit.

The suit alleges Callantine's children, 10 and 6, experienced
headaches and vomiting after using the sanitizer.

According to the FDA, methanol can be deadly when ingested, but is
also toxic when absorbed through the skin. "Substantial" exposure
can cause headaches, nausea, blurred vision, blindness and
seizures.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the FDA, illnesses,
hospitalizations and deaths related to hand sanitizers have been on
the rise.

The agency said one of the deaths was associated with Blumen
sanitizer.

In all, the FDA has added more than 160 varieties to its list of
potentially unsafe hand sanitizers. Of the 32 varieties on the list
that were distributed by 4e Brands, tests found methanol in two,
and the rest were believed to be made in the same facilities.

"It's particularly important, during these pandemic times, that
manufacturers are careful," Sakaguchi said, "because there's a rush
of people who want to be clean and healthy and are going to use
these products more than normal."

The lawsuit, which says 4e Brands sold the hand sanitizer with
deceptive labeling, seeks payment for Callantine and other
plaintiffs in the form of a penalty up to $500 per violation under
the state's Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, as well as damages for
any harm they suffered.

Sakaguchi said the fines could be levied separately for each bottle
of Blumen hand sanitizer that was sold in Indiana and later
recalled. [GN]


ABBVIE INC: Faces Malek Antitrust Suit Over Generic Bystolic
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Malek, on his own behalf and all others similarly situated
v. ABBVIE INC., ALLERGAN, INC., ALLERGAN SALES, LLC, ALLERGAN USA,
INC., FOREST LABORATORIES, INC., FOREST LABORATORIES HOLDINGS,
LTD., FOREST LABORATORIES IRELAND, LTD., and FOREST LABORATORIES,
LLC, Case No. 7:20-cv-07492 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 12, 2020), is an
antitrust action seeking treble damages and relief under state
antitrust, consumer protection and unjust enrichment law, and
federal antitrust law, as a result of Defendants' unlawful
exclusion of generic substitutes for the branded drug Bystolic.

Defendant Forest and its successors-in-interest manufacture, market
and sell the branded version of Bystolic, which is a "blockbuster"
prescription drug with annual U.S. sales exceeding $1 billion.
Potential new generic market entrants filed Abbreviated New Drug
Applications ("ANDA") with the United States Food and Drug
Administration (the "FDA") to manufacture, market and sell generic
versions of Bystolic on December 17, 2011. Despite these ANDAs, no
generic competitor has or will enter the market until September 17,
2021.

Generic prescription drugs are typically less expensive than their
branded counterparts and perform 99.8% the same as the branded
product in order to obtain FDA "bioequivalence" or "AB rated"
status to enter the U.S. market. Access to less expensive generic
prescription drugs is extremely important to society as they enable
consumers and the health industry to save billions of dollars in
prescription drug expenditures. Notably, generic drugs typically
cost 50% less than the branded product and capture 80% or more
market share of the branded product within the first six to nine
months upon entry. This rapid erosion is the result of generic
substitution laws which generally require pharmacists to dispense
the AB-rated generic product when available. The loss of market
share causes the branded company of a "blockbuster" drug to lose
millions of dollars in sales each day, the Plaintiff avers.

To avoid or delay these market realities, Defendant Forest entered
into a series of unlawful reverse-payment agreements with potential
generic competitors, including Hetero, Torrent Alkem, Indchemie,
Glenmark, Amerigen9 and Watson10 (collectively, the "Generic
Competitors"), according to the complaint. From October 2012
through November 2013, Forest entered agreements with the generics
to: (i) not compete with Forest or enter the market prior to
September 17, 2021, unless another generic competitor entered the
market earlier; and in exchange (ii) upon information and belief,
provide consideration to the generics, through "side-deals," and
cash payments. As corporate successors-in-interest to one or more
of the Defendants, Allergan and then AbbVie have perpetuated this
illegal conduct11 in the market for nebivolol HCl, all at the
expense of consumers and health insurers.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' conduct, the
Plaintiff and other class members have been injured in their
business and property because they would have been able to purchase
less expensive generic Bystolic instead of branded Bystolic at
artificially inflated prices, says the complaint.

AbbVie, Inc., is an American biopharmaceutical company with its
corporate headquarters at 1 North Waukegan Road, in North Chicago,
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven N. Williams, Esq.
          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          Anupama K. Reddy, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
          601 California Street, Suite 1000
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: (415) 500-6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
          Email: swilliams@saverilawfirm.com
                 jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
                 areddy@saverilawfirm.com


ABBVIE INC: Must Face Humira Kickbacks Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that an Illinois federal judge on Sept. 1 refused to
toss an AbbVie Inc. investor class action alleging that the
pharmaceutical company concealed its use of an illegal strategy to
market its blockbuster drug Humira, saying the investors
sufficiently alleged detailed claims of fraud and deceptive intent.
[GN]


ADT LLC: Faces Naiman Suit in California Over Unsolicited Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
SIDNEY NAIMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ADT LLC and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of
them, Case No. 2:20-cv-01821-MCE-DB (E.D. Cal., Sept. 9, 2020), is
brought against the Defendant for its alleged negligent and willful
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that, in an attempt to solicit him to
purchase its services, the Defendant contacted him on his cellular
telephone number ending in -5502 beginning in or around October
2019 by using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) despite
not having his prior express consent to receive calls using an ATDS
or an artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone. As
a result of the Defendant's unsolicited calls, the Plaintiff has
incurred certain charges and reduced telephone time for which he
had previously paid, and his privacy was invaded.

ADT LLC designs and manufactures security systems.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Tel: 323-306-4234
          Fax: 866-633-0228
          Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                 abacon@toddflaw.com


AIR EVAC: BakerHostetler Attorney Discusses Ruling in Buchta Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Mersol, Esq. -- gmersol@bakerlaw.com -- of BakerHostetler, in
an article for JDSupra, reports that Rule 23 and FLSA Section 16(b)
can provide myriad benefits to the plaintiffs in class actions, but
in some instances the attorneys may resort to procedural runarounds
to try to leverage those benefits even further. Courts have been
less than receptive to these efforts, as a recent opinion from the
Eastern District of Missouri demonstrates. Buchta v. Air Evac EMS,
Inc., Case No. 4:19-cv-00976 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 10, 2020).

The case -- really two class action cases -- has a convoluted fact
pattern, but we'll hit just the high points. The disputes in the
two related actions concerned claims for overtime against the same
employer, an air ambulance company operating in several states in
and around Kentucky. The first case, Peck v. Air Evac EMS, was
filed in Kentucky in 2018 and settled in April 2019. The settlement
in that case included a release of any claims relating to "failure
to pay overtime," "failure to pay wages," and "any claim that was
or could have been asserted in the action." Following notice to the
class, the Kentucky district court approved the settlement on a
class-wide basis in January 2020.

So far, so good. The case looked like a garden-variety settlement
of a class overtime claim.

Here's where things went astray. On the same day that the
plaintiffs filed the request for preliminary approval of the
settlement of the Peck case, the same attorneys filed a new case in
Missouri, Buchta v. Air Evac EMS, with a new class representative,
purporting to seek recovery on behalf of Illinois employees. The
named plaintiff in that case worked not only in Kentucky but also
in Indiana and Illinois. He had received a notice relating to the
settlement in the Kentucky Peck case, but never opted out.

After discovery closed, the plaintiff's attorneys sought to hedge
their bets, and sought Rule 24 intervention by additional
plaintiffs from West Virginia and Illinois. They also sought class
certification with respect to this second case.

Now, the case is a mess, but the court cut through it pretty
quickly. It denied the motions to intervene, in part because they
were untimely and would require the reopening of discovery.

As to the claims of the new named plaintiff (Buchta), the court
found that they were barred either by the release (whose language
clearly encompassed claims for overtime, without being tied to any
one state) or by res judicata, as Buchta had been a class member in
the Peck matter and had never opted out of that settlement. It
rejected technical arguments about waiver of these defenses,
largely concluding either that they were pleaded in the answer or
that the plaintiff was on sufficient notice that they would be
asserted.

It's not clear why the plaintiff's attorneys resorted to such
convoluted tactics. If the class or settlement was limited to
Kentucky claims, they could have spelled that out in the agreement.
If they wanted to carve out other states, that could also have been
done in the agreement. In any case, the court ultimately concluded
that these tactics were ineffective and would not permit them to
litigate the additional states.

The bottom line: Res judicata may be a powerful argument to address
claims asserted after a settlement has been approved. [GN]


AIRBUS SE: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Oct. 5 Motion Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming October 5, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of Airbus SE ("Airbus" or the
"Company") (OTC: EADSY, EADSF) securities between February 24,
2016, and July 30, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you suffered a loss on your Airbus 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/airbus-se/. 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 March 15, 2020, The Wall Street Journal reported that, according
to internal documents related to the Company's $4 billion bribery
settlement, Airbus executives had previously raised red flags about
fees paid to a number of middlemen working with its helicopter
division, which was led at the time by the now-Chief Executive
Officer, that may have violated global bribery and corruption
rules.

On this news, Airbus ADRs fell $3.44 per share, or nearly 16%, to
close at $18.46 per share on March 16, 2020, and Airbus foreign
ordinaries fell $7.97 per share, or about 9%, to close at $77.75
per share on March 16, 2020.

Then, on July 30, 2020, The Wall Street Journal reported that the
U.K. Serious Fraud Office had charged an Airbus subsidiary and
three individuals with corruption in connection with a defense
contract the U.K. had arranged with Saudi Arabia.

On this news, Airbus ADRs fell $0.67 per share, or about 3%, to
close at $18.13 per share on July 31, 2020, and Airbus foreign
ordinaries fell $2.85 per share, or about 4%, to close at $72.10
per share on July 31, 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.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Airbus securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than October 5, 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]


ALPHERA INTERNATIONAL: Castelluccio Seeks to Recover Proper Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PIERO CASTELLUCCIO v. ALPHERA INTERNATIONAL N.A., LLC, FAWAD AWAN,
VAL DOE, and any other related persons or entities, Case No.
2:20-cv-04050-PKC-AYS (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 31, 2020), is brought as a
collective action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other
similarly situated persons, who were/are employed by the Defendants
as porters and/or other similar positions.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff seeks to
represent the porters and/or other employees, who were/are not paid
overtime at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of
pay for all hours worked in excess of 44 hours per workweek for the
period of three years prior to the date of the filing of the
complaint to the date of the final disposition of this action.
Additionally, the Plaintiff's claims under the NYLL are brought as
a class action pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure on
behalf of the Plaintiff and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons, who seek to recover for: (1) unpaid overtime pay,
which the Defendants failed to pay in violation of the NYLL; (2)
failure to pay proper wages for all hours worked; (3) failure to
pay spread of hours compensation; (4) failure to provide accurate
wage notices upon hiring and upon each change of pay as required by
the NYLL; and (5) failure to provide accurate and complete wage
statements with each payment as required by the NYLL.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a porter from
January 2019 to May 30, 2020.

Alphera International N.A., LLC owns, operates and manages car
dealerships in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul A. Bartels, Esq.
          BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Suite 208
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 280-3008
          Facsimile: (212) 656-1845
          E-mail: lr@belllg.com


ALTERYX INC: Klein Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
----------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on Aug. 30 disclosed that class action
complaints have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the
following companies. There is no cost to participate in the suit.
If you suffered a loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline
to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Alteryx, Inc. (NYSE:AYX)

Class Period: May 6, 2020 - August 6, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020

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

Learn about your recoverable losses in AYX:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/alteryx-inc-loss-submission-form?id=8926&from=1

Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.

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

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


ALTERYX INC: Vincent Wong Law Firm Reminds of October 19 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on Sept. 1 announced 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.

Alteryx, Inc. (NYSE:AYX)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/alteryx-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8940&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020
Class Period: May 6, 2020 - August 6, 2020

Allegations against AYX include that: (1) the Company was unable to
close large deals within the quarter, and deals were pushed out to
subsequent quarters or downsized; (2) as a result, Alteryx
increasingly relied on adoption licenses to attract new customers;
(3) as a result and due to the nature of adoption licenses, the
Company's revenue was reasonably likely to decline; and (4) as a
result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Fastly, Inc. (NYSE:FSLY)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/fastly-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8940&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 26, 2020
Class Period: May 6, 2020 - August 5, 2020

Allegations against FSLY include 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.

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.

CONTACT:

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]


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of October 19 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of American Electric Power Company,
Inc. (NYSE: AEP) between November 2, 2016 and July 24, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important October 19, 2020
lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for AEP investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the AEP class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1913.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

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-1913.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

CONTACT:

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40thFloor
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]


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Oct. 19 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Aug. 31 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
American Electric Power Company, Inc. ("AEP" or "the Company")
(NYSE:AEP) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between November
2, 2016 and July 24, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before October 19, 2020.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. AEP engaged in a scheme described as "the
largest public corruption case in Ohio history." The Company
covertly funded political organizations to bribe politicians to
pass Ohio House Bill 6, to the Company's benefit. The Company also
engaged in a misleading advertising campaign related to the bill.
The Company improperly subverted a citizen's ballot to repeal HB6.
Despite claiming to protect its customers' interests, the Company
sought a state-mandated surcharge on their bills. 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 AEP, 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]


ANAPLAN 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 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.

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

                About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

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

Contact Information:

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


APPLE INC: 9th Circuit Revives Employee Bag Check Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Peterson, writing for Apple Insider, reports that the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that Apple must pay
retail workers for the time they spend waiting for their bags to be
checked.

That decision, rendered on Sept. 2 in a unanimous opinion, aligns
with a previous California Supreme Court ruling. In February,
California's high court determined that the time employees spend
being screened at the end of their workday is compensable.

In its opinion on Sept. 2, the Ninth Circuit said that the U.S.
District Court that presided over the original lawsuit, and handed
Apple a victory, erred in its judgment. It added that the
California Supreme Court's holding means that employees are now
entitled to summary judgment on the issue of being compensated for
the time.

The original lawsuit against Apple was filed in 2013, and claimed
that Apple's policy of requiring workers to clock out before
undergoing bag searches led to an hour and a half of unpaid work a
week. It reached class action status in 2015.

In its ruling in February, California's high court determined that
the time waiting for exit checks was compensable under California
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage, which requires that employees
are compensated for all time when subject to the control of an
employer. That's because the Supreme Court found that the exit
searches were required, involved a significant degree of control,
are enforced through the threat of discipline, and are imposed
primarily for Apple's benefit.

The Ninth Circuit panel on Sept. 2 also rejected Apple's arguments
about some employees not bringing bags to work and said it's
disputed whether the policy was enforced through discipline.

"Those purported disputed facts are irrelevant to whether time
spent by class members waiting for and undergoing exit searches
pursuant to the policy is compensable as 'hours worked' under
California law," the opinion reads.

The Ninth Circuit reversed the original district court grant of
Apple's motion for summary judgment and orders the court to grant
the employees' summary judgment motion. [GN]


APPLE INC: Settles Powerbeats2 Headphone Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Ray Shaw, writing for GadgetGuy, reports that if you bought Apple
Powerbeats2 between 2014 and August 7, 2020, there is a high
likelihood that they are faulty.  A U.S. lawsuit has just
determined Apple should pay owners a maximum of US$189 in
compensation.

Catch 22 -- its only for US residents that participated in the
class action.

The class-action lawsuit, filed in 2017, accuses Apple of falsely
advertising a "shoddy" product. The plaintiffs allege that the
headphones "contain a design defect that causes them to stop
retaining a charge."

Apple is also accused of deceiving consumers about the headphones'
durability and sweat resistance. And further, it is replaced any
earphones returned through its one-year warranty program with
products that contained the same flaws.

"Apple continues to promote and market its faulty Powerbeats2 and
continues to profit handsomely from their sale. In so doing, Apple
has defrauded the public and cheated its consumers."

Apple have of course denied the product was faulty or it has done
anything wrong.

Australian users of Powerbeats2 have protection under the
Australian Consumer Law which will reasonably extend the warranty
for manufacturing defects. As far as we are aware no other
Powerbeats models are part of this lawsuit, but be very cautious if
buying online from Amazon or eBay merchants. [GN]


APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Reaches $15.5MM Securities Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RG/2 Claims Administration announces that the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas has approved the
following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that
would benefit purchasers of Applied Optoelectronics Inc (AOI)
common stock and/or call options, and sellers of AOI put options.

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT,
AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES

To: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded common stock and/or call options of AOI, or sold
put options of AOI, during the period from February 23, 2017
through February 21, 2018, inclusive, and were damaged thereby (the
"Class").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 and an Order of the United States District Court for
the District of Southern District of Texas, that the
Court-appointed Class Representatives, on behalf of themselves and
all members of the Class, and Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. ("AOI"
or the "Company"), Chih-Hsiang (Thompson) Lin ("Lin") and Stefan J.
Murry ("Murry," collectively the "Defendants"), have reached a
proposed settlement of the claims in the above-captioned class
action (the "Action") in the amount of $15,500,000 (the
"Settlement").

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Vanessa D. Gilmore,
likely via teleconference or videoconference, on November 24, 2020
at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 5300 of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, United States Courthouse, 515
Rusk Ave., Room 5300, Houston, Texas 77002 (the "Settlement
Hearing") to, among other things, determine whether the Court
should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable,
and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in
the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated August 3, 2020;
(iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of
the settlement funds available for distribution to Class Members
(the "Net Settlement Fund"); (iv) approve Lead Counsel's Fee and
Expense Application; and (v) approve the Class Representatives'
service awards. The Court may change the date of the Settlement
Hearing, or hold it telephonically or via videoconference, without
providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement
Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY
PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a full Notice and Claim Form,
you may obtain copies of these documents by visiting the website of
the Claims Administrator, www.AOISecuritiesSettlement.com, or by
contacting the Claims Administrator at:

If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim
Form postmarked or submitted online no later than November 19,
2020. If you are a Class Member and do not timely submit a valid
Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution
of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by
all judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the
Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable.

If you are a Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the
Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice such that
it is received no later than November 3, 2020.  If you properly
exclude yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any
judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the
Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be
eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Lead Counsel's Fee and
Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be
filed with the Court, either by mail or in person, and be mailed to
counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the
Notice, such that they are received no later than November 3, 2020.
[GN]

ARCHDIOCESE OF VANCOUVER: K.S. Files Negligence Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Agnieszka Rucks at Catholic News Service reports that a proposed
class-action lawsuit filed against the Archdiocese of Vancouver
claims the archdiocese was "systematically negligent" in protecting
parishioners from abuse by clergy.

"The archdiocese was aware of the abuse and allowed the abuse to
continue. The archdiocese was also complicit in silencing
survivors, who were required to take oaths of secrecy when making
complaints to the archdiocese," the claim states.

The plaintiff, a woman identified as K.S. in court documents,
alleged she was abused by a religious order priest at St. Francis
of Assisi Parish when she was about 11 years old. The documents say
she has had no contact with her abuser since elementary school and
"remains terrified of priests and the power of the archdiocese."

K.S. reported the abuse to the Archdiocese of Vancouver in January
2019.

None of the allegations have been proven in court, and the priest
in question is now deceased.

The proposed class-action lawsuit is now at the start of a
certification process. If the class-action suit is not approved,
the claimant retains the right to proceed with a civil action for
the claim.

The archdiocese has not filed a legal response but did release a
media statement confirming K.S. contacted the archdiocese to report
the abuse in 2019 and received a prompt response, immediate
counseling, and a suggestion she make a report to the police.

"To protect other individuals, we also sought immediate assurances
from the accused priest's order that he was no longer in ministry.
The order advised that the priest was infirm and not active in any
ministry work. They also confirmed that there had been no
complaints ever received about him."

"We cannot make any further comments about this case as it is now
before the courts. We hope the attendant publicity will help give
any other victims/survivors the confidence to come forward and get
the help they deserve."

The Archdiocese of Vancouver has been addressing the issue of
sexual abuse by clergy in recent years. After launching a review of
all files relating to cases of abuse from 1950 onward, the
archdiocese released a 12-page report last November with 31
recommendations for improving reporting, policies and outreach to
victims. It also published the names and photos of nine priests who
were criminally convicted of abuse or named in settled lawsuits and
other public cases.

The report said the committee that reviewed the files determined 26
assaults of minors "likely occurred in Vancouver over the last 70
years" and another 10 cases involved adults. The archdiocese said
it only published names it determined it was legally allowed to.

Vancouver is not the only Canadian Catholic diocese facing legal
action. A class-action lawsuit recently was filed against the
Archdiocese of Quebec, against the Saint-Jean-Longueuil Diocese in
2019 and against the Archdiocese of Halifax-Yarmouth in 2018, also
alleging physical and/or sexual abuse.

Ruck is a reporter for B.C. Catholic, newspaper of the Archdiocese
of Vancouver. [GN]


ASTROS: Ticket-Holder Class Action Can Proceed, Court Says
----------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Robert Schaffer presiding over the 152nd Civil
District Court in Harris County Texas denied three Motions filed by
the Astros that sought to dismiss a class action lawsuit brought on
behalf of ticket-holders alleging monetary losses as a result of
the Astros' infamous sign-stealing scheme that ultimately resulted
in the Astros fraudulently securing the World Championship title.
The Astros tried a three-hold legal approach to get rid of the
fans' suit, filing two Motions to Dismiss under different statues,
including one claiming, unbelievably, that the Astros' cheating was
entitled to First Amendment protection, and a Motion for Summary
Judgment, claiming the suit must be thrown out because no one has
ever succeeded on suing a sports team for what the Astros claimed
was "on the field play."

The attorneys for the Astros Fans, Robert C. Hilliard and Marion M.
Reilly of Hilliard Martinez Gonzales LLP, along with Mitch Toups of
Weller Green Toups & Terrell, L.L.P. and Richard Coffman of Coffman
Law Firm stand behind Judge Schaffer's ruling.

Marion M. Reilly, who argued against the Astros' Motion to Dismiss
stated, "Judge Schaffer got it right. The fact that the Astros
claimed the Constitution protected their ability to defraud
thousands of consumers who spent their hard earned money on Astros'
season tickets is absurd. When you rely on a sellers' statements to
buy something of value, those statements must be true. The Astros
lied and cheated, it's plain and simple. And they took advantage of
upstanding Texas citizens-the fans-in the process."

Bob Hilliard, attorney for the fans states, "This is going to be
painful for the Astros. But it's a deserved pain. Under oath, the
full extent of front office and top executive involvement in the
genesis of this cheating playbook, should finally become crystal
clear.

Perhaps this permanent stain on a once proud team will fade some
over time. But for now, and maybe forever, the Astros wear a label
of shame that prevents players, sports fans and youngsters
everywhere from having any respect for this franchise, or anyone
associated with it."

                                 ABOUT HMG  

Hilliard Martinez Gonzales LLP (HMG) specializes in personal
injury, mass torts, product liability, commercial and business
litigation, and wrongful death. For over two decades, the firm has
been appointed by Judges in Texas and around the country to lead
class actions, including the single largest litigation in US
history, GM's ignition switch defect litigation. Bob Hilliard has
tried over 100 jury trials and obtained the Largest Verdict in the
country in 2012 and the #1 verdict in Texas. [GN]


ATLANTA POSTAL: Faces Class Action Over Unfounded Overdraft Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Land, writing for Law.com, reports that a putative class
action targeting the Atlanta Postal Credit Union -- the oldest and
one of the largest in Georgia -- claims it routinely charges
members overdraft fees for items that do not actually overdraw
their accounts. [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Class Action Filed Over Second Round of Lockdowns
------------------------------------------------------------
Maja Garaca Djurdjevic, writing for mybusiness, reports that Damian
Scattini, a partner at Sydney-based Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan, told MyBusiness that he served the Victorian government
with an open class action lawsuit on August 21, after his office
was approached by businesses across the spectrum -- from pubs,
gyms, retail, sporting facilities and professional services -- who
have been pole-axed by the second lockdown.

"These businesses, many of them mum and dad operations, need help
now. As things stand, there is no plan for them," Mr Scattini told
MyBusiness.

"The class action provides a path to compensation for losses that
were beyond their control and not brought about by them."

The class action is open to all Victoria-based businesses that
supply goods or services to the general public and that were forced
to close after 1 July.

According to information supplied to MyBusiness, businesses looking
to take part in the class action must have had their ability to
supply goods or services adversely affected by any of the following
lockdown restrictions:

   * the stage 3 restrictions that were put in place in certain
postcodes of Melbourne from 2 July 2020;
   * the stage 3 restrictions that were put in place in Melbourne
and Mitchell Shire from 9 July 2020;
   * the stage 4 restrictions that were put in place in Melbourne
from 2 August 2020, including the workplace closures that come into
effect from 6 August 2020; and/or
   * the regional stage 3 restrictions that were put in place in
Victoria, outside of Melbourne, from 6 August 2020.

The first defendant in the proceeding is the state of Victoria, but
the lawsuit also names Victorian Ministers Jenny Mikakos, Martin
Pakula as well as their department secretaries.

The case alleges that these ministers and secretaries were
negligent in their actions and/or failures to act concerning the
hotel quarantine program, and that the state of Victoria is
vicariously liable for their negligence.

Mr Scattini is previously known for successfully winning a case
against the Queensland government following the 2011 floods. [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Victorian Gov't. Sued Over Hotel Quarantine Mishandling
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Hewett, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that it didn't take long for the COVID-19 class action suits to
start. Quinn Emmanuel, one of the legal firms prominent in the
class action industry, is seeking compensation on behalf of
businesses that have suffered losses due to the Victorian
government's mishandling of hotel quarantine.

This is the first class action lawsuit filed over Victoria's
disastrous use of private security guards. It certainly won't be
the last. Given the extent of financial devastation facing
Victorian businesses, the amount of potential compensation sought
is almost beyond comprehension. Caveat Victorian taxpayer. Other
law firms are circling, lured by the prospect of more lucrative
class actions. [GN]


AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL: Concussion Class Action Not Too Far Away
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Cherny, writing for The Age, reports that concussion victim
Sam Blease suggests a class action from former players is "probably
not too far away" as AFL chief Gillon McLachlan reiterated that the
health and safety of all past, present and future players was of
paramount importance to the league.

The vexed issue of brain injuries in Australian football reached
another flashpoint on Aug. 31 when Anita Frawley, the widow of
former St Kilda captain and Richmond coach Danny Frawley, confirmed
that a report submitted to the Victorian coroner had found that her
husband had been suffering from chronic traumatic encephalopathy
(CTE) when he died last September.

Frawley is the second high-profile former player whose CTE
diagnosis has been made public, following the February revelation
that Hall of Fame legend Graham "Polly" Farmer had also been
suffering from the condition, which can only be diagnosed
post-mortem.

Former Adelaide player Sam Shaw has launched legal action in
relation to the handling of his concussion during his career with
the Crows, however, while an ex-players' class action has been
mooted for several years, no such proceedings have commenced.

In the US, the NFL has paid out more than $500 million to former
players as part of the league's concussion redress scheme.

Former Melbourne and Geelong speedster Blease, 29, retired in 2015
following a concussion suffered while playing for the Cats' VFL
team.

Blease's symptoms are less prevalent than in previous years but he
conceded he could have issues down the track.

"Certainly for the first two or three years post me finishing up I
was still dealing with issues related to memory and mood and
anxiety, and stuff like that, that I probably hadn't dealt with at
all in life, and I do factor that back to the last head knock that
I had," Blease said.

"It's hard to put your finger on it because it's not tangible, you
can't see it or measure it by anything. There's certainly things
that I've had to adapt to in life since having it, with headaches
and all the rest of it that sometimes come along.

"For all I know the damage could be done already. It's one of those
things that I'll probably find out later in life."

While Blease said he wasn't sure whether he would join a class
action, he sensed such a process was inevitable.

"We've seen in America, what's happened with the NFL and some of
those class actions, and you would think that's probably not too
far away [in Australia], I would say, from some of those past
players," Blease said.

For all that, Blease praised the way clubs were now handling
players who suffered head knocks, and said that he would encourage
his children to play the game.

"Oh of course, no doubt. It's something that's given me so many
outlooks in life and it's opened so many doors for me."

The AFL released a statement on Aug. 25 saying that the league was
continuing to take steps to make the game safer.

"We have strengthened match day protocols for the identification
and management of concussion, we continue to change the Laws of the
Game to discourage high contact and also moved earlier this season
to change the tribunal rules to more strictly sanction tackles that
endanger the head. The ARC which we introduced in the last year has
also provided another opportunity to identify potential concussive
incidents through the use of world leading video technology,"
McLachlan said.

"In our discussions Anita (Frawley) has been really clear that she
wants the learnings from Danny's death to continue to provide a
benefit to sport and we will continue to work with Anita and the
family and researchers to learn as much as we can and to continue
to make whatever changes are necessary to keep the people who play
our game safe." [GN]


BAGEL HUT INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Chavez FLSA Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VIVIANA CHAVEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BAGEL HUT INC., BEST BAGELS INC., STEVEN MENIST and
ROBERTO TALLEDO, Case No. 2:20-cv-04214 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 9, 2020),
alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law by failing to pay proper overtime
wages.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a counter attendant
from April 2017 until January 11, 2020.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Class Plaintiffs
regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week during their
employment with the Defendants. However, the Defendants failed to
pay their lawfully earned overtime wages at one and one-half times
their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a week.

Bagel Hut Inc. and Best Bagels Inc. are bagel and sandwich shops.
Steven Menist and Roberto Talledo are officers, directors,
shareholders, and/or persons in control of the operation of the
shop.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicola Ciliotta, Esq.
          KATZ MELINGER PLLC
          280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600
          New York, NY 10016
          Tel: (212) 460-0047
          Fax: (212) 428-6811
          Email: nciliotta@katzmelinger.com


BAHAMA PARADISE: Settles Wage Class Action for $875,000
-------------------------------------------------------
CruiseRadio.net reports that a class-action lawsuit filed against
Bahama Paradise Cruise Line was settled with the company agreeing
to pay $875,000 in unpaid wages to its crew.

What The Lawsuit Alleged

After going months working onboard without being paid, crew members
reported that their jobs were threatened for speaking out against
the unfair conditions.  When the entire cruise industry shut down
in March, management for Bahama Paradise Cruise line requested that
all employees onboard their two ships sign a contract which
essentially said that they would agree to work without pay until
cruising resumed.

At the time, the company believed this would be a short-term
situation and they would begin sailing again in April. But as the
shutdown continued, so did the period in which the crew members
were not paid. (As of now, Bahamas Paradise says they intend to
begin sailing again on November 4.)

A class-action lawsuit filed against Bahama Paradise Cruise Line
was settled with the company agreeing to pay $875,000 in unpaid
wages to its crew.

GRAND CELEBRATION

Grand Celebration is one of two ships at the heart of the
class-action lawsuit filed by crew members. (Photo courtesy of
Bahamas Paradise Cruise Line)

What The Lawsuit Alleged

After going months working onboard without being paid, crew members
reported that their jobs were threatened for speaking out against
the unfair conditions.  When the entire cruise industry shut down
in March, management for Bahama Paradise Cruise line requested that
all employees onboard their two ships sign a contract which
essentially said that they would agree to work without pay until
cruising resumed.

At the time, the company believed this would be a short-term
situation and they would begin sailing again in April. But as the
shutdown continued, so did the period in which the crew members
were not paid. (As of now, Bahamas Paradise says they intend to
begin sailing again on November 4.)

The complaint eventually filed on behalf of the crew said that not
only were they continuing to work without pay, but that they were
being made to pay for such basic items such as toiletries, snacks
and bottled water.  

The Final Straw

In June, Bahama Paradise Cruise Line CEO Oneil Khosa boarded one of
the ships and promised a $1,000 good faith payment that would be
issued to each employee on or before July 25th. But with the
industry remaining shut down, that date came and went with no
payment made to the employees.

Soon after, Dragan Janicijevic, a Bahamas Paradise casino worker,
reached out to maritime attorney Michael Winkleman and a
class-action lawsuit was filed in Miami Federal Court on August
4th.

After weeks of negotiation, the two sides arrived at a monetary
settlement of $875,000.

Upon approval from a federal judge, the funds will be divided
between 275 crew members and designated to cover unpaid wages,
including 2 months in guaranteed severance pay, as per their
employment contracts.  "We are very pleased with this settlement,"
said Winkleman, "and we are confident it will fully and fairly
compensate the entire crew who were stuck on the ship."  

Mr. Khosa told the Miami Herald that the company is struggling to
stay afloat, and that "economically, at the end of the day,
everybody's trying to do what it takes to survive.  To me, the most
important thing is to stay in business."  

Bahama Paradise Cruise Line operates out of the Port of Palm Beach
with a fleet of two ships, running two-night itineraries to
Freeport and Nassau. [GN]


BAIDU INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Oct. 19 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Baidu, Inc. Shareholders
interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadline
listed to petition the court. Further details about the case can be
found at the link provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

BIDU Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/baidu-inc-information-request-form-2?prid=9068&wire=1

Baidu, Inc. (NASDAQ: BIDU)
BIDU Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 8, 2016 -
August 13, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : October 19, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/baidu-inc-information-request-form-2?prid=9068&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Baidu,
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) Baidu misrepresented the financial and
business condition of iQIYI; (2) iQIYI had inadequate controls; and
(3) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially
false and/or misleading at all relevant times.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadline 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]

BANK OF AMERICA: 9th Cir. Expresses Concern in Castillo OT Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg Law reports that a former Bank of America call center
worker's bid to revive a 5,000-member overtime class action was met
with apparent skepticism from a federal appeals court in Pasadena
during oral argument.

A majority of a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit panel
expressed concern that as much as 40% of the proposed class wasn't
affected by the bank's allegedly unlawful overtime policy at
issue.

Ex-employee Cindy Castillo is challenging a district court order
that denied class certification of her overtime claim. A federal
trial court judge said Castillo failed to show common class-wide
questions predominate over those affecting individuals because some
members may not have been underpaid by the overtime policy.

The case could determine whether Bank of America will face a
potentially costly class action and clarify what workers need to
meet the predominance requirement for certifying a class action.

Castillo claims Bank of America's method of calculating overtime
didn't comport with the California Supreme Court's 2018 ruling in
Alvarado v. Dart Container. She seeks to represent a class of
workers from the bank's 13 call centers in the state.

But at oral argument, bank attorney Kathryn Barber told the panel
that only workers who received both overtime pay and incentive
bonuses in the same pay period would have been "exposed" to the
allegedly unlawful policy.

That excludes between 30% and 40% of the class, said the
McGuireWoods associate.

A Question of Liability or Damages?

Castillo's attorney, Mitchell Murray of Farnaes & Lucio, said
there's no dispute that the overtime policy applied to all the
proposed class members. Whether members were exposed to the policy
is a question for the damages phase of the case and irrelevant for
class certification, he said.

"How does that go to damages if they were never injured?" Circuit
Judge Sandra Ikuta replied.

Under further questioning by Ikuta about establishing liability
absent an injury, Murray said the district court could have created
a sub-class of only workers who were paid overtime and incentive
bonuses in the same period.

Circuit Judge Ronald Gould, who said he was also "concerned" about
the share of the proposed class allegedly not affected by the
policy, asked whether there's U.S. Supreme Court precedent on
plaintiffs and not judges having the burden to frame sub-classes.

Barber said she was unaware of high court precedent, but the Ninth
Circuit has said as much in its 2007 ruling in Lozano v. AT&T
Wireless and its 2009 decision in Vinole v. Countrywide Home
Loans.

The third member of the panel, Hawaii U.S. District Judge David
Ezra, who was sitting by designation, asked no questions.

The case is Castillo v. Bank of America, 9th Cir., No. 19-56228,
oral argument 9/3/20. [GN]


BANK OF AMERICA: 9th Cir. Upholds Deal in 2017 Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Holly Barker, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a divided
Ninth Circuit upheld Bank of America's 2017 class action settlement
to resolve claims that its "extended overdrawn balance" charges
violated the National Bank Act's usury limit, according to an
unpublished decision filed Sept. 2.

Judges Consuelo M. Callahan and Dana L. Christensen joined in
affirming the district court's final approval of the settlement and
the $14.5 million fee award for class counsel.

Judge Andrew J. Kleinfeld dissented, writing that the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California overvalued the
settlement in applying the percentage method to calculate attorneys
fees and in failing to cross-check the award. [GN]


BAYER AG: Seattle Objects to $650MM PCB Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edvard Pettersson, writing for Insurance Journal, reports that
Seattle scoffed at the $650 million Bayer AG agreed to pay to
settle class-action claims by about 2,500 cities, counties and
ports over pollution from polychlorinated biphenyl, or PCB, saying
it plans to opt out of the deal.

According to a filing by Seattle in federal court in Los Angeles
objecting to the proposal, the $550 million that would be available
to the class of 2,500 government entities doesn't even cover the
projected $600 million it will cost the city to "abate the
nuisance" from PCBs manufactured decades ago by Monsanto Co., which
Bayer acquired in 2018.

"The city considers the proposed settlement to be a gift to
Monsanto and its new parent company, Bayer," Seattle said. "The
proposed settlement, in the city's view, is a Trojan Horse for many
of the class members, providing them a pittance to monitor their
stormwater for PCBs and blocking them from getting funds they will
need if PCBs are found."

Bayer in June said it would pay about $12 billion to settle
litigation it inherited when it acquired Monsanto two years ago,
with the bulk of the money earmarked to resolve lawsuits alleging
that its Roundup weedkiller causes cancer. The settlement of
125,000 Roundup cases has also run into problems with plaintiffs'
lawyers and the federal judge overseeing the cases airing concerns
about Bayer's handling of the settlement process.

Though Seattle plans to opt out, the city said it is objecting to
the proposed settlement because it's concerned that the terms of
the deal will prevent it from pursuing its own claims.

"The city of Seattle makes a very narrow objection to the class
release language," said Scott Summy, an attorney representing the
cities that agreed to settle. "The court will sort out if a small
change is even needed. Seattle claims that it is potentially opting
out and, if so, the release language doesn't apply to it."

More than a dozen cities including Seattle, San Diego, Portland,
Oregon, and Oakland, California, have sued Monsanto -- the
exclusive maker of PCBs, which were used to cool heavy-duty
electrical equipment for more than 40 years before being banned in
the 1970s. The non-biodegradable chemicals sometimes fouled
manufacturing areas and the pollutants ended up in the soil. The
PCBs would also run into major water bodies when it rained, killing
fish and making the water a health hazard.

"It is not uncommon to receive a few number of objections to a
class agreement especially when there is a large class as there is
here with over 2,500 municipal entities," Bayer said in a
statement. "We remain confident that this settlement is a fair
resolution, and parties on both sides continue to strongly support
the motion seeking the court's approval."

The case is City of Long Beach v. Monsanto Co., 16-CV-03493, U.S.
District Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles). [GN]


BIG 5 SPORTING: Graciano Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy Graciano, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. BIG 5 SPORTING GOODS CORPORATION, Case No.
1:20-cv-07448 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 11, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired
people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website,
https://www.big5sportinggoods.com/store/, and therefore denial of
its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act,
according to the complaint. Because the Defendant's website is not
equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it
violates the ADA.

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

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

The Defendant operates the Big 5 Sporting Goods online retail
store, as well as the Big 5 Sporting Goods website. The Defendant
advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BIG FISH: Two Class Action Settlements Get Prelim. Court Okay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Soper, writing for GeekWire, reports that the past and
current owner of Seattle-based Big Fish Games will pay $155 million
to recover payments made by users of its social casino games after
a judge on Aug. 31 granted preliminary approval of two class action
settlements.

The legal dispute dates back to 2015 when Cheryl Kater sued Big
Fish's then-parent company Churchill Downs. The suit argued that
Big Fish violated Washington state law governing online gambling
because chips used in its "freemium" game Big Fish Casino
represented "something of value."

In 2016, a U.S. District Court judge in Seattle threw out Kater's
complaint. But two years later, a federal appeals court ruled that
Big Fish Casino constituted illegal online gambling, according to
Washington state law.

Kater is listed on the settlement as a plaintiff, along with Suzie
Kelly and Manasa Thimmegowda.

Churchill Downs and Aristocrat Technologies are listed as
defendants. Churchill Downs acquired Big Fish Games for $885
million in 2014, and sold it to Aristocrat in 2018 for nearly $1
billion.

Churchill will pay $124 million of the settlement, while Aristocrat
will pay the remaining $31 million.

The settlement could have major implications for the casual games
market as many popular games use in-app purchases as a revenue
driver. Several other lawsuits were filed in the wake of the
federal appeals court decision, challenging the legality of social
games in Washington.

Washington lawmakers earlier this year debated legislation that
would shield many of the state's smartphone game companies from
class-action gambling lawsuits. However, the bills did not advance
beyond initial discussion.

As part of the settlement, Big Fish has agreed to "establish a
voluntary self-exclusion policy that will allow players to exclude
themselves from further gameplay, make available resources related
to video game behavior disorders, and change the game mechanics of
its apps so players who run out of virtual chips can continue on in
the game they are playing without buying chips," according to the
settlement filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington.

The payout amount will be based on how much each person lost while
playing Big Fish Casino, Jackpot Magic Slots, and Epic Diamond
Slots.

Big Fish Casino is a series of games like slots, blackjack, and
roulette that use virtual chips. We've followed up with Big Fish
about changes to its games as a result of this settlement, and will
update this story if we hear back.

Founded in 2002, Big Fish has an additional office in Oakland,
Calif. The company was previously led by former president Jeff
Karp, who just joined Electronic Arts. It cut about 15% of its
workforce in September 2018. Big Fish has more than 600 employees,
according to LinkedIn. [GN]


BLACKBAUD INC: Eisen Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Eisen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. BLACKBAUD, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-08356 (C.D. Cal.,
Sept. 11, 2020), arises from Blackbaud's negligent failure to
adequately protect individuals' personal information, to warn its
clients and the persons whose personal information was entrusted to
Blackbaud of its inadequate information security practices, and to
effectively monitor its platform for security vulnerabilities.

Blackbaud was the subject of a massive data breach that began on
February 7, 2020. Blackbaud did not detect the breach for three
months, when Blackbaud personnel noticed a suspicious log-in on an
internal server on May 14, 2020.

Rather than provide its customers with information about the breach
as soon as it claims it learned about it so that they could notify
consumers whose personal information had been provided to it,
Blackbaud did not begin telling its customers of the data breach
until July 16, 2020, according to the complaint. Blackbaud has
acknowledged that there was an undetected vulnerability that led to
the breach. Blackbaud has refused to provide any further
information regarding the undetected vulnerability. The Plaintiff
asserts that the undetected vulnerability and subsequent breach
were the result of substandard data security practices.

According to the complaint, the hacker did not, as promised,
destroy the personal information obtained in the data breach, and
the Plaintiff and the Class are at risk that identity thieves will
commit a variety of crimes, such as taking out loans, mortgaging
property, opening financial accounts in a victim's name, opening
credit card accounts in a victim's name, using a victim's
information to obtain government benefits, filing fraudulent tax
returns to obtain a tax refund, obtaining a driver's license or
identification card in a victim's name, gaining employment in a
victim's name, obtaining medical services in a victim's name, or
giving false information to police. Hackers also commonly sell
personal information to other criminals who, in turn, misuse the
information for fraudulent purposes.

As a result of Blackbaud's negligent failure to prevent the data
breach, the Plaintiff and the Class face a heightened, imminent
risk of such harm in the future, according to the complaint. The
Plaintiff and the Class must now incur the expense and
inconvenience of monitoring their financial accounts and credit
histories to guard against the increased risk of identity theft,
and will incur out-of-pocket costs for obtaining credit reports,
credit freezes, credit monitoring services, and other protective
measures in order to detect, protect, and repair the data breach's
impact on their lives.

The Plaintiff is a California resident, who was notified on July
30, 2020, by Planned Parenthood that his personal information had
been compromised in the Blackbaud data breach.

Blackbaud, Inc., provides internet cloud software, services
expertise and data intelligence to thousands of nonprofits,
foundations, corporations, educational institutions, healthcare
institutions and individual change agents.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
          Krysta Kauble Pachman, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-789-3100
          Fax: 310-789-3150
          Email: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com
                 kpachman@susmangodfrey.com


BLACKBIRD LENDING: Naiman Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
---------------------------------------------------------------
SIDNEY NAIMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BLACKBIRD LENDING LLC, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:20-cv-00888 (E.D. Cal.,
Sept. 9, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its alleged
negligent and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that he was being contacted by the Defendant
on his cellular telephone number ending in-5502 beginning in or
around September 2019 by using an automatic telephone dialing
system (ATDS) in an attempt to solicit him to purchase its services
even without obtaining his prior express consent to receive such
messages using an ATDS. As a result, the Plaintiff has been harmed
by the Defendant's unlawful conduct by causing the Plaintiff to
incur certain charges or reduced telephone time for which he had
previously paid, as well as invading his privacy.

Blackbird Lending LLC offers business loans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Tel: 323-306-4234
          Fax: 866-633-0228
          Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                 abacon@toddflaw.com


BLACKBIRD LENDING: Naiman Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
---------------------------------------------------------------
SIDNEY NAIMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BLACKBIRD LENDING LLC, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:20-cv-01822-WBS-DMC (E.D.
Cal., Sept. 9, 2020), arises from the Defendant's alleged negligent
and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that he was being contacted by the Defendant
on his cellular telephone number ending in-5502 beginning in or
around September 2019 by using an automatic telephone dialing
system (ATDS) in an attempt to solicit him to purchase its services
even without obtaining his prior express consent to receive such
messages using an ATDS. As a result, the Plaintiff has been harmed
by the Defendant's unlawful conduct by causing the Plaintiff to
incur certain charges or reduced telephone time for which he had
previously paid as well as invading his privacy.

Blackbird Lending LLC offers business loans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Tel: 323-306-4234
          Fax: 866-633-0228
          Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                 abacon@toddflaw.com


BLINK CHARGING: 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 Blink Charging Company
(NADSAQ: BLNK).  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.

Blink Charging Company (NADSAQ: BLNK)

Class Period: March 6, 2020 to August 19, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 23, 2020

On August 19, 2020, analyst Culper Research issued a report on
Blink Charging, contending that "the Company has vastly exaggerated
the size of its EV charging network in order to siphon money from
the pockets of investors to insiders. Blink claims that ‘EV
drivers can easily charge at any of its 15,000 charging stations'
but we estimate the Company's functional public charging station
network consists of just 2,192 stations, a mere 15% of this claim."
Culper continued that its "investigators confirmed what Blink's
financials already suggest: almost no one uses Blink's charging
stations, many of which are in utterly decrepit condition."

On this news, Blink's stock price fell from its August 18, 2020
closing price of $10.23 per share to an August 20, 2020 closing
price of $7.94. This represents a two day drop of approximately
22.4%.

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 that: (1) many of Blink's charging
stations are damaged, neglected, non-functional, inaccessible, or
non-accessible; (2) Blink's purported partnerships and expansions
with other companies were overstated; (3) the purported growth of
the Company's network has been overstated; and (4) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

For more information on the Blink class action go to:
https://bespc.com/BLNK

                About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

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

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


BMW: MINI Cooper Defective Steering Systems Class Suit Certified
----------------------------------------------------------------
Waddell Phillips Professional Corporation on Aug. 31 disclosed that
a national class action has been certified alleging MINI Coopers
vehicles, model years 2002 - 2008 have defective steering systems.

The class action alleges that the power steering system in 2002 -
2006 model year MINI Cooper or MINI Cooper S and 2005 - 2008 model
year MINI Cooper Convertible or MINI Cooper S Convertible vehicles
contain dangerous defects that can cause (a) a sudden and
unexpected loss of power steering, potentially resulting in a crash
causing property damage or personal injury and/or (b) component
smouldering, potentially resulting in vehicle fires.  While luxury
automaker BMW AG conducted a safety defect recall in the United
States for some of these vehicles, there has been no recall for the
same models sold in Canada.

The class action seeks to have BMW pay for the cost of repairing
all of the affected cars, and to reimburse owners or lessees who
have already paid for the necessary repair. The lawsuit also seeks
compensation for any injuries or damages suffered as a result of
the defects and punitive damages.

The class includes all persons or entities in Canada who are or
were owners or lessees of:

(i) 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 or 2006 model year Mini Cooper or Mini
Cooper S; or
(ii) 2005, 2006, 2007 or 2008 model year Mini Cooper Convertible
or Mini Cooper S Convertible,

and their estates, executors, successors or assigns.  Over 16,600
of the subject cars were sold in Canada.

Anyone who fits within this class definition is encouraged to visit
www.minicooperclassaction.ca to learn more about the case and to
register with the class action administrator, RicePoint
Administration Inc.

Individuals who wish to exclude themselves from the class action
must deliver a written election to opt out to the claims
administrator by November 5, 2020. More information, including the
opt-out form, may be found at www.minicooperclassaction.ca.

The representative plaintiff is represented by Waddell Phillips
Professional Corporation and Podrebarac Barristers Professional
Corporation, leading class action and product liability lawyers.

For further information: about this class action, contact Class
Counsel at: Waddell Phillips Professional Corporation, Barristers,
reception@waddellphillips.ca, 647-261-4486 or 1-888-684-5545
(toll-free); Podrebarac Barristers Professional Corporation,
kp@toughcounsel.com, 416-568-1299 [GN]


BRASKEM S.A.: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of Oct. 26 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a federal
securities class action has been filed in United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of investors that
purchased or acquired the American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") of
Braskem S.A. ("Braskem" or the "Company") (NYSE: BAK) between May
6, 2016 and July 8, 2020 (the "Class Period").

All investors who purchased ADRs of Braskem S.A. and incurred
losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.

If you have incurred losses in the ADRs of Braskem S.A., you may,
no later than October 26, 2020, request that the Court appoint you
lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf
Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in the
ADRs of Braskem S.A.

On April 2, 2019, media sources and 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
disclosed that the lawsuits were "requesting the freezing of
amounts and assets in a total of approximately R$6.7 billion [6.7
billion Brazilian reais] 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
Macei."

On this news, Braskem's ADR price fell $1.60 per share over two
trading days, or 5.98%, to close at $25.14 per share on April 3,
2019.

Finally, on July 9, 2020, during pre-market hours, 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 ADR price fell $0.59 per share, or 6.20%,
to close at $8.93 per share on July 9, 2020.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country.  The firm
has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego.  The reputation and expertise of this firm
in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at  www.whafh.com.

         Gregory Stone
         Kevin Cooper, Esq.
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
         Tel: (800) 575-0735
              (212) 545-4774
         Email: gstone@whafh.com
                kcooper@whafh.com [GN]

BRASKEM SA: 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 Braskem S.A. (NYSE: BAK).
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.

Braskem S.A. (NYSE: BAK)

Class Period: May 6, 2016 to July 8, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 26, 2020

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 Maceió."

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.

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

                About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

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

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


BURGER KING: Court Dismisses Williams' Whopper Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence I Weinstein, Esq. -- lweinstein@proskauer.com -- Jeffrey H
Warshafsky, Esq. -- jwarshafsky@proskauer.com -- and Anisha
Shenai-Khatkhate, Esq. -- ashenai@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer
Rose LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, report that
Judge Raag Singhal of the Southern District of Florida recently
granted Burger King's motion to dismiss a putative class action
challenging its advertising for its plant-based "Impossible
Burger," and its motion to deny class certification. Williams v.
Burger King, No. 19-24755 (S.D. Fla. July 20, 2020).

Plaintiffs alleged Burger King's advertisements for its non-meat
"Impossible Burger" led them to believe the burger would be
prepared separately from Burger King's meat items. According to
plaintiffs, they later learned Burger King cooks Impossible Burgers
on grills that are also used to cook meat. They then filed this
lawsuit alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and
violation of Florida, New York, California, Michigan, and Georgia
consumer protection laws.

Although the court accepted plaintiffs' allegations of a contract
between them and Burger King formed by Burger King's advertising,
the court held that the alleged contract did not contain a promise
as to any specific method of preparation. Rather, the court
remarked, plaintiffs "could have 'Had it [their] way' by requesting
a different cooking method, thereby altering the terms of the
contract".

The court also dismissed plaintiffs' consumer fraud claims, finding
that the advertising was not deceptive under the reasonable
consumer standard because Burger King only promised a non-meat
patty (and nothing more), and it delivered on that promise.

The court also granted defendant's motion to deny class
certification, finding plaintiffs' claims too individualized to
support class-wide adjudication. The court's conclusion was guided
by Burger King's argument that each consumer has different personal
preferences for the preparation of his or her food, and plaintiffs
failed to plausibly assert that all "Impossible Burger" purchasers
share their stance. The court acknowledged dismissal of class
allegations at the pleading stage is an "extreme remedy," but noted
it is appropriate where, as here, "a defendant demonstrates from
the face of the complaint that it will be impossible to certify the
classes alleged by the plaintiff regardless of the facts the
plaintiff may be able to prove." Why the court addressed class
certification at all, having dismissed the complaint, is puzzling.

This case reinforces that claims based only on consumer assumptions
not grounded in the text of the advertising are ripe for a motion
to dismiss. [GN]


CABOT OIL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Oct. 13 Motion Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation.
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.

Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation (NYSE: COG)

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

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 13, 2020

Cabot was incorporated in 1989 and is headquartered in Houston,
Texas. Cabot is an independent oil and gas company that explores
for, exploits, develops, produces, and markets oil and gas
properties in the U.S.

Cabot primarily focuses its oil and gas efforts on the Marcellus
Shale located in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania. Cabot's gas
procuring activities in Pennsylvania have been the subject of
controversy for over a decade, with the Company repeatedly denying
any responsibility for environmental damage observed in the state.

On July 26, 2019, Cabot filed a quarterly report on Form 10-Q with
the SEC, reporting the Company's financial and operating results
for the quarter ended June 30, 2019 (the "2Q19 10-Q"). The 2Q19
10-Q disclosed that the Company had received two proposed Consent
Order and Agreements ("CO&As") related to two Notices of Violation
("NOVs") it had received from the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection ("PaDEP") back in June and November, 2017,
respectively, for failure to prevent the migration of gas into
fresh groundwater sources in the area surrounding Susquehanna
County, Pennsylvania.

Following the release of the 2Q19 10-Q, Cabot's stock price fell
$2.63 per share, or 12.07%, to close at $19.16 per share on July
26, 2019.

Then, on June 15, 2020, during pre-market hours, following a grand
jury investigation, the Pennsylvania attorney general's office
charged Cabot with fifteen criminal counts arising from its failure
to fix faulty gas wells, thereby polluting Pennsylvania's water
supplies through stray gas migration.

On this news, Cabot's stock price fell $0.67 per share, or 3.34%,
to close at $19.40 per share on June 15, 2020.

The complaint, filed on August 13, 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) Cabot had
inadequate environmental controls and procedures and/or failed to
properly mitigate known issues related to those controls and
procedures; (ii) as a result, Cabot, among other issues, failed to
fix faulty gas wells, thereby polluting Pennsylvania's water
supplies through stray gas migration; (iii) the foregoing was
foreseeably likely to subject Cabot to increased governmental
scrutiny and enforcement, as well as increased reputational and
financial harm; (iv) Cabot continually downplayed its potential
civil and/or criminal liabilities with respect to such
environmental matters; and (v) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

                            About Bragar Eagel

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]


CANADA: Faces Class Action Over COVID-19 Benefit Cyberattacks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rankin, writing for CBC News, reports that a proposed
class-action lawsuit has been launched against the federal
government on behalf of Canadians who applied online for COVID-19
emergency aid -- only to have their personal and financial
information stolen by hackers.

The lawsuit alleges that a series of "failings" by the government
and the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) allowed at least three
cyberattacks between mid-March and mid-August, but the public
wasn't alerted until CBC News broke the story on Aug. 15.

The Treasury Board and the CRA held a news briefing to confirm the
security breaches Aug. 17.

The proposed class proceeding claims the delayed detection of the
hacks caused the number of victims to balloon to at least 14,500.

"The actions of the [CRA] are reprehensible," states the claim,
"and showed a callous disregard for the rights of [victims]."

It alleges the agency's conduct was "a deliberate . . . departure
from ordinary standards of decent behaviour, and as such merits
punishment."

The CRA has blamed "a vulnerability in security software" for the
online breaches, and has said it wasn't aware of the first
cyberattack until Aug. 7.

The agency and the federal government have yet to file a legal
response.

The Ministry of National Revenue said it cannot comment as the
matter is now before the courts.

CERB, CESB benefits 'implemented hastily'

Most of the victims of the security breaches were applying for
financial assistance under the Canadian Emergency Relief Benefit
(CERB) or the Canadian Emergency Student Benefit (CESB).

Both programs pay recipients up to $2,000 a month.

The legal action alleges the CERB and CESB were "implemented
hastily," without adequate security measures.

As a result, it claims hackers were able to steal the personal
information of applicants -- including social insurance numbers,
home addresses, bank account details and tax information -- and use
the stolen data to impersonate victims, change addresses and direct
deposit information and file fraudulent claims under the emergency
programs.

The lawsuit alleges the victims have been hit with a double whammy:
their aid applications have been frozen while the breaches are
investigated, causing financial strain, plus they will have to
guard against identity theft for the rest of their lives.

'Stressed out and anxious'

Three lead plaintiffs in the case, representing all affected
Canadians, say they now live in fear their stolen data could be
used for years by cyber criminals.

"I'm definitely stressed out and anxious because I don't know who
has my information and I don't know who can get a copy of my
information," said Ally Scott, who had applied for the student
benefit.

"I am only 19 years old. I'm worried that I'm going to have to
combat this issue for the rest of my life. And that seems pretty
daunting."

'Somebody, somewhere has gotten $4,000'

Another plaintiff, a police dispatcher in Windsor, Ont., wasn't
even eligible to receive emergency funds as an essential worker,
but had her identity stolen and used to obtain benefits for two
months.

"Somebody, somewhere, has gotten $4,000 of payments and I don't
want that to be attached to my social insurance number, because I
didn't apply for it. I don't qualify," said Anne Campeau, 52.

Campeau said she felt compelled to step forward and represent
herself and other victims.

"I believe [the CRA] dropped the ball when they came to dealing
with it," she said. "Sometimes you just gotta do something like
this [proposed lawsuit] to get their attention. It's not right."

Compensation sought for all victims

The proposed class proceeding, filed Aug. 24 in Federal Court in
Vancouver, blames the government and CRA for negligence and breach
of privacy.

Angela Bespflug, the lawyer handling the case, believes there are
more victims out there.

"A lot of individuals had no idea this was going on and their
personal financial information was being compromised," said
Bespflug. "I suspect it's a significant number of individuals,
unfortunately."

If given approval to proceed, the lawsuit will pursue financial
compensation for all victims to cover damage to credit ratings, the
ongoing cost of credit monitoring and for mental distress, stress
and anxiety.

No date has been set for a hearing, and none of the allegations
have been proven in court.

Receiving certification for a class-action lawsuit can take months
or years. [GN]


CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Prolonged Solitary Confinement
--------------------------------------------------------------
VOCM reports that a class-action lawsuit has been launched against
the provincial government on behalf of those held in solitary
confinement for periods longer than two weeks.

The lawsuit is being launched by Morris Martin Moore on behalf of
two former inmates in the province's correctional system.

Lawyer Jim Locke says the negative effects of prolonged periods of
solitary confinement have been known to the government for years.
Despite that, Locke says inmates continue to be subjected to
prolonged periods of solitary confinement.

The class-action lawsuit claims negligence by government in
ensuring the safety and well-being of inmates and putting its own
interests ahead of vulnerable people under its care and control.

The lawsuit also claims that government's use of prolonged solitary
confinement is unconstitutional and violates basic human rights
outlined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Lawyer Lynn Moore says there have been similar cases in other parts
of Canada showing that prolonged periods of time in solitary
confinement cause psychological harm.

As the entity that imprisons people, Moore says government has a
duty of care and the responsibility to uphold a person's Charter
Rights which she says are being violated by prolonged periods of
solitary confinement. [GN]


CANADA: Government Named in Privacy Breach Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Greg Meckbach at Canadian Underwriter reports that the Canadian
federal government is facing a proposed class-action lawsuit over
data breaches earlier this year affecting thousands of users of
online service users.

Criminals were able to get the user names and passwords of 9,041
users of GCKey, the federal government announced in August. GCKey
lets people access multiple federal government services - including
Employment and Social Development Canada's MyService Canada Account
- over the Internet.

In response to the breach, Vancouver-based law firm Murphy Battista
LLP is proposing a class action. The proposed class is all persons
whose personal or financial information in their federal Credential
Service account or their Canada Revenue Agency account was
disclosed to a third party on or after Mar. 15, 2020.  Murphy
Battista lawyers Angela Bespflug and Janelle O'Connor filed the
statement of claim Aug. 24. Three representative plaintiffs are
named.

Among the allegations contained in the statement of claim are that
Canada Revenue agency failed to notify victims of the breach and
the general public in a timely manner that people's personal and
financial information had been compromised. The statement of claim
also alleges the government failed to take reasonable steps when it
knew or ought to have known that cyber security incidents were
taking place.

Allegations against the government contained in the statement of
claim have not been proven in court. A court must first agree to
certify a class before it can establish the facts and judge the
merits of the claim.

For its part, the government said Aug. 15 it has "robust systems
and tools in place to monitor, detect and investigate potential
threats, and neutralize them as quickly as possible."

The class action lawsuit alleges the personal and financial
information of the plaintiffs were disclosed to a third party. That
information includes social insurance numbers ("SIN"), annual tax
returns, banking information, family information, disability
benefit information, and home addresses.

The causes of action include obligations under the federal Privacy
Act, as well as the common law duty and care in the collection,
retention and disclosure of people's personal and financial
information. Another head of damage is the controversial new tort
"intrusion upon seclusion," which was first established in Ontario
in 2012. The tort essentially recognizes significant invasions of
privacy.

In the lawsuit filed against the federal government Aug. 24, 2020,
the plaintiffs did not put a specific dollar value on damages in
the claim filed in court. They did however identify a number of
heads of damage, including costs incurred in preventing identity
theft, damage to credit reputation, mental distress, and time the
plaintiffs lost in notifying parties such as credit card
providers.

Canada has seen "an explosion in privacy class actions over the
last number of years," David Fraser, Halifax-based privacy lawyer
for McInnes Cooper, told Canadian Underwriter earlier.

In the event of a privacy breach, an organization could be sued for
negligence, breach of confidence, breach of fiduciary duty, or
breach of contract, Fraser said at the time, commenting in general
on cyber risk and not on any specific case.

The federal government announced Aug. 15 that of about 12-million
active GCKey accounts, the passwords and usernames of 9,041 users
were acquired fraudulently. Criminals used those credentials to try
and access government services. A third of those did access such
services "and are being further examined for suspicious activity,"
the government said at the time.

As part of that GCKey attack, and a separate "credential stuffing"
attack,  about 5,500 Canada Revenue Agency accounts were targeted.

The government defines "credential stuffing" as attacks that use
passwords and usernames collected from previous hacks of other
attacks, taking advantage of the fact that many people reuse
passwords and usernames across multiple accounts. [GN]


CANADA: New Brunswick May Face Suit for Limiting Abortion Access
----------------------------------------------------------------
Silas Brown, writing for Global News, reports that a class-action
lawsuit could be brought against the New Brunswick government for
allegedly limiting abortion access in the province.

Dr. Adrian Edgar is the current owner of Clinic 554, the only
clinic that performs out-of-hospital abortions in the province and
one of the only providers of specialty LGBTQ2 care.

Edgar says he has been speaking with legal firm Koskie Minsky about
a potential lawsuit and they are looking for people to consider
becoming involved.

"We are definitely looking at a lawsuit, but in a way we're asking
the government to stop breaking the law and their response is 'make
us,'" Edgar said.

"You shouldn't have to sue your government to get them to stop
breaking the law."

Abortions performed at Clinic 554 in Fredericton are not funded by
Medicare, leaving either patients or the clinic to cover costs.
Right now, New Brunswickers can only access abortions in three
hospitals across the province: two in Moncton and one in Bathurst.

The abortion pill mifegymiso is also available.

Clinic 554 has been for sale for about a year now and Edgar says
the clinic can only keep its doors open until the end of September
if nothing changes in how the province funds abortions.

When asked about the potential of a lawsuit, premier Blaine Higgs
said he feels the province is not in violation of the Canada Health
Act.

"That's the advantage of living in Canada. If someone feels that we
are not following the rules, the Canada Health Act in this case,
then they have every right to bring it to a legal matter, make it a
legal matter and challenge it," he said.

"We certainly have asked that same question, in relation to what
we're doing in following the Canada Health Act and we have been
given the advice that we are doing just that."

But the federal government begs to differ. The federal department
of health has found New Brunswick in violation because it does not
fund out-of-hospital abortions, and earlier this year withheld
$140,216 worth of the province's health transfer payments.

But when the COVID-19 pandemic arrived in the country, they
released the funding, but say the same penalty will be levied next
year should New Brunswick fail to make changes to abortion access
in the province.

"Our government has been clear that women have a right to access
reproductive services. As the Prime Minister has said, we will
ensure that the New Brunswick government eliminates patient charges
for abortion services outside of hospitals," said Cole Davidson,
the press secretary for federal Minister of Health Patty Hajdu.

"We will use all options available to defend a woman's right to
choose, including those that exist under the Canada Health Act."

Higgs is no fan of those penalties.

"A federal government should not be dictating to a province, they
should apply the laws of the land. We feel we are following the
rules and the laws. If that's challenged and it's determined that
we're not then we'll certainly correct that," he said.

"But as far as someone trying to hold me ransom and dictate through
a non-democratic, or non legal process, I have great difficulty
with that."

Premier has no plans to alter abortion access in N.B.
When asked if he has any plans to make changes to abortion services
in the province, premier Blaine Higgs stood firm.

"We actually believe that, certainly in the last few years, they
are indeed very accessible here in the province," Higgs says.

Higgs has also repeatedly suggested that funding abortions in
clinics would erode the public health-care system and lead to the
creation of a two-tier, public-private system.

But when asked by reporters what makes Clinic 554 different than
any other family practice Higgs was unable to give an example.

"I mean the doctor is able to practice like any other physician for
services that are provided and covered under the public health act
and that's his right and obligation to do so as a practising
physician. I don't think we're restricting his ability to do that,"
Higgs said.

Tasia Alexopoulos of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada says
that the idea that Clinic 554 is a private health-care provider
rests on a misunderstanding of how clinics operate in Canada.

"It's not private health care. Clinic 554 is not a private
health-care provider," she said. "They are people's family doctors.
They offer covered medical services, so the government does provide
funding to Clinic 554 for other services."

Abortion rights group blocked by the premier
Additional attention has been on the issue since Alexopoulos
discovered that the ARCC's Twitter account had been blocked by the
premier over the weekend. The premier said it had been done in
error about a year ago and the account has since been unblocked.

But according to Alexopoulos the mistake has renewed focus on
abortion access in the province.

"The silver lining there is that blocking us may have amplified our
message which may be what we need to save this clinic and to save
the very critical and important health-care services that they
provide to New Brunswick," she said.

A number of people chose to email and call Higgs and New
Brunswick's health minister Ted Flemming to try push for greater
abortion access in the province.

Edgar says it has been nice to see the support, but he worries it
may not be enough to save the clinic. He says he has been looking
to meet with Higgs and Flemming for close to a year, but was
recently told by Flemming that he has no interest in a meeting or
in speaking about changes to abortion access.

When asked about meeting with Edgar, the premier said he would
consider it. [GN]


CANADA: Proposed Class Action Targets Revenue Agency
----------------------------------------------------
Huffington Post reports that the federal government showed "a
callous disregard" for the rights of thousands of Canadian
taxpayers whose personal and financial information was compromised
in a series of cyberattacks against Canada Revenue Agency's online
services, a proposed class-action lawsuit alleges.

Anne Campeau, a resident of South Woodslee, Ont., was one of the
victims who had her information stolen. It was then used on Aug. 6
to fraudulently apply for two payments of the Canada Emergency
Response Benefit (CERB), totalling $4,000.

Campeau, a police dispatcher with the city of Windsor, was never
even eligible for CERB, since she was never out of work during the
pandemic.

On Aug. 10, the 52-year-old was puzzled when she received an email
from Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) notifying her of a new message in
her account. She logged into her account and found no trace of the
message, but later noticed her direct deposit details had been
changed to a bank account in Quebec. The email address associated
with her account had also been changed.

The proposed class-action lawsuit filed at the Federal Court in
Vancouver on Aug. 24 is on behalf of "all persons whose personal or
financial information in their [GCKey] account or their Canada
Revenue Agency account was disclosed to a third party on or after
March 15, 2020."

That's the date when millions of Canadians put out of work because
of the pandemic became eligible to receive CERB payments. The
Canada Emergency Student Benefit (CESB) was created two months
later, on May 10.

Plaintiffs allege that "the online application system for the CERB
and CESB programs was implemented hastily," and that Canada did not
take appropriate steps to protect taxpayers' personal and financial
information.

On August 15, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat announced in
a press release that more than 14,500 GCKey and CRA accounts had
been hacked in a series of cyberattacks, exposing thousands of
Canadians' social insurance numbers, home addresses, banking
details and tax information.

"These attacks, which used passwords and usernames collected from
previous hacks of accounts worldwide, took advantage of the fact
that many people reuse passwords and usernames across multiple
accounts," the press release explained.

Campeau says her password was "so obscure that nobody would've been
able to guess it." She says her line of work has made her very
protective of her personal information because she's seen firsthand
what can happen to people whose identities are stolen.

"The possibilities of how that information could be used are
endless," agreed lawyer Angela Bespflug from Murphy Battista LLP,
the Vancouver-based firm pursuing this action.

"The scary thing about this type of attack, with such personal
information, is that individuals who have been affected are going
to have to monitor their credit indefinitely going forward," she
said, noting that some victims of the data breaches are students
eligible for the CESB program.

"They're 18, 19, 20. . . .  and they're going to have to monitor
their credit for the rest of their lives, really."

To add insult to injury, some of the people whose information was
compromised saw their CERB or CESB payments suspended pending
investigation, which means they couldn't access money they
desperately needed in these hard times.

                         CRA "Was Alerted"

Federal government officials explained in an Aug. 17 press
conference that the first of three cyberattacks happened 10 days
earlier, on Aug. 7. The "credential stuffing" attacks allowed the
perpetrators to access usernames and passwords for 9041 GCKey
accounts, which can be used to access roughly 30 federal
departments' services.

Annette Butikofer, assistant commissioner of the information
technology branch and Chief Information Officer at the CRA said the
RCMP was notified of this first attack four days after the fact, on
Aug. 11. A few days later, a second attack targeted 2,200 more
accounts.

It's only after a third attack that CRA suspended their "My
Account," "My Business Account" and "Represent a Client" online
services.

But according to the proposed lawsuit, taxpayers advised CRA their
accounts had been breached as early as mid-March. "Yet the CRA
failed to take reasonable steps to prevent further harm to the
plaintiffs and other Class Members," court documents read.

The CRA "knew, or ought to have known, that their online
application system for CERB and CESB was vulnerable to cyber
security incidents, and the defendant failed to take reasonable and
adequate measures to protect the personal and financial information
of the [affected users] both before and after launching the online
CERB and CESB programs," the lawsuit claims.

This leads Bespflug to believe the number of people affected by the
data breaches could be higher than the 11,200 estimated by CRA.
"We're definitely aware of people who were affected and whose
personal and financial information was compromised who were not
advised by CRA," she said, adding that it's possible the full
ramifications of the cyberattacks aren't yet known at this time.

"But certainly, every day, we're learning of more and more people
who have been affected," the lawyer said. [GN]


CARIBOU COFFEE: Dec. 1 Hearing Set for $5.8MM Deal in Village Bank
------------------------------------------------------------------
A legal notice has been issued in the case, Village Bank v. Caribou
Coffee Co.  The notice has been authorized by the federal court.

The legal notice is as follows:

If your financial institution issued one or more payment cards
identified as having been at risk as a result of the data breach
that Caribou Coffee, Bruegger's Bagels, and Coffee & Bagels
announced in December 2018, it could get a payment from a class
action settlement.

A settlement of a lawsuit against Caribou Coffee Company, Inc.,
Bruegger's Enterprises, Inc., Einstein & Noah Corp., and Einstein
Noah Restaurant Group, Inc. (collectively, "Caribou") has been
proposed in which Caribou has agreed to resolve putative class
claims brought by a financial institution, arising from a
third-party criminal data breach of Caribou's point-of-sale
systems, involving malware targeting customers' payment card
information that Caribou reported in 2018 (the "Data Breach"). If
your financial institution ("you") qualifies, you may send in a
claim form to get benefits, or you can exclude yourself from the
Settlement, or object to it.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota authorized
this notice. Before any money is paid, the Court will have a
hearing to decide whether to approve the Settlement.

Who Is Included?

You are a member of the Settlement Class and affected by the
settlement if:

(1) You are a financial institution, bank, credit union, or other
entity in the United States (including its Territories and the
District of Columbia); and

(2) You issued Visa- and/or MasterCard-branded payment cards
(including debit or credit cards) that were affected by the Data
Breach and/or part of initial and/or final alerts from Visa or
MasterCard related to the Data Breach, alerts from Visa
US-2018-0449 series (e.g., US-2018-0449a-PA, US-2018-0449b-PA,
US-2018-0449c-PA, US-2018-0449d-IC, and US-2018-0449e-IC) or
MasterCard ADC006148-US-18 series (e.g., ADC006148-US-18-1,
ADC006148-US-18-2, and ADC006148 US-18-3).

What Is This Case About?

The lawsuit, Village Bank v. Caribou Coffee Co., Inc. et al, No.
0:19-cv-01640-JNE-HB (D. Minn.), was filed by a financial
institution and alleges that Caribou is legally responsible for the
Data Breach. The lawsuit asserts claims for negligence and
violation of Minn. Stat. § 325E.64, the Minnesota Plastic Card
Security Act, as well as seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
Caribou denies these allegations and claims it did not do anything
wrong.

What Does the Settlement Provide?

Caribou has agreed to pay $5,816,250.00 to be used to pay claims of
Settlement Class Members, all attorneys' fees, costs, expenses, and
other expenditures approved by the Court. These funds will be paid
into an account out of which the Settlement Administrator will make
payments to eligible Settlement Class Members. A Settlement Class
Member, who submits a valid claim, will receive a pro rata share of
the settlement fund after attorneys' fees, costs, expenses, and
other amounts approved or ordered by the Court are deducted. In
addition, Caribou agrees to certain injunctive relief related to
payment card data security.

How Do You Ask for a Payment?

A detailed notice and Claim Form package contains everything you
need. Just call the toll-free number or visit the website below to
get one. To qualify for a payment, you must send in a Claim Form,
which can be submitted electronically or by mail. Claim Forms must
be submitted electronically or, if mailed, postmarked by December
22, 2020.

What Are Your Other Options?

If you do not want to be legally bound by the Settlement, you must
exclude yourself by October 22, 2020, or you will not be able to
sue, or continue to sue, Caribou, or any other Defendant's Released
Persons (as defined in the Settlement), for any of the claims
resolved by the Settlement. To exclude yourself, you must provide
all required information. If you exclude yourself, you cannot get
money from this Settlement. If you stay in the Settlement Class,
but wish to object, you must do so by October 22, 2020. Details for
excluding yourself or objecting to the Settlement can be found in
the Settlement Agreement and on the Settlement Website.

The Court will hold a hearing in this case on December 1, 2020 to
consider whether to approve the Settlement. At the hearing, the
Court will also consider a request by the lawyers representing all
Settlement Class Members for attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses
for investigating the facts, litigating the case, and negotiating
the Settlement, as well as for a Service Award to the Plaintiff for
its time participating in the case. You may ask to appear at the
hearing, but you do not have to.

Want More Information?

For more information, call toll free at 1-844-905-2994, or visit
www.CaribouIssuingBankSettlement.com. [GN]


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Chavez Seeks to Certify Employees Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL CHAVEZ, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. CHARTER
COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-25
inclusive, Case No. 8:19-cv-01341-JLS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff will move the Court on February 12, 2021, for an order:

   1. certifying that this action is maintainable as a class
      action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3);

   2. certifying the class of persons described as:

      "all current and former California employees of Charter
      who, at any time within 4 years prior to the filing of the
      instant Complaint, were classified as exempt and whose job
      duties involved selling cable, internet and phone services
      to multi-dwelling units and their tenants."

   3. certifying himself as representative of the Plaintiff
      Class and his counsel of record as counsel for the
      Plaintiff Class; and

   4. directing that that Class Members be provided notice via
      first class mail and electronic mail.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 15,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/32N6QR2
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Annette C. Clark, Esq.
          Ryan J. Carlson, Esq.
          CALLAHAN, THOMPSON, SHERMAN & CAUDILL, LLP
          350 Tenth Avenue, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 232-5700
          Facsimile: (619) 539-7350
          E-mail: aclark@ctsclaw.com
                  rcarlson@ctsclaw.com

CHINA: Ruocchio Files Personal Injury Class Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the People's Republic
of China, et al. The case is styled as James Ruocchio, Juhaib
Choudhury, Kevin Anthony Persaud, Michael Hosek, Mark Papadopulous,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
People's Republic of China, Chinese Communist Party, National
Health Commission of the People's Republic of China, Ministry of
Emergency Management of the People's Republic Of China, People's
Government of Hubei Province, People's Government of the City of
Wuhan, China, Wuhan Municipal Health Commission, and Health
Comission of Hubei Province, Case No. 1:20-cv-07053-RA (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 31, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as "P.I.: Other" filed pursuant to
alleged personal injury.

The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Ronnie Abrams.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rocco G. Avallone, Esq.
          AVALLONE & BELLISTRI LLP
          3000 Marcus Avenue, Suite 3E7
          Lake Success, NY 11042
          Telephone: (516) 986-2500
          Facsimile: (516) 986-2501
          E-mail: ravallone@lawyersab.com


CIGNA HEALTH: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Wage Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed a class action complaint alleging that
Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company, failed to provide their
California employees with proper compensation. The Cigna Health and
Life Insurance Company class action lawsuit, Case No. 283609, is
currently pending in the Tulare Superior Court of the State of
California.

According to the lawsuit filed, Cigna Health and Life Insurance
Company allegedly (b) failed to pay minimum wages, (a) failed to
pay overtime wages, (c) failed to properly record and provide
legally required meal and rest periods, (d) failed to provide
accurate itemized wage statements, (e) failed to reimburse
employees for required expenses, and (f) failed to provide wages
when due, all in violation of the applicable Labor Code sections
listed in Labor Code Sections Secs. 201, 202, 203, 226, 226.7, 510,
512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802, and the applicable Wage Order(s),
and thereby gives rise to civil penalties as a result of such
alleged conduct.

Additionally, the complaint further alleges Cigna Health and Life
Insurance Company 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 the correct overtime rate for the overtime worked 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.

If you would like to know more about the Cigna Health and Life
Insurance Company 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.

***THIS IS AN ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT*** [GN]


COLONY CREDIT: Peters Sues Over 78% Decline in Securities Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
TERRENCE PETERS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. COLONY CREDIT REAL ESTATE, INC., F/K/A/ COLONY
NORTHSTAR CREDIT REAL ESTATE, INC., RICHARD B. SALTZMAN, KEVIN P.
TRAENKLE, SUJAN S. PATEL, NEALE W. REDINGTON, CATHERINE D. RICE,
VERNON B. SCHWARTZ, DARREN J. TANGEN, JOHN E. WESTERFIELD, and
WINSTON W. WILSON, Case No. 2:20-cv-08305 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 10,
2020), accuses the Defendants of violating the Securities Act of
1933 by issuing false and misleading statements resulting to the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities.

The lawsuit is a federal securities class action brought on behalf
of persons and/or entities, who purchased or otherwise acquired the
common stock of Colony Credit pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company's alleged false and/or misleading Registration Statement
and Prospectus issued in connection with the merger of Colony
NorthStar, Inc. and NorthStar Real Estate Income Trust, Inc. and
NorthStar Real Estate Income II, Inc. on February 1, 2018.

The Company's common stock was registered with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in connection with the merger. Following the
merger, Colony Credit's common stock was listed on the New York
Stock Exchange without an initial public offering: stockholders of
NorthStar I received 0.3532 shares of the Company's Class A common
stock for each share of NorthStar I common stock they owned; and
stockholders of NorthStar II received 0.3511 shares of the
Company's Class A common stock for each share of NorthStar II
common stock they owned.

According to the complaint, the Registration Statement filed with
the SEC was materially false and misleading, and failed to state:
(i) that the credit quality of certain of the Company's assets had
deteriorated prior to the merger and were continuing to deteriorate
at the time of the merger; (ii) that certain of the Company's
loans, including four loans of approximately $261 million related
to a New York hotel, were substantially impaired, there was
insufficient collateral to secure the loans, and it was unlikely
that the loans would be repaid; (iii) that, as a result, the
valuation attributed to certain of the Company's assets was
overstated; (iv) that certain of the assets contributed as part of
the merger were of substantially lower value than reflected in the
Company's financial statements and the Registration Statement; (v)
that, as a result, the Company's financial condition, including its
book value, was materially overstated; and (vi) that, as a result
of the foregoing, the positive statements in the Registration
Statement about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

As of the date of the filing of this complaint, Colony Credit's
shares last closed at $5.40 per share, representing a more than 78%
decline from the $25 book value per share valued at the time of the
merger.

The Plaintiff acquired Colony Credit common stock in the merger
pursuant to the Registration Statement.

Colony Credit Real Estate, Inc., f/k/a/ Colony Northstar Credit
Real Estate, Inc., is a commercial real estate credit real estate
investment trust that purports to manage a diversified portfolio of
senior mortgage loans, mezzanine loans, preferred equity, debt
securities, and net leased properties predominantly in the
U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 405-7190
          Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com


COMMONWEALTH BANK: Faces Class Action Over CommInsure Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
InsuranceNews.com.au reports that law firm Shine Lawyers says tens
of thousands of customers have joined the latest class action
against Commonwealth Bank (CBA) to seek compensation for
"overpriced insurance policies" allegegedly sold by its financial
planners.

Shine Lawyers, acting on behalf of the plaintiffs, commenced the
legal proceedings in the Federal Court in August. CBA has said it
is reviewing the lawsuit and will provide any update when
appropriate.

The class action is directed at CommInsure and two other CBA-owned
businesses, Commonwealth Financial Planning and Financial Wisdom.
Financial Wisdom has ceased providing licensee services since May
12 and no longer has advisers authorised to provide advice under
its licence.

"We allege the Commonwealth Bank's licensed financial planners
failed to inform their clients they could obtain substantially
similar or better insurance policies with lower premiums from
alternative insurers," Shine Class Actions Practice Leader Craig
Allsopp Allsopp said.

"Instead of putting their clients' best interests first, the
planners were incentivised by commissions and other benefits to
funnel people into expensive CommInsure policies.

"Customers trusted their advisors to make the best decisions for
them but they were let down, and in some cases have lost thousands
of dollars."

Policyholders who bought a CommInsure cover for death, total and
permanent disability, trauma, income or business protection from
the two planning arms are eligible for the class action, Shine
says. [GN]


COOKWARE COMPANY: Sticky Frying Pan Lawsuit Settled
---------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the woman
who complained her as-seen-on-TV frying pan was too sticky has
settled her individual claim rather than continue with her proposed
class action.

The case was crippled earlier this year by a New York federal judge
who dismissed all claims except those on behalf of Florida
residents. It was transferred to Florida federal court in July and
a settlement in principle was revealed Aug. 28. Terms are not
known.

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

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

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

--Breach of express warranty;

--Breach of implied warranty of merchantability;

--Injunctive relief;

--Violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; and

--Unjust enrichment.

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

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

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

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


CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Settles Lawsuit Over Retirement Plan Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Cornell
University settled a class action targeting the fees and investment
options in its retirement plan four weeks before the case was set
for a rare jury trial in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

Cornell and the 28,000-person class of plan participants announced
they'd settled the case's sole remaining claim in the Sept. 1
hearing before Judge P. Kevin Castel. They plan to submit
settlement paperwork by Sept. 21 - one week before the case was
scheduled to go to trial. [GN]


CORNERSTONE SERVICES: Faces Green Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CAMILLE GREEN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CORNERSTONE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00706-MWM
(S.D. Ohio, Sept. 9, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for
its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, including failure to pay overtime
wages.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a customer service
representative at the Defendant's West Chester, Ohio customer
service call center from September 4, 2004, through about February
4, 2019.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to pay for time
spent starting and logging into computer systems, applications and
phone system; for time spent on post-shifts calls, shutting down
computer systems, applications and phone system; and for time spent
working but not logged into computer systems. As a result, the
Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
customer service representatives their lawfully earned overtime
compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay
for all the hours they worked in excess of 40 each workweek.
Moreover, the Defendant also failed to keep accurate records of the
unpaid work performed by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees when not clocked in.

Cornerstone Services, Inc., operates call centers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Smyth Sues Over Deceptive Sale of Optifiber
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Smyth, individually on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Case No.
2:20-cv-04247-JMA-AKT (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 11, 2020), seeks to remedy
the deceptive and misleading business practices of the Defendant
with respect to the marketing and sales of its Optifiber Natural
Prebiotic Fiber Supplement throughout the State of New York and
throughout the country.

The Defendant manufactures, sells, and distributes the Product
using a marketing and advertising campaign centered around claims
that appeal to health-conscious consumers, i.e., that its Product
is "Natural." However, the Plaintiff alleges, the Defendant's
advertising and marketing campaign is false, deceptive, and
misleading because the Product contains wheat dextrin, a
non-natural, synthetic ingredient.

The Plaintiff relied on the Defendant's misrepresentations that the
Product is "Natural" when purchasing the Product. The Plaintiff
paid a premium for the Product based upon its "Natural"
representation. Given that the Plaintiff paid a premium for the
Product based on the Defendant's misrepresentations that it is
"Natural," the Plaintiff says he suffered an injury in the amount
of the premium paid.

The Defendant's conduct violated and continues to violate, inter
alia, New York General Business Law and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act, according to the complaint. The Defendant breached and
continues to breach its warranties regarding the Product. The
Defendant has been and continues to be unjustly enriched.

The Plaintiff purchased the Product during the Class Period.

The Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises and distributes the
Product throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          Joseph Lipari, Esq
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP
          85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
          Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
          Phone: (202) 470-3520
          Fax: (888) 749-7747
          Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          George V. Granade, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Phone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          Email: mreese@reesellp.com
                 ggranade@reesellp.com


COUNT FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Financial Advice
---------------------------------------------------------
Shriya Ramakrishnan, writing for Reuters, reports that Commonwealth
Bank of Australia (CBA) said on Sept. 3 a class action lawsuit had
been filed over commissions paid to its former subsidiary and
advice given by it on financial products including insurance.

The lawsuit was filed by Piper Alderman against Count Financial,
which was a unit of CBA until Oct. 1 last year, when it was
acquired by CountPlus Ltd.

Piper Alderman said the class action stemmed from a
government-ordered inquiry last year that revealed widespread
wrongdoing across Australia's financial sector, including charging
fees to dead people.

CBA has provided an indemnity to CountPlus of A$300 million ($219
million), the country's largest bank said in a statement.

The Sydney-based law firm added the claim filed against Count
Financial alleged it breached its obligation to provide services
where fees were charged and act in the best interest of its
customers when giving personal financial advice, among others.

In August, a lawsuit was also filed over advice given on life
insurance policies issued and recommended by three former
subsidiaries of CBA. [GN]


COUNT FINANCIAL: Piper Alderman Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Elise Kelly at The Market Herald reports that accounting company
CountPlus (CUP) has announced that a class action has been filed
against its subsidiary Count Financial.

The proceedings, which seek financial compensation, were filed in
the Federal Court of Australia by Australian law firm Piper
Alderman.

The class action is related to commissions paid to Count Financial
and its authorised representative financial advisers, as well as
obligations to provide ongoing support.

The parties were paid in respect to financial products and services
(including insurance), and were obliged to provide support from
August 21, 2014 to August 21, 2020.

Count Financial is only a recent addition to the CountPlus family,
after it was acquired from Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) on
October 1, 2019. The company first announced its plans to purchase
the financial advisory business for $2.5 million in June of 2019.

The acquisition was partly the result of Commonwealth Bank
attempting to distance itself from financial advice businesses,
following the Royal Banking Commission. In the aftermath of the
scandal-ridden Commission, CBA looked to offload various
businesses, including Count Financial and Aussie Home Loans.

At the time of the acquisition, CountPlus received an indemnity of
approximately $300 million from Commonwealth Bank Australia. This
protective payment was related to certain conduct which occurred
before and after the acquisition of Count Financial took place.

Under the agreement, CBA also agreed to continue managing customer
remediation related to past issues, once the acquisition was
complete. It is not known if Commonwealth Bank will have any part
in the class action proceedings which will now take place.

At this time, Count Financial is reviewing the claim filed by Piper
Alderman. Its new parent company, CountPlus, will provide updates
on the class action as it unfolds.

CountPlus closed in the grey for 97 cents per share. [GN]


CVS HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Aetna Merger-related Stock Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Aetna
employees who invested in company stock in their 401(k) accounts
got a bad deal when their stock units were converted to allegedly
overvalued CVS Health Corp. stock units in connection with the
companies' 2018 merger, according to a proposed class action filed
in federal court in Connecticut.

Aetna plan participants Tammy Marion and Raymond Radcliffe say they
lost retirement money by investing in CVS stock that was
artificially inflated because of the company's 2015 takeover of
nursing-home pharmacy Omnicare. Aetna shareholders weren't given
full and accurate information about CVS's problems with Omnicare
when they voted to approve the merger. [GN]


DAVANTAGE GROUP: Clyde & Co Discusses Discovery Ruling in Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gareth Horne, Esq. -- gareth.horne@clydeco.com -- and Nicole
Wearne, Esq. -- Nicole.Wearne@clydeco.com -- of Clyde & Co, in an
article for Mondaq, discuss whether an Insurer resist an
application for discovery of a defendant's insurance policy in a
class action? Justice Beach's recent decision clarifies how section
33ZF(1) of the Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth) (the Act) and the
Court's case management powers should be used to determine whether
an applicant in a class action should be granted access to the
respondent's insurance policy.

Justice Beach refused to order disclosure, citing the following
reasons:

  -- the court's protective role under Pt IVA of the Act should
     not be used to create an asymmetric commercial advantage for
     one party;

  -- the defendant having a deficient balance sheet, and the
     question of whether it is worth pursuing a proceeding, is not

     compelling enough to justify the exercise of the power; and

  -- the primary and excess insurer had denied coverage so access
to
     the insurance policies would be of limited benefit.

The decision provides useful guidance on when a court may order
disclosure of insurance documents in a class action.

Facts

Davantage Group sold extended warranties on second-hand vehicles to
Mr Evans and approximately 27,000 individuals. It is alleged that
the warranties gave Davantage absolute discretion to reject
customer warranty claims. In preliminary proceedings, the Federal
Court found that the warranties were illusory contractual promises
and were therefore invalid.

This decision concerned an application for discovery of all
relevant insurance policies of Davantage and its parent company as
well as all communication regarding the insurer's position on
indemnity. The plaintiff's lawyers wanted these documents as
Davantage did not appear to have the financial capacity to
withstand the likely judgement in this case, estimated to be over
$47.6 million. The value of insurance and whether it covered the
losses claimed was submitted as a relevant factor in assessing the
reasonableness of any settlement offer made by Davantage. The
primary insurer had originally admitted the policy responded to
certain losses but had withdrawn its provisional grant of
indemnity. The excess layer insurers (represented by Clyde & Co
partner Nicole Wearne) had denied indemnity.

The applicant argued that the documents should be disclosed to
assist with:

   -- determining the viability of the claim as the respondent
      may not be able to meet the judgment amount;

   -- informing mediation and litigation strategy;

   -- determining if the insurer should be joined to the
      proceedings;

   -- informing themselves if it was appropriate to settle, and
      if so, for what amount; and

   -- the approval of any settlement by the court.

In making these arguments, the Applicant relied upon Thorn 1 as
authority that section 33ZF of the Act empowered the court to make
the orders sought even if the documents were not relevant to the
facts in issue. Thorn was a class action against Radio Rentals for
unconscionable conduct. The applicant sought production of the
insurance documents of Thorn's former CEO. In Thorn, the insurer
was a party to the proceedings and it opposed production requesting
that the notice be set aside as the documents were not relevant to
any facts in issue. In that case the director of Thorn had
foreshadowed an application to file a cross-claim against the
insurer for indemnity. Justice Gleeson ordered the insurance
documents to be produced, despite the advantage this gave the
applicant, it was necessary to ensure that justice was done in the
proceeding. In Thorn the insurer did not resist production on the
basis that production for mediation was not a legitimate purpose
and it had conceded there was an arguable case against it for
indemnity.

Decision and Analysis

Justice Beach determined that the insurance documents were not
relevant to the determination of any facts in issue and that none
of the traditional exceptions, such as insolvency applied.

The High Court's reasoning in Brewster 2 was relied upon to rebut
the Thorn authority. Brewster was decided after Thorn and provides
authority that section 33ZF of the Act cannot be used to provide a
wider scope of power than the other provisions in the Act, and the
conventional position at law. Rather, the section's purpose is to
support any procedural orders that are necessary. Further, it was
emphasised that the powers of the court should be used to create a
just outcome for all parties. Justice Beach found that s33ZF(1)
cannot be used to empower the court to order disclosure of
insurance documents.

Justice Beach also held that modern case management practices did
not provide him with a source for the power to order production of
the insurance policies. He rejected the suggestion that the
applicant might join the insurers to the proceeding utilising
section 4 and 5 of the Civil Liability (Third Party Claims Against
Insurers) Act, noting that the Federal Court was exercising
Victorian jurisdiction and there was real doubt that the NSW Act
applied.

Importantly the judge noted the applicant is a stranger to the
policies. Davantage retained lawyers capable of advising it on its
rights and prospects of challenging the denial of indemnity by the
insurers. The question of availability of insurance was likely to
be ventilated between the parties to the contracts. If the
applicant required access to the policies to determine whether to
bring proceedings against the insurers, the appropriate mechanism
was preliminary discovery.

Justice Beach found that while the insurance documents may assist
in mediation or litigation strategy, it was not a compelling enough
reason to justify providing such a powerful commercial advantage to
one party3. Access to the insurance documents was not necessary for
the approval of a settlement, and if it was necessary, they could
be accessed confidentially through the court's procedures,
including by the court on its own motion.

In addition to Davantage and Thorn, the Queensland Supreme Court in
Mallonland 4 has also considered the issue of whether insurance
documents can be subpoenaed in a class action. Justice Mullins
ultimately distinguished Thorn ordering that the insurance
documents should not be disclosed as the defendant had a secure
financial position. In Davantage the applicant unsuccessfully
sought to distinguish Mallonland on the basis that Davantage's
financial position was not secure.

Three recent superior Court decisions in three jurisdictions have
considered the discovery of the defendant's insurance documents.
The decisions show conflicting reasoning as to whether the
commercial advantage gained through having access to the
defendant's insurance documents should be bestowed on an applicant.
Two of the cases were decided before the High Court's determination
of the extent of the Court's case management power under s33ZF(1).
The High Court's statement Brewster, that the power in s33ZF(1) is
supplementary and should not be given a broad mandate, is likely to
assist insurers in resisting similar applications. Without
immediate appellate authority specifically addressing the issue of
disclosure of insurance documents there remains some controversy.

Key Takeaways

The ruling is a win for insurers. However, it does not completely
lay the controversy to rest.

If you as an Insurer are subpoenaed to produce insurance documents
(including correspondence) you may be able to resist the subpoena
if the case does not fit the 'traditional' circumstances where
insurance documents are discoverable. These 'traditional'
circumstances are:

   -- the respondent is insolvent;
   -- the insurer is joined to the proceeding; or
   -- the applicant is a shareholder and utilises
      their rights under section 274A of the Corporations
      Act.

An applicant will not be granted access to insurance documents
simply because having access to the documents:

   -- can inform mediation or litigation strategy;
   -- will help determine if the insurer should be joined to the
      proceeding; or
   -- will assist in determining if pursuing a claim or settlement
      is viable.

The court's case management functions will not be used to create an
asymmetrical commercial advantage.

The ruling does not mean that insurance documents cannot be
obtained outside of 'traditional circumstances', only that it is
unlikely that they can be obtained by subpoena or discovery
obligations of an insured party. Justice Beach confirmed that the
proper way to obtain insurance documents would be through
preliminary discovery. Such applications may not provide
significant relief to plaintiff lawyers and litigation funders, as
Justice Beach also cautioned that an application for preliminary
discovery against insurers in these circumstances would need to
overcome several legal and practical issues and would likely face
significant difficulty. [GN]


DELOITTE: Faces Discrimination Class Action Over Leave Policy
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Bramwell, writing for Going Concern, reports that lawsuits
against the Big 4 firms are a dime a dozen, but discrimination
lawsuits make the most headlines. Like the two older CPAs who sued
PwC for age discrimination (and WON!) and gender discrimination
lawsuits against KPMG and EY, which either didn't go or hasn't gone
according to plan for the plaintiffs. Now it's Deloitte's turn to
jump on the discrimination lawsuit merry-go-round.

Saxon Knight, a former solutions manager at Deloitte, filed a
proposed class-action lawsuit in Manhattan federal court on Sept.
1., alleging that Deloitte pushed her out of her job once she
returned from six months of maternity leave - even though Knight
claims she was told she would be reinstated to her role once she
came back to work - and then firing her after she complained.

Deloitte's website says its paid family leave program "gives our
eligible professionals up to 16 weeks of paid leave, which can be
used for happy occasions - to bond with family after the arrival of
a child - or for challenging ones, like the illness or incapacity
of a spouse, partner, sibling, parent, or grandparent. It's
gender-neutral - fathers, sons, husbands, and brothers can take the
leave, relieving some of the often seen cultural pressure on women
to be the default caregiver. And it's flexible. The time can be
taken all at once or in increments as the need requires."

That paid family leave program is one of the reasons why Big D is
included annually on the 100 best companies for working moms and
dads. But according to the complaint, the firm actually enforces a
policy that "any individual who actually takes the 16 weeks of
leave offered to them by Deloitte loses the right to actually
return to their prior position—or to any job at Deloitte at
all."

"While Deloitte purports to provide generous family leave to new
mothers, the class-action complaint makes clear that its
'generosity' is all smoke and mirrors," Knight's attorney, Michael
Willemin of Wigdor LLP, told Going Concern in a statement. "When
women actually take full advantage of the leave provided by
Deloitte, they actually give up important rights to return to their
position—or at least to a similar position. What's worse,
Deloitte does not even tell women that they will be giving up the
right to return to their position if they take full advantage of
the leave offered. This is not something that Deloitte should be
lauded for, and we and Ms. Knight are committed to achieving
vindication for all women who have been impacted by this policy,
which plainly has a disparate impact on women."

As Law360 reported, when Knight raised discrimination concerns, she
was told the company would only hold her job for 12 of those weeks,
as required under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.

The complaint states:

Ms. Knight took more than 12 weeks of parental leave pursuant to
Deloitte's parental leave policies. At no point in time was Ms.
Knight notified that she would be penalized for taking leave as
allowed for by Deloitte, nor was she told that she would be losing
any rights in the event that she did not return to work within 12
weeks. If Ms. Knight had been informed that she would be losing
rights in the event that she did not return to work within 12
weeks, she would have returned to work within 12 weeks, as she was
ready, willing and able to do so.

According to the complaint, Knight went into labor with her second
child on May 30, 2019, and began her maternity leave at that point.
She took about six months of maternity leave, returning to work on
Dec. 4. She claims that prior to returning, no one at Deloitte,
including her direct supervisor Kent Cinquegrana, suggested that
she wouldn't be able to jump right back into her job as solutions
manager for Fusion Managed Services, which is Deloitte Advisory's
cyber threat detection and response unit.

The complaint states:

[W]hen Ms. Knight returned, it quickly became clear that she would
not only not be reintegrated into her prior role but also that
Deloitte had no plans whatsoever for her.

Upon her return from leave, Ms. Knight made multiple efforts to
discuss her role and next steps with Mr. Cinquegrana, all of which
went ignored.

When she finally was able to reach him, Mr. Cinquegrana spoke in
circles, failed to clarify whether Ms. Knight would be returning to
her role and could not even assure Ms. Knight that there was any
place for her at Deloitte. To the contrary – he told her, "you
are swimming around looking for work, and you need to find the
shore and start work. You are not safe in your job unless you do."

Going Concern contacted Cinquegrana for comment via LinkedIn.

The complaint goes on to say that it became apparent Deloitte had
permanently replaced Knight as solutions manager with the person
who filled in for her while she was on maternity leave:

In a months-long attempt to identify a role and corresponding
meaningful work activities, from December 2019 through May 2020,
Ms. Knight had dozens of conversations to try to clarify her role
and/or find work at Deloitte.

Ms. Knight repeatedly offered her services and support and inquired
about work and potential roles in both the Commercial and Federal
("GPS") spaces.

Despite Ms. Knight's exceptional qualifications, experience and
performance, her offers to help were almost universally turned
down.

Knight eventually was assigned to two projects within GPS. However,
she was only allowed to bill these clients for a total of five to
10 hours per week, according to the suit:

The only other work assigned to Ms. Knight was administrative in
nature; e.g., updating slides, editing outlines for debriefs,
asking the Fusion Managed Services Threat Intelligence team to
create reports for several client calls, finding PowerPoint decks
and other written materials, etc.

This work, of course, was not commensurate with Ms. Knight's skills
and experiences. It was demeaning and served no career development
purpose whatsoever.

On May 13, 2020, Ms. Knight spoke via Skype with Lead Employee
Relations Specialist Donna Rosario. During this Skype call, Ms.
Knight laid out all of the foregoing and explicitly stated that she
believed that the foregoing was a result of her pregnancy and
related leave.

At the end of the call, rather than expressing sympathy, Ms.
Rosario inappropriately demanded to know what Ms. Knight was
"looking to get out of this." Ms. Knight, who was simply trying to
have the aforementioned issues resolved, explained that she "just
want[ed] to find work," feel secure and have a lasting career at
Deloitte.

Unfortunately, as a result of her pregnancy and leave, as well as
her protected complaints, her career at Deloitte was about to end.

On June 12, 2020, Ms. Rosario informed Ms. Knight that she had
"investigated" her concerns and determined that Deloitte had
complied with its legal obligations. Ms. Rosario further informed
Ms. Knight that she had "closed" the case. Ms. Rosario stated that
Deloitte had fulfilled its obligations by giving her a paycheck and
a title. When Ms. Knight asked if not returning to having a role,
or any meaningful work was also an obligation of Deloitte, Ms.
Rosario said it was not.

On July 8, Knight was fired over Zoom and told that her termination
was related to COVID-19 and not performance-related. Her last day
was July 9.

Knight was also told by an employee relations specialist that
"there was no requirement for Deloitte to return Ms. Knight to her
prior role because the FMLA only provides for 12 weeks of leave,
and Deloitte permits six months. [It was] intimated to
Ms. Knight that her role might have been better protected had she
returned from leave after the 12 weeks of FMLA leave, instead of
taking the additional time offered by Deloitte," the suit states.

Knight is suing Deloitte for violations of FMLA and the New York
State Human Rights Law, including retaliation, gender
discrimination, and pregnancy discrimination. Estimating that the
proposed class includes thousands of women, she asked for an
injunction, damages, and a jury trial, among other demands, Law360
reported.

Going Concern has reached out to Deloitte for comment. [GN]


DEUTSCHE BANK: Portnoy Law Reminds of Class Action Filing
---------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft
("Deutsche Bank" or the "Company") (NYSE: DB) investors that
acquired securities between November 7, 2017 and July 6, 2020 (the,
"Class Period"). Investors have until September 14, 2020 to seek an
active role in this litigation.

Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case.

According to the complaint filed in this lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Deutsche Bank had failed to
remediate deficiencies related to its anti-money laundering (AML)
compliance, its disclosure controls, procedures, and internal
control over financial reporting, and its U.S. operations' troubled
condition; (2) as a result, the Bank failed to properly monitor
customers that the Bank itself deemed to be high risk, including,
among others, the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and two
correspondent banks, Danske Estonia and FBME Bank, which were both
the subjects of prior scandals involving financial misconduct; (3)
the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a
material negative impact on the Bank's financial results and
reputation; and (4) as a result, the Bank's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.

The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has
recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]


DOE MEDICAL: Court Dismisses Bedford's Motion to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as FRANKLIN M. BEDFORD, v. DOE
MEDICAL CONTRACTOR, et al., Case No. 6:20-cv-00009-JRH-CLR (S.D.
Ga.), the Hon. Judge J. Randall Hall entered an order:

  1. dismissing the motion to certify class; and

  2. declaring as moot the motion for injunctive relief.

The Court said, "Rather than addressing the defects identified by
the Magistrate Judge, the plaintiff has again reasserted that he is
proceeding as a class representative, despite being informed that
this is not available to him. To the extent the plaintiff objects
to the Report and Recommendation for failing to screen his amended
class action complaint and recommending the dismissal of his motion
to certify a class, he has done nothing to alleviate this error and
the Court sees no reason to overturn the Magistrate Judge's
recommendation. If the plaintiff desires to continue with his case,
he is directed to file an amended complaint in compliance with the
Magistrate Judge's order within 30 days from the date of this
Order. Failure to do so will result in dismissal."

A copy of the Court's Order dated Sept. 17, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ZUw6Dh at no extra charge.[CC]

DOWNEY RESTAURANT: Gutierrez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Fines
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Gutierrez and Koji Sakugawa, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. DOWNEY RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., and
BUENA PARK RESTAURANT GROUP INC., California corporations, doing
business as GAUCHO GRILL, and DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:20-cv-08370
(C.D. Cal., Sept. 11, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid wages, and
penalties under the California Labor Code and the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants violated of the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act,
California's Labor Code, and California Industrial Welfare
Commission by: failing to pay its employees premium wages for
missed meal periods; failing to pay its employees premium wages for
missed rest periods; failing to pay its employees minimum wage as
required by California law for every hour worked; Failing to
maintain accurate employment records for its employees in
California; and failing to pay its employees amounts owed at the
end of employment, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are former servers for "Gaucho Grill" in
California.

DOWNEY RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., owns and operates Gaucho Grill, and
does business as "Gaucho Grill" in Downey, California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anthony J. Nunes, Esq.
          NUNES WORKER RIGHTS LAW, APC
          15260 Ventura Blvd, Suite 1200
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Phone: 530-848-1515
          Fax: 424-252-4301
          Email: tony@nunesworkerrightslaw.com


DPD: Driver Fired for Having Depression Joins Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Harriet Johnston, writing Mailonline, reports that s driver who
claims he was fired for having depression has joined a class action
against DPD with the widow of a man who died after missing hospital
appointments to escape GBP150 fine from the courier firm.

Alistair Mcleary, from Glasgow, developed depression after
witnessing a bin lorry crash into pedestrians in 2014, killing six
people and injuring 15, and believes DPD dismissed him because of
his mental illness.

Meanwhile, Ruth Lane, from Bournemouth, was left devastated when
her diabetic husband Don died in 2018 after missing three hospital
appointments for fear of being fined GBP150 by DPD.

The duo are among a group of 76 former drivers who are taking the
company to court to fight for employment rights, with Ruth telling
the BBC: "I don't want anyone to go through what I went through and
it didn't need to happen."

Alistair said his action is "about making DPD admit they were
wrong", adding: "DPD doesn't care about humans, they only care
about the GBP1.99 parcel from Amazon, that must be delivered. They
don't care about the consequences."

He explained: "Being a courier driver is not for everyone you've
got to have a mentality because it is very, very stressful."

In 2013, after 15 years of employment with DPD, Alistair claimed he
was misled and told he would be better off self-employed.

He said: "I gave up service with DPD because I thought I was
getting a better life. I wasn't. But I couldn't just walk away when
I had a mortgage, a car to pay and my wife had just become
disabled."

Most DPD drivers are on self-employed franchise contracts, which
don't come with any benefits. There are two other types of
contracts -- worker and employee.

DPD strongly refute many of the claims and now offer a new type of
contract with more rights, but say most drivers choose the
self-employed franchise contracts.

The company strongly refutes that Alistair was misled and say
anyone who wishes to change contracts is given details of the
differences between contracts.

Things got really bad for the driver when he witnessed a terrible
accident after a bin lorry crashed into a group of pedestrians in
the centre of Glasgow.

He said: "I don't know how long I was there. I managed to phone the
depot, crying, asking for help. They said it's not their problem."

His wife Carolyn said: "I can't describe the state he was in and
how angry I felt that he had been left to make his own way, drive
that van out of Glasgow back to that depot.

"When you can clearly see the state that he is in but that was fine
as long as they got their van back or any parcels that were in it
that had to go back to the depot."

Alistair explained: "I won't be the first and I won't be the
last."

DPD strongly refute Alistair's claims. They paid for Mr Mcleary to
receive 10 counselling sessions after the bin lorry disaster.

Alistair was signed off work with depression. He was dismissed
shortly afterwards and he believes this was because of his medical
condition.

Alistair has an ongoing claim for unfair dismissal and disability
discrimination against DPD.

DPD deny that Alistair was unfairly dismissed. They said his
franchise contract with DPD was ended following an assault on
another individual at the DPD depot.

Alistair claims that wasn't the reason for his dismissal.

He said: 'Their attitude is, "You are self employed, we don't have
a duty". But they do.

"I wore their uniform, I drove their van. I used their equipment. I
delivered their parcels. So I work for them, I don't work for
myself, I work for them."

Meanwhile Ruth said she wanted to get involved with the case
because: "I can't seem to live without him and I think he deserves
to be fought for."

Her husband Don worked as a DPD driver for over 20 years with Ruth
saying: 'He was a good courier, he was really good.

"I would call him old school. He was the one with the road maps, he
used to get. Very very proud of him."

She said: "Constantly driving, no breaks, timed deliveries, even
before he delivered his first parcel he was working, loading up the
van unpaid. They don't get paid until their first delivery.

"Don was diabetic, he was on insulin and it was so important that
he eat and rested and went to the toilet."

She continued: "In the July, he had an appointment. He even worked
on the Sunday so that he could have that day off because there's no
way that you can drive because they put really strong drops in your
eyes."

At the time, DPD charged their franchise drivers GBP150 per day
when they were unable to work if they didn't provide a substitute
driver.

The GBP150 fine applied to hospital appointments, sick days and
holiday requests which were outside of the two weeks permitted per
year.

Ruth explained: "He's had many fines but this one in particular, I
checked it and looked at the date and I said, "Oh my god, that's
when you went to your hospital appointment for your eyes."

She went on to say that Don missed three subsequent hospital
appointments for his diabetes following this fine, for fear of
being charged GBP150.

She said: "He drove their van, wore their uniform, with their logo
on. He's not self employed."

Calculating Don's take home pay, Ruth said: "So the total that
would be deducted every four weeks plus VAST would be GBP1560 so he
had to earn that much first before he started earning.
Extortionate."

Ruth is representing Don in the class action employment tribunal
case against DPD, along with 76 other drivers who are all fighting
for worker status.

DPD said that the fine was a mistake for which they are profoundly
sorry.

They say they were supporting Don with his medical condition and
that his manager told him that he shouldn't be worried about taking
time off for medical appointments.

They also say they worked with Don for a number of years in
relation to his health and he operated a shorter route close to his
home so that he could attend hospital appointments.     

In the run up to Christmas 2017, Don's health started to
deteriorate with Ruth explaining: "December 30th, we had a lovely
Christmas. He was workign six days leading up and he looked really
really pale.

"And then of course I get home that night and I say, "Are you
feeling a bit better?" And he goes, "I was sick later. There was
blood."'

"I mean do you know that poor soul, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, he
was delivering 80 parcels. He was feeling lousy. Poor poor soul, he
must have been so desperate mustn't he?"

She continued: 'So when the Saturday came, and he had the day off,
I was still going to be working that night.

"I thought: "Let him rest." Because I had the flu, I didn't want to
make him poorly so I said, "Oh I won't kiss you. . ."

"So I just remember kissing him on his head, which I'll regret for
the rest of my life because that was the last time I got to kiss
him."

"Don's one of those people. He's just one in a million really, you
know."

Following Don's death in 2018, DPD scrapped the GBP150 fines.

They told the BBC that the old breach system for owner drivers was
replaced by a clear and consistent points-based service failure
system which measures contract performance. [GN]


EARNIN: Settles Overdraft Fee Class Action for $12.5 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Mundy, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that a
proposed settlement by Earnin, an app-based pay advance service,
would theoretically pay up to $12.5 million to consumers who claim
they were misled by Earnin and were charged bank fees they weren't
aware of before signing on with the service.

EARNIN LAWSUITS

Unfortunately, Earnin users can wind up incurring hefty bank
charges because Earnin's service links to their bank account.
Plaintiffs claim that Earnin falsely assures they will not incur
such charges. As for privacy, forget it!

In September 2019, plaintiffs Mary Perks and Stanley Alexander
filed a lawsuit against Activehours -- the company that developed
Earnin. They argued that the company failed to explain to
prospective users how they could get charged with overdraft fees or
insufficient funds fees.

According to their class action lawsuit filed in the US District
Court Northern District of California, thousands of customers were
"deceived into signing up for Earnin's app-based payday loan
services -- and paying "tips" to Earnin for such loans -- by the
company's misrepresentations and omissions, in marketing materials,
regarding the true operation and risks of the service. These risks
include the real and repeated risk of multiple insufficient funds
fees or overdraft fees imposed by banks as a result of automated
Earnin transfers from consumers' checking accounts."

The lawsuit describes how this can happen in the following
scenario:

A young adult lives paycheck to paycheck and struggles to make ends
meet between pay periods. To pay her bills on time, she uses a
service that advances $50 from her next paycheck, which the service
will withdraw when her paycheck is deposited later that week. She
pays a $5 "tip" for the service. A few days later, the young
adult's paycheck is deposited and the service withdraws the $50
plus the $5 "tip" from her account, even though it knows that her
account has insufficient funds to cover the deduction and the
account will incur a fee. Consequently, the young adult's bank
charges her account a $35 overdraft fee. Ultimately, the young
adult paid $40—the $35 bank fee plus the $5 "tip" -- to access
$50 of her earnings a few days early.

Another lawsuit was filed in November 2019. Jared Stark claimed the
company tried to evade state and federal lending laws "through a
linguistic trick" — meaning the cost of its advances were framed
not as fees or interest but as "tips."

"Semantics aside, Earnin is in the business of loaning money," user
Jared Stark claimed in his lawsuit. "The Earnin app is set to
demand from users a default 'tip,' but that tip usually equates to
a very high interest annual percentage rate." Stark agreed to
voluntarily dismiss his own suit due to this proposed class action
settlement.

WHAT IS EARNIN?

This 'service' is like a payday loan company, which allows
consumers to borrow cash before their actual payday. You provide
Earnin with your bank information and Earnin takes money directly
from your account. Earnin is likely used by people who live
paycheck to paycheck and it encourages borrowing ($100 at a time
and maximum $500 per pay period) before getting paid by your
employer.

This is how Earnin markets itself:

"Earnin has become one of the largest app-based payday lending
services.

MAGIC? ALMOST.

See how the Earnin app sends money straight to your bank account,
without having to get your boss involved.

Share details about where you bank.

Tell us where you work.

Earnin uses your location to note how long you're at work.

When you tap Cash Out, Earnin sends your earnings straight to your
bank account. Your job pays you as usual, and Earnin deducts the
amount you cashed out."

No doubt Earnin has become popular during the pandemic as more and
more people have lost their job -- although you need to be employed
and a work address is required, Earnin isn't necessarily calling
your employer to confirm that you still have a job. Further, you
are ineligible if you work from home or remotely online.

Rather than charging fees or interest, Earnin makes money from its
customers by "tips".

According to Law360, Earnin is just one of many companies under
investigation by state regulators in New York and elsewhere for
potential violations of state interest rate caps, licensing
requirements and other lending laws. The multistate investigation
(announced in August 2019) targets the "payroll advance industry,"
as described by New York's Department of Financial Services. It
said some companies seem to be collecting illegally high interest
rates styled as tips, membership fees or other charges and may be
forcing "improper overdraft charges on vulnerable low-income
consumers."

Plaintiffs shouldn't "count their chickens before they're
hatched".

We say "theoretical' settlement because Earnin users added that one
of the risks they would face at trial is that "even if plaintiffs
were to prevail on their claims, Earnin may not be able to pay the
resulting judgment" because of "the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on
Earnin's business model -- an impact that remains ongoing for the
foreseeable future." [GN]


EMBLEMHEALTH INC: Retired High-Ranking Execs Seek Class Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that retired
high-ranking executives of EmblemHealth Inc. who challenge the
company's attempt to move them from employer-paid health insurance
to subsidized health reimbursement accounts asked a federal judge
in Manhattan to certify their lawsuit as a class action.

The motion, filed on Sept. 1 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, seeks to certify a class of at least
33 retired executives who say this change in health benefits
violated the terms of their separation and employment agreements.
[GN]


EPIC GAMES: Can't Dodge Class Action Over Claims
------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News reports that a federal judge
resuscitated a class action alleging Fortnite developer Epic Games
lures kids into making impulsive in-app buys that they later regret
but cannot retract.

A California boy learned this hard lesson after opening a Fortnite
account in 2018. The minor, identified as C.W., used Fortnite's
virtual currency "V-bucks" to buy some nonrefundable items he
claims he didn't know at the time were nonrefundable, like a
"Battle Pass" that allows players access to new weapons, character
skins and in-game dances and taunts called emotes.

His mother Rebecca White filed a class action against Epic Games in
2019 on his behalf, saying the company, which made $2.4 billion in
profit in 2018, violates California law by exploiting children's
ignorance about the relationship of in-game currency to actual
money.

C.W.'s original lawsuit says he used gift cards to purchase the
items, but the amended complaint adds that he also used his
mother's credit card.

Though she tossed much of the case in January, U.S. District Judge
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers kept alive one claim that under California
law, C.W. has a right as a minor to deny responsibility for a
contract. In her latest order, Gonzalez Rogers said she found no
reason to reconsider.

C.W. argued in his amended complaint that Epic Games hides its
non-refundability policy by displaying it in very small font. For
Gonzalez Rogers, that was enough to advance a claim for negligent
misrepresentation, as C.W. says he was misled by the confusing way
the policy was presented.

"In sum, instead of simply stating that no notice was given, which
was contradicted by one of the screenshots in in the initial
complaint, plaintiffs now allege in greater detail that the manner
in which defendant made or failed to make representations about
refundability was confusing, inconspicuous, inadequate, and
designed to induce frequent in-App purchases, which it did by
virtue of C.W.'s age, the nature of the Fortnite ecosystem, and the
lack of parental controls," she wrote.

"Taking plaintiffs' allegations as true, they suffice to state a
claim that defendant made material misrepresentations or omissions
on which C.W. justifiably relied to his own detriment."

Gonzalez Rogers also found these allegations sufficient to show
unfair and fraudulent conduct, writing, "Here, given the court's
holding on the negligent misrepresentation claim, and in
particular, plaintiffs' amended allegations regarding the manner in
which defendant allegedly lures minors to spend large amounts of
money on in-App purchases without parental consent, the court finds
plaintiffs state a plausible claim that defendant's conduct is
immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially
injurious to consumers."

As in her prior order, Gonzalez Rogers dismissed, this time with
prejudice, C.W.'s claims for unjust enrichment and violation of the
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, finding Epic Games not
legally required to disclose the terms of its refunds.

"Indeed, the FAC alleges that defendant allows for free downloads
of Fortnite, and thus, even if it tries to lure minors into
spending large sums within the game, at least some Fortnite players
are not concerned with the refundability terms at all," she wrote.

Attorneys for both parties did not immediately respond to emails
seeking comment. [GN]


EPISCOPAL HEALTH: Fails to Protect Sensitive Info, Dumay Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorrell Dumay, Dian Dumay, and Jodi Wolfson, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated persons v. EPISCOPAL HEALTH
SERVICES INC., Case No. 715629/2020 (N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty., Sept.
11, 2020), is brought against the Defendant as a result of its
failure to safeguard and protect the confidential information of
the Plaintiffs in its custody, control, and care, including
financial information, medical information, and other personal
information, and other protected health information as defined by
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.

As a condition to St. John's Episcopal Hospital providing that
medical treatment, the Plaintiffs were required to and did supply
certain items of Sensitive Information to the Defendant--including
to their respective social security numbers, dates of birth,
financial information, and other information.

Unbeknownst to the Plaintiffs, the Defendant did not have
sufficient cyber-security procedures and policies in place to
safeguard the Sensitive Information that Plaintiffs provided to the
Defendant, according to the complaint. As a result, one or more of
the Defendant's employees email accounts were subject to
unauthorized access,--or "hacked"--between August 28, 2018, and
October 5, 2018 (the "Data Breach"). The Plaintiffs and members of
the proposed Class suffered damages as a result of the unauthorized
disclosure of their Sensitive Information.

The Plaintiffs were each patients at St. John's Episcopal
Hospital.

The Defendant owns, operates, and controls St. John's, located in
Far Rockaway, New York, and approximately ten satellite locations
all within Queens or Nassau Counties.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq.
          Todd S. Garber, Esq.
          John Sardesai-Grant, Esq.
          Andrew White, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          445 Hamilton Ave, Suite 605
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Phone: (914) 298-3281
          Facsimile: (914) 824-1561
          Email: jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com
                 tgarber@lawampm.com
                 jsardesaigrant@fbfglaw.com
                 awhite@fbfglaw.com

               - and -

          Paul M. Sod, Esq.
          337R Central Avenue
          Lawrence, NY 11559
          Phone: (516) 295-0707
          Email: paulmsod@gmail.com


ERII SHAREHOLDERS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 21 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Energy Recovery, Inc.
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the
deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the
case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost or
obligation to you.

ERII Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/energy-recovery-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=9068&wire=1

Energy Recovery, Inc. (NASDAQ: ERII)
ERII Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased August 2, 2017 -
June 29, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : September 21, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/energy-recovery-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=9068&wire=1

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

You have until the lead plaintiff deadline 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]

EXPERIAN INFORMATION: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed in Mader FCRA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Michael Mader filed an appeal from the District Court's
Opinion and Order dated July 24, 2020, Judgment dated July 27,
2020, and Order dated September 3, 2020, issued in his lawsuit
entitled Mader v. Experian Information Solutions, Case No.
19-cv-3787, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 17,
2020, Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part
the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Mr. Mader commenced the putative class action against Defendant
Experian. The Complaint alleges that, by failing to use reasonable
procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy of his credit
report, the Defendant negligently and willfully violated the
Federal Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and New York's credit
reporting law.

In March 2008, the Plaintiff incurred a loan from Sallie Mae, a
government-sponsored loan issuer, to attend, and pay expenses while
attending, the Reformed Theological Seminary.  The loan was
assigned to Navient. In December 2012, Plaintiff filed for personal
bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District
of New York.

On April 16, 2013, the bankruptcy court entered an order
discharging all of the Plaintiff's pre-petition debt. Navient and
the Defendant both received notice of the Discharge Order.

The Defendant's reporting practice has injured the Plaintiff by
decreasing his credit score, and harming his reputation as someone
who can manage his finances. At least eight potential creditors
have reviewed the Plaintiff's credit report and been wrongly
informed that the Plaintiff is currently in default of the Navient
Loan.

The Defendant moves to dismiss the Complaint.

Judge Schofield opines that the Complaint sufficiently states
claims for the Defendant's negligent violation of the FCRA and New
York's credit reporting law, but fails to state claims for the
Defendant's willful violation of these laws, which the Complaint
asserts as separate causes of action.  The Court finds that (i) the
Complaint sufficiently pleads that the Defendant prepared the
Plaintiff's credit report with an inaccuracy; (ii) the Complaint
sufficiently pleads that the Defendant negligently failed to follow
reasonable procedures to ensure the accuracy of its credit report
about the Plaintiff; and (iii) the Complaint sufficiently pleads
that the inaccurately reported Navient Loan caused the Plaintiff
actual damages.

For these reasons, Judge Schofiled granted in part and denied in
part the Defendants' motion to dismiss.  Counts I and III (the
Federal and state negligence claims) survive dismissal. Counts II
and IV (the Federal and state willfulness claims) are dismissed.

The appellate case is captioned as Mader v. Experian Information
Solutions, Case No. 20-3073, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Michael Mader, and all others similarly
situated, is represented by:

          Adam R. Shaw, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
          30 South Pearl Street
          Albany, NY 12207
          Telephone: (518) 434-0600
          E-mail: ashaw@bsfllp.com

Defendants-Appellees Experian Information Solutions, Inc. and
Experian Information Solutions, LLC are represented by:

          Kerianne Tobitsch, Esq.
          CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP
          80 Pine Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 326-8321


FACEBOOK INC: Court Okays Enhanced BIPA Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Oberly, writing for The Daily Swig, reports that in 2015,
Facebook was hit with a class action lawsuit alleging that the
social media giant's 'Tag Suggestions' feature -- which identifies
individuals in images using facial recognition software -- ran
afoul of Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).

After the suit was filed, Facebook moved to have the case
dismissed, claiming that although there may have been mere
technical violations of the law, the plaintiffs did not suffer any
type of injury or harm stemming from the use of the company's
facial recognition software -- meaning they had no standing under
Article III of the act.

After its motion to dismiss was denied, Facebook appealed to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, it fared no better before
the appellate court, which held that the plaintiffs had asserted a
"concrete and particularized" injury that satisfied the
requirements for Article III standing.

This ruling that any violation of BIPA's requirements amounts to a
violation of a plaintiff's substantive privacy rights significantly
expanded the ability of complainants to pursue claims for mere
technical violations of the law.

And for Facebook in particular, this significant setback left the
social media titan in a precarious and vulnerable position in terms
of how to move forward with defending the class litigation.

Reaching a deal

In late January 2020, Facebook agreed to a $550 million settlement
to end the longstanding biometric privacy dispute. But that was not
enough for the federal district court judge overseeing the
litigation, who refused to approve the settlement.

This prompted Facebook to increase its offer to $650 million, while
at the same time also agreeing to implement remedial measures that
would strengthen the privacy rights and protections of its users.

Just recently, the judge approved this enhanced settlement due to
the increased offering and Facebook's apparent willingness to
improve its privacy practices.

Clause and effect

Since the Illinois ruling that plaintiffs can pursue claims even
where no actual harm or damage is sustained, class action
litigation pursued under BIPA has proliferated.

Combined with the high statutory damages figures made available
under the law -- ranging between $1,000 and $5,000 "for each
violation" of the statute -- BIPA is quickly becoming the next
privacy class action battleground in the US as attorneys look to
cash in on quick paydays that require minimal work.

The staggering figure that Facebook was willing to pay to extricate
itself from the BIPA litigation will only give attorneys more
motivation to pursue BIPA class action litigation.

Thus, although BIPA suits have been filed at a high volume for some
time, the number of BIPA and related biometric privacy class action
suits may increase as we head into 2021.

Takeaways

Although the size of the Facebook settlement is by no means
indicative of typical settlements in BIPA cases, the plaintiff's
lawyers will almost certainly use it as a measuring stick by which
to value other BIPA disputes.

This will likely cause settlement values to spike, at least for the
foreseeable future, further underscoring the need for companies to
maintain comprehensive, flexible biometric privacy compliance
programs to minimize potential liability exposure.

Finally, the eye-catching settlement figure may also drive an
acceleration in new biometric privacy legislation across the US as
a whole.

At present, only Illinois, Texas, and Washington have targeted
privacy laws that provide direct requirements and limitations on
the use of biometric data. Many states have introduced bills
similar to BIPA, but none have successfully been introduced into
law.

Combined with growing concerns over the problems and risks
associated with facial recognition technology, the Facebook
settlement may cause American lawmakers to focus more of their
attention on making targeted biometric privacy laws a reality in
their respective jurisdictions. This, in turn, may lead to greatly
increased regulation over biometrics in the near future. [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Wins Dismissal of False Ad Clicks Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Hayes, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Facebook Inc.
won dismissal of a proposed class action alleging it charged
advertisers on its social media platform for invalid clicks on
their ads, after the Northern District of California found the
plaintiffs didn't allege they relied on any misrepresentation by
the company.

To pursue a misrepresentation claim under California business code,
plaintiffs must allege they relied on the misrepresentation and
suffered economic injury as a result of that reliance, the court
said.

The complaint alleges that Facebook misrepresented that it wouldn't
charge advertisers "for clicks that are determined to be invalid."
[GN]



FACEBOOK: Ballard Discusses BIPA Suit Settlement Initial Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Byer, Esq. and Gregory Szewczyk, Esq. of Ballard Spahr
LLP, in an article for jdsupra.com, wrote that on August 19, 2020,
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted preliminary approval of the class action
settlement in In re Facebook Biometric Information Privacy
Litigation, 3:15-cv-03747-JD.  If the settlement receives final
approval, Facebook would pay $650 million to Illinois class members
as compensation for violations of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act ("BIPA")—a $100 million increase from the
settlement proposal that the District Court denied earlier this
year.

The case arose from allegations that Facebook violated BIPA by
collecting and storing class members' biometric data in the form of
scans of their faces without prior notice or consent.  Facebook
harvested the scans in connection with its "Tag Suggestions"
program, which looks for and identifies people's faces in
photographs uploaded to Facebook to promote user tagging.  BIPA
provides statutory damages of up to $1,000 per negligent violation
and up to $5,000 per intentional or reckless violation.  Plaintiffs
estimated that millions of Illinois residents were Facebook users
whose biometric data had been collected in violation of BIPA.

As the Court recognized, the case was "fiercely litigated" for over
five years, with fights on standing, summary judgment, and class
certification.  Notably, during the pendency of an interlocutory
appeal to the Ninth Circuit, the Illinois Supreme Court largely
adopted the District Court's pro-plaintiff interpretation of BIPA
in its 2019 Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entm't Corp. decision.  Just as
the case was about to be set for a jury trial, the parties advised
the District Court that a settlement in principle had been reached,
pursuant to which Facebook would pay $550 million.  However, on
June 4, 2020, the District Court denied the parties' request for
preliminary approval, citing concerns about an unduly steep
discount on statutory damages under BIPA and the sufficiency of
notice to class members.

After renegotiating, the parties asked the District Court to grant
preliminary approval for a new agreement, pursuant to which
Facebook agreed to pay $650 million into a non-reversionary cash
fund.  The District Court conducted an evidentiary hearing on July
23, 2020, and thereafter granted preliminary approval.  In doing
so, the District Court noted that the additional $100 million
"substantially allays the Court's concerns about the potential
inadequacy of payments to class members in light of BIPA's
statutory penalties."  The District Court also approved the notice
to class members, which includes email notice, Facebook news feed
notice, publication notice, a settlement website, targeted internet
ad campaigns, and CAFA notice.  A final approval hearing is set for
January 7, 2021.

The Facebook settlement should serve as a reminder to take BIPA
compliance seriously.  While the scale of Facebook's users makes
the settlement newsworthy, the lessons apply to businesses of all
sizes—if you collect biometric data from Illinois consumers or
employees, you must obtain written consent prior to collection and
comply with other obligations.  Failure to do so renders you at
risk of a class action for statutory damages and attorneys' fees.
[GN]

FASTLY 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 Fastly, Inc. (NYSE: FSLY).
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.

Fastly, Inc. (NYSE: FSLY)

Class Period: May 6, 2020 to August 5, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 26, 2020

Fastly is the provider of an edge cloud platform. Fastly's edge
cloud platform purportedly enables "customers to create great
digital experiences quickly, securely, and reliably by processing,
serving, and securing [its] customers' applications as close to
their end-users as possible."

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

This news shocked the market, as TikTok had been under heavy
scrutiny by U.S. officials and others since at least late 2019 due
to fears that the data it collects from its users could be accessed
by the Chinese government. 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 share price continued to decline on August 6, 2020, when
President Trump issued an executive order effectively banning
TikTok, dropping another $10.31 per share from the closing price on
August 6, 2020, or approximately 11.5%, to close at $79.33 on
August 7, 2020.

The complaint, filed on August 27, 2020, alleges that during the
Class Period defendants knowingly and/or recklessly made false
and/or misleading statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that
Fastly's largest customer was ByteDance, operator of TikTok, which
was known to have serious security risks and was under intense
scrutiny by U.S. officials; (2) that there was a material risk that
Fastly's business would be adversely impacted should any adverse
actions be taken against ByteDance or TikTok by the U.S.
government; and (3) that, as a result, defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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

                About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

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

Contact Information:

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


FASTLY INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of Oct. 26 Motion Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm,
reminds investors in Fastly, Inc. ("Fastly" or the "Company")
(NYSE: FSLY) of the October 26, 2020 deadline to seek the role of
lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been
filed against the Company.

If you invested in Fastly stock or options 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.

CONTACT:
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Attn: Richard Gonnello, Esq.
rgonnello@faruqilaw.com
Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330

The lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all those who
purchased Fastly securities between May 6, 2020 and August 5, 2020
(the "Class Period"). The case, Betancourt v. Fastly, Inc. et al,
No. 20-cv-06024 was filed on August 27, 2020.

As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and
its executives violated federal securities laws by making false
and/or misleading statements and/or failing 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.

Specifically, on August 5, 2020, after market close, the Company
hosted an earnings call for its Q2 2020 results. On the call,
Company CEO Joshua Bixby revealed for the first time that
"ByteDance, the operator of TikTok[,] was our largest customer in
the quarter." Bixby also suggested on the call that ByteDance was a
significant customer in Q1 as well, stating that "over the last six
months, [TikTok] represents just about 12% of revenue, trailing 6
months ending June 30."

On this news, Fastly's stock fell from a closing price of $108.92
per share on August 5, 2020 to $89.64 per share on August 6, 2020
-- a $19.28 or 17.70% drop. That same day, August 6, 2020,
President Trump issued an executive order that would take effect in
45 days and prohibit any U.S. company or person from transacting
with ByteDance, TikTok's Chinese parent company.

On this news, Fastly's shares continued to decline, 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 Fastly's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. [GN]


FASTLY INC: Klein Law Reminds of October 26 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Fastly, Inc. (NYSE: FSLY)
alleging that the Company violated federal securities laws.

Class Period: May 6, 2020 and August 5, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 26, 2020

Learn more about your recoverable losses in FSLY:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/fastly-inc-loss-submission-form?id=9053&from=5

The filed complaint alleges that 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.

Shareholders have until October 26, 2020 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

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


FASTLY INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of October 26 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Aug. 31 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Fastly, Inc. ("Fastly" or "the Company") (NYSE:FSLY) for violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between May 6,
2020 and August 5, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before October 26, 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. 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.

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

CONTACT:

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


FDM GROUP: Settles Contingent Worker Class Action for $4.1MM
------------------------------------------------------------
Staffing Industry Analysts reports that FDM Group Inc. agreed to a
settlement of approximately $4.1 million to contingent workers in a
lawsuit over pay that was filed in the US District Court for the
Southern District of New York, according to court filings. A motion
preliminary approval of a class-settlement was filed earlier in
August.

"FDM trainees were unlawfully denied the minimum wage for all hours
worked and FDM consultants were unlawfully denied minimum wage, gap
time and overtime compensation, subjected to unlawful deductions
and/or 'kickbacks' of their earned wages," according to the
complaint in the lawsuit.

The company provides training to workers and then places them at
client companies.

Among allegations in court documents, plaintiffs said the company
required workers to take and eight to 16 weeks training program
before being placed at clients. Trainees were required, after two
weeks, to complete the training, seek placement at an FDM client
and continue working for FDM for a period of two years. They would
face a penalty of $30,000 if they left in the third week of
training or if they left FDM's employment nine months into their
two-year contract as an FDM consultant.

The complaint claimed the training did not benefit the workers but
only FDM because it allowed the company to get more money for its
placements.

FDM did not pay trainees wages prior to September 2015, according
to the complaint. It also argued trainees were employees during the
training period.

Other allegations in court documents were that workers did not
receive overtime pay. FDM Group is a global professional services
company headquartered in London.

The lawsuit is Grace Park v. FDM Group Inc., case no. 16-CV-1520.
[GN]


FENNEC PHARMACEUTICALS: Gainey McKenna Announces Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Fennec" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: FENC) on behalf of those who purchased or
acquired the securities of Fennec between February 11, 2020 and
August 10, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").  The lawsuit seeks
to recover damages for Fennec investors under the federal
securities laws.

On August 11, 2020, before the market opened, Fennec disclosed that
it had received a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") regarding the Company's New
Drug Application ("NDA") for PEDMARK. According to the CRL, "after
recent completion of a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing
facility of [Fennec's] drug product manufacturer, the FDA
identified deficiencies resulting in a Form 483, which is a list of
conditions or practices that are required to be resolved prior to
the approval of PEDMARK."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.51, or 34%, to
close at $6.66 per share on August 11, 2020, thereby injuring
investors.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the manufacturing
facilities for PEDMARK, the Company's sole product candidate, did
not comply with current good manufacturing practices; (2) that, as
a result, regulatory approval for PEDMARK was reasonably likely to
be delayed; and (3) 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..

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Fennec
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the
November 2, 2020 lead plaintiff motion deadline.  A lead plaintiff
is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members
in directing the litigation.  If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com. [GN]


FENNEC PHARMACEUTICALS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP announces that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina captioned Chapman v. Fennec
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al., (Case No. 20-cv-00812) on behalf of
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Fennec
Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Fennec" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: FENC)
securities between February 11, 2020 and August 10, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act").

Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date
of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.

If you suffered a loss on your Fennec 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/fennec-pharmaceuticals-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 11, 2020, before the market opened, Fennec disclosed that
it had received a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") regarding the Company's New
Drug Application ("NDA") for PEDMARK. According to the CRL, "after
recent completion of a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing
facility of [Fennec's] drug product manufacturer, the FDA
identified deficiencies resulting in a Form 483, which is a list of
conditions or practices that are required to be resolved prior to
the approval of PEDMARK."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.51, or 34%, to
close at $6.66 per share on August 11, 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 manufacturing facilities for PEDMARK, the
Company's sole product candidate, did not comply with current good
manufacturing practices; (2) that, as a result, regulatory approval
for PEDMARK was reasonably likely to be delayed; and (3) 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.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Fennec securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from the
date of this notice 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 H. 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]


FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Class Action Over Ram 1500 EGR Fire Issues
---------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Ram
1500 exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) cooler class action lawsuit
alleges coolant leaks cause fires, and a Fiat Chrysler (FCA US)
recall has allegedly been practically worthless.

The Ram 1500 EGR cooler lawsuit includes 2014-2019 Ram 1500 trucks
equipped with 3-liter EcoDiesel engines.

Chrysler recalled nearly 108,000 Ram 1500 trucks in the U.S. in
October 2019 after announcing thermal fatigue could crack the EGR
coolers.

The internal cracks can allow preheated vaporized coolant into the
EGR systems while the engines run. The mixture can interact with
other hydrocarbons and air in the system resulting in combustion
within the intake manifold. This may cause a fire, something two of
the plaintiffs claim occurred to their trucks.

Hawaii plaintiff Bradley Crawford purchased a new 2016 Ram 1500
EcoDiesel and in October or November 2019 he received a recall
notice for the EGR cooler. The notice said there was no fix at the
time and the plaintiff was informed to monitor the coolant level.

In May 2020, Crawford received an email from his dealership and was
told three recall repairs needed to be performed on his Ram 1500.
Crawford says he told the dealer to do all three recalls and change
the oil and do a safety check.

The plaintiff says he was contacted by the dealership and told his
truck was ready and that all services had been performed. He paid
$367.44 and left the dealership believing the EGR recall fix was
completed.

But on July 17, 2020, the Ram 1500 suffered a loss of power,
causing the plaintiff to pull over and park. He turned around and
headed to the dealership, but two minutes later the brakes were
soft and unresponsive while he was approaching a curve. He finally
got the truck stopped and that's when he allegedly noticed smoke
coming from under the hood.

"His wife got out of the truck and quickly pulled their daughter
out of the back seat. Plaintiff Crawford then got his dog out from
the back seat as the truck became fully engulfed in flames." - Ram
1500 EGR cooler lawsuit

The truck was inspected and Chrysler concluded "the information at
hand would not permit us to associate the fire with a manufacturing
or assembly error."

FCA allegedly said it would "decline any assistance associated with
this matter" but regretted the "unfortunate fire."

In addition to Crawford, another plaintiff also alleges their truck
caught fire.

According to the class action, when the EGR cooler recall was
announced in October 2019, FCA told customers a fix for the problem
wasn't available. Ram 1500 owners were told to monitor the coolant
levels and contact dealers if the coolant remained low.

The lawsuit says Chrysler later sent notices to certain owners and
lessees letting them know a fix was available for their specific
truck, but the plaintiffs allege "it appears that affected owners
and lessees are still routinely being denied a fix due to part
unavailability."

The plaintiffs say the recall repairs include replacement of the
EGR coolers with new coolers, part number 68483334AA, and the
intake manifolds would be replaced if they were damaged.

But the lawsuit alleges Chrysler dealerships were advised that
"part supply is extremely limited" and the EGR coolers should only
be replaced "if the part has failed."

"While some impacted owners have received a fix, remarkably, over
10 months after the announcement of this recall, a considerable
portion of owners of affected vehicles have been left with no
recourse for this defect that renders the vehicle unsafe, and
presents an unreasonable risk to vehicle occupant safety, and no
option for returning their trucks." - Ram 1500 lawsuit

The Ram 1500 EGR cooler class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan: Crawford, et
al., v. FCA US LLC.

The plaintiffs are represented by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
and the Miller Law Firm, P.C. [GN]


FIAT CHRYSLER: Sued Over Ram, Cherokee Air Suspension Problems
--------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that Ram 1500
and Jeep Grand Cherokee air suspension problems have caused a class
action lawsuit in Canada after vehicle owners alleged cold weather
damages all kinds of components.

The vehicles include 2013-2020 Ram 1500 trucks and 2013-2020 Jeep
Grand Cherokee SUVs equipped with 4-corner air suspensions that
allegedly fail in temperatures below freezing (0 degrees Celsius,
32 degrees Fahrenheit).

The 4-corner air suspension system uses a compressor to operate,
but the compressor allegedly fails as a result of condensation,
dampness or moisture which causes the internal valves and solenoids
to jam and stick, blowing the control fuses.

The Ram and Jeep vehicles allegedly suffer accelerated wear and
tear on the fuses, relays, ball joints and bushings which affects
the alignment of the wheels.

The Canadian class action alleges the tires wear prematurely, air
leaks occur, the brakes wear prematurely and the steering wheels
allegedly vibrate. The plaintiffs claim the steering wheels can
especially vibrate at higher speeds.

In addition, the plaintiffs allege the airbags may deploy while
driving highway speeds and cause the brakes and tires to lock up.

The lawsuit alleges owners must spend thousands of dollars to
replace the air suspension systems with other air suspension
systems or standard suspension systems.

Ram 1500 and Jeep Grand Cherokee customers allegedly overpaid for
their vehicles because FCA allegedly concealed its knowledge of the
air suspension problems.

Chrysler has allegedly known about the air suspension problems
since 2013 as Jeep and Ram vehicles were brought back to
dealerships. However, the plaintiffs claim nothing has been done by
the automaker to fix the suspension problems.

The plaintiffs claim they didn't receive the vehicles they paid
for, and the lead plaintiff says he had to sell his 2016 Ram 1500
"at a substantial loss."

The Ram 1500 and Jeep Grand Cherokee air suspension lawsuit was
filed in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta: Christopher Heard
and Jane Doe v. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V.

The plaintiffs are represented by Invictus LLP. [GN]


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 28 Bid Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Sept. 2 announced that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of FirstEnergy
Corp.  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.

FirstEnergy Corp. (NYSE: FE)

FE Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 21, 2017
- July 21, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 28, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/firstenergy-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=9001&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
FirstEnergy Corp. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the legislative
"solutions" that defendants claimed would resolve problems with the
Company's nuclear facilities were centered on an illicit campaign
to corrupt high-profile state legislators and thus secure
legislation favoring the FirstEnergy; (2) over roughly three years,
FirstEnergy and its affiliates funneled more than $60 million to
prominent state politicians and lobbyists, including Ohio Speaker
Larry Householder, in order to secure the passage of Ohio House
Bill 6, which provided a $1.3 billion ratepayer-funded bailout to
keep the Company's failing nuclear facilities in operation; (3)
defendants falsely represented that they were complying with state
and federal laws and regulations regarding regulatory matters
throughout the Class Period, exposing the Company and its investors
to the extreme risks of reputational, legal, and financial harm;
(4) as a result of defendants' false statements and omissions,
FirstEnergy insiders were able to sell more than $17 million worth
of their FirstEnergy shares 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
www.zlk.com [GN]


FORD MOTOR: Faces Second Class Action Over Fuel Economy Issue
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jimmy Dinsmore, writing for Torque News, reports that a second
class-action lawsuit was launched against Ford regarding
underperforming fuel economy for 2019 Ford and 2017-2019 Ford
F-150. Two lawsuits now claim Ford is inaccurate on their fuel
economy ratings.

Earlier this year, Torque News' Dinsmore wrote about what he deemed
an overly litigious class-action filing against Ford Motor Company
regarding fuel economy for the Ford Ranger and Ford F-150. At the
time, the lawsuit seemed frivolous and like they were piling on
Ford at the worst possible time (in the middle of a pandemic).

But now, a second filing in U.S. District Court (based in Michigan)
also names the current model Ranger and F-150 as underperforming
its EPA ratings.

The filing is called Ceremello et. Al. v. Ford Motor Company. In
the class-action lawsuit it alleges that the 2019-2020 Ford Ranger
the 2018-2020 F-150 essentially misrepresented accurate fuel
economy on the window stickers.

This latest lawsuit is eerily similar to the one filed earlier this
year that has yet to be resolved. With COVID 19 backing up our
court system these filings could go unresolved for quite some
time.

What The Fuel Economy Lawsuit Against Ford Says
According to the website carcomplaints.com (a great resource by the
way), the latest lawsuit claims:
"Over a million Ford truck owners are now driving vehicles that
will cost them thousands of dollars more to own or lease than they
anticipated. Because of Ford's deception, all purchasers and
lessees of these vehicles paid more for these vehicles than they
are actually worth."

Additionally, the filing goes on to say that Ford miscalculated the
"Road Load, which is the force that is imparted on a vehicle while
driving at a constant speed over a smooth, level surface from
sources such as tire-rolling resistance, driveline losses, and
aerodynamic drag."

2020 Ford Ranger

How Do Manufacturer's Test Fuel Economy?
It's a standard process that is reported to and overseen by the
U.S. Government through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Manufacturers like Ford are given credits by the Federal Government
under the CAFE standards for presenting itself in a more
fuel-efficient way. However, other manufacturers have been found
guilty of using "defeat" devices to alter their fuel economy
numbers.

So lawsuits like this will expose Ford if they were guilty of using
such devices. To be clear, Ford has not been accused of using any
type of defeat device at this point.

2017 Ford F-150

Is the F-150 Ecoboost Engine Fuel Efficient?
The latest lawsuit uses a 2018 Ford F-150 equipped with the very
popular 2.7-liter Ecoboost engine as an example of a misrepresented
powertrain. That engine has a fuel economy rating of 20 mpg/city
and 26 mpg/highway, creating an average of 22 mpg/combined.

According to the lawsuit, as sited on carcomplaints.com, the real
highway fuel economy is 22.7 mpg and the real city MPG is 17.7.
This may seem like splitting hair and close, but really that's a
vast difference when it comes to fuel economy ratings.

As carcomplaints.com pointed: "Assuming the lifetime of a truck is
150,000 miles, city driving would allegedly consume an extra 821
gallons of fuel and an extra 968 gallons for highway driving over
the lifetime of the truck."

In the lawsuit it alleges that Ford overstated the fuel economy in
advertisements to lure customers in against the competition. Plus,
Ford would theoretically receive more CAFE credits with better EPA
ratings for their trucks.

So there is significant financial reward to be had. Now, whether
Ford is guilty of this will be determined by judges in our court
system.

Now with two separate filings due to fuel economy issues, plus the
class action lawsuit settlement over Ford's ongoing frozen door
latch issue with the F-150. This settlement, as I wrote about, can
earn affected customers $400.

2019 Ford F-150 door handles

How Has Ford Responded To These Lawsuits?
Ford has yet to respond to the Ceremello filing, but they did weigh
in on the other class action lawsuit filed last year.

Ford indicated that "the Company has become aware of a potential
concern involving its U.S. emissions certification process"and that
the Company" cannot provide assurance that it will not have a
material adverse effect on[Ford]."

At the time, Ford released the following statement:

"In September, a handful of employees raised a concern through our
Speak Up employee reporting channel regarding the analytical
modeling that is part of our U.S. fuel economy and emissions
compliance process.

At Ford, we believe that trust in our brand is earned by acting
with integrity and transparency. As part of this, we have a process
for looking at how we perform and behave in our broad and complex
company.

As a result of the concern, we have taken a number of actions.
Specifically:

   * We have hired an outside firm to conduct an investigation into
the vehicle road load specifications used in our testing and
applications to certify emissions and fuel economy.
Road load is a vehicle-specific resistance level used in vehicle
dynamometer testing, including for fuel economy ratings and
emissions certifications. Road load is established through
engineering models that are validated through vehicle testing,
including physical track tests referred to as coastdown testing.
  * Ford has retained independent industry technical experts as
part of our investigation team.
   * We are hiring an independent lab to conduct further coastdown
testing as part of our investigation.
   * Ford also is evaluating potential changes to our road-load
modeling process, including engineering, technical and governance
components.
   * We voluntarily shared these potential concerns with
Environmental Protection Agency and California Air Resources Board
officials.

The investigation and potential concerns do not involve the use of
defeat devices in our products. At this time, there's been no
determination that this affects Ford's fuel economy labels or
emissions certifications.

We plan to work with regulators and the independent lab to complete
a technical review. As part of our review, we have identified
potential concerns with how we calculate road load. The first
vehicle we are evaluating is the 2019 Ranger; we are assessing
additional vehicles as well.

As always, we strive to be transparent with our customers,
employees, dealers, shareholders and other stakeholders. We
understand how important it is to all audiences that we thoroughly
yet swiftly complete this investigation."

Mr. Dinsmore said "My opinion hasn't changed from the first filing.
We live in an unnecessarily litigious society. Lawyers get involved
and smell blood in the water and they jump at a chance to earn some
money. Now, is Ford guilty of fibbing on their fuel economy ratings
and testing? Who knows? I think every auto manufacturer uses
generous tests and coasting standards to achieve maximum ratings.
Whether those ratings are ever achieved in real life are a
different story."

"I know with how most Americans drive, myself included, fuel
efficiency isn't that big of a deal of we'd practice better driving
habits. We wouldn't drive so heavy footed, we would drive the speed
limits and never use air conditioning. So, if I'm skeptical about
both of these class action lawsuits, it's for good reason. That
being said, we will keep a close eye on this and continue to report
on them for you here at Torque News." [GN]


FORESCOUT TECH: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Forescout Technologies, Inc.
(NASDAQ: FSCT) between February 7, 2019 and May 15, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), of the important September 28, 2020 lead
plaintiff deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Forescout investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the Forescout class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1875.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) Forescout was experiencing significant volatility with
respect to large deals and issues related to the timing and
execution of deals in the Company's pipeline, especially in Europe,
the Middle East, and Africa; (2) the foregoing was reasonably
likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's
financial results; (3) Forescout was experiencing a significant and
disproportionate decline in its financial performance; (4) the
foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material negative impact
on Forescout's planned acquisition by Advent International Corp.;
and (5) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements about
its business and operations 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 September
28, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1875.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

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


FRANCOIS LAMARRE: Class Suit Filed on Behalf of Sex Assault Victims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a Quebec law firm is launching a
$10-million class-action lawsuit on behalf of the alleged victims
of a former Montreal police officer and hockey coach who died
awaiting trial on sex-related charges.

The request for authorization filed on Sept. 1 alleges Francois
Lamarre sexually abused dozens or possibly hundreds of children
over a 30-year period, including when he worked as a minor hockey
coach in the city of Greenfield Park, which is now part of
Longueuil.

"Lamarre abused the power and authority given to him by the city of
Greenfield Park . . . to prey upon dozens, if not hundreds, of
innocent and vulnerable children during the formative years of
their youth, necessarily and automatically causing them serious and
irreparable injury," the application says.

The class action targets Lamarre's estate and the city of
Longueuil, located on Montreal's south shore. The lawyers allege
the city failed to protect the children from Lamarre's actions. The
allegations have not been proven in court.

"Not only is the respondent city responsible for the unlawful
behaviour of its hockey coach Lamarre, but the respondent city was
also negligent in failing to ensure the safety of the children
enrolled in its hockey program," the document alleges.

The City of Longueuil declined to comment.

Lamarre died in July at the age of 71 before his case could go to
trial. He was charged with gross indecency, indecent exposure,
sexual assault, sexual touching and invitation to sexual touching,
involving four alleged male victims between the ages of nine and
16.

Lamarre retired from the Montreal police force in 1994. None of his
alleged crimes were alleged to have occurred while he was on duty.

Following Lamarre's arrest in December 2019, other alleged victims
came forward, including a Longueuil municipal councillor
representing Greenfield Park. Police said the Crown had authorized
charges in 16 cases tied to Lamarre.

The lead petitioner is a man who alleges he was sexually abused by
Lamarre in the 1970s beginning when he was a 10-year-old hockey
player.

In the court documents, the petitioner alleges the coach, then in
his mid-20s, would touch him sexually under the guise of wrestling
or play-fighting, and would do the same with other boys around
him.

"As he was only 10 years of age, he did not know what to do or say,
and simply hoped the behaviour would stop. It did not."

The petitioner claims Lamarre befriended his parents, who
encouraged him to spend more time with the coach outside the hockey
rink, during which time the alleged abuse escalated.

The man, now 58, claims in the documents that Lamarre's "barrage"
of sexual assaults during his childhood "have haunted him
throughout his life," leading to anxiety, fear of police and adults
in positions of authority, excessive alcohol consumption and
suicidal thoughts.

Robert Kugler, one of the lawyers who filed the lawsuit, said on
Sept. 2 he hopes the class action will encourage more of Lamarre's
alleged victims to come forward.

"This is the type of situation where we believe victims who have
been suffering in silence for as many as 50 years can finally
obtain justice," he said.

In a phone interview, he said class actions have proven useful in
recent years when it comes to sexual abuse cases, most notably in
cases involving religious orders. Kugler said Lamarre's death
should not be an impediment to the outcome of the class action.

The applicants are asking for $10,000,000 in punitive damages, as
well as additional money for damages for each of the victims in an
amount to be determined by the court. They're also asking for a
total of $775,000 in compensation for the lead petitioner.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 2,
2020. [GN]


FRITO-LAY INC: LaRocca Sues Over Ruffles Potato Crisps Marketing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Santina LaRocca, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Frito-Lay, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-04245-FB-LB
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 11, 2020), seeks to stop the Defendant's false and
misleading marketing practices with regards to its potato crisps
under its "Ruffles" brand labeled as "Cheddar & Sour Cream."

The relevant front label representations include "Cheddar & Sour
Cream," "Flavored," "Baked," "65% Less Fat Than Regular Potato
Chips," a wedge of cheddar cheese, a bowl of sour cream and an
orange and white color pattern reflective of the colors associated
with cheddar cheese and sour cream. The Product's back label
ingredient list shows the Product contains "Artificial Flavors."
Because the Product has artificial diacetyl, which is the main
flavor compound in sour cream, the front label is deceptive and
misleading because it fails to disclose the presence of this
artificial flavor, the Plaintiff contends.

According to the complaint, the Defendant knows consumers will pay
more for the Product because the label does not state "artificially
flavored sour cream" or "artificial flavor." The Defendant's
branding and packaging of the Product is designed to--and
does--deceive, mislead, and defraud the Plaintiff and consumers.
The value of the Product that the Plaintiff purchased and consumed
was materially less than its value as represented by the Defendant.
Had the Plaintiff and class members known the truth, they would not
have bought the Product or would have paid less for them.

As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the Product is an
sold at a premium price, approximately no less than $2.98 for an
6.25 OZ bag, excluding tax, compared to other similar products
represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than the price of
the Product if it were represented in a non-misleading way, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the Product within her district and/or
State for personal consumption.

Frito-Lay, Inc. manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and
sells potato crisps under its "Ruffles" brand labeled as "Cheddar &
Sour Cream."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: (516) 303-0552
          Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
          Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com


G4S SECURE: Xiong Suit Seeks Class Certification
------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as MAI KATY XIONG, an individual,
v. G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA) INC., a corporation, Case No.
2:19-cv-00508-JAM-EFB (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the
Court on October 13, 2020 for an order:

   1. granting class certification;

   2. appointing her as class representative;

   3. appointing Mayall Hurley P.C. as class counsel; and

   4. directing the Parties to meet and confer to develop a
      proposed Notice, including procedures for sending the
      same, to be sent to the Class Members that reflects the
      Court's decision representative.

G4S Secure is an American / British-based security services
company, and a subsidiary of G4S plc. It was founded as The
Wackenhut Corporation in 1954, in Coral Gables, Florida, by George
Wackenhut and three partners.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated
Sept. 15, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3mJcko6 at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff Mai Katy Xiong and the Putative Class are:

          Robert J. Wasserman, Esq.
          John P. Briscoe, Esq.
          Rachael Allgaier, Esq.
          MAYALL HURLEY P.C.
          2453 Grand Canal Boulevard
          Stockton, CA 95207-8253
          Telephone: (209) 477-3833
          Facsimile: (209) 473-4818
          E-mail: rwasserman@mayallaw.com
                  jbriscoe@mayallaw.com
                  rallgaier@mayallaw.com

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

Genius Brands International, Inc (NASDAQ:GNUS)

Investors Affected: March 17, 2020 - July 5, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Genius Brands International, Inc. According to the Genius Brands
lawsuit defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose material information regarding: (i)
Nickelodeon's purported broadcast expansion of Genius's Rainbow
Rangers cartoon; (ii) subscription fees for the Kartoon Channel!;
and (iii) the Company's growth potential and overall prospects as a
company.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/genius-brands-international-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=9028&from=1

Alteryx, Inc. (NYSE:AYX)

Investors Affected: May 6, 2020 - August 6, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Alteryx, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company was unable to close large deals
within the quarter, and deals were pushed out to subsequent
quarters or downsized; (2) as a result, Alteryx increasingly relied
on adoption licenses to attract new customers; (3) as a result and
due to the nature of adoption licenses, the Company's revenue was
reasonably likely to decline; and (4) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/alteryx-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=9028&from=1

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

Investors Affected: November 2, 2016 - July 24, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
American Electric Power Company, Inc. The filed complaint alleges
that defendants 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.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/american-electric-power-company-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=9028&from=1

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

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


GENIUS BRANDS: Kirby McInerney Reminds of October 19 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of those who acquired
Genius Brands International, Inc. ("Genius" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: GNUS) securities during the period from March 17, 2020
through July 5, 2020, (the "Class Period"). Investors have until
October 19, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated provisions of the
Exchange Act by making false and misleading statements concerning
Genius's Rainbow Rangers intellectual property, the Kartoon
Channel! app that Genius launched in June of 2020, as well as its
joint venture relating to intellectual property associated with
Marvel creator Stan Lee. On July 6, 2020, after Genius announced
the creation of a joint venture with POW! Entertainment regarding
the intellectual property Stan Lee created following his tenure at
Marvel Entertainment, Genius's share price declined over 25% to
close at $2.66 per share.

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

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

GENIUS BRANDS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Oct. 19 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Sept. 2 announced that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of Genius 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.

Genius Brands International, Inc (NASDAQ: GNUS)

GNUS Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 17, 2020 -
July 5, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/genius-brands-international-inc-information-request-form?prid=9001&wire=1

According to the Genius Brands lawsuit defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
information regarding: (i) Nickelodeon's purported broadcast
expansion of Genius's Rainbow Rangers cartoon; (ii) subscription
fees for the Kartoon Channel!; and (iii) the Company's growth
potential and overall prospects as a company.

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]


GENIUS BRANDS: Schall Law Firm Reminds of October 19 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Aug. 31 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Genius Brands International, Inc. ("Genius" or "the Company")
(NASDAQ:GNUS) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between March 17,
2020 and July 5, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before October 19, 2020.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Genius misled investors about the Kartoon
Channel app. The Company also made misleading claims concerning
Nickelodeon expanding its "Rainbow Rangers" cartoon. The Company
did not fairly present its growth potential and overall 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 Genius, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

CONTACT:

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


GOL LINHAS: Faces Hornea Securities Suit Over Drop in Share Value
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lucian Hornea, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GOL LINHAS AEREAS INTELIGENTES S.A., PAULO SERGIO
KAKINOFF, and RICHARD F. LARK, JR., Case No. 1:20-cv-04243
(E.D.N.Y., Sept. 11, 2020), seeks to recover compensable damages
caused by the Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 as a result of their issuance of materially false and
misleading statements that leads to the precipitous decline in the
market value of the Company's common shares.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of persons or entities, who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded GOL securities
between March 14, 2019, and July 22, 2020, inclusive.

On March 14, 2019, the Company filed its annual report on Form 20-F
for the year ended December 31, 2018 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "2018 20-F"). The 2018 20-F was signed by
Defendants Kakinoff and Lark. The 2018 20-F contained signed
certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("SOX")
by Defendants Kakinoff and Lark attesting to the accuracy of
financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the
Company's internal controls over financial reporting, and the
disclosure of all fraud.

According to the complaint, the statements were materially false
and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to
disclose adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business,
operations and prospects, which were known to the Defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, the Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) GOL had material weaknesses in its internal controls; (2) there
was substantial doubt as to the Company's ability to continue to
exist as a going concern because of negative net working capital
and net capital deficiency; and (3) as a result, the Defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.

On June 16, 2020, GOL filed a Notification of Late Filing on Form
12b-25 with the SEC, stating that it could not timely file its
annual report for fiscal year 2019. On this news, shares of GOL
stock fell $0.27 per share or 3.5% to close at $7.30 per share on
June 16, 2020.

On June 29, 2020, after the market closed, GOL filed its annual
report for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2019 on Form 20-F
with the SEC. On this news, shares of GOL fell $0.14 per share, or
2%, to close at $6.78 per share on June 30, 2020.

On July 23, 2020, GOL announced that it had dismissed KPMG
Auditores Independentes as the Company's registered auditing firm.
On this news, shares of GOL fell $.055 per share, or 7%, to close
at $7.25 per share on July 23, 2020.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common
shares, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant
losses and damages, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased GOL securities during the Class Period.

GOL purports to provide air passenger transportation services in
Brazil, the rest of South America, the Caribbean, and the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          Laurence M. Rosen
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 686-1060
          Fax: (212) 202-3827
          Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 lrosen@rosenlegal.com


GOLUB CORPORATION: Parmely Sues Over False Marketing of Soymilk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zaire Parmely, Christopher Lopez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. The Golub Corporation, Case No.
7:20-cv-07491-NSR (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 12, 2020), seeks damages and an
injunction to stop the Defendant's false and misleading marketing
practices with regards to its vanilla soymilk under its "PICS"
brand.

The relevant front label representations include "Vanilla,"
"Soymilk" and the brand, "PICS." Though consumers will expect the
Product to be flavored only with vanilla extract, it also contains
"Natural Flavors," shown on the ingredient list. The representation
of the Product as "Vanilla" is misleading because the vanilla taste
is provided in significant part by the "Natural Flavors"
ingredient. These "Natural Flavors" are artificial vanilla flavors,
which provide much and/or most of the Product's vanilla taste, yet
this is not disclosed to consumers, the Plaintiffs allege

According to the complaint, the Defendant knows consumers will pay
more for the Product because the label only states "Vanilla." The
Defendant's branding and packaging of the Product is designed
to--and does--deceive, mislead, and defraud the Plaintiffs and
consumers. The value of the Product that the Plaintiffs purchased
and consumed was materially less than its value as represented by
the Defendant. Had the Plaintiffs and class members known the
truth, they would not have bought the Product or would have paid
less for them.

As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the Product are
sold at a premium price, approximately no less than $4.19 per 64 FL
OZ, excluding tax, compared to other similar products represented
in a non-misleading way, and higher than the price of the Product
if it were represented in a non-misleading way, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs purchased the Product for personal consumption.

Frito-Lay, Inc. manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and
sells potato crisps under its "Ruffles" brand labeled as "Cheddar &
Sour Cream."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: (516) 303-0552
          Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
          Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com


GOODMAN GROUP: Faces Kaintz Suit Over Deficient COBRA Notice
------------------------------------------------------------
ROB KAINTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE GOODMAN GROUP, LLC, Case No. 8:20-cv-02115 (M.D.
Fla., Sept. 9, 2020), alleges that the Defendant violated the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 by failing
to provide the Plaintiff and the putative class adequate notice of
their right to continued health care coverage.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has obtained medical
insurance through the Defendant's group health plan while he was
employed by the Defendant. However, the Plaintiff was terminated
for "gross misconduct" on November 23, 2019, and was, therefore,
eligible for continuation coverage. Subsequently, the Defendant
mailed a deficient COBRA notice to the Plaintiff on December 3,
2019, which confused and misled the Plaintiff because it was not
written in a manner calculated to be understood by the average plan
participant and several critical information items were omitted,
which resulted in his inability to make an informed decision as to
electing COBRA continuation coverage.

As a result, the Plaintiff says he was economically injured in the
form of lost health insurance and unpaid medical bills.

The Goodman Group, LLC manages senior living and health care
communities, residential communities and commercial properties that
provide homes and services for more than 10,800 residents and
employment for over 4,000 individuals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Tel: 813-224-0431
          Fax: 813-229-8712
          Email: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                 bhill@wfclaw.com


GOOGLE INC: Canadian Law Firms Team Up to File Class-Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
itworldcanada.com reports that lawyers in British Columbia, Ontario
and Quebec have filed proposed class-action lawsuits in the three
provinces against Google and its parent Alphabet Inc. on behalf of
millions of Canadians, alleging the company unlawfully collects and
profits from personal information without their consent.

The claim alleges that through Google Services, Google Ads and
Google Analytics the company "turns Canadians' electronics into
tracking devices, which it uses to build profiles on almost every
Internet user in Canada; even people Google has no relationship
with, all without their consent," Luciana Brasil, partner at the
Vancouver firm of Branch MacMaster LLP, said in a press release.
"There is no reason Canadians should tolerate what we say is
extensive surveillance of their daily online activities, especially
because Canada has laws specifically intended to protect them from
such actions."

The claim also alleges that Google violates consumer protection and
competition laws by misrepresenting its privacy and data
practices.

In an interview Brasil said that "one of the key issues is whether
what online users are told about personal information being
collected is accurate and sufficient."

Even if a user has no relationship with Google--doesn't use the
Chrome browser or Gmail, for example--information on their device
may be collected by a site that uses Google Analytics or Google
Ads, she said. "So my computer is being told to do something by
somebody with whom I have had no relationship without my knowledge
and without any opportunity to give consent. That to me is such a
clear case. That flies in the face of the argument that there is
always consent and people always know what is being provided. I am
fairly confident that most people haven't the foggiest idea that
this is going on."

"So why is that I should provide that information?  It's not my job
to help Google . . . .  They say it helps serve you better. It's
not to serve me better. It's to find out what I do and to try to
figure out what I want to buy and make suggestions to me. It's to
try and extract a monetary value from (my) information."

The grounds of the three suits are similar although they reference
alleged violations of their respective provincial laws as well as
federal privacy law. It isn't clear if they will be merged into one
suit or will proceed separately. "Despite some local differences to
account for local practices and laws, in particular in Quebec,
counsel who filed the claims in Quebec, Ontario and B.C, are
working together and are part of a consortium of counsel
prosecuting the Canadian claims on a co-ordinated basis," said
Brasil. "As for how the actions will proceed, each action is
subject to case-management by independent judges, so ultimately
that is subject to the discretion of the courts, but there are
efficiencies to be gained if all parties co-operate."

IT World Canada has asked for comment from Alphabet.

The statement of claim alleges Google doesn't  require the
operators of  web sites running Google Ads or Google Analytics to
obtain consent from people whose personal information is collected
by Google when users visit a site, or disclose to
users that their personal information has been collected.

"By virtue of Google's high-handed conduct and its disregard for
the quasi-constitutional privacy rights of class members, the
plaintiff asks this court to award exemplary and punitive damages
against Google, in an amount deemed appropriate by this Court at
trial," the statement of claim says in part.

In addition, it alleges complainants have suffered "damage to,
among other things, their pride, self-respect and reputation."

Reidar Mogerman, partner at the Vancouver firm of Camp Fiorante
Matthews Mogerman LLP  and one of the firms joined in the claim
said in a news release that "Google tells its users that they have
a choice about how Google uses their information, but we don't
believe that users have a choice about whether or not Google
collects their information in the first place, The claim alleges
this is misleading advertising and is a direct violation of
consumer protection law."

Jonathan Foreman, partner at the London, Ont., firm of Foreman &
Company, said in a statement that "internet-based companies doing
business in Canada have to follow Canadian privacy, competition and
consumer protection laws. This case aims to rein in what we say is
rampant collection of personal information and to make sure
Canadians' privacy rights are protected."

The claim seeks compensation for invasion of privacy, trespass, and
consumer protection violations, and other causes of action. It also
seeks an order preventing Google from continuing these practices.

A class-action lawsuit has to be approved by a judge before it can
go forward. No date for a hearing has been set yet. The claim is
brought on behalf of residents of Canada who used Google services
or visited websites containing Google Ads or Google Analytics.

The statement to the press says the action involves data collected
by Google's own services and through Google Ads and Google
Analytics, which are installed on more than half of global
websites. It alleges Google trespasses on users' devices by sending
code to their computers, tablets, or smartphones when they visit
any of these thousands of sites or services. That code allegedly
forces users' computers or smartphones to secretly send users'
personal information to Google, including details such as their
name, gender, and location, the terms they've typed into Google,
their IP address, the device they're using, and the site they're
visiting. This allegedly reveals sensitive personal details, such
as marital and parental status, income bracket, and sexual
orientation.

Google uses this personal information to generate profiles of
almost all internet users, the claim alleges. It uses some of this
information to target advertising, the claim alleges, without the
users' knowledge or consent, in violation of Canadian laws that
protect privacy and personal interests.

Google's privacy policy states what information is collected, why
it's collected and how users can update, manage, export, and delete
that information. For example, the claim says, Google's privacy
page says "we build powerful, easy-to-use privacy tools into your
Google account. They give you control over the privacy settings
that are right for you, and what types of data we
collect and use across our services."

However, the statement of claim says, "despite these
representations, and no matter what settings Class Members choose,
the
settings do not prevent Google's collection and use of the Personal
Information for its own business purposes, the creation of a
Profile about the Class Member, or the monetization of the Personal
Information."

The B.C. action follows a separate proposed class-action lawsuit
filed in July in Quebec alleging Google misrepresented to users how
much control they have over the information they share when they
browse the web using incognito mode. It alleges that regardless of
the browsing mode chosen, Google collects users' browsing data
without consent.

The Quebec action seeks an order requiring Google to pay class
members a sum equal to the value of the data collected while class
members were using incognito mode, and $50 million in punitive
damages. [GN]

GOOGLE INC: King & Wood Attorney Discusses Ruling in Lloyd Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barri Mendelsohn, Esq. -- barri.mendelsohn@eu.kwm.com -- of King &
Wood Mallesons, in an article for Lexology, notes that they tuck
into a data protection case which has the potential to send tremors
through all organisations who handle personal data.

The question of whether individuals can claim damages for loss of
control over their personal data will be heading for the Supreme
Court later in the year as it recently granted permission for an
appeal in the Lloyd v Google case ("Lloyd"). The threat of massive
fines, whilst troubling, is becoming very real since the GDPR was
introduced almost two years ago, as British Airways and Marriott
International have discovered to their potential detriment (the
UK's data protection authority, the Information Commissioner's
Office, has announced its intention to levy fines but are yet to
claim payment as of July 2020).

The UK's Information Commissioner's Office ("ICO") announced its
intention to levy fines without actually following through as of
July 2020. However, if the Supreme Court upholds the Court of
Appeal's decision in Lloyd, it may not be just regulators who have
the power to financially punish organisations.

Key takeaways

Before diving into the Lloyd case itself, the key takeaways are as
follows:

   -- As things stand, it is possible for individuals to claim
damages for a mere "loss of control" over their personal data.

   -- What this means in practice is unclear, and the question of
what counts as "loss of control" remains unanswered -- is it
limited to circumstances likeLloyd where an organisation uses
personal data for a purpose that the individual is unaware of, or
can it be broader than that?

   -- There is also the question of how you would possibly quantify
these damages in monetary terms. Lloyd potentially opens the door
to the risk of "annihilatory" class actions, i.e. damages being
levied on top of already huge regulatory fines. By way of example,
in this case Mr. Lloyd suggested damages of GBP750 per person
affected. As the courts are yet to consider quantum in cases such
as these, so this amount may yet prove fanciful, but as a worse
case scenario and to highlight the potential impact of class
actions, this would create a total liability for Google of nearly
£3 billion.

   -- This is a case to watch out for in the future as it could
have a profound impact on any organisation handling personal data;
as well as paving the way for class actions where there has been a
data breach (whether or not such a breach was avoidable and whether
or not the individuals affected actually suffered any financial
loss or mental distress).

   -- In the meantime, organisations should take great care with
how they collect, use, store and protect personal data, ensuring
that appropriate data protection policies, privacy notices and
cookie notices/consents are in place. A data protection audit to
ascertain how, where and why your organisation handles personal
data, whilst being a useful endeavour in any case, could highlight
any compliance gaps in need of remedying to mitigate the risks
exposed by Lloyd.

The Facts

Mr. Lloyd brought an action before the UK's High Court in October
2018, purportedly on behalf of 4.4 million Google users, claiming
that they had lost control over their data when Google had
harvested browser information using hidden cookies without their
consent for the purposes of monetising it.

Under the pre-GDPR legislation (in the UK, the Data Protection Act
1998), in order to bring a claim for damages it was necessary for
an individual to show that they had suffered financial loss arising
from the misuse or loss of their personal data. The Courts then
extended this scope by allowing individuals to bring claims for
damages if they had suffered mental distress as a result of their
data being mishandled or lost.

In order to bring a class action claim in the UK though, it must be
shown that all class members have "the same interest". For Mr.
Lloyd, this posed a number of issues. None of the individuals he
claimed to represent had suffered any financial loss from Google's
misuse of their personal data, and it would be almost impossible to
prove that each of the 4.4 million individuals affected had
suffered the same level of distress, if any at all.

To circumvent this problem, Mr. Lloyd, relying on two previous
cases, brought an action claiming damages for "loss of control", as
demonstrably each individual had lost control of their data when it
was used by Google without their knowledge or consent. The High
Court dismissed the claim in the first instance, refusing to grant
what it called "vindicatory damages" and questioning the legitimacy
of "loss of control" damages, as well as who the true beneficiaries
of such representative actions would be (i.e. claims lawyers).

The Court of Appeal Judgment

This reprieve for organisations proved short-lived. The Court of
Appeal overturned the High Court's decision and stated that "loss
of control" damages are, in principle, recoverable. Its argument
being that if Google was seeking to use the browser data for
monetary gain, then it followed that the data in question holds
value to the individual whose data it is. As the data has a value,
it should be treated as property, and a loss of control over that
property should give the individual a right to compensation.

What next?

The ramifications of this, as outlined above, are far-reaching and
significant. It also serves as a timely reminder that organisations
need to keep their data protection house in order, in particular by
ensuring they are transparent in their privacy and cookie notices.

Whilst the Court of Appeal allowed the class action to proceed, the
Supreme Court has now been asked to (hopefully) decide this issue.
Recent developments in this space offer organisations a cause for
cautious optimism where large scale "loss of control" class actions
are concerned, as the Atkinson v Equifax claim (which was purported
to be on behalf of 15 million individuals) was withdrawn by the
claimant before proceedings could begin, in the face of a stern
defence from Equifax. However, Lloyd remains on the docket and we
will provide a further update once the Supreme Court's judgment is
handed down. [GN]


GOOGLE INC: Legal Consultant in Class Action Files Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a legal consultant who worked on a $22 million
advertiser class action against Google Inc. has filed suit alleging
that the attorneys of Foote Mielke Chavez & O'Neil LLC who handled
the case cheated him out of hundreds of thousands of dollars he was
owed for his work on the case. [GN]

GOYARD SF: Brooks Sues Over Web Site Inaccessible to Blind Users
----------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GOYARD SF, LLC., a Delaware limited liability company;
and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-01761-JAM-AC (E.D.
Cal., Aug. 31, 2020), arises from the Defendant's alleged violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the California's Unruh
Civil Rights Act due to its failure to design a Web site that is
fully accessible to the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

The complaint alleges that during the Plaintiff's numerous visits
to the Defendant's Web site, https://www.goyard.com/en, the
Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers which denied her
full and equal access to the facilities, goods and services offered
to the public and made available to the public on the Web site, and
its prior iterations. Due to the widespread access barriers on the
Defendant's Web site, the Plaintiff and Class Members have been
deterred, on a regular basis, from accessing the Web site.
Similarly, the access barriers the Plaintiff has encountered on the
Defendant's Web site have deterred the Plaintiff and Class Members
from visiting the Defendant's brick-and-mortar stores.

The Defendant's actions constitute intentional discrimination
against the Plaintiff and Class Members on the basis of a
disability in violation of the ADA, according to the complaint.

Goyard SF, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
headquartered in Paris, France, whose Web site provides consumers
with access to a collection of designer travel goods such as
trunks, hard-sided luggage, trolley cases, vanity cases, weekender
bags and hat cases; a large choice of handbags, tote bags, pouches,
briefcases and clutches; matching accessories such as wallets,
change purses, diary covers, check-book covers and business-card
holders, along with pet accessories and special orders. The
Defendant's website also offers distant sale services along with
other products and services, which are available online and in
store for purchase.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GRAND GIFTS: Cruz Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
IGNACIO CRUZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. GRAND GIFTS & CAFE INC. (d/b/a GRAND CAFE); JOHN DOE
CORP. (d/b/a GRAND CAFE); SAVVAS TSIATTALOS; and PEDRO MARTINEZ,
Case No. 1:20-cv-06573 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2020), seeks to recover
from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Cruz was employed by the Defendants as barista.

Grand Gifts & Cafe Inc., d/b/a Grand Cafe, is engaged in the
restaurant business.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are 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


GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Faces Class Action Over Stench Smell, Dust
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Minegar, writing for Newschannel 3, reports that a class
action lawsuit against Graphic Packaging International was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan on
Sept. 1.

The lawsuit, filed by Liddle & Dublin P.C. on behalf of four
Kalamazoo residents, seeks over $5 million in damages from the
paper mill at 1500 N. Pitcher St. because of bad smells and dust.

"This defendant can no longer ignore its neighbors," attorney
Steven Liddle said. "People are entitled to use and enjoy their
property without a neighboring corporation polluting their air."

The lawsuit stated the Michigan Department of Environment, Great
Lakes and Energy had issued several violations against Graphic
Packaging International, LLC, for "strong and persistent odors."

Graphic Packaging International was expanding with a new $600
million facility in the city that would make recycled paper board
out of existing paper for cartons.

The company asked Kalamazoo for an extension on a tax break. Many
of the individuals named in the lawsuit came out against the tax
break during a Kalamazoo City Commission meeting Aug. 17, 2020.

A representative of Graphic Packaging International said during the
meeting that the company was trying to find the source of the
odor.

"If there is a source, and it is identified, from Graphic Packaging
we will do our part and address it appropriately," Andrew Johnson,
Vice President, Government Affairs and Sustainability of Graphic
Packaging, said. [GN]


HC2 HOLDINGS: Awaits Court's OK of Settlement in DBMG Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
HC2 Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that two DBMG stockholders that objected to the
settlement presented at the February 13, 2020 settlement hearing
have informed the Court that they are not objecting to the Revised
Settlement Framework.  To date, no DBMG stockholders have filed
objections to the Revised Settlement Framework, and the deadline
for such objections has passed.

On November 6, 2014, a putative stockholder class action complaint
challenging the tender offer by which HC2 acquired approximately
721,000 of the issued and outstanding common shares of DBMG was
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the
"Court"), captioned Mark Jacobs v. Philip A.  Falcone, Keith M.
Hladek, Paul Voigt, Michael R.  Hill, Rustin Roach, D.  Ronald
Yagoda, Phillip O.  Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., and Schuff
International, Inc., Civil Action No. 10323 (the "Complaint").

On November 17, 2014, a second lawsuit was filed in the Court,
captioned Arlen Diercks v. Schuff International, Inc. Philip A.
Falcone, Keith M.  Hladek, Paul Voigt, Michael R.  Hill, Rustin
Roach, D.  Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O.  Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc.,
Civil Action No. 10359.

On February 19, 2015, the Court consolidated the actions (now
designated as Schuff International, Inc. Stockholders Litigation)
and appointed lead plaintiff and counsel.  The currently operative
complaint is the Complaint filed by Mark Jacobs.  The Complaint
alleges, among other things, that in connection with the tender
offer, the individual members of the DBMG Board of Directors and
HC2, the now-controlling stockholder of DBMG, breached their
fiduciary duties to members of the plaintiff class.  The Complaint
also purports to challenge a potential short-form merger based upon
plaintiff's expectation that the Company would cash out the
remaining public stockholders of DBMG following the completion of
the tender offer.  The Complaint seeks rescission of the tender
offer and/or compensatory damages, as well as attorney's fees and
other relief.  The defendants filed answers to the Complaint on
July 30, 2015.

On November 15, 2019, the parties filed definitive documentation in
support of a proposed settlement of the action.

On January 14, 2020, plaintiff filed an amended complaint restating
and elaborating on the claims raised in the Complaint (the "Amended
Complaint").  The Amended Complaint seeks compensatory and
rescissory damages, as well as attorney's fees and other relief.

On February 13, 2020, the Court held a settlement hearing to
consider the proposed settlement and certain objections filed by
two current DBMG stockholders.  The Court expressed concerns about
certain terms of the proposed settlement and the parties requested
additional time to evaluate potential modifications to the proposed
settlement.

On May 8, 2020, the parties filed with the Court a revised
settlement agreement for all claims relating to the Amended
Complaint (the "Revised Settlement Framework").

The Revised Settlement Framework provides for a settlement payment
of US$35.95 per share to a fund for the benefit of the former DBMG
stockholders who tendered their shares in the 2014 tender offer
other than stockholders who were defendants in the action or their
immediate family members, officers of DBMG, or directors or
officers of HC2 (the "Tendered Stockholders").  After the filing of
the revised settlement papers on May 8, 2020, HC2 determined that
the Tendered Stockholders subclass includes approximately 300 more
shares than previously reported due to additional detail HC2
received regarding the number of shares excluded from the subclass.
This adjustment increases the settlement payment to the Tendered
Stockholders by approximately eleven thousand dollars.  In total,
the proposed settlement payment to the Tendered Stockholders
applies to approximately 568,850 shares and totals approximately
US$20.4 million.  The Revised Settlement Framework provides that
the amount received by the Tendered Stockholders will be reduced by
the per share amount of any fee award to lead plaintiff's counsel.
HC2's D&O insurers have agreed to contribute approximately US$12.34
million of this approximately US$20.4 million settlement payment,
and DBMG has agreed to fund the remaining approximately US$8.06
million either through cash on hand or borrowing from a third-party
lender.

The Revised Settlement Framework also provides that HC2 will fund
two types of payments to the current owners of the 289,902 shares
of DBMG common stock not owned by HC2 or its affiliates (the
"public DBMG stockholders").  The first payment of US$2.51 per
share, or approximately US$0.7 million total, is intended to offset
the indirect burden that the public DBMG stockholders arguably bear
(by virtue of their approximately 7.52% ownership of DBMG) from
DBMG's funding of the approximately US$8.1 million portion of the
settlement payment to the Tendered Stockholders.  The second
payment of US$1.00 per share, or approximately US$0.3 million
total, represents consideration for a full release of claims from
the public DBMG stockholders related to the action and the
implementation of the Revised Settlement Framework.  In sum, the
Revised Settlement Framework provides that HC2 would fund payments
of US$3.51 per share, or approximately US$1.0 million total, to the
public DBMG stockholders.

The two DBMG stockholders that objected to the settlement presented
at the February 13, 2020 settlement hearing have informed the Court
that they are not objecting to the Revised Settlement Framework.
To date, no DBMG stockholders have filed objections to the Revised
Settlement Framework, and the deadline for such objections has
passed.

If approved, the Revised Settlement Framework would result in a
global settlement of the action and the certification of a
non-opt-out plaintiff class consisting of any and all record and
beneficial owners of outstanding shares of DBMG common stock who
held such stock at any time during May 12, 2014 through and
including the close of business on May 8, 2020, and including,
among others, their successors.

The Revised Settlement Framework also provides for a release of
claims by the plaintiff class in favor of a broad group of released
defendant parties relating to, among other things, the action, the
2014 tender offer, all claims relating to HC2's decision not to
close a short-form merger shortly after the 2014 tender offer, and
the implementation and funding of the Revised Settlement
Framework.

HC2 Holdings said, "Although the parties are seeking approval of
Revised Settlement Framework, there can be no assurance that the
Delaware Courts will approve the revised or any other settlement
proposed by the parties.  If a settlement cannot be reached, the
Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to
vigorously defend this matter."

HC2 Holdings, Inc. provides construction, marine services, energy,
telecommunications, insurance, life sciences, broadcasting, and
other services in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
internationally. The company was formerly known as PTGi Holding
Inc. and changed its name to HC2 Holdings, Inc. in April 2014. HC2
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.


HC2 HOLDINGS: Plaintiff's Bid for Legal Fees in Tera Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff's motion for an order awarding attorneys' fees and
expenses, requesting a US$2.5 million fee in the purported class
action suit entitled, Tera v. HC2 Holdings Inc., et al., C.A. No.
2020-0275-JRS, remains pending, according to HC2 Holdings, Inc.'s
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020.

On April 10, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
class action complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery captioned
Tera v. HC2 Holdings Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2020-0275-JRS (the
"Stockholder Litigation"). The complaint alleged that the Company's
consent revocation materials (i) contain misleading disclosures
relating to the Certificates of Designation, (ii) fail to disclose
that a majority of the Board may approve the nominees set forth by
Percy Rockdale LLC and certain of its affiliates (collectively,
"Percy Rockdale"), for purposes of the Certificates of Designation
such that the Percy Rockdale nominees would be considered
"Continuing Directors" (as defined in the Certificates of
Designation) and (iii) inaccurately state that electing the Percy
Rockdale nominees will cause a Change of Control (as defined in the
Certificates of Designation) under the Certificates of Designation
because it will lead to a person or group obtaining the power to
elect a majority of the members of the Board.  The complaint sought
(i) a declaration requiring the Board to approve the Percy Rockdale
nominees for purposes of the Certificates of Designation, (ii) a
declaration that the Board breached its fiduciary duties by issuing
misleading disclosures and (iii) an injunction requiring the Board
to issue additional disclosures relating to the Change of Control
provisions in the Certificates of Designation.

On April 19, 2020, the plaintiff amended his complaint to allege
that the Supplement to the Consent Revocation Statement, filed with
the SEC on April 17, 2020, contained misleading disclosures
relating to the Certificates of Designation.  The amended complaint
sought, among other remedies, (i) a declaration that the Board
breached its fiduciary duties by issuing misleading disclosures;
(ii) a declaration that, if a Change of Control could be deemed to
occur under the Certificates of Designation, that such Change of
Control provisions are invalid and unenforceable under Delaware
law; (iii) an injunction requiring the defendants to issue
corrective disclosures; and (iv) an order enjoining the Board from
relying upon consent revocations received to date.

On April 20, 2020, the Court of Chancery granted the plaintiff's
motion for expedited proceedings.

On April 15, 2020, the Board (with Mr. Falcone recusing himself as
a non-Independent Director) determined to approve the Percy
Rockdale nominees, solely and specifically for the purposes of
deeming them Continuing Directors pursuant to the Certificates of
Designation, to avoid triggering, and to render inapplicable, such
prong of the Change of Control definition.

On April 17, 2020 and April 21, 2020, each of the holder of the
Series A Preferred Stock and the holder of the Series A-2 Preferred
Stock, respectively, and, in each case, entitled to give a waiver,
agreed that such holder will not seek to exercise its right to
require the Company to redeem the shares of such Series A Preferred
Stock or Series A-2 Preferred Stock, as applicable, if such
redemption right were to arise as a result of the outcome of the
Consent Solicitation based on one of the Change of Control prongs
of the Certificate of Designation (which prong may require the
Company to make an offer to redeem the Preferred Stock if any
person or "group" (within the meaning of Rules 13d-3 and 13d-5
under the Exchange Act) obtains the power to elect a majority of
the members of the Board).  Therefore, in light of the foregoing,
if the Percy Rockdale nominees became a majority of the Board
pursuant to Percy Rockdale's consent solicitation, the Company
would not be required to offer to redeem the shares of the Series A
Preferred Stock and the Series A-2 Preferred Stock.

On April 23, 2020, the parties agreed that the waiver and
additional disclosures, combined with the prior disclosures and
approval of Percy Rockdale's nominees as Continuing Directors,
mooted the need for expedition and a preliminary injunction
hearing, and the parties informed the court that the plaintiff was
withdrawing its request for expedition and a preliminary
injunction.

On May 14, 2020, the Company announced that it had reached a
resolution of Percy Rockdale's consent solicitation.

On May 6, 2020, the plaintiff filed a motion for an order awarding
attorneys' fees and expenses, requesting a US$2.5 million fee.  The
plaintiff alleges that the redemption provisions in the
Certificates of Designations constitute so-called proxy puts and
that defendants used the proxy puts to undermine stockholders'
franchise rights.  Briefing on the plaintiff's motion is complete,
and the Delaware Court of Chancery has scheduled oral argument for
August 11, 2020.  However, the parties may be able to resolve the
fee application via a negotiated resolution.

HC2 Holdings, Inc. provides construction, marine services, energy,
telecommunications, insurance, life sciences, broadcasting, and
other services in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
internationally. The company was formerly known as PTGi Holding
Inc. and changed its name to HC2 Holdings, Inc. in April 2014. HC2
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.


HDFC BANK: Bragar Eagel Announces 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 Eastern District
of New York on behalf of investors that purchased HDFC Bank Limited
(NYSE: HDB) securities between July 31, 2019 and July 10, 2020 (the
"Class Period"). Investors have until November 2, 2020 to apply to
the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

HDFC Bank was founded in 1994 and is based in Mumbai, India. The
Bank provides various banking and financial services to individuals
and businesses in India, Bahrain, Hong Kong, and Dubai.

HDFC Bank operates in Treasury, Retail Banking, Wholesale Banking,
Other Banking Business, and Unallocated segments, offering, among
other services, various types of loans to millions of its retail
borrowers, including personal and vehicle financing loans.

Revenues generated from HDFC Bank's auto and commercial vehicle
loans are reported as part of the Bank's Retail Banking segment.

On July 13, 2020, The Economic Times published an article titled
"HDFC Bank probes lending practices at vehicle unit." That article
reported that HDFC Bank had "conducted a probe into allegations of
improper lending practices and conflicts of interests in its
vehicle-financing operations involving the unit's former head."

On this news, HDFC Bank's American Depositary Share ("ADS") price
fell $1.37 per share, or 2.83%, to close at $47.02 per share on
July 13, 2020

The complaint, filed on September 3, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Bank's business, operational and
compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) HDFC Bank
had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and internal
control over financial reporting; (ii) as a result, the Bank
maintained improper lending practices in its vehicle-financing
operations; (iii) accordingly, earnings generated from the Bank's
vehicle-financing operations were unsustainable; (iv) all the
foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material
negative impact on the Bank's financial condition and reputation;
and (v) as a result, the Bank's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you purchased HDFC Bank 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

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]

HELVEY & ASSOCIATES: Faces Bradburn FDCA Suit in S.D. Indiana
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Helvey & Associates,
Inc. The case is captioned as RACHELLE BRADBURN, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HELVEY & ASSOCIATES,
INC., an Indiana corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-02271-SEB-DML (S.D.
Ind., Aug. 31, 2020).

The consumer credit lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Sarah Evans Barker.

Helvey & Associates, Inc. is an Indiana-based provider of accounts
receivable management and contact center services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
          David J. Philipps, Esq.
          Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
          PHILIPPS AND PHILIPPS, LTD.
          9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
          Palos Hills, IL 60465
          Telephone: (708) 974-2900
          Facsimile: (708) 974-2907
          E-mail: angie@philippslegal.com
                  davephilipps@aol.com
                  mephilipps@aol.com

               - and -

          John Thomas Steinkamp, Esq.
          JOHN STEINKAMP & ASSOCIATES
          5214 S. East Street, Suite D-1
          Indianapolis, IN 46227
          Telephone: (317) 780-8300
          Facsimile: (317) 217-1320
          E-mail: John@johnsteinkampandassociates.com


HL WELDING: Yanez Sues Over Tradespeople's Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Lopez Yanez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. HL WELDING, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-01789-BEN-MDD (S.D.
Cal., Sept. 11, 2020), asserts claims under the Fair Labor
Standards Act arising out of the Defendant's failure to pay
overtime premium pay under certain federal and state wage laws.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of other current and former Pipe
Fitters, Sheet Metal workers, Electricians, Machinists, Riggers and
similar trades occupation (collectively "Tradespeople")

The Plaintiff challenges HL Welding's policy and practice of
failing to pay Tradespeople overtime compensation under the FLSA
and California law. He alleges that HL Welding's policy is, and at
all relevant times have been, to exclude "per diem" rates paid to
Tradespeople from the regular rate of pay when calculating
overtime. As a result, HL Welding directed, allowed and/or
encouraged the Tradespeople, including the Plaintiff, to work
overtime hours without paying full overtime compensation, as
required by federal and California law; and failed to pay overtime
compensation at the time of termination of employment, as required
by California law.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant in skilled trades positions
working on maritime construction projects.

HL Welding is a corporation that provides maritime and other
construction services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron Kaufmann, Esq.
          David Pogrel, Esq.
          Afroz Baig, Esq.
          LEONARD CARDER, LLP
          1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2700
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Phone: (510) 272-0169
          Facsimile: (510) 272-0174
          Email: akaufmann@leonardcarder.com
                 dpogrel@leonardcarder.com
                 abaig@leonardcarder.com


HUNTING CREEK: Thompson Files Suit in Maryland
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hunting Creek
Homeowners Association Inc. in Maryland Circuit Court on Aug. 18,
2020. The case is styled as Darlean Thompson, on their own behalf
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Hunting Creek Homeowners Association Inc, Torin Andrews, Andrews
and Lawrence Professional Services LLC, Kary B Lawrence,
Defendants, Case No. 483185V.

The case type of the lawsuit is stated as Other Torts.

Hunting Creek is a neighborhood in Lexington Park, Maryland.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Richard S Gordon, Esq.
   Gordon, Wolf & Carney, Chtd., Suite 100
   W Pennsylvania Ave
   Towson, MD 21204

The Defendants are represented by:

   David C Gardner, Esq.
   Gardner Law Firm, P.C.
   600 Jefferson PLZ, STE 308
   Rockville, MD 20852

     - and -

   Torin K Andrews, Esq.
   ANDREWS & LAWRENCE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, LLC
   9639 Doctor Perry RD STE 208S
   IJamsville, MD 21754


HUNTINGTON INGALLS: Class Action Should Advance Towards Trial
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a class
action accusing Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. of shortchanging
certain pensions by using 50-year-old life expectancy data to
calculate benefits should advance toward trial, a federal
magistrate judge in the Eastern District of Virginia recommended.

Huntington retiree Roger Herndon and his expert witness presented
enough evidence that the company's pension calculations were
unreasonable to go to trial on his claims under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller
said in an Aug. 28 recommendation. Herndon presented evidence that
Huntington calculated pensions using insurance tables from the
1960s that aren't approved by the Internal Revenue Service. [GN]



IAS LOGISTICS: Parker Seeks Overtime Wages for Warehouse Staff
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXIS PARKER and LATISHA RHODES, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. IAS LOGISTICS DFW, LLC d/b/a PINNACLE
LOGISTICS, Case No. 1:20-cv-05103 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 31, 2020), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs as a result of the Defendant's willful
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law, and the Maryland Wage and Hour Law.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant violated its statutory and
contractual obligations by failing to pay its workers, including
the Plaintiffs, for all hours worked, including straight time and
overtime wages at a rate of not less than one and one-half times
the regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 per week.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as warehouse agents.
Plaintiff Parker worked for the Defendant from November 2019 to May
2020 and Plaintiff Rhodes from August 2019 to April 2020.

IAS Logistics DFW, LLC, d/b/a Pinnacle Logistics, is a provider of
trucking and aviation services across the United States on a range
of logistic and ground support equipment leasing services including
local delivery, warehouse management, loading and unloading cargo
aircraft, etc.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 810
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (877) 561-0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com


IHEART COMMUNICATIONS: Hit With ERISA Class Suit Over 401(k) Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg Law reports that iHeart Communications Inc. is facing a
proposed class action in the Northern District of Texas by
participants and beneficiaries of its $1 billion 401(k) plan who
allege it failed to ensure prudent investment options and
maintained funds with higher than necessary costs and weaker
performance than available alternatives.

The named plaintiffs, Patrick E. Walker and Lisa Henshaw, allege
the company, its board of directors, and the retirement benefits
committee breached their fiduciary duties in violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. [GN]

IMPAC MORTGAGE: Appeal in Marentes Class Suit Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
The appeal from a trial court decision in the class action suit
entitled, Marentes v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., is underway,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020.

On April 30, 2012, a purported class action was filed entitled
Marentes v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., alleging that certain
loan modification activities of the Company constitute an unfair
business practice, false advertising and marketing, and that the
fees charged are improper.  The complaint seeks unspecified
damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorney's fees and
prejudgment interest.

On August 22, 2012, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
adding Impac Funding Corporation as a defendant and on October 2,
2012, the plaintiffs dismissed Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc.,
without prejudice.

On January 11, 2019, the trial court determined that the plaintiffs
were unable to prove their case and ordered that judgment be
entered in favor of the defendant.  

On April 19, 2019, the plaintiffs filed their Notice of Appeal and
the plaintiffs filed their opening brief on October 31, 2019.  The
Company filed its response on February 19, 2020.  The plaintiffs
filed their appellate reply on May 26, 2020.  The Court set August
17, 2020 for oral arguments.

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. operates as an independent
residential mortgage lender in the United States. It operates
through three segments: Mortgage Lending, Real Estate Services, and
Long-Term Mortgage Portfolio. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Writ of Certiorari in Timm Suit Granted
-------------------------------------------------------
The Maryland Court of Appeals has granted Impac Mortgage Holdings,
Inc.'s a petition for a writ of certiorari regarding the Court of
Special Appeal's April 2020 opinion, which affirms the judgment in
favor of plaintiffs on the Series B voting rights arguing that the
voting rights provision was not ambiguous, according to Impac
Mortgage Holdings, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2020.

On December 7, 2011, a purported class action was filed in the
Circuit Court of Baltimore City entitled Timm, v. Impac Mortgage
Holdings, Inc, et al. alleging on behalf of holders of the
Company's 9.375% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock
(Preferred B) and 9.125% Series C Cumulative Redeemable Preferred
Stock (Preferred C) who did not tender their stock in connection
with the Company's 2009 completion of its Offer to Purchase and
Consent Solicitation that the Company failed to achieve the
required consent of the Preferred B and C holders, the consents to
amend the Preferred stock were not effective because they were
given on unissued stock (after redemption), the Company tied the
tender offer with a consent requirement that constituted an
improper "vote buying" scheme, and that the tender offer was a
breach of a fiduciary duty.  The action seeks the payment of two
quarterly dividends for the Preferred B and C holders, the
unwinding of the consents and reinstatement of the cumulative
dividend on the Preferred B and C stock, and the election of two
directors by the Preferred B and C holders.  The action also seeks
punitive damages and legal expenses.

On July 16, 2018, the Court entered a Judgement Order whereby it
(1) declared and entered judgment in favor of all defendants on all
claims related to the Preferred C holders and all claims against
all individual defendants thereby affirming the validity of the
2009 amendments to the Series B Articles Supplementary; (2)
declared its interpretation of the voting provision language in the
Preferred B Articles Supplementary to mean that consent of
two-thirds of the Preferred B stockholders was required to approve
the 2009 amendments to the Preferred B Articles Supplementary,
which consent was not obtained, thus rendering the amendments
invalid and leaving the 2004 Preferred B Articles Supplementary in
effect; (3) ordered the Company to hold a special election within
sixty days for the Preferred B stockholders to elect two directors
to the Board of Directors pursuant to the 2004 Preferred B Articles
Supplementary (which Directors will remain on the Company's Board
of Directors until such time as all accumulated dividends on the
Preferred B have been paid or set aside for payment); and, (4)
declared that the Company is required to pay three quarters of
dividends on the Preferred B stock under the 2004 Articles
Supplementary (approximately, US$1.2 million, but did not order the
Company to make any payment at this time).  The Court declined to
certify any class pending the outcome of appeals and certified its
Judgment Order for immediate appeal.  

On October 2, 2019, the appellate court held oral argument for all
appeals in the matter.  

On February 5, 2020, the Court of Special Appeal requested that the
parties provide a supplemental memorandum explaining the
appealability of the original circuit court opinion which the
Company responded to on February 21, 2020.  

On April 1, 2020, the Court of Special Appeal issued an opinion
affirming the judgment in favor of plaintiffs on the Series B
voting rights arguing that the voting rights provision was not
ambiguous.  In response, the Company filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari to the Maryland Court of Appeal appealing the Court of
Special Appeals opinion.  The petition was submitted by the Company
on May 20, 2020, the plaintiffs responded on June 4, 2020, and the
Company submitted a reply brief on June 15, 2020.

The Maryland Court of Appeals granted the writ of certiorari on
July 13, 2020.

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. operates as an independentresidential
mortgage lender in the United States. It operates through three
segments: Mortgage Lending, Real Estate Services, and Long-Term
Mortgage Portfolio. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. was founded in
1995 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


IMPINJ INC: Nov. 19 Hearing Set for $20MM Deal in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

IN RE IMPINJ, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION

No. 3:18-cv-05704-RSL

CLASS ACTION

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING;
AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO:    All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
the publicly traded common stock of Impinj, Inc. ("Impinj" or the
"Company") during the period of July 21, 2016 through February 15,
2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby (the
"Settlement Class").1

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A
CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington (the "Court"), that the
above-captioned litigation (the "Action") is pending in the Court.

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the Parties have reached a proposed
settlement of the Action for $20,000,000 in cash for the benefit of
the Settlement Class (the "Settlement"), subject to approval by the
Court.

A hearing will be held on November 19, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. Pacific
time, before the Honorable Robert S. Lasnik either in person at the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Courtroom 15106, United States Courthouse, 700 Stewart
Street, Seattle, WA 98101, or by telephone or videoconference (in
the discretion of the Court).  At the hearing, the Court will
determine whether: (i) the proposed Settlement should be approved
as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) for purposes of the
proposed Settlement only, the Action should be certified as a class
action on behalf of the Settlement Class, Plaintiffs should be
certified as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class, and
Lead Counsel should be appointed as Class Counsel for the
Settlement Class; (iii) the Action should be dismissed with
prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and
described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated July
9, 2020 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iv) the proposed
Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and
(v) Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses should be approved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to a payment from the Settlement.  If you have not yet
received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at Impinj
Securities Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173051,
Milwaukee, WI 53217; 1-877-869-0158; or
info@ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com.  Copies of the Stipulation of
Settlement, Notice, and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the
Settlement website, http://www.ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com.  

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, you must submit
a Claim Form postmarked no later than November 27, 2020.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you will be bound by any
judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action (including
the releases provided therein).  If the Settlement is approved, the
Action and a related action pending in New York State Supreme Court
entitled Plymouth County Retirement System v. Impinj, Inc. et al.,
Index No. 650629/2019, will be dismissed.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than October 29, 2020,
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.  If
you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will
not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to receive a payment from the
Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
litigation expenses, must be filed with the Court such that they
are received no later than October 29, 2020, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Defendants, or
their counsel regarding this notice.  All questions about this
notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate
in the Settlement should be directed to the Claims Administrator or
Lead Counsel.

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:

Impinj Securities Litigation
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173051
Milwaukee, WI 53217
1-877-869-0158
www.ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq.
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575
Los Angeles, CA 90067
1-800-380-8496
settlements@blbglaw.com

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

1 Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Settlement
Class by definition as set forth in the full Notice of (I) Pendency
of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness
Hearing; and (III) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation
Expenses (the "Notice"), available at
www.ImpinjSecuritiesLitigation.com. [GN]


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

Insperity, Inc. (NYSE:NSP)

Investors Affected : February 11, 2019 - February 11, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Insperity, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (a) the Company had failed to negotiate appropriate
rates with its customers for employee benefit plans and did not
adequately disclose the risk of large medical claims from these
plans; (b) Insperity was experiencing an adverse trend of large
medical claims; (c) as a mitigating measure, the Company would be
forced to increase the cost of its employee benefit plans, causing
stunted customer growth and reduced customer retention; and (d) the
foregoing issues were reasonably likely to, and would, materially
impact Insperity's financial results.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/insperity-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=9016&from=1

Energy Recovery, Inc. (NASDAQ:ERII)

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

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

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/energy-recovery-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=9016&from=1

Progenity, Inc. (NASDAQ:PROG)

This lawsuit is on behalf of all purchasers of Progenity common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement, as
amended, issued in connection with Progenity's June 2020 initial
public offering.

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Progenity, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) that Progenity had overbilled government payors
by $10.3 million in 2019 and early 2020 and, thus, had materially
overstated its revenues, earnings and cash flows from operations
for the historical financial periods provided in the registration
statement; (ii) that Progenity would need to refund this
overpayment in the second quarter of 2020 (the same quarter in
which the initial public offering was conducted), adversely
impacting its quarterly results; and (iii) that Progenity was
suffering from accelerating negative trends in the second quarter
of 2020 with respect to the Company's testing volumes, revenues and
product pricing.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/progenity-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=9016&from=1

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

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


J2 GLOBAL: Gross Law Alerts of Shareholder Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following
publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in the
following companies during the dates listed are encouraged to
contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment.
Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any
recovery.

J2 Global, Inc. (NASDAQ:JCOM)

Investors Affected: October 5, 2015 - June 29, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
J2 Global, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) J2 Global engaged in undisclosed related party
transactions; (2) J2 Global used misleading accounting to hide
requisite impairments and underperformance in acquisitions; (3)
several so-called independent members of the Company' board of
directors and audit committee were not disinterested; and (4) as a
result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/j2-global-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=8927&from=1

Guidewire Software, Inc. (NYSE:GWRE)

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

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

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/guidewire-software-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=8927&from=1

Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation (NYSE:COG)
Investors Affected: October 23, 2015 - June 12, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Cabot had inadequate
environmental controls and procedures and/or failed to properly
mitigate known issues related to those controls and procedures;
(ii) as a result, Cabot, among other issues, failed to fix faulty
gas wells, thereby polluting Pennsylvania's water supplies through
stray gas migration; (iii) the foregoing was foreseeably likely to
subject Cabot to increased governmental scrutiny and enforcement,
as well as increased reputational and financial harm; (iv) Cabot
continually downplayed its potential civil and/or criminal
liabilities with respect to such environmental matters; and (v) as
a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/cabot-oil-gas-corporation-loss-submission-form/?id=8927&from=1

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

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


JAMES GIBSON: Court Denies Roos' Motion to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as Nicholas Roos v. James Gibson,
Joyce Jackson, Yolanda Clark, Kay Skillen and Debra Goldmon, Case
No. 4:19-cv-00895 (E.D. Ark., Filed Dec. 13, 2019), the Hon. Judge
Billy Roy Wilson entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion to
certify class because the Plaintiff does not meet the requirements
for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and has not
identified any potential class members or shown that his claims are
typical of other putative class members.

The Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel and motion to appoint
expert are denied without prejudice. These requests may be
resubmitted as the case gets closer to trial, the court says.

The lawsuit alleges violation of prisoner civil rights.[CC]

JLJ IV ENTERPRISES: Court Certifies Class in Moran Wage Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, OLIVER MORAN, JAIME DE LEON, INDIANA MOTA, JOSE OSCAR
PERDOMO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. JLJ IV ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A JLJ ENTERPRISES, PED
PROTECT, INC., K. G. P. INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants, Docket No. 651136/2019, Motion Seq. No. 001 (N.Y.
Sup.), Judge Arlene P. Bluth of the New York County Supreme Court
granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The Plaintiffs seek to recover purportedly unpaid prevailing wages
on behalf of themselves and all non-union workers for PED and
K.G.P. who worked as flaggers, flag persons, or crossing guards on
construction sites operated by Defendant JLJ between Jan. 1, 2014
and Feb. 8, 2019.  Flaggers direct pedestrian and car traffic with
cones, barrels and signs.  The Plaintiffs allege that they were
also directed to guide construction equipment around the worksites.
They assert that JLJ supervisors and foremen directed flaggers to
do work that entitled them to prevailing wages but did not pay them
those wages.

These projects all involved public works in New York City,
including such projects as reconstructing portions of the Brooklyn
Navy Yard and a water main connection in Washington Square Park.
The Plaintiffs argue that the contracts awarded to JLJ by various
city agencies required JLJ to comply with Labor Law Section 220,
which provides that workers are to be paid prevailing wages.  They
point out that Defendant Liberty served as JLJ's bond holder in
connection with these public contracts.  They contend that in
addition to using some of its own union employees for flagging
duties, JLJ used approximately 43 to 96 flaggers employed by KGP
from 2014 to 2017 and then switched to PED for flagging work
beginning in January 2017.

The Plaintiffs allege that they sent demand letters to the
Defendants concerning the alleged failure to pay them prevailing
wages and were subsequently terminated.  They claim that they had
no contact with KGP (except for getting paychecks) and instead were
directed in their work by JLJ foreman and managers.  They contend
that PED (once it took over) required flaggers to sign a document
containing rules for flaggers that directed them not to direct
construction vehicles or do any construction-related tasks although
they claim that these rules were not followed and flaggers
continued to do this work under JLJ's direction.  The Plaintiffs
insist that the Defendants billed for work done by the flaggers at
the prevailing wage rate and point to a bill sent to ConEd in 2018
that charged the prevailing wage for non-unionized flaggers' work.

The Plaintiffs contend that they meet all the requirements for
class certification under CPLR 901 and CPLR 902.  They argue it
would make no sense to prosecute over 100 separate actions on
behalf of the flaggers who worked on these projects.  Their counsel
maintains they have extensive experience litigating wage and hour
class actions and that the proposed notice satisfies the
requirements under CPLR 904.  The Plaintiffs also demand that the
Defendants should produce a list of the potential class members'
full name, last known address, telephone number, email address,
employment dates and job title so that these individuals can
receive the proper notice.

In opposition, the Defendants contend that JLJ does work primarily
with the New York City Department of Design and Construction and
does mainly water, sewer and private utility work.  They point out
that JLJ is a signatory to certain collective bargaining agreements
that set out hundreds of categories of covered work, including
flagging work.  The Defendants stress that the Plaintiffs signed
(as a condition of employment) an agreement acknowledging the scope
of their work and this included only certain traffic control
duties.  They contend that the Plaintiffs were full-time crossing
guards and now seek the benefits of union laborer jobs without
having done these jobs.  The Defendants contend that a pedestrian
crossing guard is not a prevailing wage position under the
contracts between the city and JLJ.

The Defendants point to two memoranda drafted by the New York City
Comptroller which states that a worker classified as a flag person
whose duties are not primarily on the construction work site and
instead mostly works to alleviate vehicular congestion does not
fall under Labor Law Section 220.  

The Plaintiffs do not object to the Defendants' proposed amendment
to the section in the class notice describing the latter's
position.

Judge Bluth stresses that the instant motion is merely about
whether the Plaintiffs may maintain a class action.  It is not an
assessment of the validity of theirs.  It may be, as the Defendants
suggest, that these workers were not primarily tasked with job
duties that required the payment of prevailing wages.  But that is
a separate analysis from whether they can pursue a class action.
The merit of the Plaintiffs' claims has yet to be decided.

Accordingly, Judge Bluth granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  The Judge certified a class composed of all
non-union employees of PED Protect, Inc., and/or K.G.P. Inc. who
worked as flaggers, flagpersons, and/or pedestrian crossing guards
on any of JLJ IV Enterprises, Inc.'s public work sites in New York
City at any point between Jan. 1, 2014 and Feb. 8, 2019.

The Plaintiffs are appointed the class representatives for the
class, and Pechman Law Group PLLC is appointed class counsel.

The Defendants must produce to the Plaintiffs (via electronic
means) the names, telephone numbers, and last known mailing address
of potential class members without delay.

The Plaintiffs' proposed class action notice is approved except
that the changes requested by the Defendants must be included
before it is disseminated by mail and email.  They will send the
notice to the class members via email and mail within 30 days after
receiving the contact information mentioned.

The question of whether the Plaintiffs will be entitled to the
potential class members' social security numbers will be revisited
at a future conference if the Plaintiff still desires the
information.

The class members may exclude themselves from the class by mailing
a written request to be excluded from the class within 45 days from
the mailing of the class action notice.

The parties are encouraged to submit a discovery order signed by
both pities via e-filing for the Court's approval.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 16, 2020 Decision +
Order is available at https://is.gd/lBZJwh from Leagle.com.


KINGSTONE COS: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kingstone Companies, Inc. (Nasdaq: KINS) (the "Company" or
"Kingstone"), a Northeast regional property and casualty insurance
holding company, on Aug. 11 disclosed that the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York has granted
the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the
putative securities class action suit originally commenced in 2019
against the Company and certain current and former officers and
directors, captioned Woolgar v. Kingstone Companies et al., 19 cv
05500 (S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiff sought to represent a class of persons or entities that
purchased Kingstone securities between March 14, 2018 and April 29,
2019, and alleged violations of the federal securities law in
connection with, among other things, the Company's loss reserves in
light of the April 29, 2019 announcement regarding losses related
to winter catastrophe events. The Court has permitted plaintiff to
amend the complaint to attempt to cure the deficiencies identified
by the Court in its opinion (to the extent plaintiff has a good
faith basis to do so). The amended complaint, if any, would need to
be filed by September 11, 2020.

               About Kingstone Companies, Inc.

Kingstone is a Northeast regional property and casualty insurance
holding company whose principal operating subsidiary is Kingstone
Insurance Company ("KICO"). KICO is a multi-line carrier writing
business through retail and wholesale agents and brokers. KICO
offers primarily personal lines insurance products, as well as
Physical Damage Only coverage to taxi, limousine, and
transportation network vehicle owners in New York State. Actively
writing in New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and
Connecticut, Kingstone is also licensed in Pennsylvania, New
Hampshire and Maine. [GN]


LEE ENTERPRISES: Goldsmith Can Conduct Discovery in Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEVEN GOLDSMITH, Plaintiff, v. LEE ENTERPRISES, INC.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:19CV1772 HEA (E.D. Mo.), Judge Henry
Edward Autrey of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri, Eastern Division:

  (1) denied without prejudice the Defendants' Motion for Summary
      Judgment;

  (2) granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery or to Deny
      Summary Judgment Without Prejudice;

  (3) denied the Defendants' Motion for a Protective Order
      Limiting Discovery;

  (4) granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendants to
      Comply with Discovery Requests; and

  (5) denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial
      Summary Judgment.  

The Plaintiff initially filed a Petition in the Circuit Court for
St. Louis County, Missouri.  The Defendants removed the action to
federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1441, 1446, and the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.  The Plaintiff filed his
six-count First Amended Class Action Complaint with the Missouri
District Court on July 3, 2019.  The Defendants filed their Answer
including affirmative defenses on July 16.

In his Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
overcharged him and other similarly situated St. Louis
Post-Dispatch subscribers by "double billing," that is, including
the same day in more than one billing period.  He alleges breach of
contract (Count I), breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing (Count II), unjust enrichment (Count III), money
had and received (Count IV), violation of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA") by means of unfair practices
(Count V), and violation of the MMPA by means of deception (Count
VI).

In their Answer, the Defendants deny the Plaintiff's allegations
regarding improper or double billing.  They also deny the
allegation that they acted unethically or unlawfully.

The Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that the
Plaintiff cannot show that he suffered a loss as required of a
claim under the MMPA, and that he cannot show any other damages or
breach of contract.

The Plaintiff then filed a Motion for Discovery or to Deny Summary
Judgment Without Prejudice, arguing that the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment can be denied without discovery because the
evidence on which they rely -- the declaration of Defendant Lee
Enterprises Inc.'s Director of Circulation Accounting, Andrew
Sistek -- is not material.  Alternatively, the Plaintiff argues
that if the Court does not deny the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment based on immateriality of Sistek's declaration, he will
need to conduct discovery to oppose summary judgment.  In that
case, he contends that the Court should deny the Defendants' motion
for summary judgment or defer ruling on it until the close of
discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d).

The Defendants moved for a protective order limiting discovery to
matters essential to justify opposition to their pending motion for
summary judgment.  In the parties' joint proposed scheduling plan,
submitted Oct. 2, 2019, the Defendants had requested such a limit
on discovery, while the Plaintiff had opposed it.  The Court did
not specifically address the dispute in its case management order
dated Oct. 22, 2019 ("CMO").  In their motion for a protective
order, the Defendants requested that the Court now enforces a limit
on discovery to the issues raised in their motion for summary
judgment, namely whether the Plaintiff can show that he suffered an
ascertainable loss under the MMPA or any other damages or breach as
to his other claims.

The Plaintiff then moved to compel the Defendants to comply with
discovery requests not related to class issues.  Therein, Plaintiff
requested that the Court overrules the Defendants' objections where
they assert the requests improperly seek information regarding the
merits of the case.  He further requested that the Court compels
the Defendants to comply with his discovery requests even if the
information sought is unnecessary for class certification.  He
argues that the CMO did not order separate discovery phases on
class issues and merits issues.

The Plaintiff has now filed a Partial Motion for Summary Judgment
on Liability, arguing that the undisputed facts establish the
requisite elements to prove the Defendants' liability for breach of
contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, deceptive practice under the MMPA, and unfair practice
under the MMPA as to the Plaintiff's personal claims, and leaving
only damages to be determined.

Judge Autrey holds that neither the Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment nor the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
will be granted at this time.  As a general rule, summary judgment
is proper only after the non-movant has had adequate time for
discovery.  The parties' motions for summary judgment inform the
reasoning behind the general rule that summary judgment is proper
only after the nonmovant has had adequate time for discovery.  The
Judge does not doubt that both motions are based on each party's
genuinely held belief that they are entitled to the requested
summary judgment based on their proffered evidence.  However,
definitively ruling on these motions before discovery is not
possible where some of the most basic underlying facts are
vigorously disputed by the parties.

It is no surprise then that the Plaintiff's Rule 56(d) motion is
well taken.  The Plaintiff is granted leave to conduct discovery on
this and other issues; the Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery or to
Deny Summary Judgment Without Prejudice will be granted.  The
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is denied without
prejudice.

The Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Liability
will also be denied without prejudice at this time.  Although the
Plaintiff zealously claims that he was charged and paid for the
same newspapers twice, the Judge holds that the running spreadsheet
of his account provided by the Defendants creates a genuine issue
of fact as to his actual loss.  The Plaintiff's Rule 56(d) motion
was granted because the Plaintiff is entitled to seek discovery to
rebut the Defendants' contention that he suffered no loss.  For
now, his loss remains a disputed fact, and the Judge cannot grant
summary judgment in his favor such a fact dispute remains
unresolved.  For that reason, the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment as to liability is denied without prejudice at
this time.  The Judge denies the motions for summary judgment
without prejudice in the hope that the parties will clarify and
refine their arguments after engaging in discovery.

Two motions remain pending before the Court: the Defendants' Motion
for a Protective Order Limiting Discovery and the Plaintiff's
Motion to Compel Defendants to Comply with Discovery Requests.  In
their motion for a protective order, the Defendants' seek to limit
discovery to matters pertinent to their summary judgment motion.
They argue that if their summary judgment motion is granted, the
Plaintiff's claims will be disposed of, and the Defendants could
avoid the burden and expense of broad discovery.  The Defendants
note that they raised a similar request to limit discovery to their
initial motion for summary judgment in the parties' joint proposed
scheduling plan, and that the Plaintiff opposed the request.  The
Court did not affirmatively rule on the dispute in the CMO.

The CMO was silent as to "phases" of discovery, although it did set
specific deadlines for class certification.  Importantly, the
Defendants and the Plaintiff have each filed motions for summary
judgment based on the merits of the named Plaintiff's case.
Although these motions will be denied without prejudice, the
parties show no sign of laying aside the issues raised therein.
Discovery cannot be limited only to class certification when the
parties are lodging dispositive motions on the merits.  The
Defendants' Motion for a Protective Order Limiting Discovery is
denied.  The Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendants to Comply with
Discovery Requests is granted.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 16, 2020 Opinion,
Memorandum & Order is available at https://bit.ly/3mG06MZ from
Leagle.com.


LEXINFINTECH HOLDINGS: Vela Sues Over Decline in Share Value
------------------------------------------------------------
Ernesto Vela, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. LEXINFINTECH HOLDINGS LTD., JAY WENJIE XIAO, CRAIG YAN
ZENG, KEYI CHEN, YIBO SHAO, and JARED YI WU, Case No. 1:20-cv-12606
(D.N.J., Sept. 11, 2020), asserts claims under the Securities Act
of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as a result of the
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions resulting to the
precipitous decline in the market value of Lexin's securities.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all persons and entities other
than Defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) Lexin
American depositary shares ("ADSs") pursuant and/or traceable to
the Company's initial public offering conducted on December 21,
2017 (the "IPO" or "Offering"); or (b) Lexin securities between
December 21, 2017, and August 24, 2020, both dates inclusive.

On November 13, 2017, Lexin filed a registration statement on Form
F-1 with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with
the IPO, which, after several amendments, was declared effective by
the SEC on December 20, 2017. On December 21, 2017, pursuant to the
Registration Statement, Lexin's ADSs began trading on the NASDAQ
Global Market ("NASDAQ") under the symbol "LX." That same day,
Lexin filed a prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC in connection
with the IPO, which incorporated and formed part of the
Registration Statement (collectively, the "Offering Documents").

According to the complaint, the Offering Documents were negligently
prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material
fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance
with the rules and regulations governing their preparation.
Additionally, the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies.

Specifically, the Offering Documents and the Defendants allegedly
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) Lexin overstated its growth prospects and metrics; (ii)
Lexin engaged in undisclosed related party transactions; (iii)
following the COVID-19 pandemic, Lexin maintained low delinquency
rates by providing borrowers in default new funds to make payments;
and (iv) as a result, the Offering Documents and the Company's
public statements were materially false and/or misleading and
failed to state information required to be stated therein.

On August 25, 2020, shortly after markets opened, Grizzly Research
issued a research report on Lexin alleging, among other issues,
that the Company reported "unfathomably low" delinquency rates by
providing borrowers in default new funds to make payments and that
Lexin engaged in undisclosed related party transactions. The
Grizzly report further alleged that a review of Lexin's web traffic
called into question the Company's purported growth. On this news,
Lexin's ADS price fell $0.47 per share, or 5.52%, to close at $8.04
per share on August 25, 2020.

As of the time this Complaint was filed, the price of Lexin ADSs
continues to trade below the Offering price, damaging investors. As
a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of Lexin's securities, the
Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses
and damages, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff acquired Lexin ADSs pursuant and/or traceable to the
Offering Documents issued in connection with the Company's IPO,
and/or purchased or otherwise acquired Lexin securities at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

Lexin, through its subsidiaries, operates as an online consumer
finance platform for young professionals in China, offering various
loans and financial services to consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          Email: gfbruckner@pomlaw.com
                 jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                 ahood@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
          HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
          1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Phone: (770) 392-0090
          Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
          Email: cholzer@holzerlaw.com


LEXISNEXIS RISK: Seeks 4th Cir. Review of Ruling in Gaston Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS, INC. and POLICEREPORTS.US,
LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit
entitled Deloris Gaston v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc., Case
No. 5:16-cv-00009-KDB-DCK, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina at Statesville.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 9,
2020, the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order granting class
certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1) and (b)(3).

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants obtained Putative Class
Representatives' and Class Members' Personal Information from Motor
Vehicle Records ("MVRs") maintained by the State Motor Vehicle
Department, for purposes that violate the DPPA, including
processing, re-disclosing, reselling personal information.

The appellate case is captioned as Deloris Gaston v. LexisNexis
Risk Solutions, Inc., Case No. 20-1960, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees DELORIS GASTON, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated individuals; and LEONARD GASTON, on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals,
are represented by:

          Eugene Clark Covington, Jr., Esq.
          COVINGTON PATRICK HAGINS STERN & LEWIS, P.A
          P. O. Box 2343
          Greenville, SC 29602-0000
          Telephone: (864) 240-5502
          E-mail: gcovington@coypatlaw.com

               - and -

          Heather Whitaker Goldstein, Esq.
          Larry Stephen McDevitt, Esq.
          David Matthew Wilkerson, Esq.
          VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
          11 North Market Street, P. O. Box 7379
          Asheville, NC 28801
          Telephone: (828) 258-2991
          Facsimile: (828) 257-2767
          E-mail: hgoldstein@vwlawfirm.com
                  lmcdevitt@vwlawfirm.com
                  dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com

Defendants-Appellants LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS, INC., a Georgia
Corporation, and POLICEREPORTS.US, LLC, a North Carolina Limited
Liability Company, are represented by;

          Joshua Daniel Davey, Esq.
          Dennis Kyle Deak, Esq.
          TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
          301 South College Street
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          E-mail: joshua.davey@troutman.com

               - and -

          Cindy D. Hanson, Esq.
          TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS, LLP
          600 Peachtree Street, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30308-2216
          Telephone: (404) 815-6470
          E-mail: cindy.hanson@troutman.com

               - and -

          Julie Diane Hoffmeister, Esq.
          TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
          P. O. Box 1122
          Richmond, VA 23218-1122
          Telephone: (804) 697-1448
          E-mail: julie.hoffmeister@troutman.com

               - and -

          Ronald I. Raether, Jr., Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP
          5 Park Plaza
          Irvine, CA 92614-2545
          Telephone: (949) 622-2722
          E-mail: ron.raether@troutman.com


LHC GROUP: George Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deena George, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LHC GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-02760-LTB (D. Colo.,
Sept. 11, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to pay proper
overtime wages.

The lawsuit is brought to redress the Defendant's violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Colorado Wage Claim Act, and
Colorado Minimum Wage Act, as implemented by the Colorado Minimum
Wage Orders and the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards
Order by failing to pay its Physical Therapist Assistants,
Certified Occupational Therapy Assistants, Licensed Practical
Nurses, other similarly-designated skilled care positions
(collectively, "Clinical Assistants") proper overtime premium wages
for the overtime work they performed despite knowingly paying them
pursuant to a hybrid "per visit" and hourly pay scheme, and
classifying them as non-exempt from overtime pay.

According to the complaint, the Defendant improperly paid Clinical
Assistants half-time rather than one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for recorded hours worked in excess of forty
per workweek and failed to record or pay for all hours worked in
excess of forty per workweek and twelve hours per workday. In
addition, the Plaintiff alleges the Defendant violated the Wage
Claim Act by failing to pay the Plaintiff their earned bonus pay on
separation from employment, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked as a Physical Therapist Assistant for the
Defendant, performing home health care services in this District.

The Defendant's core business involves providing home health care
services in at least 35 states, including multiple locations in
Colorado.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
          Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq.
          Megan E. Shannon, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 233-1550
          Fax: (312) 233-1560
          Email: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                 rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                 tbecvar@stephanzouras.com
                 cmitchell@stephanzouras.com
                 mshannon@stephanzouras.com

               - and -

          Brian D. Gonzales, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC
          2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201
          Fort Collins, CO 80528


LIVONGO HEALTH: Raheja Suit Challenges $18.5-Bil. Sale to Teladoc
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amit Raheja, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LIVONGO HEALTH, INC., GLEN TULLMAN, ZANE BURKE, CHRIS
BISCHOFF, KAREN L. DANIEL, SANDRA FENWICK, PHILIP D. GREEN, HEMANT
TANEJA, TELADOC HOLDINGS INC., and TEMPRANILLO MERGER SUB, INC.,
Case No. 5:20-cv-06406 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 11, 2020), is brought on
behalf of the public stockholders of Livongo against Livongo and
its Board of Directors for violations of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 and for breaches of fiduciary duty as a result
of their efforts to sell the Company to Teladoc as a result of an
unfair process for an unfair price.

The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the proposed
mixed cash and stock transaction valued at approximately $18.5
billion.

On September 3, 2020, Teladoc filed a Registration Statement on
Form S-4 with the SEC in support of the Proposed Transaction. In
violation of Federal Securities laws and in further violation of
their fiduciary duties, the Defendants caused to be filed the
materially deficient Registration Statement on September 3, 2020
with SEC in an effort to solicit stockholders to vote their Livongo
shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Plaintiff alleges.
The Plaintiff adds that the Registration Statement is materially
deficient, deprives Livongo stockholders of the information they
need to make an intelligent, informed and rational decision of
whether to vote their shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction,
and is thus in breach of the Defendants fiduciary duties.

The Registration Statement allegedly omits and/or misrepresents
material information concerning, among other things: (a) the sales
process and in particular certain conflicts of interest for
management; (b) the financial projections for Livongo and Teladoc,
provided by Livongo and Teladoc to the Company's financial advisor
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC and to Teladoc's financial advisor Lazard
Frères & Co. LLC for use in their financial analyses; (c) the data
and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that purport
to support the fairness opinions provided by the Company's
financial advisor, Morgan Stanley; and (d) the data and inputs
underlying the financial valuation analyses that purport to support
the fairness opinions provided by Teladoc's financial advisor,
Lazard.

In approving the Proposed Transaction, the Individual Defendants
have breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith, due
care and disclosure by, inter alia, (i) agreeing to sell Livongo
without first taking steps to ensure that Plaintiff and Class
members would obtain adequate, fair and maximum consideration under
the circumstances; and (ii) engineering the Proposed Transaction to
benefit themselves and/or Teladoc without regard for Livongo public
stockholders, the Plaintiff contends. Accordingly, this action
seeks to enjoin the Proposed Transaction and compel the Individual
Defendants to properly exercise their fiduciary duties to Livongo
stockholders. Absent judicial intervention, the Proposed
Transaction will be consummated, resulting in irreparable injury to
Plaintiff and the Class, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has been a Livongo stockholder.

Livongo provides an integrated suite of solutions for the
healthcare industry in North America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Ryan P. Cardona, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          240 Mineola Boulevard, First Floor
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Phone: (516)741-4977
          Facsimile (561)741-0626
          Email: esmith@brodskysmith.com
                 rcardona@brodskysmith.com


LOOMIS ARMORED: Simmons Seeks Unpaid OT Wages for AS Technicians
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shane Simmons, Individually and on Behalf of All Similarly Situated
Employees v. LOOMIS ARMORED US, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02623-CCB (D.
Md., Sept. 11, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid wages, including
overtime pay, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law.

Regardless of the specific task they performed, the Defendant's
Armed Service Technicians were all compensated on an hourly basis,
according to the complaint. However, the Defendant failed to
properly pay its ASTs time and a half their regular hourly rate
when they worked over 40 hours a week. The Defendant willfully
failed to pay overtime to the Plaintiff and other ASTs, in direct
violation of the FLSA.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as an Armed Service
Technician ("AST").

Loomis Armored US, LLC is an international cash handling services
corporation registered to do business in Maryland.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin L. Davis, Esq.
          Kelly A. Burgy, Esq.
          Scott E. Nevin, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
          36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Phone: (443) 320-7417
          Fax: (410) 244-8454
          Email: bdavis@nicholllaw.com
                 kburgy@nicholllaw.com
                 snevin@nicholllaw.com


LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA: Rivas Sports Challenges Business Closure
----------------------------------------------------------------
RIVAS SPORTS, INC., a California corporation, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated; DAISY RIVAS, an individual;
SIMON MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES II, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; and DEL AMO FASHION CENTER OPERATING COMPANY, L.L.C., a
Delaware limited liability company v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; COUNTY
OF LOS ANGELES BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; DR. MUNTU DAVIS, individually
and in his official capacity as County of Los Angeles Health
Officer; DR. BARBARA FERRER, in her official capacity as Director,
County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health; and ALEX
VILLANUEVA, in his official capacity as Sheriff, County of Los
Angeles, Case No. 2:20-cv-08312 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 10, 2020), seeks
to end the alleged unlawful and unconstitutional closing of indoor
malls and shopping centers throughout Los Angeles County, an action
taken under color of emergency powers but without any valid legal
basis.

On August 28, 2020, after extensive review of the relevant data and
science, the California Department of Public Health issued a
statewide order allowing counties throughout the State to reopen
indoor malls and shopping centers subject to health and safety
restrictions, including 25% maximum capacity, closed common areas,
and closed food courts in California counties where COVID-19 is
"widespread."

According to the complaint, on September 2, 2020, Dr. Muntu Davis,
individually and in his official capacity as County of Los Angeles
Health Officer, ordered that, in this county--alone among counties
in California--all indoor portions and operations of indoor malls
and shopping centers must "remain closed to the public until
further notice." The order stands in stark contrast to the County's
treatment of virtually every other retail establishment, including
large and small scale retailers and even salons and
barbershops--all of which were permitted to reopen immediately and
operate at a minimum at 25% capacity.

The Plaintiffs contend that the September 2, 2020 order is out of
line with statewide standards, as well as standards established by
state and local governments nationwide. They argue that the order
has resulted in the needless closure of hundreds of businesses and
thrown thousands of employees out of work, including the
Plaintiffs, depriving them of badly needed revenue and thousands of
gainful employment--all without any justification whatsoever or
means to challenge the government's overreaching and arbitrary
action.

The lawsuit further alleges that the Los Angeles County's order has
arbitrarily deprived the Plaintiffs of their core property
interests and other legal rights without due process and in
violation of their right to equal protection under the law.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael G. Romey, Esq.
          Sarah F. Mitchell, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
          Telephone: (213) 485-1234
          Facsimile: (213) 891-8763
          E-mail: michael.romey@lw.com
                  sarah.mitchell@lw.com

               - and -

          Richard P. Bress, Esq.
          Andrew D. Prins, Esq.
          Eric J. Konopka, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20004-1304
          Telephone: (202) 637-2200
          Facsimile: (202) 637-2201
          E-mail: rick.bress@lw.com
                  andrew.prins@lw.com
                  eric.konopka@lw.com


LOWE'S HOME: Finch Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
PERRY FINCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC formerly known as LOWE'S HOME
CENTERS, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-02981-JMC (D.S.C., Aug. 18, 2020),
seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Finch was employed by the Defendant as installer.

Lowe's Home Centers, LLC retails home improvement, building
materials, and home appliances.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd R. Ellis, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF TODD ELLIS, P.A.
          7911 Broad River Road, Suite 100
          Irmo, SC 29063
          Telephone: (803) 732-0123
          E-mail: todd@toddellislaw.com

               - and -

          Eric Bland, Esq.
          Ronald L. Richter, Esq.
          Scott Mongillo, Esq.
          BLAND RICHTER, LLP
          1500 Calhoun Street
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Telephone: (803) 256-9664
          E-mail: ericbland@blandrichter.com
                  ronnie@blandrichter.com
                  scott@blandrichter.com

               - and -

          Bryn C. Sarvis, Esq.
          SARVIS LAW, LLC
          3424 Augusta Highway
          Gilbert, SC 29054
          Telephone: (803) 785-5525
          E-mail: bsarvis@sarvislaw.com


MARRIOTT EMPLOYEES FCU: Settles Class Action for More Than $200,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Strozniak, writing for CreditUnionTimes, reports that a
Maryland credit union settled a class action lawsuit for more than
$200,000 that will be paid to members who claimed the $198 million
Marriott Employees Credit Union in Bethesda, Md. violated the Truth
in Lending Act (TILA) by failing to disclose the true cost of
mini-loans for which members were allegedly charged an interest
rate of 46%.

Marriott Employees FCU contends it did not violate the Truth in
Lending Act, but that a trial would have been costly and risky.
[GN]



MASSACHUSETTS: 'Flu You Baker' Group Intends to File Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arianna MacNeill at Boston.com reports that a group called "Flu You
Baker" is reportedly filing a class-action lawsuit against the
state's requirement that all children, ages six months and up, get
a flu shot this year.

The group is currently gathering signatures, according to NBC10
Boston.

The Massachusetts state announced the flu vaccine mandate for
children back on Aug. 19. It endeavors to help child care centers,
pre-schools, schools, and colleges avoid flu outbreaks during the
coronavirus pandemic. Children are required to get the vaccine
before the end of the year; there are a few medical and religious
exemptions.

"Every year, thousands of people of all ages are affected by
influenza, leading to many hospitalizations and deaths," Dr. Larry
Madoff, the medical director of the state Department of Public
Health's Bureau of Infectious Disease and Laboratory Sciences, said
in a statement to the Associated Press at the time of the
announcement. "It is more important now than ever to get a flu
vaccine because flu symptoms are very similar to those of COVID-19
and preventing the flu will save lives and preserve health care
resources."

But not all parents are pleased with the idea, even ones whose
children have received a flu vaccine before.

"I don't think the government should be forcing anything medically
for my child to attend public school," Sheila Toomey of Woburn, who
has an 8-year-old daughter, told NBC10 Boston, despite her daughter
having received a flu vaccine before.

Another member of the group said it's about government overreach.

"I believe it should be between a parent, their child, and the
doctor," Vincent Delaney told the news station.

A protest was held in front of the State House in opposition of the
measure. Protesters held signs emblazoned with messages like,
"Parents call the shots," "Mama is pissed," and "Stop the Vaccine
Experiment." [GN]


MASSACHUSETTS: Some Parents Signs Onto Flu You Baker Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Rosenfield and Mike Pescaro, writing for NBC Boston, report
that as Massachusetts grapples with reopening schools during the
coronavirus pandemic, a new requirement health officials say is
important for public safety is drawing the ire of some parents.

Woburn mom Sheila Toomey says her 8-year-old daughter has received
a flu shot before, but she doesn't want to be told that's it
mandatory.

"I don't think the government should be forcing anything medically
for my child to attend public school," said Toomey.

Organizers of a class action lawsuit put forth by a group called
"Flu You Baker" are currently gathering signatures from parents who
oppose the state's new flu shot requirements.

The Massachusetts Department of Public Health announced in August
that all students, as well as kids at least 6 months old who are in
day care, must get the flu vaccine before the year's end.

The order allows for several exceptions, including K-12 students in
homeschool and higher education students learning entirely
remotely. Children and students with religious or medical
exemptions are also excluded. K-12 students in schools with remote
learning plans, however, are not exempt.

The CDC has said everyone 6 months and older should get a flu shot
every season, with rare exceptions. But health officials note that
the pandemic makes it crucial this year.

"It is more important now than ever to get a flu vaccine because
flu symptoms are very similar to those of COVID-19 and preventing
the flu will save lives and preserve healthcare resources," Dr.
Larry Madoff, medical director of the Bureau of Infectious Disease
and Laboratory Sciences at the Department of Public Health, said in
a statement last month.

"I don't believe in government overreach," said Vincent Delaney of
"Flu You Baker." "I believe it should be between a parent, their
child, and the doctor."

Delaney has filed a separate lawsuit asking the courts to force the
state to reopen Massachusetts businesses in full.

"This should be a parental choice because this can become a very
slippery slope," said Renee Viens, a mother of two in Tewksbury who
has signed onto the potential lawsuit.

"If people are forced to take the vaccine, then what's next? Is it
the COVID vaccine that's going to be forced on us?" she said. "I
just don't think this is good precedent to set." [GN]


MAYNE PHARMA: Must Face Generic Drug Price-Fixing Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Litigation Finance Journal reports that a class action is moving
forward against generic drug maker Mayne Pharma.

The suit alleges that Mayne, along with several other
pharmaceutical companies, have engaged in a conspiracy to reduce
competition, restrain the trade of generic drugs, and inflate the
price of products.

The claims are particularly egregious because price gouging generic
drugs leaves the public with no affordable alternative. [GN]



MED-1 SOLUTIONS: Dietz Sues in S.D. Indiana Over FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MED-1 Solutions, LLC.
The case is captioned as MELISSA DIETZ, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. MED-1 SOLUTIONS, LLC, an
Indiana limited liability company, Case No. 1:20-cv-02278-JPH-DLP
(S.D. Ind., Aug. 31, 2020).

The consumer credit lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The case is assigned to Hon. Judge James Patrick Hanlon.

MED-1 Solutions, LLC, is a medical debt collection agency based in
Greenwood, Indiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
          David J. Philipps, Esq.
          Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
          PHILIPPS AND PHILIPPS, LTD.
          9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
          Palos Hills, IL 60465
          Telephone: (708) 974-2900
          Facsimile: (708) 974-2907
          E-mail: angie@philippslegal.com
                  davephilipps@aol.com
                  mephilipps@aol.com

               - and -

          John Thomas Steinkamp, Esq.
          JOHN STEINKAMP & ASSOCIATES
          5214 S. East Street, Suite D-1
          Indianapolis, IN 46227
          Telephone: (317) 780-8300
          Facsimile: (317) 217-1320
          E-mail: John@johnsteinkampandassociates.com


MISSISSIPPI: Class Action Against MDOC Pending
----------------------------------------------
Ayana Rashed writing for Respect, reports that on Aug. 30, REFORM
Alliance announced the launch of a new radio campaign in
Mississippi featuring multiplatinum musician and criminal justice
reform advocate Yo Gotti.

In the campaign, Gotti urges legislators to continue fighting for
justice reforms like SB 2123 which Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves
vetoed in July and directs listeners to a website where they can
contact their legislators.

"REFORM and I share the same goals ­- to protect the people inside
of Mississippi's prisons, fix the dangerous prison conditions that
led to several unnecessary deaths and improve the state's criminal
justice system," Gotti said. "I'm proud to team up with REFORM on
this initiative and we hope that Mississippi lawmakers will
prioritize this issue and help us save lives."

A Memphis native with proximity to Mississippi, Gotti has helped
procure legal representation for the incarcerated population in
Parchman and filed multiple lawsuits against the Mississippi
Department of Corrections (MDOC) to address the deadly living
conditions. The latest class action lawsuit on behalf of 227
incarcerated people in Mississippi resulted in health provider
Centurion terminating its contract with MDOC. Most recently, Gotti
and his legal team have been working to compel Parchman prison to
adhere to strict COVID-19 testing and compliance guidelines after
discovering that only 132 of the 2,034 incarcerated individuals had
been tested and 33 percent were positive for the virus.

In July, the Mississippi legislature approved the bipartisan SB
2123 in an effort to create a uniform policy for parole eligibility
for certain individuals serving time in the state's prisons. The
bill would have created a pathway to parole eligibility for
thousands of incarcerated people who weren't given an opportunity
to benefit from similar reforms enacted in recent years. The
measure would have also saved the state an estimated $45 million
which could be reinvested into improving prison conditions at
facilities like Parchman, where 56 people have died or been killed
this year and where 100 people who live and work in the prison have
tested positive for COVID-19.

Governor Reeves vetoed the conservative-backed legislation despite
his promise to address the state's prison crisis this year and an
ongoing U.S. Department of Justice investigation into the state's
prison conditions.

"Governor Reeves said he wouldn't make 'empty promises' on prison
reform, but by vetoing SB 2123, he went back on his word," said
Jessica Jackson, Chief Advocacy Officer at REFORM Alliance. "SB
2123 is a commonsense, conservative-backed bill that will reduce
Mississippi's extraordinarily high incarceration rate and save tens
of millions of dollars that can be used to fix horrific prison
conditions that are the subject of an ongoing U.S. Justice
Department investigation. Our new campaign recognizes the effort
lawmakers have made on prison reform and encourages them to
continue fighting for incarcerated individuals and families in
Mississippi who deserve justice and a second chance."

The radio campaign mark REFORM's continued quest for common-sense
parole reform in Mississippi that protects public safety and helps
people earn a second chance. Recently, the organization hosted a
digital day of action in the state featuring several other local
and national groups, including Fwd.us, Mississippi Dreams Prisoner
Advocacy, RECH Foundation, and Clergy for Prison Reform.

REFORM has also sent more than 280,000 protective masks to prisons
and jails in Mississippi this year to protect against the spread of
COVID-19. The effort is part of the group's nationwide initiative
to distribute PPE to every prison and jail in the U.S. [GN]


MUNDI 910: Faces Class Action Over Econo Lodge July Fire
--------------------------------------------------------
Jess Fedigan, writing for Prince George Matters, reports that a man
staying at Prince George's Econo Lodge when a blaze engulfed part
of the top floor, has filed a class-action lawsuit against numerous
parties relating to safety.

Leonard Hay filed the civil claim on Aug. 25 to recover damages for
wrongful death, personal injury, loss of property and economic
losses on his own behalf and of other registered guests, as well as
other individuals who were at the hotel at the time of the blaze on
July 8 that claimed the lives of three people and has since been
declared as arson by police.

Hay says he was renting room #243 for $1,200 per month at the time
of the fire.

That morning, around to 8:30 a.m., he claims he heard screams from
the room next to his and saw flames outside of his window. The
window then exploded and was able to get out of the hotel using the
outside door leading to a walkway and ran along it to safety.

As reported earlier, those staying at the hotel did not hear any
fire alarms go off and no sprinklers were deployed. Hay also says
there was no staff directing any guests to a safe place or
assisting with people trying to escape the fire.

His claim says he suffered serious physical injuries, which
included second- and third-degree burns, along with psychological
issues as he lost all of his personal belongings.

The lawsuit, filed by CAMP Fiorante Matthews Mogerman LLP and Dick
Byl Law Corporation, includes all individuals that were registered
guests in the Econo Lodge, those on the site at the hotel or anyone
that was in the popular adjoining restaurant, Yolks All Day Family
Restaurants.

Excluded from the plaintiff and those represented, are the
defendants, their directors, officers, representatives, servants,
employees and/or agents.

Hay has accused Mundi 910 Victoria Enterprise Ltd., the City of
Prince George, Choice Hotels Canada, All Points Fire Protection
Ltd. and Aztech Fire Safety of all being negligent in the
maintenance of the hotel and safety repairs required.

The suit alleges Mundi Hotel Co. operated the hotel at all material
times, but when contacted by PrinceGeorgeMatters, the company said
the property was sold and run by TJ Khatrao in March 2019.
PrinceGeorgeMatters has reached out to the plaintiff's legal team
for clarification.

Choice Hotels Canada allegedly owns, licenses and franchises the
'Econo Lodge' brand for both motels and hotels.

The roughly 56-year-old hotel was repaired and renovated over time,
the suit says.

Aztech Fire Safety Planning and Consulting (2015) Ltd. was
allegedly the company that prepared a fire safety plan which
included evacuation procedures.

The suit says on or around Feb. 21, 2020, the City of Prince George
had done inspections on the hotel's fire warning as well as
suppression systems.

The city found numerous problems, including the hotel needed a
safety plan and its portable extinguishers, fire alarm system and
emergency lights needed testing and allegedly ordered Mundi Co. to
fix the problems.

All Points Fire Protection Ltd. had apparently gone over all issues
and purported to test, inspect, repair or replace the hotel's
current fire safety system.

The city once again came in for inspection on July 6, two days
before the fire, and had found the problems had been fixed.

Mundi Hotel Co., All Points Fire Protection Ltd., Aztech Fire
Safety Planning and Consulting (2015) Ltd. and the City of Prince
George are all being sued for numerous claims of negligence for
ensuring the safety of guests including a fire safety plan,
sprinklers and fire alarm systems and having employees trained
should such an accident happen on the property.

Mundi Hotel Co. is also being sued for breach of contract. [GN]


NEW YORK: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed v. Ortiz in Gulino Bias Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment
dated July 29, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled GULINO, ET AL.
v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY
OF NEW YORK, Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the
New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant, the
Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New
York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
Section 2000e et seq., by requiring Plaintiffs to pass certain
racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a
license to teach in New York City public schools. Judge Constance
Baker Motley, to whom the case was originally assigned, certified
the plaintiff class on July 13, 2001, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).

On December 5, 2012, the Court decertified the Plaintiff class to
the extent it sought damages and individualized injunctive relief
in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011). The class survived, however, to
the extent Plaintiffs sought relief that may be awarded under Rule
23(b)(2), including a declaratory judgment regarding liability and
class-wide injunctive relief.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board of
Education, Case No. 20-2903, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Nancy Ortiz is represented by:

          Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          180 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 806-1245
          E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com

Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District
of the City of New York is represented by:

          James Edward Johnson, Esq.
          CORPORATION COUNSEL
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-2500


NEW YORK: Class Action Filed to Force Return of Indoor Dining
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Rizzi, writing for Commercial Observer, reports that an
Italian restaurant in Queens launched a $2 billion class-action
lawsuit against the city and state to force the return of indoor
dining in New York City after it was indefinitely postponed in July
as coronavirus cases spiked around the country, court documents
show.

Il Bacco, an Italian restaurant in Little Neck, Queens, filed the
suit on Aug. 28 in Manhattan Supreme Court against Gov. Andrew
Cuomo and Mayor Bill de Blasio over the decision to halt indoor
dining in mid-March. In it, Il Bacco complained that even though it
sits a block away from the Long Island border, which resumed indoor
dining in June, it hasn't been allowed to bring back diners
inside.

"Plaintiff is losing all of its customers to restaurants in Nassau
County and is suffering irreparable harm as a result," the suit,
filed on Aug. 28 in Manhattan Supreme Court, claims. "There is
absolutely no science that will prove that indoor dining is safer
one city block east from plaintiff's restaurant."

The suit, which was first reported by Crain's New York Business, is
asking the city and state to immediately bring back indoor dining
and stop Cuomo from banning indoor dining again, and is seeking $2
billion in damages. It does not say how many other restaurateurs
signed on but said there are "several hundred members" in the
class-action claim.

Il Bacco's lawyer, James Mermigis, did not immediately respond to a
request for comment. A spokesman for de Blasio declined to comment
on pending litigation.

"The bottom line is that New York City was hit the hardest and the
governor took action to reduce infections in the areas that were
driving clusters in other large cities around the country," Rich
Azzopardi, a senior adviser for Cuomo, said in a statement. "We
understand that some people are unhappy, but better unhappy than
sick or worse."

Restaurants around the city were forced to switch to take-out or
delivery only models since March 16 as officials rushed to curb the
spread of the coronavirus, which has been responsible for nearly
27,000 deaths in New York City.

Eateries laid off about 200,000 workers while struggling to keep
the lights on, with a survey by the New York City Hospitality
Alliance finding that more than 80 percent couldn't pay their full
rent in July. Thousands of restaurants are expected to close in the
wake of the pandemic.

New York allowed for the expansion of outdoor dining in recent
months as coronavirus cases dropped and was originally set to bring
back indoor dining in the city on July 6, but postponed as other
states saw increases in cases.

Officials have not given a concrete date on when indoor dining
could return, but de Blasio has hinted it might not come back until
2021 because it's considered high-risk.

"If folks miss the theater, if they miss indoor dining, those
things will be back," de Blasio said at a press conference,
according to Eater New York. "They'll be back next year at some
point. I think that is overwhelmingly the case."

Restaurant owners in the five boroughs pleaded with the local
government to develop a plan for indoor dining's return, with the
New York City Hospitality Alliance considering legal action to
force the return. A group of 100 restaurant owners in Staten Island
and Brooklyn later announced plans to file a class-action suit to
resume indoor dining, The New York Post reported.

Il Bacco's suit isn't the first time Mermigis has tussled with the
city and state over lifting coronavirus restrictions. In July, he
filed a class-action lawsuit against New York on behalf of about
1,500 gyms to allow them to reopen, NY1 reported. Gyms are now set
to return on Aug. 26. [GN]


NEW YORK: Restaurants Planning to Sue City Over Indoor Dining Ban
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Roughly 100 restaurant owners in Brooklyn and Staten Island are
planning a class-action lawsuit against the city and state, saying
that they believe most restaurants will have to close their doors
permanently if they aren't able to open for indoor dining in the
coming colder months.

"Why are restaurants around the state able to operate at a reduced
indoor occupancy while restaurants throughout the five boroughs are
currently closed?" asked Andrew Rigie, Executive Director of the
NYC Hospitality Alliance. "Although we have met, sustained, and
exceeded all of the health metrics that have allowed restaurants
throughout the rest of the state to open."

With fall just around the corner, restaurant owners say they fear
that the colder months ahead will sap what business they have been
able to recover via indoor dining.

Mayor Bill de Blasio says the major issue is that face coverings
would have to come off when people eat and drink indoors, which
differs from schools and gyms where masks will have to stay on.

Officials say the city and state's decision to hold off on indoor
dining in New York City is also based on recent spikes in cases
globally.

"Hong Kong started to have a resurgence directly related to indoor
dining and bars and had to close them down," De Blasio said. "We
know what an unfortunate nexus they've been for resurgences, we've
seen it in Europe lately as well."

But restaurant owners say they aren't buying it.

"When the Mayor says 'We're looking at what's happening in Hong
Kong and Europe,' how about we look at what's happening in Long
Island and upstate New York? Why are we looking at Hong Kong?" said
Tom Casatelli, a restaurant owner. [GN]

NEW YORK: Wedding Venues Sue Over Pandemic Restrictions
-------------------------------------------------------
Rick Karlin, writing for Adirondack Daily Enterprise, reports that
lawyers who have been battling the Cuomo administration over
whether restaurants and other venues can host large weddings have
filed a federal class action lawsuit on the issue.

And while the fight began in western New York's Erie County, one of
the initial plaintiffs in the class action suit is in Saugerties.

The Cuomo administration, according to the suit, has caused an
"unprecedented interruption of virtually every aspect of the
social, political, religious and economic life of New York State's
over 19 million residents," through its pandemic protection orders,
which the plaintiffs say are arbitrary.

The suit also contends that the state has "carved out numerous
exceptions in an arbitrary and capricious manner according to their
own political preferences," when it comes to the pandemic
lockdown.

Cuomo spokesman Richard Azzopardi said the public health crisis
brought on by COVID-19 is still with us and the restrictions will
persist despite the lawsuit.

"I've lost track of the frivolous lawsuits filed against us during
this pandemic, but this one also happens to be dangerous," he said
in an email.

"120 cases and several clusters were linked to one large wedding in
Maine; now is not the time to pretend like this public health
crisis is over," he said.

The class action suit, filed by the Rupp, Baase, Pfalzgraf,
Cunningham law firm, comes after they represented a western New
York couple, Jenna DiMartile and Justin Crawford, who wanted an
injunction against the governor's ban on weddings of more than 50
people for an Aug. 7 wedding.

The injunction was granted and hours later the couple held a
reception with about 115 people at an Erie County golf course
restaurant.

Northern District Court Judge Glenn Suddaby at the time concluded
that the Constitution's Equal Protection clause meant that weddings
should be treated the same as other events, such as school
graduations, where more than 50 people were in attendance.

Later in the month, however, a federal Second Circuit appellate
judge, Denny Chin, ruled that the governor's ban could stay in
place until a full three-judge appeals panel can hear arguments in
the case.

That put on hold a 175-person wedding planned by another couple,
Pamella Giglia and Joe Durolek, who were also plaintiffs in the
original suit.

As they argued earlier, the plaintiffs in the class action suit
noted that large restaurants with up to 400 seats can operate at
half capacity, which is more than 50 people.

They also pointed out that gyms, museums, and school graduations
have allowed more than 50 people to gather.

"This is allowed despite the mingling that takes place at gyms and
museums, or the sporadic enthusiasm and exuberance expressed by
bowlers, graduates, and gym-users," the complaint states.

Additionally, the plaintiffs pointed out that the state hadn't
moved to halt large protest gatherings after the killing of George
Floyd in Minneapolis earlier in the year.

"These protests have been permitted across every major city in the
State of New York and many smaller towns and villages since George
Floyd's death on May 25, 2020," it noted.

"Favored businesses, entities, and activities, as well as favored
mass demonstrations such as those over the death of George Floyd,
are exempt from the challenged gathering limits, while Defendants
irrationally and capriciously continue to forbid weddings from
taking place under the same rules in effect for restaurant dining,"
read the complaint.

When Suddaby's initial decision came out, operators of wedding
venues across the state were wondering if this opened the door for
them to proceed with events that had been postponed due to the
pandemic.

The class action suit names as plaintiffs Bill & Ted's Riviera in
Massapequa, and Partition Street Project also known as Diamond
Mills Hotel in Saugerties, as well as "all restaurant, banquet,
catering, and dining facilities in New York State with a maximum
occupancy greater than 100 that follow the ‘Interim Guidance for
Food Services During the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency.' "

They say there are more than 1,000 in the state.

The Maine wedding referenced by Azzopardi was an Aug. 7 event in
rural Millinocket, Maine, a state that has a 50-person cap on
indoor gatherings.

Sixty two people were at the event, but later in the month, health
officials concluded that more than 120 people had become infected
with COVID-19, including some who had "tertiary" contact stemming
from the wedding. That means they likely caught the virus from a
person who had gotten it from someone at the Millinocket event.
[GN]


NIALAYA JEWELRY: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, Guglielmo Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH GUGLIELMO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. NIALAYA JEWELRY, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-07368
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 10, 2020), arises from the Defendant's alleged
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act due to its failure
to design a Web site that is fully accessible to the Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people.

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

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

Nialaya Jewelry, Inc. is a jewelry company that owns and operates
the Web site offering features which should allow all consumers to
access the goods and services and which the Company ensures the
delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New
York State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David P. Force, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com


NORWEGIAN CRUISE: 11th Cir. Affirms Arbitration Ruling in Phillips
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Silverman, Esq. -- asilverman@carltonfields.com -- of Carlton
Fields, in an article for JDSupra, reports that plaintiffs filed a
putative class action against Norwegian Cruise Lines claiming that
Norwegian failed to disclose profits it earned when the plaintiffs
elected to purchase travel insurance during the cruise booking
process. Each plaintiff acknowledged accepting the terms of a
"guest contract" with Norwegian, which contained a mandatory
arbitration clause covering any dispute "relating to or in any way
arising out of or connected with this Contract or Guest's cruise."
The district court granted Norwegian's motion to compel arbitration
and the plaintiffs appealed, claiming the arbitration clause was
inapplicable. According to the plaintiffs, Norwegian was not being
sued as a cruise line carrier, but for its role in a purported
"reinsurance scheme" whereby it received "kickbacks" on the sale of
each travel insurance plan. Thus, the plaintiffs claimed, the class
action was unrelated to the guest contract or their cruises. The
district court disagreed, however, as did the Eleventh Circuit.
Both courts concluded that the plaintiffs' claims "arose out of,"
were "related to," and were "connected with" Norwegian's
obligations under the guest contract, as any alleged wrongdoing by
Norwegian was inextricable from the transaction that culminated in
the contract, as well as the plaintiffs' cruises. The Eleventh
Circuit also rejected the notion that Norwegian was being sued in
its capacity as a "distribution participant" for the travel
insurer. As such, the court affirmed the district court order
enforcing the arbitration clause and dismissing the plaintiffs'
allegations.

Phillips v. NCL Corp., No. 19-12463 (11th Cir. Aug. 10, 2020).
[GN]


NUTECH NATIONAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Kern Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL KERN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
NUTECH NATIONAL SOLAR, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company,
and NFS MONITORING, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation, Case No.
6:20-cv-01659 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 9, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by, among other
things, failing to pay proper overtime wages.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from 2016 to February
3, 2020, as a non-exempt, hourly paid Senior Site Technician.

The Plaintiff alleges that despite frequently working in excess of
40 hours per week throughout his employment with the Defendants, he
was not compensated for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours at a
rate not less than one and one-half times his regular rate of pay.
Moreover, the Defendant failed to keep records as required by the
FLSA, the Plaintiff adds.

Nutech National Solar, LLC provides complete solar lighting and
solar powered security solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David V. Barszcz, Esq.
          Mary E. Lytle, Esq.
          LYTLE & BARSZCZ
          533 Versailles Dr., 2nd Floor
          Maitland, FL 32751
          Tel: (407) 622-6544
          Fax: (407) 622-6545
          Email: mlytle@lblaw.attorney
                 dbarszcz@lblaw.attorney


NVIDIA CORP: Faces Class Action Over 401(k) Plan Mismanagement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that four former
employees of NVIDIA Corp. accuse the computer graphics company of
filling its billion-dollar 401(k) plan with overly expensive
investment options without properly investigating cheaper and
better performing alternatives, according to a proposed class
action filed in the Northern District of California.

NVIDIA failed to leverage the plan's large size to obtain a better
deal on the plan's investment options, the former employees said in
an Aug. 28 complaint. The plan offered expensive, actively managed
mutual funds, and the plan's fiduciaries failed to properly
investigate cheaper alternatives like institutional share classes,
passive funds, and collective trusts, the employees allege. [GN]


OASIS PETROLEUM: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Cox Labor Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LARRY COX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. OASIS PETROLEUM LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-02903 (S.D. Tex.,
Aug. 18, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to pay the
Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff Cox was employed by the Defendants as inspector.

Oasis Petroleum Inc. operates as an oil and gas exploration
company. The Company acquires, explores, produces, and supplies
petroleum products. Oasis Petroleum serves customers in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

         Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
         BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
         8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
         Houston, TX 77046
         Telephone: (713) 877-8788
         Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
         E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


OCWEN LOAN: Bardak Appeals Ruling in FDCPA Suit to 11th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Lisa Bardak filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in
her lawsuit entitled Lisa Bardak v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Case
No. 8:19-cv-01111-SCB-TGW, in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and the Florida's Consumer Collection
Practices Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Lisa Bardak v. Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC, Case No. 20-13297, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

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

   -- The appellant's brief is due on or before October 13, 2020;

   -- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of
      the appellant's brief; and

   -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
      before September 29, 2020 as to Appellee Ocwen Loan
      Servicing, LLC.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant LISA BARDAK, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Christopher W. E. Boss, Esq.
          BOSS LAW, PLLC
          9887 4th St. NE, Ste. 202
          St. Petersburg, FL 33702
          Telephone: (727) 471-0039
          E-mail: cwbservice@bosslegal.com

               - and -

          James Lawrence Kauffman, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
          1055 Thomas Jefferson St. NW, Ste. 540
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 463-2101
          E-mail: jkauffman@baileyglasser.com

Defendant-Appellee OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC is represented by:

           Scott Burnett Smith, Esq.
           BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS, LLP
           200 Clinton Ave. W, Ste. 900
           Huntsville, AL 35801
           Telephone: (205) 517-5100
           E-mail: ssmith@bradley.com

                - and -

           Timothy A. Andreu, Esq.
           Arthur Lee Bentley, III, Esq.
           BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS, LLP
           100 N Tampa St., Ste. 2200
           Tampa, FL 33602
           Telephone: (813) 229-3333
           E-mail: tandreu@bradley.com
                   lbentley@bradley.com

                - and -

           Anne Knox Averitt, Esq.
           Zachary A. Madonia, Esq.
           Michael R. Pennington, Esq.
           BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS, LLP
           1819 5th Ave. N
           Birmingham, AL 35203
           Telephone: (205) 521-8000
           E-mail: aaveritt@bradley.com
                   zmadonia@bradley.com
                   mpennington@bradley.com

                - and -

           Michael R. Esposito, Esq.
           BLANK ROME LLP
           201 E Kennedy Blvd., Ste. 520
           Tampa, FL 33602
           Telephone: (813) 255-2324
           E-mail: mesposito@blankrome.com

                - and -

           Daniel S. Hurtes, Esq.
           Nicole R. Topper, Esq.
           BLANK ROME, LLP
           500 E Broward Blvd., Ste. 2100
           Ft Lauderdale, FL 33394
           Telephone: (954) 512-1800
           E-mail: dhurtes@blankrome.com
                   ntopper@blankrome.com


ONESPAN INC: Rosen Law Announces 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]

OVINTIV USA: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Buffington Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MORGAN BUFFINGTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. OVINTIV USA INC.; and NEWFIELD EXPLORATION
COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-02477-STV (D. Col., Aug. 18, 2020),
arises from the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the
proposed class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of
40 hours per week.

Plaintiff Buffington was employed by the Defendants as safety
advisor.

Ovintiv Inc. operates as an energy producer. The Company focuses on
developing its multi-basin portfolio of oil, natural gas liquids,
and natural gas producing plays. Ovintiv serves clients in the
United States and Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

         Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
         BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
         8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
         Houston, TX 77046
         Telephone: (713) 877-8788
         Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
         E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


PEERLESS-PREMIER APPLIANCE: Jaquez Sues Over Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RAMON JAQUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. PEERLESS-PREMIER APPLIANCE CO., Case No.
1:20-cv-07411-LGS (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 10, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act due to its failure to maintain and operate its Web site in a
way to make it fully accessible for the Plaintiff and for other
blind or visually-impaired people.

According to the complaint, in July 2020, the Plaintiff visited the
Defendant's Website, http://www.premierrange.com/,using a popular
screen reading software called NonVisual Desktop Access, with the
intent of browsing and potentially making a purchase. Despite his
efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied access similar to that
of a sighted individual due to the Web site's lack of a variety of
features and accommodations, which effectively barred the Plaintiff
from being able to enjoy the privileges and benefits of the
Defendant's public accommodation.

Because of this, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has
engaged in acts of intentional discrimination, including
maintaining a Web site that is inaccessible to members of a
protected class. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to
cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that Defendant's Web site will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

Peerless-Premier Appliance Co. is a gas range production company
that owns and operates the Web site, offering features which should
allow all consumers to access the goods and services, which the
Company ensures the delivery of throughout the United States,
including New York State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695-3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com


PETER NYGARD: Assault Suit on Hold After Court Stays Proceedings
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a class-action lawsuit against Peter Nygard
involving 57 women who allege the former fashion executive sexually
assaulted them has been put on hold.

The judge presiding over the case in the Southern District of New
York entered a stay of proceedings, court records show.

The judge's order is sealed, but a screenshot of the court docket
posted to Twitter by Pete Brush, a reporter on New York courts for
the news service Law360, shows the U.S. government was granted
leave to intervene. It also shows "the government is directed to
inform the court within 48 hours of the completion of its
proceedings, and advise the court whether it may lift the stay."

A stay of proceedings means the case has been put on hold, but it
doesn't mean it's been dropped. The court can later lift the stay
and continue the proceedings.

In February, the FBI raided Nygard's New York offices as part of a
criminal sex-trafficking investigation shortly after the
class-action was filed. No charges have been laid.

Police in Canada and the Bahamas are also investigating Nygard.

"I'm not surprised by this," said Winnipeg lawyer Robert Tapper,
who isn't involved in this case. Generally speaking, he said,
police don't want a civil trial to interfere with an active
criminal investigation.

"If you're the police and the lawyers representing the police
investigators, you don't want the civil trial lawyer scheduling an
examination for discovery or a deposition of a witness," Tapper
said. "You want to do your own investigation."

In Canada and the U.S., lawyers can call witnesses to testify in a
civil trial, he said, but unlike in Canada, Americans can depose
witnesses prior to a trial, regardless of a police probe.

"You don't have to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt in a
civil case," but in a criminal trial, "the state does not have that
luxury," Tapper said.

"So they don't want anyone else trampling on their investigation."

Nygard denies the sexual assault claims, and none of the
allegations have been proven in court.

Shannon Snedaker, a Florida-based lawyer with experience
representing victims of human trafficking, said the government can
ask for a stay of proceedings to protect the integrity of active
investigations.

"There is a provision within that code that enables the federal
government to come and intervene in a proceeding if there is a
federal criminal investigation going on," said Snedaker.

"It may mean that something might be coming next, whether it's an
arrest or an indictment or something is coming down the pipeline,
or that they are still investigating."

In February, 10 women filed a class-action lawsuit against Nygard
and his companies, alleging he had raped and sexually assaulted the
plaintiffs. Other women have since signed onto the lawsuit from the
U.S., Canada and the Bahamas, bringing the total number involved in
the lawsuit to 57.

Their allegations date back as far as 1977, and some of the women
allege they were assaulted when they were as young as 14 or 15.

In July, Nygard filed a motion to dismiss the claims of most of the
57 plaintiffs in the case, arguing that 50 of the women have no
connection to New York, and the American court doesn't have
jurisdiction over him or his companies named in the civil lawsuit.

Calls to Nygard's spokespeople were not immediately returned.

              Nygard Companies in Receivership

Nygard has been involved in a string of legal proceedings in recent
months.

Two of his sons launched a separate lawsuit, alleging Nygard set
them up to be raped by his girlfriend — described as a "known sex
worker" —  when they were teenagers.

On the corporate side, nine Nygard companies — which have offices
in Winnipeg, New York and Toronto — have been in court-ordered
receivership since March 18, to pay back more than $25 million US
to secured lenders.

Manitoba's Court of Queen's Bench has since approved the sale of
two Nygard properties, including the company headquarters in
Toronto and the property on Notre Dame Avenue in Winnipeg. Nygard's
retail outlets in the U.S. and Canada are currently in the process
of liquidation sales.

In an April report to the court, the receiver said it had
discovered thousands of documents and data were deleted after
Nygard Inc. was served with a grand jury subpoena from the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on Feb.
25.

Richter Advisory Group said its review of the Nygard companies
revealed 10,488 files had been deleted by three users; two of them
were believed to be IT staff performing maintenance activities, but
the third user was identified as a former Nygard director.

Richter said it was investigating. No further updates have been
provided on the issue.

A copy of the subpoena attached to the receiver's report says
Nygard Inc. was ordered to produce documents dating back to Jan. 1,
2008, for a criminal investigation.

Among other things, the court ordered the company to hand over "all
documents, records, and communications concerning or reflecting
allegations of sexual misconduct, harassment or assault by Peter
Nygard" and "every date in the last five years in which the company
purged any data." [GN]

PORTLAND GENERAL: Bragar Eagel Announces 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
Oregon on behalf of investors that purchased Portland General
Electric Company ("PGE") (NYSE: POR) securities between April 24,
2020 and August 24, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until
November 2, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.

PGE is an electric utility that engages in the generation,
transmission, distribution, and retail sale of electricity in the
state of Oregon. The Company also participates in wholesale markets
by purchasing and selling electricity and natural gas to meet the
needs of its retail customers.

On August 24, 2020, PGE announced that it had incurred losses of
$127 million as of August 24, 2020. PGE further stated that "PGE
personnel entered into a number of energy trades during 2020, with
increasing volume accumulating late in the second quarter and into
the third quarter, resulting in significant exposure to the
Company." In addition, PGE announced that it had formed a Special
Committee "to review the energy trading that led to the losses and
the Company's procedures and controls related to the trading."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.51, or nearly 8%,
to close at $38.45 per share on August 24, 2020.

The complaint, filed on September 3, 2020, alleges that throughout
the class period defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
PGE lacked effective internal controls over its energy trading
practices; (2) that PGE personnel had entered energy trades during
2020, with increasing volume accumulating late in the second
quarter and into the third quarter, that created significant
negative financial exposure for PGE; (3) that, as a result, the
Company was reasonably likely to incur significant losses; and (4)
that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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

About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York 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]

PORTLAND GENERAL: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP announces that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District
of Oregon captioned Hessel v. Portland General Electric Company, et
al., (Case No. 20-cv-01523) on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Portland General Electric Company
("PGE" or the "Company") (NYSE: POR) securities between April 24,
2020 and August 24, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff
pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date
of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.

If you suffered a loss on your PGE 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/portland-general-electric-company/.
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 24, 2020, after the market closed, PGE announced that it
had incurred losses of $127 million as of August 24, 2020. PGE
further stated that "personnel entered into a number of energy
trades during 2020, with increasing volume accumulating late in the
second quarter and into the third quarter, resulting in significant
exposure to the Company." In addition, the Company announced that
it had formed a Special Committee "to review the energy trading
that led to the losses and the Company's procedures and controls
related to the trading."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.51, or nearly 8%,
to close at $38.45 per share on August 24, 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 PGE lacked effective internal controls over its
energy trading practices; (2) that PGE personnel had entered energy
trades during 2020, with increasing volume accumulating late in the
second quarter and into the third quarter, that created significant
negative financial exposure for PGE; (3) that, as a result, the
Company was reasonably likely to incur significant losses; and (4)
that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired PGE securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from the
date of this notice 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 H. 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]

PORTLAND GENERAL: Kirby McInerney Announces Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Oregon on behalf of those who acquired Portland General Electric
Company ("PGE" or the "Company") (NYSE: POR) securities during the
period from April 24, 2020 through August 24, 2020 (the "Class
Period"). Investors have until November 2, 2020 to apply to the
Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

PGE is an electric utility that engages in the generation,
transmission, distribution, and retail sale of electricity in the
state of Oregon. The Company also participates in wholesale markets
by purchasing and selling electricity and natural gas to meet the
needs of its retail customers.

On August 24, 2020, PGE announced that it had incurred losses of
$127 million as of August 24, 2020. PGE further stated that "PGE
personnel entered into a number of energy trades during 2020, with
increasing volume accumulating late in the second quarter and into
the third quarter, resulting in significant exposure to the
Company." In addition, PGE announced that it had formed a Special
Committee "to review the energy trading that led to the losses and
the Company's procedures and controls related to the trading." On
this news, the Company's share price fell $3.51, or nearly 8%, to
close at $38.45 per share on August 24, 2020.

The complaint, filed on September 3, 2020, alleges that throughout
the class period defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
PGE lacked effective internal controls over its energy trading
practices; (2) that PGE personnel had entered energy trades during
2020, with increasing volume accumulating late in the second
quarter and into the third quarter, that created significant
negative financial exposure for PGE; (3) that, as a result, the
Company was reasonably likely to incur significant losses; and (4)
that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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

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

PRICE CHOPPER: Falsely Markets Vanilla Ice Cream, Magnuson Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Luke Magnuson, Laura Vitaliani, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. The Price Chopper, Inc., Case No.
7:20-cv-07497 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 11, 2020), seeks damages and an
injunction to stop the Defendant's false and misleading marketing
practices with regards to its vanilla bean ice cream under its
"PICS" brand.

The relevant front label representations include "Vanilla Bean,"
"Vanilla Bean Ice Cream," an amber color patter evocative of
vanilla, two scoops of the product with noticeable "vanilla bean
specks" and the brand, "PICS." The Plaintiffs allege that the
representations are misleading because the Product contains
artificial, non-vanilla flavors not disclosed to consumers, less
vanilla than consumers expect and the vanilla bean specks only give
the illusion of more vanilla but do not contribute any vanilla
taste.

According to the complaint, the Defendant knows consumers will pay
more for the Product because the label only states "Vanilla Bean."
The Defendant's branding and packaging of the Product is designed
to--and does--deceive, mislead, and defraud the Plaintiff and
consumers. The Defendant sold more of the Product and at higher
prices than it would have in the absence of this misconduct,
resulting in additional profits at the expense of consumers. Had
the Plaintiffs and class members known the truth, they would not
have bought the Product or would have paid less for them.

As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the Product are
sold at a premium price, approximately no less than $4.99 per 1.5
Quart, excluding tax, compared to other similar products
represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than the price of
the Product if it were represented in a non-misleading way, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the Product within her district and/or
State for personal consumption.

The Price Chopper, Inc. manufactures, distributes, markets, labels
and sells vanilla bean ice cream under its "PICS" brand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: (516) 303-0552
          Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
          Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com


PRINCESS CRUISE: Passengers Seek Class Certif. in Archer Covid Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Y. Peter Kang and Lauren Berg, writing for Law360, report that a
proposed class of Princess Cruise Line passengers have asked a
California federal judge for certification of their suit alleging
the company allowed them to board the Grand Princess ship despite
knowing passengers from a previous voyage were suffering from
COVID-19 symptoms.

Robert Archer and other named plaintiffs asked U.S. District Judge
R. Gary Klausner on Aug. 31 to grant class certification in the
proposed class action accusing Princess Cruise Lines Ltd. and its
parent company Carnival Corp. of negligently exposing more than
2,400 passengers to the novel coronavirus on its Grand Princess
vessel traveling from San Francisco to Hawaii.

The suit claims Princess knew that at least one passenger suffered
from COVID-19 symptoms during a previous voyage to Mexico but
didn't tell the next group of passengers who embarked Feb. 21. The
passengers assert that 62 passengers who had traveled to Mexico --
including two that were sick -- and more than 1,000 crew members
remained on board to travel to the ship's next destination in
Hawaii.

Despite this, no medical screenings for disembarking or embarking
passengers were put in place and no efforts were made to sanitize
or disinfect the ship before new passengers arrived, according to
the complaint. The passengers were only made aware of the risks
when they were informed March 4 that a passenger from the previous
voyage had died, according to court papers.

"Defendants effectively trapped class members on the Grand Princess
for weeks, without warning them of the risks of contracting and
spreading COVID-19, without providing appropriate personal
protective equipment, and without taking other effective measures
to prevent the spread of the virus," the Aug. 31 filing said.

The passengers said class certification is justified because
"individual litigation would require the court to hear potentially
thousands of cases that raise the same questions of law and fact,"
according to the motion.

In addition, the passengers said their claims are typical because
they all suffered exposure to COVID-19 for the same length of time
on board the ship and were subject to the same lack of screening
procedures and forced to remain confined to their rooms until
finally being allowed to dock in Oakland on March 9.

An attorney for the plaintiffs, Mary Alexander, told Law360 on
Sept. 1 that they are hopeful the case will receive class
certification.

"We feel strongly that the class should be certified," she said.
"There are questions of fact that are common to all the people who
were on the ship; they were all exposed to the virus and were in
the zone of danger and placed there by Princess, who knew that
their ship had been contaminated."

Alexander added that Princess and Carnival's argument that the
passenger contract bars plaintiffs from suing via class action
doesn't pass muster because the contract is unconscionable and
unenforceable.

"They had people sign up and pay money and then sent them a
contract which says, 'Oh, by the way, you can't file a class
action,'" she said. "We believe it's unconscionable and
unenforceable and was not reasonably communicated to the passengers
before they bought their tickets."

Attorneys for the other parties did not immediately respond to
requests for comment.

Princess has been hit with a wave of suits claiming the company
knowingly let its Grand Princess vessel set sail on a voyage the
same day passengers who had COVID-19 symptoms disembarked from the
ship's previous voyage.

In July, the cruise line was hit with another class action alleging
that a COVID-19 outbreak on a March cruise left at least two dead
and passengers trapped in their cabins for days.

Princess recently escaped two suits in California federal court
after a judge said the passengers can't recover damages for
negligent infliction of emotional distress just because they were
afraid of contracting the virus.

The plaintiffs are represented by Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Jonathan
D. Selbin and Mark P. Chalos of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein
LLP; Mary E. Alexander and Brendan D.S. Way of Mary Alexander &
Associates PC; Gretchen M. Nelson and Carlos F. Llinas Negret of
Nelson & Fraenkel LLP; and Joseph G. Sauder of Sauder Schelkopf
LLC.

Princess is represented by Jeffrey B. Maltzman, Rafaela P.
Castells, Edgar R. Nield and Gabrielle De Santis Nield of Maltzman
& Partners PA.

Carnival is represented by Jonathan W. Hughes and Angel Tang
Nakamura of Arnold & Porter.

The case is Robert Archer et al. v. Carnival Corp. and PLC et al.,
case number 2:20-cv-04203, in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. [GN]


PROGENITY INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of October 27 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, on Aug. 31 disclosed that a securities class action has been
filed on behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the
securities of Progenity, Inc. ("Progenity" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: PROG) in the United States between June 19, 2020 and
August 28, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

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

The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement for
Progenity's IPO was negligently prepared and, as a result,
contained untrue statements of material fact, omitted material
facts necessary to make the statements contained therein not
misleading, and failed to make the necessary disclosures required
under the rules and regulations governing its preparation.
Specifically, the Registration Statement failed to disclose, inter
alia, the following adverse facts that existed at the time of the
IPO, rendering numerous statements provided therein materially
false and misleading: (i) that Progenity had overbilled government
payors by $10.3 million in 2019 and early 2020 and, thus, had
materially overstated its revenues, earnings and cash flows from
operations for the historical financial periods provided in the
Registration Statement; (ii) that Progenity would need to refund
this overpayment in the second quarter of 2020 (the same quarter in
which the IPO was conducted), adversely impacting its quarterly
results; and (iii) that Progenity was suffering from accelerating
negative trends in the second quarter of 2020 with respect to the
Company's testing volumes, revenues and product pricing.

Shortly after the IPO, the price of Progenity stock suffered
significant price declines. By August 14, 2020, Progenity stock
closed at just $7.71 per share -- nearly 50% below the $15 per
share price investors paid for the stock in the IPO less than two
months previously.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 27, 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 PROG securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/progenityinc-prog-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-297/apply
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

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


PROGENITY INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of October 27 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Aug. 31
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Progenity, Inc. (NASDAQ: PROG)
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering
conducted in June 2020 (the "IPO" or "Offering"). The lawsuit seeks
to recover damages for Progenity investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the Progenity class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1932.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, the Registration Statement for the IPO
was negligently prepared and made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Progenity had
overbilled government payors by $10.3 million in 2019 and early
2020 and, thus, had materially overstated its revenues, earnings
and cash flows from operations for the historical financial periods
provided in the Registration Statement; (2) Progenity would need to
refund this overpayment in the second quarter of 2020 (the same
quarter in which the IPO was conducted), adversely impacting its
quarterly results; and (3) Progenity was suffering from
accelerating negative trends in the second quarter of 2020 with
respect to the Company's testing volumes, revenues and product
pricing. 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
27, 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-1932.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]


PROSHARES ULTRA: Klein Law Reminds of Sept. 28 Motion Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on Aug. 30 disclosed that class action
complaints have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the
following companies. There is no cost to participate in the suit.
If you suffered a loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline
to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Proshares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil (NYSE:UCO)

Class Period: March 6, 2020 - April 27, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 28, 2020

The UCO lawsuit alleges Proshares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose during the class period that: (1) decreased demand for oil
due to the coronavirus pandemic and increased oil supply and
diminished oil prices caused by the Russia/Saudi oil price war had
caused extraordinary market volatility; (2) a massive influx of
investor capital into the Fund, totaling hundreds of millions of
dollars, in a matter of days had increased Fund inefficiencies,
heightened illiquidity in the West Texas Intermediate ("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); (3) there was 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. 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.

Learn about your recoverable losses in UCO:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/proshares-ultra-bloomberg-crude-oil-loss-submission-form?id=8923&from=1

Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.

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

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


QIHOO 360: Altimeo Asset & ODS Appeal Rulings in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Altimeo Asset Management and Movant ODS Capital LLC filed
an appeal from the District Court's Opinion and Order dated August
14, 2020, Judgment dated August 17, 2020, entered in the lawsuit
entitled Altimeo Asset Management v. Qihoo 360 Technology Co. Ltd.,
Case No. 19-cv-10067, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York (Foley Square) on Oct 30, 2019.

The Southern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-10067-JMF to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Jesse M. Furman.

The securities class action is brought on behalf of all former
owners of Qihoo 360 stock and American Depositary Shares (ADSs) who
(i) sold shares, and were damaged thereby, during the period
between January 11, 2016, and July 15, 2016, inclusive; and/or (ii)
held shares as of July 15, 2016. Excluded from the Class are the
Defendants, members of the immediate family of the Individual
Defendants, any subsidiary or affiliate of Qihoo 360, and the
directors and officers of Qihoo 360 and their families and
affiliates at all relevant times, and anyone, who filed a petition
or pursued appraisal rights of their Qihoo 360 stock pursuant to
Cayman Law.

The case concerns a scheme, which violates the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, by Qihoo 360 and certain of its officers and/or
directors to depress the value of Qihoo 360's stock and ADS in
order to avoid paying a fair price to Qihoo 360's shareholders
during a transaction to take the Company private.

The appellate case is captioned as Altimeo Asset Management v.
Qihoo 360 Technology Co. Ltd., Case No. 20-3074, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Altimeo Asset Management, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com

Movant-Appellant ODS Capital LLC is represented by:

          Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com

          Telephone: (212) 661-1100

Defendants-Appellees Qihoo 360 Technology Co. Ltd, Hongyi Zhou,
Xiangdong Qi, and Eric X Chen are represented by:

          Brian Raphel, Esq.
          DECHERT LLP
          3 Bryant Park, 1095 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 641-5692
          Facsimile: (212) 698-3599
          E-mail: brian.raphel@dechert.com


QUTOUTIAO INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Oct. 19 Motion Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Sept. 2 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of Qutoutiao 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.

Qutoutiao Inc. (NASDAQ:QTT)

This lawsuit is on behalf of persons and entities that: a)
purchased or otherwise acquired Qutoutiao American Depositary
Shares pursuant and/ortraceable to the registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the Company's September 2018
initial public offering; and/or b) purchased or otherwise acquired
Qutoutiao securities between September 14, 2018 and July 15, 2020.

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/qutoutiao-inc-information-request-form-2?prid=9027&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, (1) Qutoutiao replaced its
advertising agent with a related party, thereby bypassing
third-party oversight of the content and quality of the
advertisements; (2) the Company placed advertisements on its mobile
app for products whose claims could not be substantiated and thus
were considered false advertisements under applicable regulations;
(3) as a result, the Company would face increasing regulatory
scrutiny and reputational harm; (4) as a result, the Company's
advertising revenue was reasonably likely to decline; and (5) 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.

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]


READING INTERNATIONAL: Still Faces Brown & Wagner Class Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reading International, Inc. still defends itself against the class
suits initiated by Taylor Brown and Peter M. Wagner, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020.

The Company is currently involved in two California employment
matters which include substantially overlapping wage and hour
claims: Taylor Brown, individually, and on behalf of other members
of the general public similarly situated vs. Reading Cinemas et al.
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Kern,
Case No. BCV-19-1000390 ("Brown v. RC," and the "Brown Class Action
Complaint" respectively) and Peter M. Wagner, Jr., an individual,
vs. Consolidated Entertainment, Inc. et al., Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Diego, Case NO.
37-2019-00030695-CU-WT-CTL ("Wagner v. CEI," and the "Wagner
Individual Complaint" respectively).

Brown v. RC was initially filed in December 2018, as an individual
action and refiled as a putative class action in February 2019, but
not served until June 24, 2019.

These lawsuits seek damages, and attorneys' fees, relating to
alleged violations of California labor laws relating to meal
periods, rest periods, reporting time pay, unpaid wages, timely pay
upon termination and wage statements violations.

Wagner v. CEI was filed as a discrimination and retaliation lawsuit
in June 2019.

The following month, in July 2019, a notice was served on the
Company by separate counsel for Mr. Wagner under the California
Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (Cal.  Labor Code Section
2698, et seq) (the "Wagner PAGA Claim") purportedly asserting in a
representational capacity claims under the PAGA statute,
overlapping, in substantial part, the allegations set forth in the
Brown Class Action Complaint.

On March 6, 2020, Wagner filed a purported class action in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, again covering
basically the same allegations as set forth in the Brown Class
Action Complaint, and titled Peter M.  Wagner, an individual, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated vs. Reading
International, Inc., Consolidated Entertainment, Inc. and Does 1
through 25, Case No. 37-2020-000127-CU-OE-CTL (the "Wagner Class
Action").  Neither plaintiff has specified the amount of damages
sought.

The Company is investigating and intends to vigorously defend the
allegations of the Brown Class Action Complaint, the Wagner
Individual Complaint, the Wagner PAGA Claim and the Wagner Class
Action Complaint.

Reading International said, "In addition, we have denied that a
PAGA representative action is appropriate.  These matters are in
their early stages, and the putative class actions have not been
certified.  As these cases are in early stages, the Company is
unable to predict the outcome of the litigation or the range of
potential loss, if any; however, the Company believes that its
potential liability with respect to such matters is not material to
its overall financial position, results of operations and cash
flows.  Accordingly, the Company has not established a reserve for
loss in connection with these matters."

Reading International, Inc. (RDI), is focused on the development,
ownership, and operation of entertainment and real estate assets in
the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. Currently, RDI
operates through two segments: cinema exhibition and real estate.
The cinema exhibition segment operates multiplex cinemas. RDI's
real estate segment includes real estate development and the rental
of retail, commercial and live theater assets. The Company is based
in Culver City, California.



RIO TINTO: Appeals Court Rejects Arguments in Shareholders' Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Africa Intelligence reports that a New York appeal court has
rejected virtually all the arguments in the appeal made by Rio
Tinto shareholders over the group's coal projects in Mozambique's
Moatize area but has left them with a limited opportunity to pursue
their class action. [GN]

ROYAL CANADIAN: Families of Mass Shooting Victims Amend Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Cassidy Chisholm, writing for CBC News, reports that families of
the victims of the Nova Scotia mass shooting have amended their
proposed class-action lawsuit to add a new accusation against the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).

They allege the RCMP allowed a deceased victim's body to remain
inside a vehicle while it was towed from a crime scene so it could
be collected and analyzed as evidence, "rather than ensuring that
the body was first removed and cared for in the appropriate manner
before the vehicle was seized."

Sandra McCulloch, a lawyer with Patterson Law in Truro, N.S., who
is representing the families, said the vehicle mentioned in the
amendment relates to Joey Webber, who was killed by the shooter
while he went out to run an errand for his family on the morning of
April 19.

Webber was one of 22 people killed by a gunman dressed like an RCMP
officer during a rampage that started in Portapique, N.S., on April
18 and continued through several other rural communities the next
morning.

Two of the victim's families launched the proposed class-action
lawsuit against the RCMP in June. It covers a range of criticisms
previously raised about the tragedy, including police
communication, staffing levels and notification of families.

It also alleges a vehicle seized as evidence was later released to
a family with human remains still inside.

McCulloch confirmed the vehicle mentioned in the recent amendment
is not the same vehicle that was allegedly returned with remains
inside.

In an email on Sept. 3, Nova Scotia RCMP spokesperson Cpl. Jennifer
Clarke said the Mounties have not yet been served with a civil
claim in relation to the incidents of April 18 and 19, "but will
review and consider any such claim once served."

Given the situation, she said the force will not be responding to
allegations in any such claim.

Why a victim's body might not be moved

Gail Anderson, a forensic researcher and professor at Simon Fraser
University's School of Criminology, said working a crime scene is a
very lengthy process and in this case, the crime scene would be the
vehicle.

"Removing the body immediately may seem preferable from a
compassionate point of view but would most likely destroy very
crucial evidence," she said in an email on Sept. 3.

Moving the vehicle keeps the crime scene more secure, and can be
more respectful, since it takes the victim "out of the eyes of the
media and public," she said.

In another recent case, a murder victim's body was left in a
vehicle as it was towed to a secure RCMP facility.

Police officers found Tylor McInnis, who had been shot, in the
trunk of a car in a North Preston cemetery in August 2016.

During the murder trial in 2019, Dr. Erik Mont, Nova Scotia's
deputy chief medical examiner, testified that it was important for
his investigation to see the body as it was found. The full autopsy
was completed later.

Nova Scotia named defendant

McCulloch said the amended class action has also formally named the
province of Nova Scotia as a defendant in the case.

"The intention all along was to add the province as a defendant but
under the law in Nova Scotia, in order to sue the province you have
to give them formal notice of the claim that you intend to bring
against them," she said.

That period of notice has since expired.

Both amendments to the proposed class-action lawsuit were submitted
on Sept. 1.

McCulloch says her team has also spent the last few months
collecting information and footage from the public.

The class-action lawsuit must be approved by a judge before it can
proceed to trial and none of the allegations have been proven in
court. [GN]


RUSHMORE LOAN: Panzarella Sues Over Inaccurate Quote and Errors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Panzarella, individually & on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, Case
No. 2:20-cv-04467 (E.D. Pa., Sept. 11, 2020), is brought against
the Defendant for violations of the Fair Credit Extension
Uniformity Act, and the Pennsylvania unfair Trade Practice and
Consumer Protection Law with regard to the Defendant's inaccurate
quote, accounting errors and misrepresentations.

The Plaintiff was in arrears on her residential mortgage loan due
to her husband's employment status ("the debt") and reduction of
income. All proceeds of the subject mortgage loan were used at all
times for personal, non-commercial purposes by the Plaintiff and
her family in relation to their family home. The documents
governing the Plaintiff's residential, mortgage loan were made
subject to the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Rushmore
became the servicer of the Plaintiff's personal, mortgage loan on
November 1, 2017, at a time when it believed the loan was in
default as that term is defined in the documents governing the
loan.

In September 2019, the Defendant sent plaintiff a monthly mortgage
statement demanding payment of three months arrears in the amount
of $4,096 (two payments totaling $2,896 and a payment in the
modified amount of $1,199 for September). Thereafter, the Plaintiff
called the Defendant each month in order to make an electronic
payment to reinstate her loan account via a lump sum payment of the
alleged default in order to avoid foreclosure but Plaintiff was
always informed she would have to pay "foreclosure" fees in
addition to the monthly payments missed. Thereafter, the Plaintiff
in reliance to Rushmore's demands and statements to her, made an
application to Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency (PHFA) for an
emergency loan to pay the defaulted balance on the mortgage account
alleged by the Defendant.

On June 18, 2020, Rushmore provided PHFA with a reinstatement
quote, which included legal fees and costs.  Rushmore's June 18,
2020 payoff quote was inaccurate since it included fees that
neither Rushmore not the loan's owner are permitted to impose upon
the Plaintiff including foreclosure fees in excess of $50.00 when,
in fact, no new foreclosure action had ever been filed by Rushmore
against her, the Plaintiff alleges. As of August 27, 2020, the
Plaintiff has reinstated her loan account by payment of the amounts
claimed due by Rushmore with proceeds from the PHFA loan. The
Plaintiff caused payment of the claimed reinstatement sum claimed
due by Rushmore in reliance to its representations to her and
PHFA.

As a result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff contends that
she has suffered damages, including emotional distress and anxiety,
increased the PHFA loan costs for sums Rushmore added improperly to
its inaccurate reinstatement quote that were paid to it,
frustration, aggravation, and lost time and energy to attempt to
understand and correct the Defendant's accounting errors and
misrepresentations.

The Plaintiff is a natural person, who, currently resides in
Schwenksville, Pennsylvania.

Rushmore is a residential mortgage lender.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert P. Cocco, Esq.
          ROBERT P. COCCO, P.C.
          1500 Walnut Street, Suite 900
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Phone: 215-351-0200


SASOL LTD: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge greenlighted a securities fraud class-action
lawsuit against South African-based energy company Sasol Limited
(NYSE: SSL) and five of its former executives, for
misrepresentations and omissions about rising costs and
construction delays at a mega-chemicals facility Sasol was building
in Louisiana, according to attorneys at Hagens Berman.

Class Period: Mar. 10, 2015 - Jan. 13, 2020

Contact Hagens Berman: www.hbsslaw.com/cases/ssl
                       SSL@hbsslaw.com
                       844-916-0895

U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York Hon. Jed
S. Rakoff denied in large part the defendants' motion to dismiss.
The opinion held that the lead plaintiff's complaint sufficiently
pleads that the alleged misconduct violates Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The suit was
originally filed on Feb. 5, 2020.

The suit calls into scrutiny the actions of Sasol, along with
former CEO David Edward Constable, former joint CEOs Bongani
Nqwababa and Stephen Cornell, CFO Paul Victor and former executive
vice president Stephan Schoeman. These defendants must now file an
answer, admitting or denying each of the complaint's allegations.
The court also subsequently entered an order paving the way for the
suit's lead plaintiff and class members --investors who purchased
Sasol American Depository Receipts (ADRs) between Mar. 10, 2015 and
Jan. 13, 2020, inclusive -- to be ready for trial on May 3, 2021.

In the 26-page motion to dismiss opinion, Judge Rakoff upheld
investors' claims based on defendants' misrepresentations about the
cost and construction for the Lake Charles Chemicals Project
(LCCP). Specifically, the court rejected defendants' argument that
their statements were protected by the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act's safe harbor provision, finding that the
complaint adequately alleges that defendants' cautionary language
of potential cost overruns and delays was not meaningful and that
defendants had actual knowledge of the falsity of their
statements.

"Defendants' argument utterly fails with respect to the alleged
misrepresentations concerning the cost and schedule of the LCCP
because . . . the complaint alleges with particularity that Sasol's
public cost estimates and projected schedules hugely failed to
account for already existing cost overruns and delays the day they
were announced," Judge Rakoff wrote.

On May 4, 2020, Hagens Berman was appointed lead counsel in the
case, with Steve Berman, managing partner and co-founder of firm,
serving as the lead trial counsel.

"We are pleased with this pro investor decision, which rejects the
notion that corporate fraudsters can be immunized from knowingly
making false projections to investors by merely including
boilerplate cautionary language warning of risks that have already
transpired," Berman said. "This ruling also clears the way for us
to begin obtaining discovery and prepare for trial in May 2021,
during which we look forward to holding Sasol and its executives
accountable for the significant losses they caused their
investors."

The lawsuit alleges that Sasol's ADRs were artificially inflated
because of misrepresentations and omissions about the estimated
end-of-job cost and development of the LCCP. When the truth emerged
over a series of disclosures, shareholders learned that: (i) the
LCCP's true cost was nearly $13 billion (or more than 60 percent
than initially represented); (ii) beneficial operation at the LCCP
would not occur until years after Sasol promised; (iii) according
to Sasol's board's own account, "errors, omissions, and
inaccuracies in the project cost estimate" stemmed from "inadequate
control procedures," "inappropriate conduct" and "an improper tone
at the top;" (iv) a multitude of Sasol senior executives were fired
or otherwise forced to leave; and (v) safety violations and risks
materialized with a devastating explosion at the LCCP.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Sasol
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 SSL@hbsslaw.com.

                       About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and 88 attorneys. The firm represents
investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex
litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at
hbsslaw.com. [GN]


SIMCO ELECTRONICS: Faces Kelly Wage and Hour Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Omeca Kelly, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. SIMCO ELECTRONICS, a California corporation;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 20CV370177 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Santa Clara Cty., Sept. 11, 2020), is brought for wage and
labor violations arising out of the Defendants' failure to pay
wages for all time worked.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay its
employees straight and overtime wages, including for time they
worked before and/or after their pre-scheduled shift times, and
during times when employees worked through their meal periods but
their time records were edited to reflect that they were
clocked-out for a meal period; failed to provide timely and
uninterrupted meal and rest periods to its California non-exempt
employees in violation of the California Labor Code; failed to pay
its employees one hour of pay at the regular rate of compensation
for each instant that the Defendant failed to provide statutorily
mandated rest periods and timely off-duty meals period; failed to
keep accurate recorded pursuant to the applicable industrial Wages
Order; failed to furnish timely and accurate wage statement; failed
to pay all wages due upon termination; and, is in violation of the
California's unfair Competition Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt,
hourly-paid Calibration Technician.

The Defendant is in the calibration lab and software services
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David R. Markham, Esq.
          Maggie Realin, Esq.
          Lisa Brevard, Esq.
          THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
          750 B Street, Suite 1950
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619.399.3995
          Fax: 619.615.2067
          Email: dmarkham@markham-law.com
                 mrealin@markham-law.com
                 lbrevard@markham-law.com

               - and -

          Walter Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
          5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Phone: 888.474.7242
          Fax: 562.256.1006
          Email: walterhaines@yahoo.com


SIMPLE HOUSE: Albert Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT ALBERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SIMPLE HOUSE SOLUTIONS LLC, a Texas registered limited
liability company, Case No. 3:20-cv-02807-X (N.D. Tex., Sept. 9,
2020), is brought against the Defendant for its alleged violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making unsolicited
prerecorded calls to consumers without obtaining their prior
express consent.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has received numerous
unsolicited prerecorded voicemail messages on his cell phone, which
was registered on the Do Not Call Registry on September 1, 2003,
allegedly from the Defendant's phone number 972-441-2318 in an
attempt to solicit him if he is interested in selling his home.
However, the Defendant failed to obtain prior express consent from
the Plaintiff to place any solicitation telephone calls to his
cellphone using prerecorded voice messages, thereby, harming the
Plaintiff in the form of annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of
privacy.

Simple House Solutions LLC is a real estate company that makes cash
offers on homes and assists consumers in buying/purchasing
properties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Tel: (877) 333-9427
          Fax: (888) 498-8946
          Email: law@stefancoleman.com

                - and –

          Frank Harber, Esq.
          HARBER LAW GROUP
          771 E Southlake Blvd., Suite 111
          Southlaw, TX 76092
          Tel: (817) 523-1611
          Email: frank@harberlawgroup.com

                - and –

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          400 NW 26th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Tel: (305) 469-5881
          Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com


SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Bid to Nix Illinois Combined Suit Fully Briefed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the motion seeking dismissal of a
consolidated class action suit before the Northern District of
Illinois court has been fully briefed.

The Company is aware of twenty-two putative class action lawsuits
that were filed against the Company following published reports of
the DOJ investigation into the exchange of pacing data within the
industry.

On October 3, 2018, these lawsuits were consolidated in the
Northern District of Illinois.  The consolidated action alleges
that the Company and thirteen other broadcasters conspired to fix
prices for commercials to be aired on broadcast television stations
throughout the United States and engaged in unlawful information
sharing, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

The consolidated action seeks damages, attorneys' fees, costs and
interest, as well as injunctions against adopting practices or
plans that would restrain competition in the ways the plaintiffs
have alleged.

Defendants in this action filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated action, and that motion is now fully briefed.

The Company said it believes the lawsuits are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend itself against all such claims.

Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. operates as a television
broadcasting company in the United States. It owns or provides
various programming, operating, sales, and other non-programming
operating services to television stations. The company was founded
in 1986 and is headquartered in Hunt Valley, Maryland.


SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Remaining Claims in Securities Suit Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action suit entitled, In re Sinclair Broadcast Group,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:18-CV-02445-CCB, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland has issued a decision
dismissing the remaining claims -- which it previously had not
dismissed in its February 4, 2020 decision -- based on lack of
standing, according to Sinclair Broadcast's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020.

On August 9, 2018, Edward Komito, a putative Company shareholder,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland against the Company, Christopher
Ripley and Lucy Rutishauser, which action is now captioned In re
Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, case No.
1:18-CV-02445-CCB.

On March 1, 2019, lead counsel in the Securities Action filed an
amended complaint, adding David Smith and Steven Marks as
defendants, and alleging that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing false or misleading disclosures
concerning (a) the Merger prior to the termination thereof; and (b)
the DOJ investigation concerning the alleged exchange of pacing
information.  The Securities Action seeks declaratory relief, money
damages in an amount to be determined at trial, and attorney's fees
and costs.

On May 3, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, which motion was opposed by lead plaintiff.

On February 4, 2020, the Court issued a decision granting the
motion to dismiss in part and denying the motion to dismiss in
part.

On February 18, 2020, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration
or, in the alternative, to certify dismissal as final and
appealable.  Defendants filed an opposition to this motion.

On July 20, 2020, the Court issued a decision denying plaintiffs'
motion and dismissing the remaining claims (which the Court
previously had not dismissed in its February 4, 2020 decision)
based on lack of standing.

Sinclair Broadcast said, "The Company believes that the allegations
in the Securities Action are without merit and, to the extent
plaintiffs appeal the recent decisions or otherwise attempt to
proceed with the litigation, the Company intends to vigorously
defend against the allegations."

Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. operates as a television
broadcasting company in the United States. It owns or provides
various programming, operating, sales, and other non-programming
operating services to television stations. The company was founded
in 1986 and is headquartered in Hunt Valley, Maryland.


SMART UNION: Inglima Sues Over Denied Claim for VSTD Benefits
-------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN INGLIMA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SHEET METAL AIR, RAIL AND
TRANSPORTATION WORKERS UNION; STATEN ISLAND RAPID TRANSIT OPERATING
AUTHORITY; SMART VOLUNTARY SHORT TERM DISABILITY PLAN TRUST; JOHN
DOE AND JAEN DOE, as TRUSTEES OF SMART VOLUNTARY SHORT TERM
DISABILITY PLAN TRUST; and the UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION
INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-04195 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 9,
2020), arises from the denial of the Plaintiff's claim for VSTD
benefits.

The lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for their alleged
breach of fiduciary duty in violation of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, fraud and fraudulent concealment,
negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment in violations of
New York State Law.

The Plaintiff is an employee of Defendant Staten Island Rapid
Transit Authority, a member of SMART Transportation Division
(SMART-TD), and has been enrolled in the VSTD Plan, which is a
self-insures short-term disability benefits for SMART-TD members
that was sponsored by SMART and was established and maintained by
the VSTD Trustees pursuant to a trust agreement.

According to the complaint, Defendant SMART automatically enrolled
all SMART-TD members in the VSTD Plan and charged them a monthly
assessment for the plan benefits by automatically deducting from
the paychecks of SMART-TD members, who do not opt-out of the VSTD
Plan. However, when the Plaintiff was injured at work on March 5,
2020, and submitted his application form provided by Defendant
SMART to make a claim for VSTD benefits on March 26, 2020, the VSTD
Plan representative informed Plaintiff that his claim was denied
because he was being paid sick leave benefits by Defendant SIRTOA,
and that employees paid by their employer are not entitled to VSTD
Plan benefits. Moreover, the Plaintiff was accused by the VSTD Plan
representative of attempting to "double dip" even though Plaintiff
was an eligible member and submitted a proper claim for benefits in
accordance with the statement of plan benefits that he had
received.

SMART, the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and
Transportation Workers, is one of North America's unions. United
Transportation Union Insurance Association is a fraternal
beneficiary society.

Staten Island Rapid Transit Operating Authority (SIRTOA) is a
subsidiary of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and
operated by the New York City Transit Authority Department of
Subways.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laine Alida Armstrong, Esq.
          Arthur Z. Schwartz, Esq.
          ADVOCATES FOR JUSTICE CHARTERED ATTORNEYS
          225 Broadway, Suite 1902
          New York, NY 10007
          Tel: (212) 285-1400
          Email: laine@advocatesny.com


SOCIETY INSURANCE: T & J's 5th Down Suit Removed to N.D. Indiana
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled T & J's 5th Down, Inc. doing business as:
Kaysan's 5th Down Bar & Grill, on behalf of Itself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Society Insurance, A Mutual Company, Case No.
02D02-2005-CT-000246, was removed from the Indiana Superior Court,
Allen County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Indiana on August 31, 2020.

The Clerk of Court of the Northern District of Indiana assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-00308-HAB-SLC. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge
Holly A. Brady.

The case is brought over unlawful practice of the Defendant in
processing out claims arising from the State-ordered interruption
of the Plaintiffs' businesses, which insurance policies provide
coverage for losses incurred due to a "necessary suspension" of the
operations, including when their businesses are forced to close due
to a government order brought by the COVID-19 global pandemic.

Headquartered in Wisconsin, Society Insurance, a Mutual Company, is
a company that engages in the business of writing and selling
insurance contracts, and is licensed to conduct business in the
State of Indiana.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Dina M. Cox, Esq.
          Janelle P. Kilies, Esq.
          John C. Trimble, Esq.
          Meghan E Ruesch, Esq.
          LEWIS WAGNER LLP
          501 Indiana Ave., Ste. 200
          Indianapolis, IN 46202
          Telephone: (317) 237-0500
          Facsimile: (317) 630-2790
          E-mail: dcox@lewiswagner.com
                  jkilies@lewiswagner.com
                  jtrimble@lewiswagner.com
                  mruesch@lewiswagner.com


SOLIANT HEALTH: Terry Sues in Calif. Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shana Terry, an individual, on behalf of herself, all aggrieved
employees, and the State of California as a Private Attorneys
General v. SOLIANT HEALTH, INC., a Georgia Corporation, SUNBELT
STAFFING, LLC., a Georgia Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1-50,
inclusive,  Georgia Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Case No. 20STCV34826 (Cal., Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Sept. 11, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for failing to
comply with California Labor Code requirements due to erroneous,
willful and intentional employment practices and policies.

The Defendants have allegedly had a consistent policy and/or
practice of failing to: authorize and/or permit meal breaks;
authorize and/or permit rest breaks; reimburse for business-related
expenses; pay for all overtime hours worked; take stipends paid for
uncontrolled on call time into account in determining overtime
rates; pay earned non-discretionary bonuses or take them into
account in determining overtime pay; take alleged "travel stipends"
into account in determining overtime rates; pay for all hours
worked or all promised wages; provide reporting time pay; pay
minimum wage; pay wages upon termination; and furnish accurate wage
statements.

The Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt employee for the Defendants.

The Defendants are both staffing agencies doing business in
California with the capacity to sue and to be sued in the County of
Los Angeles, State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Ashkan Shakouri, Esq.
          SHAKOURI LAW FIRM
          1601 Wilshire Blvd., Fifth Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Phone: (310) 575-1827
          Fax:(310)575-1872
          Email: ash@shakourilawfirm.com


STAAR SURGICAL: Block & Leviton Reminds of October 19 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP (www.blockleviton.com), a national securities
litigation firm, reminds investors that it has filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of shareholders against STAAR Surgical Company
(NASDAQ: STAA) and certain of its executives for securities fraud.
The lead plaintiff deadline is October 19, 2020. Investors who
purchased STAAR shares between February 26, 2020 and August 10,
2020, please contact Block & Leviton attorneys at (617) 398-5600,
via email at cases@blockleviton.com, or at
https://www.blockleviton.com/cases/staar.

Recently, STAAR has emphasized its revenue, sales growth, and
market share in the Chinese market. STAAR attributed its success to
its strategic partnerships, including with its customer AIER, a
Chinese ophthalmology hospital group.

On August 11, 2020, analyst J Capital Research Limited published a
report calling into STAAR's purported success in China. In its
scathing report, J Capital accused STAAR of overstating its sales
in China by at least one-third (or $21.6 million), "meaning all of
the company's $14 mln in 2019 profit is fake." The report is based
on "over 75 interviews" conducted by J Capital, as well as visits
to STAAR locations in China and Switzerland. In particular, J
Capital's report concluded that AIER's financial statements
indicate that it bought only about half as many lenses as STAAR
reported. On this news, the price of STAAR shares fell
precipitously.

The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, located at Ronald Reagan Federal
Building and U.S. Courthouse, 411 West 4th Street, Santa Ana, CA
92701. The case is captioned Alwazzan v. STAAR Surgical Co., et
al., No. 8:20-cv-01533 (C.D. Cal.), and has been assigned to Judge
James V. Selna.

If you purchased or acquired shares of STAAR and have questions
about your legal rights or possess information relevant to this
matter, please contact Block & Leviton attorneys at (617) 398-5600,
via email at cases@blockleviton.com, or at
https://www.blockleviton.com/cases/staar.

Block & Leviton LLP is a firm dedicated to representing investors
and maintaining the integrity of the country's financial markets.
The firm represents many of the nation's largest institutional
investors as well as individual investors in securities litigation
throughout the United States. The firm's lawyers have recovered
billions of dollars for its clients.

This notice may constitute attorney advertising.

CONTACT:
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin St., Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: (617) 398-5600
Email: cases@blockleviton.com
SOURCE: Block & Leviton LLP
www.blockleviton.com [GN]


STAAR SURGICAL: Klein Law Firm Reminds of October 19 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on Aug. 31 disclosed that a class action
complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Staar
Surgical Company (NASDAQ: STAA) alleging that the Company violated
federal securities laws.

Class Period: February 26, 2020 and August 10, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020

Learn more about your recoverable losses in DNK:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/staar-surgical-company-loss-submission-form?id=8932&from=5

The filed complaint alleges that Staar Surgical Company made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: the Company was overstating and/or
mischaracterizing: (1) its sales and growth in China; (2) its
marketing spend; (3) its research and development expenses; and
that as a result of the foregoing, (4) Defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

Shareholders have until October 19, 2020 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

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

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


STAAR SURGICAL: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues its
investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of STAAR Surgical Company (NASDAQ: STAA) resulting
from allegations that STAAR may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.

On August 11, 2020, the investment analyst J Capital issued a
report on STAAR entitled "STARR Surgical, Less Than Meets the Eye."
The J Capital report alleged that the Company overstated its sales
in China by at least one-third (or $21.6 mln), "meaning all of the
Company's $14 mln in 2019 profit is fake." The J Capital report --
based on over 75 interviews with former employees, site visits to
China and Switzerland, and extensive review of public documents --
concludes STAAR reports fake sales revenues by overstating sales
and then marking up actual marketing costs to hide "phantom"
revenue. In particular, the report found that Aier Eye Hospital's
financial statements indicate that it bought only about half as
many lenses as STAAR reports.

On this news, STAAR's stock price fell $3.17 per share, or 6%, to
close at $48.25 per share on August 11, 2020, damaging investors.

Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover
losses suffered by STAAR's investors. If you purchased shares of
STAAR, please visit the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1924.htmlto join the
class action. You may also contact Phillip Kim of Rosen Law Firm
toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

Contact Information:

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


STEINHOFF: Period for Appealing Class Action Ruling Lapses
----------------------------------------------------------
Ann Crotty, writing for Moneyweb, reports that only 13.13% of
Steinhoff's shareholders bothered to "attend" the company's annual
general meeting on Aug. 28.

If Steinhoff was still a South African-registered company, chances
are the meeting would have been declared invalid because it was
below the 25% quorum required by the Companies Act. (The 25% can be
altered by the company's Memorandum of Incorporation.) But
according to a Steinhoff spokesperson, there are no quorum
requirements in the Netherlands.

This means the six resolutions that received the necessary level of
support from the shareholders attending the AGM will be
implemented.

But what of the three resolutions that were blocked by the
attending shareholders?

Just hours after the meeting, no one seemed very sure of the
implications of a vote against the adoption of the annual financial
statements (AFS) for the 12 months to end-September 2019.

One legal authority said it is unclear what the legal status of the
AFS is now as the figures have been audited; he suggested the vote
was about optics and had little real impact.

Similarly, the advisory vote on the remuneration report, which
scored a record-beating 94% opposition, and the vote to amend the
managing director's remuneration policy -- opposed by 86% -- did
not have significant implications for the running of Steinhoff.
They did send a message about the depth of shareholder unhappiness,
but it's likely the board was well aware of this.

Waning interest

On reflection, the 13.13% turnout should be of little surprise.
Many of the institutional shareholders who had held stakes have
sold to speculators who have little or no interest in the daily
running of the company.

After almost three years on life support it is evident that most
shareholders have given up hope and are now waiting for the final
resolution of this unprecedented corporate disaster. That
resolution, as described by the settlement proposal announced in
July, will likely see them getting back a few cents in the rand.

Attendance at AGMs over those three years has reflected the ebbing
of hopes for some value recovery.

In April 2018, when the drama was still reasonably new and
attracted much curiosity, just over 50% of shareholders attended --
down from the more traditional 75% at the March 2017 AGM when only
a relative handful of insiders knew a crisis was unfolding. By
August 2019 this had dropped to 25.16% as shareholders became jaded
with the grim Steinhoff story. This year, another almost halving.

These may, or may not, have included the shareholders involved in
the class action organised by Dutch law firm BarentsKrans NV. In
June the Johannesburg High Court refused to grant the certification
necessary for the case to proceed. On Aug. 28 Steinhoff CEO Louis
du Preez told shareholders attending the meeting the board believes
the action is no longer viable as the period for appealing the high
court decision has lapsed.

Du Preez, who was co-hosting the virtual meeting from a hotel in
Stellenbosch, used the opportunity to encourage shareholders to
accept the settlement announced in July.

Pandemic has made things worse

Unsurprisingly, he said the group's financial position has
deteriorated as a result of Covid-19. There are two main reasons
for the deterioration: "The rand-euro exchange rate has moved
significantly against the rand in the last few months and the share
price of Pepkor, our major South African investment, has weakened
significantly over the last four to six months."

He added: We believe the settlement announced at the end of July is
in the best interests of all the group's stakeholders. We believe
it is affordable and realistic."

Steps being considered for the generation of much-needed cash
include the continued disposal of non-core assets and a possible
listing for Europe-based Pepco as well as a listing for its
"fantastic Australian business".

Du Preez said Steinhoff is expected to remain a global business.

Group chief financial officer Theo de Klerk defended the group's
steep professional fees, which he said were paid to legal advisors,
financial advisors and "other advisors".

He said the group's restructuring, outbound and inbound litigation,
the complex settlement proposal, the various transactions, and
governance issues had all required the use of legal and financial
advisors -- and had involved a variety of regulators in different
jurisdictions.

"We are continuing the process to drive down these costs," he
assured the 13.13% of shareholders attending the meeting. [GN]


TEXAS: FMC Carswell Faces Class Action Over Inmate Mistreatment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kaley Johnson, writing for Star-Telegram, reports that inmates
incarcerated at the only federally-run medical prison for women in
the country say they have been subjected to a "house of horror"
over the past few months.

As of Aug. 25, 73 women have signed onto a potential class-action
suit against Federal Medical Center Carswell, its warden and
several officials and officers.

In more than 200 pages of handwritten testimony, women describe
meals of rotten food, negligent medical care and malicious
treatment as COVID-19 ran through the prison.

"While the public only hears one side of the major business (BOP
and FMC Carswell), the forgotten lives of mothers, daughters,
grandmas, granddaughters, sisters all live against every CDC
guideline," the lawsuit says.

In response to allegations of mistreatment at FMC Carswell, the
Bureau of Prisons sent a statement on its general policies for
handling COVID-19. In part of the statement, the BOP said its care
and treatment of inmates follows CDC guidelines "with regard to
quarantine and isolation procedures, along with providing
appropriate treatment."

The statement also said the majority of inmates who tested positive
for COVID-19 are asymptomatic.

PRISON LOCKDOWN

FMC Carswell, located in northwest Fort Worth, has been a medical
women's prison since 1994. The facility, which currently houses
about 1,300 inmates, has a checkered history of accusations of
sexual assault and medical neglect. Most women are serving
sentences for drug or white-collar crimes and have medical issues.

In April, a woman incarcerated at Carswell gave birth via cesarean
section while on a ventilator at a hospital. Andrea Circle Bear
died on April 28. She was the first woman in BOP custody to die
from coronavirus -- she would not be the last.

The description of what women at FMC Carswell have gone through for
the past two months is based on interviews and the more than 200
pages of written testimony from women in Unit 2 North, the first
unit to be hit with COVID-19.

On June 30, the first cases of community spread began at Carswell,
according to the lawsuit and adjoining testimony. Inmates say a
member of staff on the hospital floor was the first person to bring
the virus into the prison.

Most of the units in Carswell, such as 2 North, are set up inside a
four-story high rise. Cells, which hold four women in a
7-foot-by-10-foot space, are set on the perimeter of a square with
a TV room in the center.

While the facility had already been on lockdown -- not allowing
visitors or daily outdoor time -- Carswell shut down the commissary
and all activities. For three days, women said, they did not have
contact with their families. The TVs were turned off; officers told
the women news stations were airing "fake news" about the prison.

For the next four weeks, many of the women would not be able to go
outside. Since the commissary was shut down, inmates said, they
also went three weeks without being able to buy items such as soap,
aspirin or tampons.

The prison stopped serving hot meals. For 19 days, the women said,
they received one sack of food a day -- inmates called them "bag
nasties" -- which served as lunch and dinner.

The bag usually consisted of "eight pieces of bread, two slices of
lunch meat, an apple or orange, half an onion, half a tomato and a
bag of chips," one woman who asked to be identified by her initials
M.S., wrote in her testimony. "The vegetables were always brown and
soft. My bunkie's bag once contained a fly in the bag."

The prison removed women from the unit who worked in sanitation or
food service so they would still be able to work. Women received
cloth masks that are washed once a week, and staff put up plastic
shower curtains in the open doorway of the women's cells, inmates
said.

THREATENED BY OFFICERS

The night COVID-19 fully hit the prison, women in 2 North said they
were subjected to malicious treatment from two officers.

On June 30, women were kept in their cells for three hours, and
many had to use the bathroom. Some have medical paperwork that
allows them to go to the bathroom without permission, and a group
started to line up to use the restroom. A staff member hit the
panic button and said there was a riot.

Two officers, identified in the suit as Lt. Anthony and Lt. Butler,
rushed to the unit. Anthony had a riot gun and Butler carried
pepper spray. Anthony waved the gun in the air and said inmates
"need to stop testing him," one woman, Ruqayya Abdul-hakim, wrote.
Another woman asked Butler what they had done wrong, and he said
that "they were breathing, and that was enough."

Adbul-hakim wrote that the men terrified her, triggering her PTSD
from a past abusive relationship.

"I refused to move even though there was blood trickling down my
legs. My clothes and linen were both blood stained. I was so
humiliated," she wrote.

The lawsuit specifically names Butler and Anthony as defendants.

When asked about this incident and others specifically named in the
lawsuit, the BOP said it does not comment on pending litigation.

'NIGHTMARISH CONDITIONS' IN QUARANTINE

As tensions rose at the prison, COVID-19 cases did, too.

The prison started mass testing in early July. On July 6, 51 women
and two staff members were positive. By July 21, 510 women in the
prison tested positive for the virus.

According to the lawsuit, women who tested positive were pulled
from their cells and sent to a quarantine unit called M2. They had
to leave most of their items behind, which were transferred to an
unlocked room where possessions were quickly stolen.

Faith Blake, the primary plaintiff of the lawsuit, said those women
who were quarantined were "treated absolutely horribly."

A woman described her time in M2 in a letter to the Star-Telegram.
The Star-Telegram is not using her name because she said she feared
retaliation for talking to the media.

The woman said she started showing symptoms of COVID-19 on
July 10. She had a cough, shortness of breath, could not taste or
smell, and she had nasal discharge. She asked her unit manager to
see a doctor, but had to wait 16 hours to be seen by medical staff
or be tested.

When she tested positive, she was put in a room with six other
women in M2. For six days, the woman stayed in the same clothes.
Some women in M2 had been in the same clothes for 19 days, she
said. She said two officers at M2 were "wonderful" and "kept the
women calm," and someone checked their temperature and pulse
oximetry twice a day.

But other women reported "nightmarish conditions" in their rooms.
One woman, Windy Panzo, said she was placed in a room with 10 women
and "our food is thrown in and kicked in by their feet like we're
dogs."

Several women described difficulty getting medical care. A group of
inmates had to beat on a door for 15 minutes when a woman's tongue
swelled inside her mouth, Panzo wrote.

M.S. wrote that a woman with COVID-19 had a high fever and "staff
refused to help her, so she slit her wrists claiming she was going
to die in here anyway."

In a letter to the Star-Telegram, Joyce Godwin, a woman
incarcerated at FMC Carswell, expressed succinctly the fear that
has taken over the prison: "They call this place a hospital, but it
is a house of horror."

DEATHS AT CARSWELL

Those who tested negative remained in the unit, according to the
women in 2 North, which was declared a "positive unit" in July.
Women who tested negative "were left in there to become positive,"
Tara Childress told the Star-Telegram. She, like many women, tested
negative multiple times before eventually catching the virus from
other inmates.

Veronica Carrera-Perez, 40, was transferred into a cell with a
woman who had already tested positive for COVID-19. Within three
days, Perez started to complain that her head hurt, she couldn't
taste anything and she was throwing up, a woman who was recently
released from Carswell told the Star-Telegram. The woman, who was
released after she completed her prison sentence, asked that her
name not be used out of fear of retaliation from the BOP.

On Aug. 3, Perez died from COVID-19, four months after she applied
for and was denied home confinement. In her motion for release, she
said her medical conditions consisted of shortness of breath and
possibly breast cancer.

Not including Circle Bear and Perez, four other women have died
from COVID-19-related causes at Carswell.

Sandra Kincaid, 69, was the second woman to die on July 14.

On July 20, 51-year-old Teresa Ely died while on a ventilator.

Wendy Campbell, 56, died on Aug. 15

Marie Neba died on Aug. 25

The BOP said in a statement that symptomatic inmates whose
condition "rises to the level of acute medical care will be
transferred to a hospital setting; either at a local hospital, or
at an institution's hospital care unit, if they have one."

Carswell is not accredited as a hospital, so inmates are sent to a
local hospital.

Carswell is not the only prison to struggle with containing the
virus. Across the country, 117 people incarcerated in federal
prisons have died from COVID-19, according to the BOP's website.
FMC Fort Worth, a men's prison, at one point had the most cases in
the country, and FCI Seagoville took that spot in July.

Kevin Ring, executive director of the criminal justice reform group
FAMM, said the BOP initially treated prisons like cruise ships —
isolated from the world and COVID-19. But prisons are not islands;
officers and staff come and go, bringing and taking home the germs
of the community.

"Now we've had a domino effect where it hits a state and it hits
the prison, and once it gets into the prison, it's wildfire," Ring
said. "There's no slowing it down."

RECOVERED?

On Aug. 8, the Carswell warden declared the unit "recovered" and
said no one else would be tested for the virus. The last week of
July, the commissary re-opened, women started going outside once a
week and hot meals were served again.

But women say the virus is not over. On Aug. 25, Blake said women
are still showing symptoms of COVID-19, but they are not being
tested anymore. Sandra Shoulders, who is an inmate in Unit 1 South,
said 34 people were transferred into her unit on Aug. 25 and they
had not been tested.

In a statement, the BOP said the number of positive inmates at
Carswell has dropped "as staff have diligently and safely carried
out their responsibilities in accordance with CDC guidelines." The
BOP said the prison follows CDC guidelines on when inmates should
be removed from isolation.

Women also say they still struggle with the emotional toll of the
lockdown and how they were treated. Childress, who has anxiety, has
not been able to see a counselor for three months.

"They'll have people walk through the units, but that doesn't
help," she said. "There is no psychological help or sitting down
one-on-one."

Childress, and other women in 2 North's lawsuit, hope to find
justice for what they say has been cruel and unusual punishment.
She and Blake stressed that they need to find a lawyer who can help
them file the suit as a class action.

On Aug. 24, Judge Mark Pittman ordered that the Carswell lawsuit
could not be filed as a class action suit, and each woman would
need to pay a $400 filing fee and file her own lawsuit separately.

Blake and Childress said that some of them have faced retaliation
for signing onto the suit.

"Anytime we try to speak up or get up, we're yanked out, we're
isolated," Blake said. "We get put in the SHU. They take our
mattresses away from us, so we're sleeping on metal frames. A lot
of the women are scared."

She said some of the women in the suit are being transferred to
other prisons. The BOP said it has limited facility-to-facility
transfers, and other inmate movement.

"We cannot prove that it's retaliation, but it's odd," Blake said.
[GN]


TEZOS: Swiss Foundation to Pay $25MM to Investors to Settle Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Irrera and Steve Stecklow, writing for Reuters, report that a
three-year-long U.S. court battle over a cryptocurrency fundraiser,
one of the largest initial coin offerings ever, has ended with a
Swiss foundation paying $25 million to participants who lost money
and their lawyers.

The litigation followed a Reuters investigation in October 2017
that detailed a bitter feud between the founders of the Tezos
cryptocurrency project, Arthur and Kathleen Breitman, and the
then-president of the Tezos Foundation, that threatened to derail
the blockchain venture.

The Zug-based foundation had handled the fundraiser, which raised
$232 million in just 13 days during a cryptocurrency buying frenzy
in 2017.

Lawsuits alleged that the Tezos online offering was an unregistered
securities sale. As a result of the settlement, the federal court
did not rule on the matter.

The settlement, initially proposed in U.S. District Court in San
Francisco in March, received final approval by a federal judge on
Aug. 28.

The Tezos Foundation agreed to pay the entire $25 million. The
dispute with the founders and the foundation's president was
eventually resolved. The Swiss entity has continued to promote the
Tezos technology and its website states that its assets have grown
to $635 million.

The plaintiffs' attorneys will receive more than $8.5 million in
fees and expenses, according to a court order by the judge. [GN]


TILE SHOP: Reaches Settlement in K-Bar Derivative and Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tile Shop Holdings, Inc. has entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement memorializing the terms of its Settlement Agreement with
the plaintiffs and the individual defendants in a derivative and
class action lawsuit initiated by K-Bar Holdings LLC and Wynnefield
Capital, Inc., according to the Tile Shop's Form 8-K filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Tile Shop Holdings, Inc. is a nominal defendant and certain current
and former directors are individual defendants in litigation
brought by K-Bar Holdings LLC and Wynnefield Capital, Inc.
("Plaintiffs"), in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Action").
Plaintiffs pleaded the Action as a derivative claim on behalf of
the Company and also on behalf of a putative class of certain
holders of the Company's common stock as of October 18, 2019.
Plaintiffs alleged breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with,
among other things, the Company's decision to delist from Nasdaq
and deregister its common stock under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended.

On June 30, 2020, the Company, the individual defendants, and
Plaintiffs reached an agreement to settle all claims in the Action
(the "Settlement Agreement").

On August 7, 2020, the Company, the individual defendants, and the
Plaintiffs entered into a Stipulation of Settlement memorializing
the terms of the Settlement Agreement.  The Settlement is subject
to approval by the Court.

Tile Shop Holdings, Inc. operates as a specialty retailer of
manufactured and natural stone tiles, setting and maintenance
materials, and related accessories in the United States. The
company is based in Plymouth, Minnesota.


TOOTSIE ROLL: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Want Case Heard in State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that plaintiffs
lawyers mad about empty space in theater candy want their case
heard in a state court rather than federal.

On Aug. 28, lawyers at Clarkson Law Firm in Los Angeles asked a
federal judge in San Francisco to remand their case. Strangely,
they need to argue they aren't seeking as much money as Tootsie
Roll Industries says they are.

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 gives federal courts
jurisdiction over class actions in which more than $5 million is at
stake. In removing the case to federal court under that statute,
Tootsie Roll valued the claim at $6.2 million -- full restitution
of the sales of the boxes in question.

"Even the most aggressive of plaintiffs' counsel would not accept
this flawed syllogism," the motion to remand says. "In the simplest
of mathematical terms, if consumers actually believed the boxes
were 100% full, but they only got 50% of the product, then their
damages would equal only $3.1 million, which does not meet CAFA's
$5M jurisdictional limit."

Plaintiffs complain 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. [GN]


TYSON FOODS: Faces McEntire Antitrust Suit Over Broiler Services
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marc McEntire and Karen McEntire on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. TYSON FOODS, INC., TYSON CHICKEN,
INC., TYSON BREEDERS, INC., TYSON POULTRY, INC., PILGRIM'S PRIDE
CORPORATION, PERDUE FOODS, LLC, KOCH FOODS, INC., KOCH MEAT CO.,
INC. d/b/a KOCH POULTRY CO., SANDERSON FARMS, INC., SANDERSON
FARMS, INC. (FOOD DIVISION), SANDERSON FARMS, INC. (PROCESSING
DIVISION), and SANDERSON FARMS, INC. (PRODUCTION DIVISION), Case
No. 1:20-cv-02764-NYW (D. Colo., Sept. 11, 2020), is brought as an
and unfair competition action seeking treble damages under the
Sherman Antitrust Act and the Packers and Stockyards Act.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a proposed class of broiler
chicken growers, also known as poultry growers, against
vertically-integrated poultry companies, including the Defendants
("live poultry dealers" or "Integrators"), which operate Broiler
processing plants ("Complexes"), concerning the Integrators'
anticompetitive, collusive, predatory, unfair, and bad faith
conduct in the domestic market for Broiler growing services (also
referred to herein as "Broiler Grow-Out Services").

This case involves agreements by the Defendants and their
Co-Conspirators (and together with the Defendants, the "Cartel")
not to compete for Broiler Grow-Out Services, with the purpose and
effect of fixing, maintaining, and/or stabilizing Grower
compensation below competitive levels. While the alleged conduct
began as early as 2008, with respect to Defendant Pilgrim's only,
the Plaintiffs are not pursuing on behalf of themselves or the
proposed Class any cause of action against Pilgrim's arising from,
or that relies on, any fact, event, omission, liability, or damage
that occurred on or before December 28, 2009 (the "Discharge
Date"). The Plaintiffs are only pursuing causes of action against
Pilgrim's that arise from, or that rely on, facts, events,
omissions, liabilities, or damages that occurred after the
Discharge Date.

As part of the scheme, the Cartel members illegally agreed to share
detailed data on Grower compensation with one another, with the
purpose and effect of artificially depressing Grower compensation
below competitive levels, according to the complaint. By disclosing
their highly sensitive and confidential compensation rates to each
other, they suppressed competition for Broiler Grow-Out Services
and drove down compensation to all Growers. By sharing this
information on a frequent and contemporaneous basis, the Cartel has
been able to keep Grower compensation lower than it would have been
in a competitive market, and to keep the increased profits for
themselves. This illegal information exchange, combined with other
anticompetitive conduct alleged herein, drove down Grower
compensation nationwide. The members of the Cartel recognized the
benefits of sharing this highly sensitive, proprietary and
otherwise confidential Grower compensation information with each
other, but not with the Growers themselves.

According to the complaint, in furtherance of their agreement not
to compete for Broiler Grow-Out Services, Cartel members also
agreed not to solicit Growers associated with other Integrators. By
agreeing not to compete for the services of one another's Growers,
the Cartel members attempted to insulate themselves from normal
competitive pressures that could potentially erode the effects of
their information sharing agreement. This illegal "no poach"
agreement inoculated the Cartel against potential cheating by its
members on the Cartel's compensation suppression scheme and
furthered its efforts to artificially suppress Grower compensation
below competitive levels.

Plaintiffs Mark McEntire and Karen McEntire began providing Broiler
Grow-Out Services for Defendant Pilgrim's in Texas in 2004.

Tyson Foods, Inc. is the largest Integrator in the country,
operating thirty-three Complexes located throughout the United
States, and processing some 35.4 million Broilers weekly.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kevin T. Shutte, Esq.
          SHAPIRO BIEGING BARBER OTTESON LLP
          5430 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1540
          Dallas, TX 75240
          Phone: 214.307.0419
          Email: kschutte@sbbolaw.com

               - and -

          Nelson R. Roach, Esq.
          ROACH LANGSTON BRUNO LLP
          205 Linda Drive
          Daingerfield, TX 75638
          Phone: 903.645.7333
          Email: nroach@rlbfirm.com

               - and -

          Klint L. Bruno, Esq.
          Michael L. Silverman, Esq.
          ROACH LANGSTON BRUNO LLP
          205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 810
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: 312.321.6481
          Email: kbruno@rlbfirm.com
                 msilverman@rlbfirm.com


ULTRA PETROLEUM: Bragar Eagel Alerts of Class Action Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, announced that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado on behalf of investors that purchased Ultra Petroleum
Corp. (Other OTC: UPLCQ, NASDAQ: UPL) common stock between April 3,
2017 and August 8, 2019 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until
November 2, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Ultra Petroleum is an oil and gas development company with primary
assets in the Pinedale and Jonah fields of the Green River Basin of
southwest Wyoming. Over 80% of the Company's revenues have
historically been derived from the development and sale of natural
gas.

On May 14, 2020, Ultra Petroleum filed for bankruptcy protection
and is not named as a defendant in the action.

In April 2017, at the beginning of the Class Period, Ultra
Petroleum exited a court-supervised reorganization under Chapter 11
of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. According to defendants, Ultra
Petroleum exited the bankruptcy in "growth mode." Defendants stated
that the Company was poised to maximize the value of its
substantial oil and gas deposits (which they valued at $4.19
billion, including $1.5 billion of proved undeveloped reserves)
through ramped up production in 2017 and 2018 and that Ultra
Petroleum was on track to produce between 290 and 300 billion cubic
feet equivalent ("Bcfe") in 2017, with 25% production growth over
these figures in 2018. Defendants represented that the Company had
the financial and production flexibility to weather even a
low-commodity-price environment and was set to ramp up well
development with 10 rigs operating by 2018 on the back of an
estimated $788 million capital budget. Accretive to this plan was
the launch of a horizontal well drilling program, which Ultra
Petroleum executives claimed was set to significantly expand the
production capabilities of the Company's existing wells.

Then, beginning in August 2017, soon after exiting bankruptcy,
Ultra Petroleum began issuing a series of revelations demonstrating
that it could not grow production by any meaningful amount and that
its wells were worth a fraction of the values previously
represented. Finally, on August 9, 2019, Ultra Petroleum announced
disappointing results for the second quarter of 2019, disclosing
that total revenues for the quarter had decreased 18%, that the
Company's horizontal well program had been effectively halted, and
that it was lowering its 2019 projected capital investments to a
range of $260 million to $290 million and annual production to a
range of 238 to 244 Bcfe.

On this news, the price of Ultra Petroleum stock declined 31% to
just $0.09 per share and continued to fall to just $0.01 per share,
99% below the stock's Class Period high. On August 22, 2019, Ultra
Petroleum stock was delisted. And in May 2020, the Company was
forced to enter bankruptcy proceedings yet again in order to seek a
court-ordered reorganization.

The complaint, filed on September 1, 2020, alleges that these and
similar statements issued by defendants during the Class Period
were materially false and misleading when made. Throughout the
Class Period, defendants, inter alia: (i) materially overstated the
value of Ultra Petroleum's oil and gas reserves; (ii) materially
misrepresented the Company's ability to ramp up production and its
financial flexibility; (iii) failed to disclose the Company's
extreme sensitivity to even a modest decline in natural gas prices;
and (iv) concealed significant setbacks in the Company's vaunted
horizontal well drilling program.

If you purchased Ultra Petroleum common stock 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, P.C.

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

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


ULTRA PETROLEUM: Schall Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
---------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Sept. 2, announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Ultra Petroleum Corp. ("Ultra" or "the Company") (OTC: UPLCQ) for
violations of Sec. 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 April 13,
2017 and August 8, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before November 2, 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. Ultra overstated its proven reserves by
hundreds of millions of dollars' in value. In fact, the Company's
proven reserves had little value because of their low-quality
deposits. The Company failed to meet its production and development
estimates. The Company's business was much less flexible than it
claimed, which resulted in an inability to withstand even a minor
downturn in the market. 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 Ultra,
investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

Contacts:

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


UNITED STATES: Agencies Sued Over Vessel Monitoring System
----------------------------------------------------------
The Times reports that the U.S. government is trying to force
charter boats and companies that take customers fishing and
sightseeing in the Gulf of Mexico to purchase a vessel monitoring
system. Federal agencies will use the VMS tracking devices to
monitor boats' movements and whereabouts on the water, even when
they are not using their federal permits to fish.

A class-action lawsuit was filed Aug. 20 by the New Civil Liberties
Alliance, a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against the
U.S. Department of Commerce, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS), and the respective agency heads in their official
capacities. It contends these agencies are mandating an unlawful
and unconstitutional 24-hour GPS surveillance regime without a
warrant.

The named plaintiffs the NCLA represents are for-hire vessel
operating companies and captains affected by a final rule enforced
by Commerce, NOAA, and NMFS. The case is Rivers End Outfitters, et
al. v. Department of Commerce, et al. The rule, which goes into
effect Jan. 5, 2021, affirms that owners or operators of charter
vessels or for-hire vessels in the Gulf of Mexico must submit an
electronic fishing report using NMFS-approved hardware and software
with GPS location capabilities that "at a minimum, archive vessel
position data during a trip for subsequent transmission to NMFS."

The rule also requires captains pay for the vessel equivalent of an
ankle bracelet. NCLA contends these agencies cannot issue a
regulation that would monitor law-abiding captains more closely
than many prisoners on parole.

According to the federal agencies, the purpose of this final rule
is to "increase and improve fisheries information collected from
federally permitted for-hire vessels in the Gulf." But the NCLA
argues warrantless access to the GPS information of a person's
locations and movements is blatantly unconstitutional. It amounts
to an unreasonable search violating the Fourth Amendment and
violates Ninth Amendment rights, including the right to privacy,
freedom of movement, free enterprise, freedom from unreasonable
governmental interference, and the right to travel. Since
plaintiffs are sole owners of the data produced by their newly
purchased devices, the seizure of it without any cause also
violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

In addition to constitutional infringements, the agency's
surveillance program for chartered boats is not authorized by the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, which is meant to protect, manage, and grow
U.S. fisheries resources. The act authorizes warrantless access to
VMS data by the Coast Guard and other law enforcement agencies only
if they have a reasonable belief of wrongdoing. But it does not
require a vessel to have such data nor does it command them to buy
a 24-hour surveillance device. The VMS mandate does not protect,
conserve, grow, or help manage the United States' fisheries
resources. Therefore, it greatly burdens the Alliance's clients
without accomplishing any of the Act's goals.

Commerce also failed to prepare legally sufficient regulatory
flexibility analyses in violation of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, meant to require agencies to take into account the impact
their rules have on small businesses. The NCLA's clients are
precisely the kind of entities this protects.

This is not the first time Commerce and NOAA have acted in excess
of any statutory authority granted by Congress. This past March,
the Alliance brought the lawsuit Relentless Inc., et al. v. U.S.
Dept. of Commerce, et al. challenging the agency's at-sea monitor
mandate that unlawfully commands small commercial fishing
businesses to pay for the Atlantic herring at-sea monitoring
program.

"Commerce and NOAA cannot issue a regulation that not only requires
a charter boat owner to be tracked whenever he's on his boat, but
also to call the government every time he leaves port, whether to
fish or take his wife to dinner," said John Vecchione, the NCLA's
senior litigation counsel in a news release. "This surveillance is
greater than some prisoners on parole get and does nothing to
preserve and grow fish stocks in the Gulf of Mexico. It violates
Constitutional rights to absolutely no legitimate purpose."

"Being issued a federal permit to conduct regulated fishing is not
a license for the government to fully invade the privacy and other
constitutional rights of the Gulf's charter fishermen at all times
regardless of whether they are engaged in regulated activities.
That's not a tradeoff contemplated under the Magnuson-Stevens Act
nor permitted under the Constitution. This suit aims to stop these
agencies' unlawful use of administrative power," said Kara Rollins,
litigation counsel for the NCLA.

The NCLA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group founded by
prominent legal scholar Philip Hamburger to protect constitutional
freedoms from violations by the Administrative State. Its
public-interest litigation and other pro bono advocacy strive to
tame the unlawful power of state and federal agencies and to foster
a new civil liberties movement that will help restore Americans'
fundamental rights. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Veterans Affairs Sued on Benefits Over 1966 Accident
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Collins, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs used flawed radiation data to
deny disability benefits to veterans who responded to a 1966 plane
accident involving U.S. hydrogen bombs in Spain, Yale Law School
students told a federal appeals court on Sept. 2.

The students are representing Air Force veteran Victor Skaar, of
Nixa, Missouri, in a class-action lawsuit seeking benefits for him
and others who say they were exposed to radiation during the
recovery and cleanup of the undetonated bombs and later became
ill.

"The VA has denied those veterans who are now elderly and facing a
variety of health concerns benefits and has refused to recognize
the conditions of their service for over 50 years," Yale student
Lily Halpern told the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
during a hearing held by phone. "So while this case is about
unsound science, it is also about remedying a grave injustice."

A lawyer for the VA defended the radiation exposure data, and the
three-judge panel is not expected to rule for weeks or months.

On Jan. 17, 1966, a U.S. B-52 bomber and a refueling plane collided
during a refueling operation near the southern Spanish village of
Palomares, killing seven of 11 crew members but no one on the
ground. At the time, the U.S. was keeping nuclear-armed warplanes
in the air near the Soviet border as the Cold War was in full
swing.

The midair crash resulted in the release of four U.S. hydrogen
bombs. None of the bombs exploded, but the plutonium-filled
detonators on two went off, scattering 7 pounds (3 kilograms) of
highly radioactive plutonium 239 across the landscape.

The 1,600 servicemen who were sent to the crash site area to
recover the weapons and clean up the contamination were exposed to
dangerous levels of radiation daily for weeks or months at a time,
according to court documents filed by the Yale students. Many of
the servicemen later developed various forms of cancer, blood
disorders, heart and lung dysfunction and other sicknesses but were
denied disability benefits by the VA.

Skaar, an Air Force veteran who is now 83, told The Associated
Press in 2017 that he has a blood disorder and developed melanoma
and prostate cancer, which were successfully treated. He believes
his ailments were related to his service in Palomares, he said.

He and other military members did not wear protective clothing or
masks as they cleaned up the site, he said, and they now feel
betrayed by their government.

The VA's denial of disability benefits was based on radiation
exposure estimates compiled by the Air Force, Halpern said.
Although most of the military members in Palomares provided urine
samples for testing in 1966, Air Force officials did not use 98% of
the test results, leading to inaccurate estimates of the radiation
exposure that likely were much lower than they really were, she
said.

Halpern said the VA did not use scientifically sound evidence as
required to deny benefits to the Palomares veterans, and she asked
the court to order the agency to reassess the disability claims
using sound evidence. The Yale students are seeking to overturn a
ruling by the Board of Veterans' Appeals that rejected Skaar's
appeal of the denial of his benefits.

Mark Vichich, an attorney for the VA and Secretary Robert Wilkie,
defended the validity of the radiation exposure estimates during
the Sept. 2 court hearing.

But Judge Michael Allen questioned Vichich on whether the VA looked
into whether the Air Force's estimates were scientifically sound.

"The secretary has had no reason to suspect that the information
the Air Force is giving us is not based on sound science," Vichich
said. [GN]


UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Plan Beneficiaries Class Cert. Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER SWEDA, ET AL., v. THE
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL., Case No. 2:16-cv-04329-GEKP
(E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs Jennifer Sweda, Benjamin A. Wiggins,
Robert L. Young, Faith Pickering, Pushkar Sohoni and Rebecca N.
Toner move the Court for an order:

   1. certifying all claims in this action as a class action
      under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1);

   2. certifying a class defined as follows:

      "all participants and beneficiaries of the University of
      Pennsylvania Matching Plan, the Supplemental Retirement
      Annuity Plan of the University of Pennsylvania, and the
      University of Pennsylvania Basic Plan from August 10, 2010
      through the date of judgment, excluding the Defendants";
      and

   3. appointing themselves as representatives of this class and
      appointing their attorneys, Schlichter Bogard & Denton,
      LLP, as class counsel.

The University of Pennsylvania is a private Ivy League research
university in Philadelphia. The university claims a founding date
of 1740 and is one of the nine colonial colleges chartered prior to
the U.S. Declaration of Independence.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated
Sept. 15, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2ZXYPH4 at no extra charge.[CC]

Counsel for Plaintiffs are:

          Sean E. Soyars, Esq.
          Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
          Troy A. Doles, Esq.
          Heather Lea, Esq.
          SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON, LLP
          100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 621-6115
          Facsimile: (314) 621-5934
          E-mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com
                  tdoles@uselaws.com
                  hlea@uselaws.com
                  ssoyars@uselaws.com

               - and -

          David M. Promisloff, Esq.
          PROMISLOFF LAW, P.C.
          5 Great Valley Parkway, Suite 210
          Malvern, PA 19355
          Telephone: (215) 259-5156
          Facsimile: (215) 600-2642
          E-mail: david@prolawpa.com

US CORRECTIONS: Fiveash Seeks to Recover Back Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
TERESA FIVEASH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. US CORRECTIONS, LLC; and SOUTH EAST PERSONNEL LEASING,
INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00866 (D. Tex., Aug. 18, 2020), seeks to
recover back wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Fiveash was employed by the Defendants as extradition
officers.

US Corrections, LLC is a prisoner transportation company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77002-1063
          Telephone: (713) 222-6775
          Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
          E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
                  curt@mooreandassociates.net


VALLEY NATIONAL: Faces Turner Suit Over Fraudulent Loan Services
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOAN L. TURNER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF
WILLIAM TURNER, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. VALLEY NATIONAL BANK, Case No. MER-L-001534-20 (N.J.
Super., Mercer Cty., Aug. 31, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant for engaging in improper, illegal, and fraudulent conduct
in connection with vehicle loans it issues, holds, and services.

According to the complaint, in October 2012, William Turner entered
into a vehicle loan transaction with the Defendant to finance the
purchase of his vehicle. Throughout the life of the loan, Mr.
Turner made the required monthly payments on time and the loan was
always current. On February 12, 2020, however, Mr. Turner passed
away and on June 26, 2020, the Plaintiff was appointed Executrix of
the Estate of her late husband's Estate.

The Plaintiff sought to retain the vehicle and reached out to the
Defendant in an effort to assume the debt and retain possession of
the vehicle. But on July 14, 2020, the Defendant refused to permit
the Plaintiff to assume the loan and retain possession of the
vehicle. The Defendant instead demanded that the Plaintiff
immediately remit payment in the amount of $8,364.74 to retain the
vehicle or, in the alternative, the Defendant would move to
repossess the vehicle.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's conduct constitutes
fraud, breach of contract, consumer fraud, breaches of the covenant
of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment.

Valley National Bank is a regional bank holding company
headquartered in Wayne, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory G. Johnson, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY G. JOHNSON, ESQ.
          282 Glenn Avenue
          Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
          Telephone: (609) 731-6960


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

Energy Recovery, Inc. (NASDAQ:ERII)

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

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

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/energy-recovery-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=8937&from=1

Vaxart, Inc. (NASDAQ:VXRT)

Investors Affected: June 25, 2020 - July 25, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Vaxart, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: 1) Vaxart exaggerated the prospects of its COVID-19
vaccine candidate, including its purported role or involvement in
Operation Warp Speed ('OWS'), a program which commits the federal
government to massive funding for the development of COVID-19
vaccines; 2) Vaxart's COVID-19 vaccine candidate had no reasonable
prospect for mass production and marketing and was not among the
companies chosen to receive significant financial support from OWS
to produce hundreds of millions of vaccine doses; and 3) Vaxart's
COVID-19 vaccine candidate was merely selected to participate in
preliminary U.S. government studies to determine potential areas
for possible OWS partnership and support.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/vaxart-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=8937&from=1

Blink Charging Company (NASDAQ:BLNK)

Investors Affected: March 6, 2020 - August 19, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Blink Charging Company. The filed complaint alleges that defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) many of Blink's charging stations are damaged,
neglected, non-functional, inaccessible, nor non-accessible; (ii)
Blink's purported partnerships and expansions with other companies
were overstated; (iii) the purported growth of the Company's
network has been overstated; and (iv) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/blink-charging-company-loss-submission-form/?id=8937&from=1

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

CONTACT:

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


VAXART INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Oct. 23 Motion Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Sept. 2 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of Vaxart 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.

Vaxart, Inc. (NASDAQ:VXRT)

VXRT Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased June 25, 2020 -
July 25, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 23, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/vaxart-inc-information-request-form-2?prid=9027&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Vaxart,
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: 1) Vaxart exaggerated the prospects of its
COVID-19 vaccine candidate, including its purported role or
involvement in Operation Warp Speed ('OWS'), a program which
commits the federal government to massive funding for the
development of COVID-19 vaccines; 2) Vaxart's COVID-19 vaccine
candidate had no reasonable prospect for mass production and
marketing and was not among the companies chosen to receive
significant financial support from OWS to produce hundreds of
millions of vaccine doses; and 3) Vaxart's COVID-19 vaccine
candidate was merely selected to participate in preliminary U.S.
government studies to determine potential areas for possible OWS
partnership and support.

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]


VAXART: Class Action Over Funding-Related Mixup Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
George Budwell, writing for The Motley Fool, reports that Vaxart's
main selling point to investors is its novel oral vaccine platform.
The biotech's shares rocketed higher back in June in response to
the news that its oral COVID-19 vaccine had been selected to
participate in a non-human primate challenge study by the
government's OWS program.

Some investors, though, apparently took this news to mean that
Vaxart had also received significant financial support from OWS to
accelerate the development of its oral COVID-19 vaccine. That was
never the case. As a result, the biotech's shares have since
dropped by a whopping 63% from their former highs in less than two
months' time. Vaxart is also facing a class action lawsuit over
this funding-related mixup.

Is it time to buy this falling knife? Vaxart's oral vaccine
approach could have major logistical and clinical advantages over
injectable vaccines. Moreover, the company is poised to initiate
the first human trial for this unique COVID-19 vaccine contender
within the next few months. So there are some solid reasons for
investors to at least consider buying this small-cap biotech stock
right now.     

Having said that, Vaxart clearly isn't a stock for conservative
investors. It could take years to gain a regulatory approval for an
oral COVID-19 vaccine. By then, the opportunity may have evaporated
due to the approval of more traditional vaccines.

Bottom line: There are simply too many unknowns when it comes to
Vaxart and its oral vaccine for COVID-19. Therefore, investors
might be wise to wait until this story matures a bit more before
buying shares.  [GN]


VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Klein Law Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on Aug. 30 disclosed that class action
complaints have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the
following companies. There is no cost to participate in the suit.
If you suffered a loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline
to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Velocity Financial, Inc. (NYSE:VEL)

This lawsuit is on behalf of investors who purchased VEL stocks
pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and
Prospectus, as amended, issued in connection with Velocity's
January 2020 initial public offering.

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 28, 2020

According to the filed complaint, defendants failed to disclose
that, at the time of Velocity's initial public offering (the
"IPO"), the Company's non-performing loans had dramatically
increased in size from the figures provided in the Registration
Statement and Prospectus that Velocity had issued in connection
with the IPO. Further, defendants failed to provide any information
to investors regarding the potential impact of the novel
coronavirus on Velocity's business and operations, despite the fact
that the international spread of the virus had already been
confirmed at the time of the IPO. The failure to disclose the
substantial and growing proportion of the Company's loans that were
non-performing and/or on non-accrual status as of the IPO rendered
the statements contained in the Registration Statement and
Prospectus regarding the quality of the Company's loan portfolio
and underwriting practices materially misleading.

Learn about your recoverable losses in VEL:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/velocity-financial-inc-loss-submission-form?id=8926&from=1

Alteryx, Inc. (NYSE:AYX)
Class Period: May 6, 2020 - August 6, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020

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

Learn about your recoverable losses in AYX:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/alteryx-inc-loss-submission-form?id=8926&from=1

Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.

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

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


VERATIP CORP: Bronstein Appeals Ruling in Sarikaputar Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Michael P. Bronstein filed an appeal from the District
Court's Opinion and Order dated August 7, 2020, entered in the
lawsuit entitled PARANEE SARIKAPUTAR, PEDRO COJ CUMES,
PHOUVIENGSONE SYSOUVONG a/k/a Tukta Phouviengsone, SUPUNNEE
SUKASAWETT, WIPAPORN SITTIDEJ, VINAI PATAN, PHAISIT SIRIMATRASIT,
CHAICHANA KITTIRONNAKORNKUL a/k/a Kay Kittironnakornkul, and
SUPATRA WUNGMARN on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated v. VERATIP CORP. d/b/a ThaiNY Restaurant, et al., Case No.
17-cv-814, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 7,
2020, the lawsuit alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by engaging in a
pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including
the Plaintiffs, overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40
each workweek.

The appellate case is captioned as Sarikaputar v. Veratip Corp.,
Case No. 20-2914, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees Paranee Sarikaputar, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated; Phouviengsone Sysouvong, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated, AKA Tukta
Phouviengsone; Supunnee Sukasawett; Vinai Patan; Wipaporn Sittidej;
Pedro Coj Cumes; Phaisit Sirimatrasit; Boonyarit Praphai; Kamphol
Kiatwanakorn; Chaichana Kittironnakornkul; and Supatra Wungmarn are
represented by:

          Aaron B. Schweitzer, Esq.
          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324
          E-mail: TroyLaw@TroyPllc.com

Defendant-Appellant Michael P. Bronstein is represented by:

          Bingchen Li, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF Z. TAN PLLC
          39-07 Prince Street
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 886-6676
          E-mail: eric.li@ncny-law.com


WABASH, IN: Class Certification Bid in Copeland Case Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as JERRY COPELAND, JOHN WHITT,
and JAMES DUTTON, on behalf of themselves and a class of those
similarly situated v. WABASH COUNTY, INDIANA; and the WABASH COUNTY
SHERIFF, in his official capacity, Case No. 3:20-cv-00154-JD-MGG
(N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Jon E. Deguilio entered an order
denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification without
prejudice:

   "all persons currently confined or who will be in the future
   confined in the Wabash County Jail" because he is no longer
   being held in the jail."

The Court held that a party seeking class certification must
affirmatively demonstrate his compliance with the Rule--that is, he
must be prepared to prove that there are in fact sufficiently
numerous parties, common questions of law or fact, etc.  Merely
alleging that each inmate suffers from a constitutional violation,
or merely claiming that overcrowding the jail facility potentially
violates inmates' constitutional rights, without pinpointing how
the violation affects all potential class members, is not enough.
Having considered the parties' arguments and reviewed the record of
the case up to this point, the Court denied the Motion for Class
Certification without prejudice to refiling and the submission of
additional evidence. According to the Court, "[a]n order that
grants or denies class certification may be altered or amended
before final judgment.  But a court that is not satisfied that the
requirements of Rule 23 have been met should refuse certification
until they have been met.  Rule 23, Advisory Committee Notes, 2003
Amendment. If the Plaintiffs can provide sufficient evidence to
meet the requirements of Rule 23(a), they are encouraged to file
that evidence with a renewed motion for class certification."

On February 19, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint
for declaratory and injunctive relief, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
section 1983, seeking to enjoin the practices of Wabash County Jail
and the Wabash County Jail Sheriff in his official capacity. The
Plaintiffs allege that the conditions of confinement resulting from
the overcrowded and understaffed Wabash County Jail violate the
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution.

The Wabash County Jail is located in Wabash, Indiana and was
constructed in 1979, with some renovations completed in 2006.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Sept. 16, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2RNECiV at no extra charge.[CC]

WARNER MUSIC: Combs Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi Combs and Esteban Trujillo, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. WARNER MUSIC GROUP CORP., Case No.
1:20-cv-07473 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 11, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personal
identifiable information, including unencrypted names, email
addresses, telephone numbers, billing addresses, shipping
addresses, payment card numbers, payment card CVV security codes,
and payment card expiration dates.

The Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendant failed to provide
timely, accurate, and adequate notice to the Plaintiffs and
similarly situated WMG customers that their PII had been stolen by
hackers, and precisely what types of information was unencrypted
and in the possession of unknown, unauthorized third parties. On
September 2, 2020, WMG began notifying various state Attorneys
General about a data breach that occurred on many of its websites
between April 25, 2020, and August 5, 2020. Around the same time,
Defendant mailed a Notice of Data Breach to consumers affected by
the breach.

By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the
Plaintiffs' and the Class Members' PII, WMG assumed legal and
equitable duties to those consumers, according to the complaint.
WMG admits that the PII entered onto its websites' e-commerce
platforms was "compromised" by "an unauthorized third party." The
stolen information includes everything unauthorized third parties
need to illegally use WMG's current and former customers' PII to
steal their identities and to make fraudulent purchases. Not only
can unauthorized third parties access Defendant's customers' PII,
the PII can be sold on the dark web. Hackers can access and then
offer for sale the unencrypted, unredacted PII to other criminals.
Plaintiffs and WMG's current and former customers face a lifetime
risk of identity theft and financial crimes.

According to the complaint, this PII was compromised due to WMG's
negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and the failure to
protect customers' data. In addition to WMG's failure to prevent
the Data Breach, the Defendant failed to detect the Data Breach for
almost four months, and when WMG did discover the Data Breach, it
took at least a month to report it to the affected consumers and
the states' Attorneys General. As a result of this delayed
response, the Plaintiffs and Class Members had no idea their PII
had been compromised, and that they were, and continue to be, at
significant risk to identity theft and various other forms of
personal, social, and financial harm. The Plaintiffs contend that
this risk will persist.

The Plaintiffs purchased items from websites operated by WMG and
used their payment cards for the purchases.

WMG owns and operates some of the largest record labels in the
world, including Atlantic Records, Elektra Records, Warner Records,
and Parlophone.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Amanda Peterson, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          90 Broad Street, Suite 1011
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 564-4568
          Email: apeterson@ForThePeople.com

               - and -

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Jean Martin, Esq.
          Ryan J. McGee, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: (813) 223-5505
          Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
                 jeanmartin@ForThePeople.com
                 rmcgee@ForThePeople.com

               - and -

          M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
          Leslie Guillon, Esq.
          CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          865 Howe Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Phone: (916) 777-7777
          Fax: (916) 924-1829
          Email: aberry@justice4you.com
                 lguillon@justice4you.com


WEINSTEIN CO: Attorneys Present Revised Bankruptcy Plan
-------------------------------------------------------
Randall Chase, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
attorneys for The Weinstein Co. presented a Delaware judge on Sept.
2 with a revised bankruptcy plan that would provide about $35
million for creditors, including victims of sexual misconduct by
disgraced film mogul Harvey Weinstein.

The settlement amount is $11.5 million less than under a previous
plan, which was scrapped after a federal judge in New York refused
to approve a proposed $19 million settlement between Weinstein and
some of his accusers. The settlement in the purported class-action
lawsuit was a key component of the initial bankruptcy plan.

Attorneys for the company told Judge Mary Walrath the reduction is
due primarily to the fact that the plan no longer includes
contributions from insurers for the resolution of certain "Miramax
era" claims that arose prior to Harvey Weinstein leaving that
company and forming the Weinstein Co.

Roughly half of the overall settlement amount, about $17 million,
is allocated for a single sexual misconduct claims fund, down from
about $25.7 million allocated for three separate categories of
sexual misconduct claims under the previous plan. Another $8.4
million of the settlement amount would go to a liquidation trust
for resolving non-sexual misconduct claims, and $9.7 million would
be used to reimburse defense costs for company officials other than
Weinstein.

Attorneys for the company made clear that they will not ask Judge
Walrath to approve the plan if holders of sexual misconduct claims
vote to reject it.

"We will not seek to cram down the plan on the survivors," said
attorney Paul Zumbro.

Meanwhile, attorneys for The Weinstein Co. asked Walrath to approve
an Oct. 15 deadline for sexual misconduct claims to be filed, and a
process for notifying potential claimants through online posting
and publications including The Hollywood Reporter, Variety and The
New York Post.

Walrath said that if attorneys can agree on language clarifying the
consequences on future litigation for victims who file claims in
the bankruptcy, she would allow the company to send out the
notices.

"I agree with the debtor that this should go forward and this could
resolve, if not all of the claims, a large percentage of those,"
she said.

Zumbro said the revised plan will provide greater relief for
holders of sexual misconduct claims because the proposed class of
claims is smaller than under the original plan, and no money would
be going to class-action counsel fees.

He also noted that Harvey Weinstein would no longer be reimbursed
for any of his defense costs or receive any other distribution
under the revised plan.

Zumbro noted that the New York judge had described the potential
payments to Weinstein as "obnoxious."

"The debtors and the other settling parties heard that loud and
clear," he said.

Under the new Chapter 11 liquidation proposal, holders of sexual
misconduct claims would receive 100% of the liquidated value of
their claims if they agree to release Weinstein from all legal
claims. A claimant who elects not to release Weinstein but to
retain the option to sue him in another court would receive 25% of
the value of her bankruptcy claim. The other 75% would be allocated
to a "reversionary fund" for the benefit of insurance companies,
who could be on the hook for damage payments in future litigation.

In a departure from normal bankruptcy procedure, holders of sexual
misconduct claims would not be asked to vote on the plan until each
knows the value of her claim.

Robert Feinstein, an attorney for the company's official committee
of unsecured creditors, said the committee unanimously supports the
proposed settlement, as do many other individual claimants.

"We hope it's received with an open mind, . . . and that people
will hold their fire in the press and in the courtroom until all of
the facts are known to them and we can have a mature conversation
about what's going on here," Feinstein said, referring to attorneys
for three non-settling plaintiffs in the New York case. Those
attorneys have described the latest proposal as "a complete and
utter sellout" of Weinstein's victims.

Attorneys acting on behalf of two of those women previously asked
Walrath to convert the Chapter 11 case to a Chapter 7 liquidation.
Doing so would reduce the amount of money going to professionals
and allow a trustee to pursue civil claims on behalf of the
bankruptcy estate against Weinstein and other company officials,
they argue.

But Elizabeth Fegan, an attorney who represents several women in
the New York case, including lead plaintiff Louisette Geiss, told
Walrath on Sept. 2 that nearly two dozen women support the revised
bankruptcy plan.

"I do think that it's important that their voices are not
outweighed by two women alone who do not approve of the plan," she
said.

The Weinstein Co. sought bankruptcy protection in March 2018 amid a
sexual misconduct scandal that brought down Weinstein and triggered
a nationwide movement to address predatory sexual behavior and
harassment in the workplace. Weinstein was sentenced to 23 years in
prison earlier this year after being convicted in New York of rape
and sexual assault.

Prosecutors in Los Angeles are seeking his extradition to
California to face charges of raping a woman and sexually
assaulting another in 2013. [GN]


WELLS FARGO: Judge Trims Class Action Over Auto Loans
-----------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a California federal judge on Sept. 1 trimmed a
suit alleging Wells Fargo improperly managed consumers' guaranteed
asset protection auto loans, finding that only some of the
borrowers' breach of contract claims could go forward. [GN]


WEST BEND MUTUAL: Little Ones Sues Over Refusal to Pay Insureds
---------------------------------------------------------------
Little Ones Preschool, Inc., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WEST BEND MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Case No. 2:20-cv-01428-JPS (E.D. Wis., Sept. 11, 2020), is brought
against the Defendant due its refusal to pay its insureds.

According to the complaint, Little Ones' existence is now
threatened by SARS-CoV 2, sometimes called "Coronavirus" or by one
of the names of the disease that it causes and that spreads it. The
Plaintiff was forced to suspend or reduce business at its preschool
due to COVID-19 (a.k.a. the "coronavirus" or "SARS-CoV-2") and the
resultant Closure Orders mandating the closure of businesses like
Little Ones for on-site services, as well as in order to take
necessary steps to prevent further damage and minimize the
suspension of business and continue operations. Moreover, due to
COVID-19, Plaintiff's property at Little Ones has suffered direct
physical loss and damage under the plain meaning of those words.

To protect its business in the event that it suddenly had to
suspend operations for reasons outside of its control, or if it had
to act in order to prevent further property damage, the Plaintiff
purchased insurance coverage from West Bend, including special
property coverage, as set forth in West Bend's Businessowners
Special Property Coverage Form (NS 0203 01 18) ("Special Property
Coverage Form").

The Plaintiff contends that West Bend has, on a widescale and
uniform basis, refused to pay its insureds under its Business
Income, Civil Authority, Extra Expense, Communicable Disease
Business Income and Extra Expense, and Sue and Labor coverages for
losses suffered due to COVID-19, any orders by civil authorities
that have required the necessary suspension of business, and any
efforts to prevent further property damage or to minimize the
suspension of business and continue operations. Indeed, West Bend
has denied the Plaintiff's claims under its West Bend policies,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff owns and operates a preschool for ages two through
five in Northbrook, Illinois.

West Bend Mutual Insurance Company is an insurance company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          Rachel N. Boyd, Esq.
          Paul W. Evans, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Phone: (334) 269-2343
          Fax: (334) 954-7555
          Email: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com
                 rachel.boyd@beasleyallen.com
                 paul.evans@beasleyallen.com

               - and -

          Timothy W. Burns, Esq.
          Jeff J. Bowen, Esq.
          Jesse J. Bair, Esq.
          Freya K. Bowen, Esq.
          BURNS BOWEN BAIR LLP
          One South Pinckney Street, Suite 930
          Madison, WI 53703
          Phone: 608-286-2302
          Email: tburns@bbblawllp.com
                 jbowen@bbblawllp.com
                 jbair@bbblawllp.com
                 fbowen@bbblawllp.com

               - and -

          Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
          Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
          1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 985-9177
          Fax: (215) 985-4169
          Email: rgolomb@golombhonik.com
                 kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com

               - and -

          Arnold Levin, Esq.
          Laurence S. Berman, Esq.
          Frederick Longer, Esq.
          Daniel Levin, Esq.
          LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
          510 Walnut Street, Ste. 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Phone: (215) 592-1000
          Fax: (215) 592-4663
          Email: alevin@lfsblaw.com
                 lberman@lfsblaw.com
                 flonger@lfsblaw.com
                 dlevin@lfsblaw.com


WESTERN PETROLEUM: Foster Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amondou Foster, Derrick Mayes and Michael Calhoun, on behalf of
themselves and all other Plaintiffs similarly situated v. WESTERN
PETROLEUM EXPRESS, INC., D/B/A SPEEDWAY LUBE EXPRESS AND PIT STOP
500, PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, INC., D/B/A PIT STOP 500 AND JASON
PROUDFOOT, INDIVIDUALLY, Case No. 1:20-cv-05402 (N.D. Ill., Sept.
11, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance
for unpaid overtime compensation.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs' total hours worked for
individual work weeks would almost always exceed 40 hours,
therefore invoking the overtime requirements of the FLSA, IMWL and
CMWO. However, the Defendants did not pay these shifts at the
Plaintiffs' overtime rates of pay. Rather, the Defendants paid the
Plaintiffs less than their regular, agreed straight time rates of
pay. The Plaintiffs worked in excess for 40 hours in many, if not
all, workweeks during their employment without pay at a rate of
time and one half their regular hourly rates of pay for such
hours.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as mechanics.

WESTERN PETROLEUM EXPRESS, INC. owns and operates vehicle service
stations.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Larchuk Suit Over Defective Dishwashers
-------------------------------------------------------------
AMY LARCHUK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-04442 (E.D. Pa., Sept.
10, 2020), arises from the Defendant's design, manufacture, and
sale of defective dishwashers, in violation of the Pennsylvania
Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Law.

The dishwashers allegedly have a uniform defect that can and has
caused to leak and damage consumers' cabinetry, flooring and other
property.

On September 10, 2016, Ms. Larchuk purchased her Whirlpool
KitchenAid Model KDFE204EWH dishwasher from Lowe's in an amount
exceeding $500. She avers that she paid this amount for her
dishwasher because she believed it to be a high-end dishwasher
compared to other brands and models. In April 2020, Ms. Larchuk
noticed a small amount of water leaking underneath her dishwasher.
Over the following several months, the amount of water leaking
beneath the dishwasher began to increase. The leak became gradually
worse, and water began running to the basement ceiling below the
dishwasher, damaging the ceiling joists, she alleges.

After learning that her dishwasher suffered from a known defect,
Ms. Larchuk says she performed online research and discovered
numerous other consumers reporting the same or similar incidences
of leakage from the diverter shaft seal.

Despite the Defendant's longstanding knowledge of this defect, the
Defendant has failed to remedy the defect and also failed to inform
consumers of the defect, according to the complaint. Instead, in
contravention of the dishwasher's express warranty, which fails of
its essential purpose and is unconscionable, the Defendant has
placed the burden of repairing this defect and paying for the costs
of repairs to the adjacent personal property damaged by the
defective dishwashers upon the consumers.

Whirlpool Corporation is an American multinational manufacturer and
marketer of home appliances.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arthur Stock, Esq.
          Rachel Soffin, Esq.
          Lisa A. White, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
          E-mail: arthur@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

          Harper T. Segui, Esq.
          Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON, LLP
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          E-mail: dan@whitfieldbryson.com
                  harper@whitfieldbryson.com


WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Bid to Drop 2nd Amended Suit vs. Unit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion of Northbrook Bank, one of Wintrust Financial
Corporation's banks, to dismiss a second amended complaint related
to alleged fraudulent Ponzi scheme of Tamer Moumen remains pending,
according to Wintrust Financial's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020.

On October 17, 2018, two individual plaintiffs filed suit in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois against Northbrook Bank and
Tamer Moumen on behalf of themselves and a class of approximately
42 investors in a hedge fund run by defendant Moumen.  Plaintiffs
allege that defendant Moumen ran a fraudulent Ponzi scheme and ran
those funds through deposit accounts at Northbrook Bank.  They
allege the bank was negligent in failing to close the deposit
accounts and that it intentionally aided and abetted defendant
Moumen in the alleged fraud.  They contend that Northbrook Bank is
liable for losses in excess of US$6 million.  Northbrook Bank filed
its motion to dismiss the complaint on January 15, 2019, which the
court granted on March 5, 2019.

On April 3, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint based on
similar allegations.  Northbrook Bank did not believe the amended
complaint cured the pleading defects recognized by the court and
filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on May 17, 2019.
The court heard this motion on July 17, 2019 and once again
dismissed the complaint without prejudice.

Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on August 12, 2019.
Northbrook again moved to dismiss the complaint.

On November 6, 2019, the court dismissed the complaint with
prejudice.  Plaintiffs filed an appeal on December 2, 2019.  This
appeal has been fully briefed and remains pending before the
Illinois First District Appellate Court.  Northbrook Bank believes
plaintiffs' allegations are legally and factually meritless and
otherwise lacks sufficient information to estimate the amount of
any potential liability.


WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Unit Still Defends Suit over PPP Agent Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wintrust Bank, N.A. remains a defendant in an action initiated by
A.D. Sims LLC in Illinois related to agent fees on loans issued
under the federal CARES Act's Payroll Protection Program ("PPP"),
according to Wintrust Financial Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020.

On April 30, 2020, A.D. Sims LLC on behalf of itself and other
similarly situated plaintiffs filed suit in the federal district
court for the Northern District of Illinois against Wintrust
Financial Corporation, Wintrust Bank, N.A., Bank of America, N.A.,
Cross River Bank, and an additional 4,971 named and unnamed
defendants alleging the defendant financial institutions' failure
to pay agent fees on loans issued by them under the federal CARES
Act's Payroll Protection Program ("PPP").  Plaintiffs allege the
collective damages could exceed US$3.8 billion and have asked the
court to require the defendants to establish, on a pro rata basis,
a fund which could be used to pay agent fees due.  Plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed Wintrust Financial Corporation as a defendant
in this suit on June 29, 2020.

Plaintiffs' attorneys have filed similar actions across the country
and have moved the federal panel for Multi-District Litigation to
consolidate these PPP Agent Fee class actions before a single
judge.  This motion was heard on July 30, 2020 and denied on August
5, 2020.

Wintrust Bank believes plaintiffs' allegations are legally and
factually meritless and otherwise lacks sufficient information to
estimate the amount of any potential liability.


[*] Class Actions Against CBD Companies Face Challenges
-------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Maslow, writing for LegalScoops, reports that as
manufacturers have begun to produce more significant quantities of
CBD products, so have class-action lawsuits filed against these
companies risen in prominence. Most of them claim that the products
were falsely advertised and claimed false health benefits, although
in some cases, the lawsuits try to claim that the product contained
greater in the legal minimum of THC.

However, in recent months high-level federal courts have stopped
most of these lawsuits dead in their tracks. Proponents of the CBD
industry welcome this much-needed relief.

A Brief History Of Class Action Cases Against The CBD Industry
The CBD industry is intimately related to the growth and production
of hemp. It is primarily derived from the plant temp, defined as a
marijuana plant containing lower than 0.3% THC by weight.

In recent years, it has only been at the growth and production of
hemp to isolate the CBD compounds that have been legal. Ever since
the passage of the 2018 legislation that legalized this trade,
several high-level class-action lawsuits filed against companies in
the industry. Now it looks like the tides are changing with federal
courts beginning to take the side of those in the CBD industry.

Snyder v. Green Roads of Florida
This case was put on hold until the federal government has
evaluated new rules. Until the Food and Drug Administration
released revised regulations regarding these products' marketing,
they have determined they cannot issue a ruling on these cases.
This was the first high-level class-action lawsuit that was put on
hold due to the recent legislation passage, but many others have
followed suit.

Pfister v. Charlotte's Web Holdings, Inc.
This case was thrown out of the courts because of a lack of
regulatory direction from the FDA. It was initially filed against
companies under the primary jurisdiction doctrine.

This is excellent news for people proponents of the industry
because this gives them much needed relief from legal pressure
being exerted by well-funded forces. The battle has been long and
hard for people to get here, but we are here now.

Potter v. Diamond CBD
The most recent high-level case that was put on hold proceeded
similarly to the previous case discussed. The case was according to
the primary jurisdiction doctrine.

The significant difference is that the judge decided to state that
despite the FDA's lack of clear regulatory guidelines, he believes
it is sufficient to say that things will not change enough for the
case to have legal standing.

The Future of The CBD Industry
Now you can go to the store and get CBD Oil for Dogs and CBD
topical cream for yourself. Thankfully it is easier than ever
before for people who want to participate in the hemp trade to join
legally. This has led to a proliferation of products and a price
war amongst other effects on the industry. All of them seem to be
beneficial for consumers.

Final Thoughts Regarding Class Action Cases in The CBD Industry
It looks like the daily show of class-action lawsuits may finally
have been put on hold for people that have been holding off
entering the CBD industry for that reason. Recent cases have seen
federal judges decide in favor of proponents of the CBD industry.
This is looking more and more like the precedent. [GN]


[*] Companies Must Comply with CCPA Rules to Avert Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Zappa, writing for StreetFight, reports that the California
Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) enforcement period began July 1, and
two months later, numerous firms have received letters from the
attorney general's office about non-compliance.  Multiple major
companies, including Walmart, Sephora, and Ring, have been hit with
class-action lawsuits.

But there's no great mystery or nefarious agenda tied to the
companies that have been targeted as this point, says Dan Clarke,
president at IntraEdge. To avoid meeting the same fate, companies
need to adhere to the fundamentals of the nation's first major
statewide privacy law. Clarke spoke with Street Fight to explain.

CCPA enforcement so far has targeted retailers. What do you make of
that?

I don't think CCPA enforcement targeted retailers, specifically.
CCPA enforcement, instead, is targeting companies that have a high
volume of traffic and strong customer reach. In this case, it
coincides with retailers. The amount of customer interaction a
business has is often a determinant of the number of privacy
requests and complaints a company may receive from customers
exercising their privacy rights.

What companies do you expect CCPA enforcement to affect next?

It's speculated that California's Attorney General Xavier Becerra
will go after the low-hanging fruit, rather than targeting a
specific industry. CCPA enforcement will be centered on egregious
violators -- for example, those that do not have a prominent
privacy policy link on their website, no "do not sell my data"
button, and no visible mechanisms to allow customers to exercise
their privacy rights. The attorney general is paying close
attention to the customer complaints received online; however,
those complaints aren't public, and the only proxy of those with
the most complaints are those publicly posted on Twitter.

There's been a lot of discussion about whether CCPA rules are fair
and whether enforcement would disproportionately affect mid-size
players without the legal armies of the big players. How is that
playing out so far?

Currently, those that have received 30-day notices to cure are
businesses that did not have visible privacy notices on their
websites, nor a prominent mechanism or process to collect privacy
requests. These notices are actively being sent to non-compliant
companies, and the notices encourage companies to contact the
attorney general's office to open a dialogue about how to improve
their policies. Becerra has already viewed thousands of complaints
submitted online and has advised companies to pay attention to what
their consumers are saying on Twitter.

What can companies proactively do to comply with CCPA?

Companies must implement a privacy-first strategy to comply with
the approved final regulations under the CCPA. At a minimum, this
means having a visible compliance strategy with an up-to-date
notice that provides customers with a prominent "do not sell my
information" link (where applicable) on their website, an opt-out
of the sale of data option, and a mechanism for customers to
exercise their privacy rights. If customers can't exercise their
privacy rights due to egregious violations, it's much easier to
enforce a fine for non-compliance. [GN]


[*] HESTA Now Funding 21 Shareholder Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------
According to Litigation Finance Journal, Litigation Finance is
deepening its presence in the shareholder class action scene --
challenging businesses when those who invest in them lose money.
HESTA, a health-industry-specific fund, is now funding 21
class-action suits representing shareholders. [GN]




[*] Tsunami of COVID-19 Investment Securities Lawsuits Expected
---------------------------------------------------------------
Melanie Dubis, Esq., of Parker Poe -- melaniedubis@parkerpoe.com --
in an article for Bloomberg Law, reports that a tsunami of
litigation is coming as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, and
the first waves are beginning to crash in the financial services,
life sciences, and real estate industries. Financial institutions,
brokers, and investment advisers are starting to see claims that
bring back memories of the Great Recession, when disputes surged
through FINRA, the U.S.'s largest forum for resolving investment
disputes.

Additionally, biotech companies, real estate developers, and other
businesses have found themselves targets of securities class
actions, including over how they have -- or haven't -- disclosed
the impacts of Covid-19 on their business.

Just as a tsunami is not a single wave but a series of waves,
companies are likely to face evolving litigation risks as the
pandemic unfolds. There are steps they can take now to prepare,
including reconsidering the use of arbitration and mediation. Many
businesses are finding those types of alternative dispute
resolution more attractive, in part to avoid growing backlogs in
the court system.

Investment Disputes

A chart of the stock market's performance this year tells you all
you need to know about how many claims are coming against financial
institutions, brokers, and investment advisers—volatility breeds
litigation.

These claims are most often arbitrated through FINRA. As a result
of the financial crisis, there were more than 7,000 FINRA
arbitrations initiated in 2009. By comparison, in 2019 there were
roughly half as many. Given that history, claims are likely to
surge, and some categories already are.

FINRA reports that through June, "intra-industry" disputes are up
25% compared to the year before. Disputes involving suitability,
failing to pay money owed on promissory notes, and libel or slander
on termination forms (U-5s) are up in particular. In the realm of
customer disputes, claims involving manipulation and errors
regarding fees or charges are up. However, customer disputes
overall are fairly flat through June compared to a year ago, so
this is an area to watch going forward.

To prepare for the next wave of claims, particularly customer
claims, heightened attention to regulatory requirements and
meticulous documentation of any communications with respect to
investments and returns are key.

Securities Litigation

Public companies are already facing lawsuits tied to how they
disclose the impact and potential impacts of the pandemic in their
securities filings. This is an especially important risk for
businesses to manage, as many of these lawsuits are class actions
with the potential for large verdicts and awards of attorney's
fees.

Life sciences companies in particular have been targets. For
example, a class action filed in Pennsylvania alleges Inovia
Pharmaceuticals misrepresented its development of a Covid-19
vaccine, thereby inflating the stock price. And a class action in
New York alleges Chembio Diagnostics made false statements about
its Covid-19 antibody development.

In addition to allegations of affirmative misrepresentations, there
have also been cases of omission. A holding company that leases and
manages apartments in China, for example, faces a class action
alleging failure to disclose the material impact of Covid-19 on the
business. The complaint says the company was "uniquely exposed to
fallout from the worsening coronavirus pandemic." Other real estate
companies are likely to face similar claims depending on their
disclosures.

Before public companies make public disclosures or affirmative
statements concerning the impact of the pandemic, they should pause
to work through how a plaintiffs' lawyer would dissect it. How
could the disclosure be misconstrued? What could potential
arguments be around omissions? Experienced securities counsel are
valuable partners in this exercise.

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Companies navigating the coming tsunami may find that arbitration,
mediation, and other forms of alternative dispute resolution are an
attractive lifeline. Because uncertainty is bad for business—and
there is an overwhelming amount of it right now—many companies
eager for faster resolutions are turning to these alternatives.

Methods of alternative dispute resolution are designed to move
quicker than court cases even in the best of times. That speed gap
is larger now because of backlogs in the Carolinas and many other
states that paused court proceedings in the early days of the
pandemic. As courts work through those backlogs, they are often
giving priority to criminal cases, so civil claims that businesses
face are taking a back seat.

There is also the question of when jury trials will happen again?
Judges are going to be very reluctant to call 100 people together
for voir dire, as many courts cannot accommodate social distancing
with those numbers. (As a practical matter, most jury boxes can't
either.)

Meanwhile, arbitration and mediation have continued, with many
forums adapting for remote proceedings. Businesses should keep in
mind that just because a case is already pending in court doesn't
necessarily mean it's too late to move to arbitration. Courts have
welcomed consent orders to move cases when the parties have been in
agreement. There are also unique alternatives in different states,
including North Carolina Rule 11 on Mediation and Settlement
Procedures that sets up a neutral evaluator and an abbreviated
presentation of facts.

Companies should examine their options for lawsuits that are
already underway. They should also consider whether to adjust
contract language going forward to include whatever means of
alternative dispute resolution makes the most business sense for
their particular circumstances. These adjustments could be
particularly valuable if the pandemic worsens in the winter,
causing new shutdowns and forcing courts to hit pause again. [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 ***