/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201006.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, October 6, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 200

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Holliday Sues Over AFFF Products' Harmful Effects
ANAPLAN INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of October 23 Deadline
APPLE INC: Summary Judgment in Frlekin Wage-and-Hour Suit Reversed
ATLANTIC BUSINESS: Faces Fabricant TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Call
BEAUMONT CITY, TX: Refuses to Pay Overtime Wages, Noble Claims

BLINK CHARGING: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Oct. 23 Deadline
BLINK CHARGING: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of October 23 Deadline
BLOOMFIELD DISCOUNT: Wicker Suit Dismissed as to Jersey Plaza
BRASKEM SA: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Oct. 26 Deadline
CABOT OIL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of October 13 Deadline

COCRYSTAL PHARMA: December 16 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
COLUMBIA VALLEY: Court Narrows Claims in Maldonado Class Suit
DUKE ELLINGTON GOURMET: Cristino Seeks Overtime Pay, Tip Credits
EASTMAN KODAK: Schall Law Announces Oct. 13 Deadline
ELMHURST CO: Facilities Not Accessible to PWDs, Mortland Claims

ENERGY RECOVERY: Portnoy Law Reminds of Sept. 20 Deadline
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Initial Approval of Class Settlement Sought
ESCOBAR CONSTRUCTION: Perez Suit Moved From N.D. to S.D. New York
FASTLY INC: Bernstein Liebhard Investigates Securities Violations
FENNEC PHARMACEUTICAL: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action

FENNEC PHARMACEUTICALS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Nov. 2 Deadline
FORESCOUT TECH: Johnson Fistel Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Suit Over Chevy Camaro Starter Problems
GENIUS BRANDS: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action
GOHEALTH INC: Strianese Sues Over 40% Drop in IPO Share Price

GOL LINHAS AEREAS: Schall Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit
GOOGLE INC: Canadian Provinces File Unlawful Data Collection Suits
GRAND BRANDS: Drink Mixes Have Synthetic Flavor, Tedesco Alleges
GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 23 Deadline
GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Portnoy Law Reminds of September 23 Deadline

HDFC BANK: Faces Class Action Suits Brought by 3 Law Firms
HDFC BANK: Rosen Legal Files Class Action Suit
HONDA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Odyssey Transmission Issues
IDS PROPERTY: MSP Recovery Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
INSPERITY INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of September 21 Deadline

INSPERITY INC: Portnoy Law Advises of Sept. 19 Deadline
LEXINFINTECH HOLDINGS: Robbins Geller Reminds of Nov. 9 Deadline
LOCKHEED MARTIN: Mismanages Hazardous Toxins, Grayson Suit Says
LOUISIANA: Court Grants Motion to Withdraw Class Certification Bid
MORGAN STANLEY: December 12 Proof of Claim Filing Deadline Set

NANO-X IMAGING: Bernstein Liebhard Announces Class Action Lawsuit
NANO-X IMAGING: Bragar Eagel Announces Class Action Lawsuit
NANO-X IMAGING: Kirby McInerney Announces Securities Class Action
NANO-X IMAGING: Schall Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit
NAT'L HOCKEY: Former Kamloops Blazers' Forward Files Class Action

NIALL INC: Faces Lora Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
NIKOLA CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Announces Securities Class Action
NIKOLA CORP: Bragar Eagel Announces Securities Class Action
NIKOLA CORP: Kirby McInerney Announces Securities Class Action
NIKOLA CORP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Suit

NIKOLA CORPORATION: Pomerantz Law Firm Announces Class Action
OLD DOMINION: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Flips Gravitystorm Suit Dismissal
ONESPAN INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of October 19 Deadline
PARTY CITY: McInnis Sues Over Illegal Collection of Fingerprints
PEABODY ENERGY: OK Firefighters PRS Sues Over Drop in Share Price

PEACH STATE: Faces Oliver FCRA Suit Over Use of Consumer Report
PNC MERCHANT: Wins Dismissal of Choi's Beer Suit Over Annual Fee
PORTLAND GENERAL: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action
POSITIVE LIVING: Settles Privacy Class Action Suit for $1.2MM
REINSURANCE GROUP: Fails to Provide Consumer Report, Sanders Says

SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Monopolizes Auto Card Shufflers, Giuliano Says
SEACOAST COMMERCE: Filings on EFSC Sale Lack Info, Parshall Says
SLING TV: Web Site Is Inaccessible to Blind, Monegro Suit Claims
STAAR SURGICAL: Hagens Berman Reminds of October 19 Deadline
STAAR SURGICAL: Schall Law Firm Announces Class Action Lawsuit

STANTEC INC: Annapolis Citizens Sue Over Illegal Water Charges
SUPER BREAD II: Bid to Quash Filed in Fuentes Suit
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over 8-Speed Transmission Issues
TOYOTA MOTOR: Zuo Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
UNUM GROUP: Park Sues in California Over Unlawful Labor Practices

URSA OPERATING: Fails to Pay Lease Operators' OT, Velasco Claims
VISION PROPERTY: Henderson Files Suit in Michigan
YOU FIT HEALTH: Pacheco Sues Over Unlawful Membership Fee Charges
[*] Allow Class Action Suits Against Polluters, Says Lawyer

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Holliday Sues Over AFFF Products' Harmful Effects
-------------------------------------------------------------
LON HOLLIDAY, Jr. v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT, LLC; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF
CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; FIRE PRODUCTS GP HOLDING, LLC; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.;
KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest
to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Case
No. 2:20-cv-03430-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 28, 2020), is brought against
the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design
defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express
and implied warranties, and wantonness.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, distributed, sold, manufactured, released,
trained users on, produced instructional materials for, and/or
otherwise handled and/or used aqueous film forming foam (AFFF)
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS, which are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to
the material and remains and persists over long periods of time.
Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the
blood and body of exposed individuals.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff
was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF
products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the
proper handling of the products. Moreover, the Defendants did not
warn public entities, firefighter trainees, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or
firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers
that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products
containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human
health.

As a result of the Defendants' omissions and misconduct, the
Plaintiff alleges that he developed serious medical conditions and
complications due to his exposure to Defendants' PFAS-containing
AFFF products during the course of his training and firefighting
activities.

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.

ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer
of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma
Management, LLC is a global color and specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Reinach, Switzerland.

Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. BASF Corporation
is a multinational chemical company with its principal place of
business located in Ludwigshafen, Germany. Buckeye Fire Equipment
Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire
extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and
kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business
located at 110 Kings Road, in Mountain, North Carolina.

Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of
fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with
principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, in
Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing
company based in Baytown, Texas.

Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and
fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is
a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours
Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in
Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that
specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound
Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of
agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business
at 1007 Market Street, in Wilmington, Delaware.

Fire Products GP Holding, LLC is a manufacturer of fire protection
products based in Bismarck, North Dakota. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a
manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland,
Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a
manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill,
South Carolina.

National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a
manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of
business at 1007 Market Street, in Wilmington, Delaware.

Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, in
Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an
American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington,
Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to
form Raytheon Technologies.

UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
         Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
         GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         270 West Main Street
         Sayville, NY 11782
         Telephone: (631) 600-0000
         Facsimile: (631) 543-5450

                - and –

         Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
         Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
         Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
         ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
         2160 Highland Avenue South
         Birmingham, AL 35205
         Telephone: (205) 328-9200
         Facsimile: (205) 328-9456


ANAPLAN INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of October 23 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, on Sept. 7 announced that a securities class action has been
filed on behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the
securities of Anaplan Inc. ("Anaplan" or the "Company") (NYSE:
PLAN) between November 21, 2019 and February 26, 2020 (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose: (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

On February 27, 2020, the Company announced that, 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%.

On this news Anaplan's stock price dropped 25% in one day, falling
from $58.09 to $44.03 wiping out almost $2 billion in market cap.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 23, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. 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 Anaplan securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/anaplaninc-plan-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-301/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.

Contacts
Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]


APPLE INC: Summary Judgment in Frlekin Wage-and-Hour Suit Reversed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AMANDA FRLEKIN; TAYLOR KALIN; AARON GREGOROFF; SETH
DOWLING; DEBRA SPEICHER, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. APPLE, INC., a
California corporation, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 15-17382 (9th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the
district court's order granting Apple's motion for summary
judgment.

Plaintiffs Frlekin, Kalin, Gregoroff, Owling, and Speicher brought
the wage-and-hour class action on behalf of current and former
non-exempt employees who have worked in Defendant Apple's retail
stores in California since July 25, 2009.  The Plaintiffs seek
compensation for time spent waiting for and undergoing exit
searches pursuant to Apple's "Employee Package and Bag Searches"
policy.

The Employees estimate that the time spent waiting for and
undergoing an exit search pursuant to the Policy typically ranges
from five to twenty minutes, depending on the manager or security
guard's availability.  Some employees reported waiting up to 45
minutes to undergo an exit search.  Employees receive no
compensation for the time spent waiting for and undergoing exit
searches, because they must clock out before undergoing a search
pursuant to the Policy.

On July 16, 2015, the district court certified a class defined as
"all Apple California non-exempt employees who were subject to the
bag-search policy from July 25, 2009, to the present."  Because of
concerns that individual issues regarding the different reasons why
employees brought bags to work, ranging from personal convenience
to necessity," would predominate in a class-wide adjudication, the
district court (with the Plaintiffs' consent) made clear in its
certification order that "bag searches" would "be adjudicated as
compensable or not based on the most common scenario, that is, an
employee who voluntarily brought a bag to work purely for personal
convenience."  Therefore, the certified class did not include
employees who were required to bring a bag or iPhone to work
because of special needs (such as medication or a disability
accommodation).

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue
of liability.  On Nov. 7, 2015, the district court granted Apple's
motion and denied Plaintiffs' motion. The district court ruled that
time spent by class members waiting for and undergoing exit
searches pursuant to the Policy is not compensable as "hours
worked" under California law because such time was neither subject
to the control of the employer nor time during which the class
members were suffered or permitted to work.  The Plaintiffs timely
appealed.

The Court certified to the California Supreme Court the question of
state law: Whether the time spent on the employer's premises
waiting for, and undergoing, required exit searches of packages or
bags voluntarily brought to work purely for personal convenience by
employees compensable as hours worked is within the meaning of
California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 7.

The California Supreme Court concluded the answer to the question
certified, as reformulated, is yes.  Following the California
Supreme Court's decision, the parties filed supplemental briefs
addressing whether there are factual disputes that would preclude
summary judgment for the Plaintiffs on remand.

The Ninth Circuit holds that because no material facts are in
dispute as to whether time spent by the class members waiting for
and undergoing exit searches pursuant to the Policy is compensable
as "hours worked" under California law, the Plaintiffs are entitled
to summary judgment on that legal question.  In answering the
question certified, as reformulated, the California Supreme Court
held that Apple's employees are subject to Apple's control while
awaiting, and during, Apple's exit searches, and therefore Apple
must compensate those employees for the time spent waiting for and
undergoing" the exit searches pursuant to the Policy.  The district
court had held to the contrary in granting summary judgment to
Apple.  Accordingly, the court erred in granting summary judgment
to Apple.

For these reasons, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's
grant of Apple's motion for summary judgment and denial of the
Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.  It remanded for further
proceedings with instructions to (1) grant the Plaintiffs' motion
for summary judgment on the issue of whether time spent by the
class members waiting for and undergoing exit searches pursuant to
the Policy is compensable as "hours worked" under California law,
and (2) determine the remedy to be afforded to individual class
members.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's Sept. 2, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y5ll8obe from Leagle.com.

Kimberly A. Kralowec (argued) -- kkralowec@kraloweclaw.com -- and
Kathleen S. Rogers -- krogers@kraloweclaw.com -- The Kralowec Law
Group, San Francisco, California; Lee S. Shalov and Brett R.
Gallaway, McLaughlin & Stern LLP, New York, New York; for
Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Julie A. Dunne (argued) -- mail@dunnefamilylaw.com -- Littler
Mendelson P.C., San Diego, California; Richard H. Rahm, Littler
Mendelson P.C., San Francisco, California; Theodore J. Boutrous
Jr., Joshua S. Lipshutz , Bradley J. Hamburger, and Lauren M. Blas,
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles, California; for
Defendant-Appellee.

Michael D. Singer and Janine R. Menhennet --
jmenhennetlaw@gmail.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer, San Diego,
California, for Amicus Curiae California Employment Lawyers
Association.


ATLANTIC BUSINESS: Faces Fabricant TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Call
------------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ATLANTIC BUSINESS CONSULTING & CAPITAL, LLC d/b/a
FINANCE FACTORY, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of
them, Case No. 2:20-cv-08767 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 24, 2020), is
brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for its alleged
negligent and willful violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant placed a call to his
cellular telephone number ending in -1083 beginning in or around
August 2018 by using automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) in
an attempt to solicit him to purchase its services. The Plaintiff
contends that the Defendant did not obtain his prior express
consent" to receive calls using an ATDS or an artificial or
prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone.

The Plaintiff asserts that he was harmed by the unsolicited calls
of the Defendant causing him to incur certain charges or reduced
telephone time for which he had previously paid, and his privacy
has also been invaded.

Atlantic Business Consulting & Capital, LLC, d/b/a Finance Factory,
is a business financing company.[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
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com


BEAUMONT CITY, TX: Refuses to Pay Overtime Wages, Noble Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
LIZABETH M. NOBLE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, Case No. 1:20-cv-00400
(E.D. Tex., Sept. 23, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for
its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff claims that she regularly worked in excess of forty
hours per week. However, she has found out on August 12, 2020, that
the Defendant has not been paying her for the time she spent
traveling back and forth to the Beaumont Police Department, which
the Defendant required her prior to clocking in at the Beaumont
Municipal Court. As a result, the Defendant failed to pay the
Plaintiff overtime at one and one-half times her regular rate of
pay for the hours she worked in excess of 40 per week.
Additionally, the Defendant failed to keep accurate records of
hours worked by and wages paid to non-exempt employees, including
the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt Deputy
Court Clerk III/Jail Arraignment Clerk for the last ten years.

The City of Beaumont is a city in and the county seat of Jefferson
County, Texas, in the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica L. Hallmark, Esq.
          Robert B. Dunham, Esq.
          DUNHAM HALLMARK, PLLC
          4180 Delaware, Suite 301
          Beaumont, TX 77706
          Tel: 409-434-4185
          Fax: 888-325-0090
          E-mail: jhallmark@dunhamhallmark.com
                  rdunham@dunhamhallmark.com


BLINK CHARGING: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Oct. 23 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action that has been filed on behalf
of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of Blink
Charging Co. ("Blink" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: BLNK) between
March 6, 2020 to August 19, 2020, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Florida alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

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

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made 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.

On August 19, 2020, analyst Culper Research published a report
titled: "Blink Charging Co. (BLNK): You Won't Miss It." In the
report Culper estimated that the Company's "functional public
charging station network consists of just 2,192 station, a mere 15%
of this claim."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell from its August 18,
2020 close of $10.23 per share to an August 20, 2020 close of
$7.94, representing a two day drop of $2.29, or approximately
22.4%.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 23, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. 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 Blink securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/blinkchargingco-blnk-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-295/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

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

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. © 2020 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin.  Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.

         Matthew E. Guarnero
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         Tel(877) 779-1414
         E-mail: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]

BLINK CHARGING: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of October 23 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Sept. 7 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Blink Charging Company ("Blink" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: BLNK) and certain of its officers.  The class
action, filed in United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, and docketed under 20-cv-23643, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise, acquired Blink securities between March 6,
2020, and August 19, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").  This
action is brought on behalf of the Class for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. Secs. 78j(b) and 78t(a) and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the SEC, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Blink securities during the
class period, you have until October 23, 2020, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

According to its most recent Annual Report filed on Form 10-K with
the SEC, Blink purports to be "a leading owner, operator, and
provider of" electric vehicle ("EV") "charging equipment and
networked charging services.  Blink offers both residential and
commercial EV charging equipment, enabling EV drivers to easily
recharge at various location types."

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business.  Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) many of
Blink's charging stations are damaged, neglected, non-functional,
inaccessible, or 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.

Culper continued to detail that of the 242 stations its
investigators visited in the Atlanta, Chicago, Miami, and San Diego
metro areas, twenty-three times (9.5% of total), Blink's map
claimed that there were chargers onsite, but Culper's investigators
were either unable to locate the chargers or locate all of the
chargers claimed.  In thirty-nine cases (16.1% of total), Culper's
investigators "found chargers that, even though they existed, were
visibly damaged and/or non-functional," and that "[a]s many of
these chargers have been left to the elements for close to a
decade, the most common deformities were due to sun and heat
damage."  Furthermore, in another eighteen cases (7.4% of total),
Culper's investigators "found that chargers were inaccessible to
the general public," and that "[m]any of these were behind locked
garages, or restricted only for employee (in office buildings) or
resident (in condo or apartment buildings) use only."  Culper
concluded: "In short, our sampling suggests that of the 3,275
chargers listed on the Company's map, only 67% of these, or 2,192
exist, are functional, and are publicly accessible."

The Culper report included photos, from multiple locations, of
Blink chargers that were severely damaged, inaccessible, and/or
non-functional.  It also included details of interviews with
parking attendants and other locals who described the lack of use
and/or other issues experienced with the Blink chargers.

Also on August 19, 2020, analyst Mariner Research Group ("Mariner")
published another report that was highly critical of Blink.
Mariner wrote that Blink's "revenue growth has significantly
seriously lagged the EV industry -- yet CEO Farkas made >$7M in
compensation during this period.  We believe that this is due to
persistent issues around product quality, customer churn, and user
experience, and believe that these issues will continue to hamper
[Blink]'s growth."

Mariner concluded: "[W]e believe the business should be valued at
its liquidation, or book value, of just 17c in a downside scenario
and at $2 a share in a bull case scenario . . . . The average of
our price targets produces a base case target of $1.09, a drop of
91% from the 8/18/20 close."

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 per share.  This represents a two day drop of
approximately 22.4%. Indeed, the intraday price on August 20, 2020
reached as low as $6.42 per share.

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

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN]


BLOOMFIELD DISCOUNT: Wicker Suit Dismissed as to Jersey Plaza
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TYREESE WICKER, Plaintiff, v. BLOOMFIELD DISCOUNT,
LLC, JERSEY PLAZA, LLC, MOHAMMAD ASIF KHAN, and DHAVAL JAIN,
Defendants, Docket No. 19-cv-19053 (WJM) (D. N.J.), Judge William
J. Martini of the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey (i) granted Defendant Jersey Plaza's Motion to Dismiss, and
(ii) granted in part and denied in part Defendant Khan's Motion to
Dismiss.

The case is an employment discrimination case.  The Plaintiff filed
the putative class action against Defendant Bloomfield Discount,
Jersey Plaza, Khan, and Jain.  He alleges discrimination and
retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
discrimination under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, and discrimination,
retaliation and aiding and abetting under the New Jersey Law
Against Discrimination ("LAD").

Plaintiff Wicker is an African American male and resident of Essex
County, New Jersey.  He alleges that on April 23, 2016, he inquired
about working at Defendant Bloomfield Discount.  He claims he was
told by an unspecified person that the store was only looking for
cashiers and that the owner only hires women for the cashier
position.  The Plaintiff further alleges that he then spoke with
Defendant Jain, the manager on duty at Bloomfield Discount, who
told him that Bloomfield Discount was hiring ladies for the cashier
position and that men do the floors.  The Plaintiff was instructed
to write his name and number in a notebook but claims that he was
neither contacted nor hired for the cashier position.

Defendant Bloomfield Discount was purchased two years after the
incident by Defendant Jersey Plaza in September 2018.  Defendant
Khan is the Owner and General Manager of Bloomfield Discount.  The
Plaintiff contends that Defendant Bloomfield Discount engages in a
practice or pattern of unlawfully considering the race and sex of
an applicant, and in doing so, does not meaningfully consider
African American or male applicants for certain positions.  Of the
20 employees whose job title is "cashier," 19 are women.
Additionally, from 2015 to 2016, 55 people were hired, and only six
employees were African American.  The Plaintiff alleges that he was
discriminated against on the basis of race and sex which prevented
him from being hired for the position he sought and for which he
was qualified.

The Plaintiff asserts the following claims: (1) employment
discrimination under Title VII; (2) retaliation under Title VII;
(3) discrimination under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981; (4) employment
discrimination under New Jerse LAD; (5) retaliation under New Jerse
LAD; and (6) aiding and abetting under New Jerse LAD.

Before the Court is Jersey Plaza's motion to dismiss all six claims
against it and Mohammad Khan's motion to dismiss four claims
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 12(b)(6).

Defendant Jersey Plaza moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's amended
complaint under Rule 12 (b)(6) for failure to state a claim.  The
Plaintiff brings all six claims against Jersey Plaza stemming from
its alleged hiring practices in violation of state and federal law.
The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's factual pleadings are
insufficient.  Judge Martini agrees.

The Plaintiff includes two facts in the Amended Complaint that
concern Jersey Plaza, namely: (1) Jersey Plaza purchased Bloomfield
Discount in September 2018 and (2) around June 2019, the EEOC
amended their initial determination which found reasonable cause to
believe Bloomfield Discount was discriminating on the basis of sex
and race in their hiring practices to include Jersey Plaza as a
named Respondent.  

These facts, while taken as true, do not plausibly implicate Jersey
Plaza in discriminatory or retaliatory conduct.  Jersey Plaza did
not exist at the time of the alleged incident on April 23, 2016.
It was incorporated on April 19, 2018 and subsequently purchased
Bloomfield Discount in September 2018.  The Plaintiff appears to
rely on a theory of successor liability as a way to hold Jersey
Plaza liable for Bloomfield Discount's debt and liabilities.  He,
however, does not plead facts supporting a theory of successor
liability in his complaint.

Therefore, for these reasons, the Judge concludes that the
Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
as to Jersey Plaza.  Defendant Jersey Plaza's motion to dismiss is
granted.  The Plaintiffs' request for limited discovery is denied.

The Plaintiff brings four claims against Defendant Khan: (1)
Discrimination under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981; (2) Discrimination
under New Jersey LAD; (3) Retaliation under New Jersey LAD; and (4)
Aiding and Abetting under New Jersey LAD.  Defendant Khan moves to
dismiss all four counts.

Defendant Khan's motion to dismiss as to Count Three is granted.
The Judge finds that the Plaintiff has not alleged that he suffered
racial discrimination and that the Defendant's actions violated any
of his enumerated rights.  The only reference to Khan's
discriminatory intent is the statement that the Defendants
constantly enforced a purposefully discriminatory pattern and
practice of depriving African-American individuals of the equal
rights described, in further violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981.
Since, conclusory allegations of generalized racial bias do not
establish discriminatory intent, the Plaintiff has not alleged that
Khan acted with racial animus.

Defendant Khan's Motion to Dismiss as to Counts Four and Five is
also granted.  The Judge finds that the term employer in the LAD
does not include a supervisor.  Instead, individual liability of
supervisors under LAD may only arise through the "aiding and
abetting" mechanism that applies to "any person."  Accordingly, the
Plaintiff's claims of discrimination and retaliation, Counts Four
and Five, as to Defendant Khan must fail because individual
liability cannot be imposed for such types of claims under NJLAD.

In Count Six, the Plaintiff pleads aiding and abetting under NJLAD
as against Defendant Khan.  A supervisor may be found individually
liable under the LAD if he aids and abets the action prohibited by
the act.  The Plaintiff argues that Bloomfield Discount's
discriminatory policy stems from Khan's discriminatory intent to
only hire women as cashiers.

Khan's motion to dismiss as to Count Six is granted.  The Judge
finds that Khan is generally aware of his role as part of an
overall illegal activity when Jain, with the authority to hire
people, tells potential employees that they only hire women for the
cashier position.  It can be inferred from the statement that the
owner only hires women for the cashier position that Khan knowingly
and substantially assisted in creating the policy.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Martini granted Defendant Jersey
Plaza's Motion to Dismiss, and dismissed with prejudice the
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint as to Jersey Plaza.  He granted in
part and denied in part Defendant Khan's Motion to Dismiss.  Counts
Three, Four, and Five of the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are
dismissed with prejudice as to Defendant Khan.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 2, 2020 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/y59cl9uz from Leagle.com.


BRASKEM SA: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Oct. 26 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action that has been filed on behalf
of investors that purchased or acquired the common stock of Braskem
S.A. ("Braskem" or the "Company") (NYSE: BAK) between May 6, 2016
and July 8, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company’s business, operations and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose to investors
that the Company was overstating and/or mischaracterizing: (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

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
disclosed that the lawsuits were "requesting the freezing of
amounts and assets in a total of approximately R$6.7 billion [i.e.,
6.7 billion 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 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.

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 ADS price fell $0.59 per share, or 6.20%,
to close at $8.93 per share on July 9, 2020.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 26, 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 Braskem securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/braskemsa-bak-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-296/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

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

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. © 2020 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin.  Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.

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

CABOT OIL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of October 13 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded company. 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.

COG Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/cabot-oil-gas-corporation-information-request-form?prid=9381&wire=1

Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation (NYSE:COG)

COG Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased October 23, 2015
- June 12, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : October 13, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/cabot-oil-gas-corporation-information-request-form?prid=9381&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Cabot
Oil & Gas Corporation 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.

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. [GN]

COCRYSTAL PHARMA: December 16 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on Sept. 7 disclosed that the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey has approved
the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement
that would benefit purchasers of securities of Cocrystal Pharma,
Inc. and/or BioZone Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: COCP):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY
AND PROPOSED SECURITIES CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED THE PUBLICLY TRADED
SECURITIES OF COCRYSTAL PHARMA, INC. AND/OR BIOZONE
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 23, 2013 AND SEPTEMBER 7,
2018, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, that a hearing will
be held on December 16, 2020, at 2:00 p.m. before the Honorable
Kevin McNulty, United States District Judge of the District of New
Jersey, 50 Walnut Street, Courtroom PO 04, Newark, New Jersey 07102
for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement
of the claims in the above-captioned Action for consideration
including the sum of $1,265,000 should be approved by the Court as
fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to
distribute the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (3) whether the application of Lead Counsel for
attorneys' fees of up to one-third of the Settlement Amount
($421,666.66) plus a proportionate share of interest accrued on the
Settlement Amount, Lead Counsel's reimbursement of litigation
expenses incurred of not more than $65,000, and Awards to
Plaintiffs of not more than $15,000 in total, should be approved;
and (4) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice as
set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, fully
executed on August 17, 2020 (the "Settlement Stipulation"). The
Court reserves the right to hold the Settlement Hearing
telephonically or by other virtual means.

The proposed Settlement would resolve the Action alleging that, in
violation of the federal securities laws, Defendants (1) allegedly
made misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in
various public statements concerning an alleged scheme to inflate
the price of securities of Cocrystal Pharma, Inc.'s ("Cocrystal" or
the "Company") predecessor, BioZone Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
("BioZone") and an alleged undisclosed related party transaction,
and (2) allegedly manipulated the market for BioZone securities.
Defendants deny the allegations.

If you purchased or acquired the publicly traded securities of
Cocrystal and/or BioZone between September 23, 2013 and September
7, 2018, both dates inclusive ("Settlement Class Period"), your
rights may be affected by this Settlement, including the release
and extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your
ownership interest in Cocrystal securities. You may obtain copies
of the detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of
Securities Class Action ("Notice") and the Proof of Claim and
Release Form by writing to or calling the Claims Administrator:
Cocrystal Pharma, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims
Services, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205, P.O. Box 230, Media, PA
19063; (Tel) (866) 274-4004; (Fax) (610) 565-7985;
info@strategicclaims.net. You can also download copies of the
Notice and submit your Proof of Claim and Release Form online at
www.strategicclaims.net. If you are a member of the Settlement
Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement
Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release Form
electronically or postmarked no later than November 16, 2020 to the
Claims Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to
recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will
be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you
make a claim.

If you are a Settlement Class Member and desire to be excluded from
the Settlement Class, you must submit to the Claims Administrator a
request for exclusion so that it is received no later than November
25, 2020, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice.
All members of the Settlement Class who have not requested
exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment
entered in the Action pursuant to the Settlement Stipulation.

Any objection by a Settlement Class Member to the Settlement, Plan
of Allocation, Lead Counsel's requests for an award to Lead Counsel
of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and Awards to
Plaintiffs must be in the manner and form explained in the detailed
Notice and received no later than November 25, 2020, by each of the
following:

Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
District of New Jersey
Martin Luther King Building & U.S. Courthouse
50 Walnut Street
Newark, NJ 07102

LEAD COUNSEL:

THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
Phillip Kim
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS COCRYSTAL PHARMA, INC., GARY WILCOX, JEFFREY
MECKLER, GERALD MCGUIRE, JAMES MARTIN, AND CURTIS DALE:

PERKINS COIE LLP
Ronald L. Berenstain
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA  98101

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT PHILLIP FROST

MORVILLO ABRAMOWITZ GRAND IASON & ANELLO P.C.
Robert J. Anello
565 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10017

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT BARRY HONIG:

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
Michael Sommer
1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10019

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS JOHN STETSON AND STETSON CAPITAL
INVESTMENTS, INC.:

MILBANK, LLP
Adam Fee
55 Hudson Yards
New York, NY 10001

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS MARK GROUSSMAN AND MELECHDAVID, INC.:

BAKER MCKENZIE LLP
Perrie Weiner
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
Los Angeles, CA 90067

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS JOHN O'ROURKE III AND ATG CAPITAL LLC

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
Randy Luskey
405 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT JOHN FORD:

CHIESA SHAHINIAN & GIANTOMASI P.C.
A. Ross Pearlson
One Boland Drive
West Orange, NJ 07052

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS MICHAEL BRAUSER AND GRANDER HOLDINGS, INC.

RICHARD AND RICHARD, P.A.
Dennis Richard
Melissa L. Mackiewicz
825 Brickell Bay Drive
Tower III, Suite 1748
Miami, FL 33131

Elliot Maza
550 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 102
Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632

Brian Keller
5058 Nortonville Way
Antioch CA 94531

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Lead Counsel:

THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
Phillip Kim
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
pkim@rosenlegal.com

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

Dated: August 18, 2020   

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
NEW JERSEY [GN]



COLUMBIA VALLEY: Court Narrows Claims in Maldonado Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ISELA M. MALDONADO, Plaintiff, v. COLUMBIA VALLEY
EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No.
C20-5428-BHS-TLF (W.D. Wash.), Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma,
granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to
dismiss or to strike class allegations.

The matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke.  No objections
having been filed.

Having considered the R&R and the remaining record, Judge Settle
adopted it.  He granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motion to dismiss.  The Plaintiff's claims for negligence, common
law procedural unconscionability and common law substantive
unconscionability are dismissed; the Plaintiff's claim for breach
of implied contract is not dismissed; and the Defendants' motion to
strike class action allegations is denied without prejudice.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
in this case alleges that she was subjected to wrongful excessive
and unreasonable medical billing--gouging--by the Defendants.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 9, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ybybbody from Leagle.com.

DUKE ELLINGTON GOURMET: Cristino Seeks Overtime Pay, Tip Credits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Juarez Cristino, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Duke Ellington Gourmet Corp.,
Ghazi Ghanem and Gamal Doe, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-07546 (E.D.
N.Y., September 15, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages and spread-of-hours pay pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants own, operate or control a deli in New York City under
the name "Duke Ellington Gourmet Deli" where Cristino was employed
as a delivery worker. He claims to have generally worked in excess
of 40 hours a week without overtime for hours in excess of 40 hours
per workweek and denied spread-of-hours premium for workdays
exceeding 10 hours. Duke Ellington claimed tip credit for all hours
worked despite requiring Cristino to work non-tipped duties for
hours exceeding 20% of the total hours worked each workweek. He
also claims to have never received wage statements. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EASTMAN KODAK: Schall Law Announces Oct. 13 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class-action lawsuit against Eastman
Kodak Company ("Kodak" or "the Company") (NYSE:KODK) 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 July 27,
2020 and August 7, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before October 13, 2020.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Kodak failed to disclose that it had
granted insiders stocks options worth millions just before the
public announcement of a $765 million loan from the U.S.
International Development Finance Corporation to develop medicines
to treat COVID-19, an announcement which the Company knew would
immediately increase the value of its shares. Kodak insiders also
purchased tens of thousands of shares before the announcement,
acting on the news before it went public. Based on these facts, the
Company's public statements were false and materially misleading.
When the market learned the truth about Kodak, investors suffered
damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

ELMHURST CO: Facilities Not Accessible to PWDs, Mortland Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Derek Mortland, Individually v. ELMHURST COMPANY L P, a
Pennsylvania Limited Partnership, Case No. 2:20-cv-01455-JFC (W.D.
Pa., Sept. 28, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff,
individually and on behalf of individuals similarly situated,
asserting claims under the enforcement provision of the American
with Disabilities Act of 1990.

The Plaintiff is paralyzed as a result of a spinal cord injury and
permanently uses a wheelchair for mobility, making him an
individual with disability as defined by the ADA.

According to the complaint, during the Plaintiff's stay at the
DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel & Suites Pittsburgh Downtown, owned by
the Defendant, as a bona fide overnight hotel guest on February
27-28, 2019, the Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at
the subject property that violate the ADA and its regulations.
Additionally, during the Plaintiff's visit as a hotel restaurant
customer on May 31, 2019, the Plaintiff encountered architectural
barriers at the subject property that also violate the ADA and its
regulations.

The Plaintiff also alleges that the encountered barriers to access
at the property have endangered his safety. He further asserts that
the Defendant has discriminated against him by denying access to
the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities,
privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the buildings.

Elmhurst Company L.P. operates and owns a DoubleTree by Hilton
Hotel & Suites Pittsburgh Downtown located in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Owen B. Dunn, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF OWEN DUNN, JR.
          The Ottawa Hills Shopping Center
          4334 W. Central Ave., Suite 222
          Toledo, OH 43615
          Telephone: (419) 241-9661
          Facsimile: (419) 241-9737
          E-mail: dunnlawoffice@sbcglobal.net


ENERGY RECOVERY: Portnoy Law Reminds of Sept. 20 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Energy Recovery, Inc. (NASDAQ:ERII)
investors that acquired shares between August 2, 2017 and June 29,
2020. Investors have until September 20, 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.

Energy Recovery develops and manufactures technologies for the oil
& gas, chemical and water industries. The Company entered into a
15-year licensing agreement with Schlumberger Technology Corp.
("Schlumberger") for the exclusive use of Energy Recovery’s
VorTeq hydraulic pump system.

On June 29, 2020, the Company announced the termination of the
licensing agreement with Schlumberger citing "different strategic
perspectives as to the path to VorTeq commercialization."  Analysts
quickly criticized the Company, stating, "[Energy Recovery] should
have been able to perceive in advance and then explicitly warn
about the significant, and likely rising, odds of this outcome."

The lawsuit alleges that Energy Recovery made false and misleading
statements to the public throughout the Class Period and failed to
disclose that: (i) the Company and Schlumberger had different
strategic perspectives regarding commercialization of VorTeq (ii)
which 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.

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
20, 2020.

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
         Tel No: 310-692-8883
         E-mail: lesley@portnoylaw.com [GN]

ENHANCED RECOVERY: Initial Approval of Class Settlement Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as DEREK VOLKMAN, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. ENHANCED RECOVERY
COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, d/b/a ERC, Case
No. 1:18-cv-00091-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
for an order:

   1. granting a motion for preliminary approval of the
      Parties' class action settlement agreement;

   2. setting the deadline by which Class Members may file and
      serve an objection to approval of the Agreement;

   3. scheduling a date for a hearing on final approval; and

   4. approving the form and method of mailing notice to the
      Class.

Class Recovery:

ERC will create a class settlement fund of $133,000.00, which the
Administrator shall distribute on a pro rata basis ($78.70) to each
of the 1,690 Class Members who did not previously seek exclusion
from the Class, and whose Notice of Settlement is not returned as
undeliverable.

Plaintiff's Recovery:

Subject to Court approval, ERC agrees to pay Plaintiff $1,000.00
for his statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692k(a)(2)(B), plus
an additional $5,000.00 in recognition of his service to the
Class.

Attorneys'  Fees and Costs.

ERC agrees that Plaintiff brought a "successful action" under 15
U.S.C. Sec. 1692k and, thus, subject to Court approval, is entitled
to recover attorneys' fees and costs $151,000.00, which covers all
fees and expenses, including class administration, arising from the
Litigation.

On September 23, 2020, the Plaintiff and ERC participated in a full
day of mediation, which was preceded by ERC's supplementation of
its discovery regarding damages. The Parties' mediation was
successful and culminated in the Class Settlement Agreement which
accompanies this Motion.

On January 17, 2018, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a
class, filed this lawsuit alleging ERC violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act by mailing him a letter which, by its
terms, only described a debt ERC sought to collect and failed to
"clearly and accurately" disclose the name of the creditor to whom
the debt was then owed in satisfaction.

Enhanced Recovery is part of the Collection Agencies Industry.

A copy of the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval
of class settlement agreement is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2HMgtaB at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Derek Volkman, and the Certified Class
are:

          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          Katelyn B. Busby, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081
          Telephone: (973) 379-7500
          E-mail: Andrew@SternThomasson.com
                  Francis@SternThomasson.com
                  Philip@SternThomasson.com
                  Katelyn@SternThomasson.com

ESCOBAR CONSTRUCTION: Perez Suit Moved From N.D. to S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARCO ANTONIO PEREZ PEREZ, and JOSE EDUARDO SANCHEZ
ARIAS, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. ESCOBAR CONSTRUCTION, INC.; NATIONS CONSTRUCTION, INC.;
and JHONY A. ESCOBAR, Case No. 3:19-cv-01623, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
September 28, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-08010-LTS to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, including failure to
compensate the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated
construction workers minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week, failure to provide meal
periods, failure to keep payroll records, failure to provide time
of hire wage notice, and failure to provide wage statements.

Escobar Construction, Inc. is a general contractor, specializing in
commercial construction, with its principal address located at 7621
Crawfordsville Road, in Indianapolis, Indiana. Nations
Construction, Inc. is a construction company with its principal
address located at 6690 Dunsdin Drive, in Plainfield, Indiana.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         John Troy, Esq.
         TROY LAW, PLLC
         41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 103
         Flushing, NY 11355
         Telephone: (718) 762-1324


FASTLY INC: Bernstein Liebhard Investigates Securities Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, on Sept. 7 disclosed that it is investigating Fastly, Inc.
("Fastly" or the "Company") (NYSE: FSLY) resulting from allegations
that Fastly might have issued misleading information to the
investing public.

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

On August 5, 2020 after market close, Fastly held its second
quarter earnings conference call. During the call, Defendants
disclosed that ByteDance was Fastly's largest customer in the
second quarter of 2020, and that TikTok represented about 12% of
Fastly's revenue for the six months ended June 30, 2020.

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.

If you purchased Fastly securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/fastlyinc-fsly-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-302/apply/
contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

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

Contacts:

Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]


FENNEC PHARMACEUTICAL: 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 company. Shareholders who purchased shares in the
following company 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.

Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ:FENC)

Investors Affected : February 11, 2020 - August 10, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the manufacturing facilities
for PEDMARK, the Company’s sole product candidate, did not
comply with current good manufacturing practices; (2) as a result,
regulatory approval for PEDMARK was reasonably likely to be
delayed; and (3) 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/fennec-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=9409&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. [GN]

FENNEC PHARMACEUTICALS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Nov. 2 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Sept. 7
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc.
(NASDAQ: FENC) 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.

To join the Fennec class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1926.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
to investors that: (1) the manufacturing facilities for PEDMARK,
Fennec's sole product candidate, did not comply with current good
manufacturing practices; (2) as a result, regulatory approval for
PEDMARK was reasonably likely to be delayed; and (3) as a result of
the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Fennec's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
2, 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-1926.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]


FORESCOUT TECH: Johnson Fistel Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP reminds investors
that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Forescout
Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: FSCT) ("Forescout" or the Company") on
behalf of all purchasers of common stock during the period between
February 7, 2019 and May 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than September 28, 2020. If you want to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice, please contact
lead analyst Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471. If
you email, please include your phone number.

Period, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose: (1) dramatic cuts to
the number of employees began in early 2019 throughout the Company,
particularly within the sales department; (2) a significant number
of sales employees left the Company due to declining sales
throughout 2019; (3) the productivity of the Company's sales
representatives seriously declined throughout 2019; (4) the Company
misrepresented their pipeline of deals, and their expected closing
date, to buttress their stock prices; and (5) despite announcing a
definitive deal to be acquired by Advent International, following
disclosure of the Company's poor financial state, the deal fell
through. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit
claims that investors suffered damages. The plaintiff seeks to
recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Forescout common
stock during the Class Period.

                About Johnson Fistel

Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more
information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do
not guarantee future outcomes.

         Jim Baker
         Johnson Fistel, LLP
         Tel No: 619-814-4471
         E-mail: jimb@johnsonfistel.com[GN]

GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Suit Over Chevy Camaro Starter Problems
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Mceachern, writing for GM Authority, reports that a new
class-action lawsuit has been filed over alleged recurring problems
with the starter motor in the 2010-present Chevrolet Camaro.

The suit, which was filed in U.S. District Court in the state of
Delaware, alleges General Motors "knowingly sold Chevy Camaro
models without disclosing that the vehicles are plagued by a
starter and/or heat shield defect."

The suit claims the 2010-present Chevrolet Camaro has inadequate
heat shields that fail to protect the starter motor from engine bay
heat. The additional heat allegedly puts resistance on the
electrical conductors inside the motor, which forces it to use more
power than usual to start the engine. This, in turn, can allegedly
wear out the motor prematurely. It also says the starter motor
issues will typically manifest in hot weather or directly after
being driven and that the heating issues can damage the vehicle's
wiring and battery as well.

The 40-page suit also says GM has consistently refused to fix the
starter motors under warranty, instead forcing customers to pay
hundreds or thousands of dollars out-of-pocket for the repairs.

"GM's failure to disclose the starter defect at the time of
purchase is material because no reasonable consumer expects to
spend hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars to repair or replace
damaged vehicle components that the manufacturer knows will fail
well before the expected useful life of the component and damage
other components of the vehicle as well," the 40-page complaint
reads. "Had GM disclosed the starter defect, the plaintiff and
class members would not have purchased the class vehicles or would
have paid less for them."

A number of similar owner complaints can be easily located on
Chevrolet Camaro enthusiast forums around the web. One Camaro6.com
forum user, JReagle56, previously authored a post describing their
experiences with their personal Camaro's starter.

"Had the issue pop up 3 times so far since brand new," the post
reads. "Once right after I got the car. It was a hot August day
driving around breaking in the engine, tranny, rear axle and
brakes. Returned home and parked the car in garage; had to go right
back out a few minutes later; slow turnover, pause and it started.
Then again this year. A 2 hr drive to the beach, really hot day,
waiting in line to park, stalled car, restart and the starter just
barely turned over, started on the 2nd rotation, if a 3rd was
needed I don't think it would have done it. Seems like when the
starter is heat soaked something goes wrong."

This class action is open to any 2010-present Chevrolet Camaro
owners or lessees who have experienced these same issues with the
vehicle's starter motor and battery. [GN]


GENIUS BRANDS: 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 company. Shareholders who purchased shares in the
following company 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=9409&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. [GN]

GOHEALTH INC: Strianese Sues Over 40% Drop in IPO Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER STRIANESE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GOHEALTH, INC., CLINTON P. JONES, BRANDON M.
CRUZ, TRAVIS J. MATTHIESEN, NVX HOLDINGS, INC., CENTERBRIDGE
PARTNERS, L.P., CCP III AIV VII HOLDINGS, L.P., CB BLIZZARD
CO-INVEST HOLDINGS, L.P., BLIZZARD AGGREGATOR, LLC, CENTERBRIDGE
ASSOCIATES III, L.P., CCP III CAYMAN GP LTD., GOLDMAN SACHS & CO.
LLC, BOFA SECURITIES, INC. and MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-05765 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 28, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing false and
misleading registration statement in connection with GoHealth's
July 2020 initial public offering resulting to the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's securities.

According to the complaint, the Defendants filed a false and
misleading Registration Statement with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission in connection with GoHealth's July 2020 initial
public offering (IPO). Specifically, the Registration Statement
failed to disclose that at the time of the IPO: (i) the Medicare
insurance industry was undergoing a period of elevated churn, which
had begun in the first half of 2020; (ii) GoHealth suffered from a
higher risk of customer churn as a result of its unique business
model and limited carrier base; (iii) GoHealth suffered from
degradations in customer persistency and retention as a result of
elevated industry churn, vulnerabilities that arose from the
Company's concentrated carrier business model, and GoHealth's
efforts to expand into new geographies, develop new carrier
partnerships and worsening product mix; (iv) GoHealth had entered
into materially less favorable revenue sharing arrangements with
its external sales agents; and (v) these adverse financial and
operational trends were internally projected by GoHealth to
continue and worsen following the IPO.

Shortly after the IPO, the price of GoHealth Class A common stock
suffered significant price declines, and by September 15, 2020,
GoHealth Class A common stock closed at just $12.53 per share--over
40% below the $21 per share price investors paid for the stock in
the IPO less than two months previously.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful act and omissions, the
Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages.

GoHealth, Inc. is a health insurance company based in Chicago,
Illinois.

NVX Holdings, Inc. is a Chicago, Illinois-based investment company.
Centerbridge Partners, L.P. is a New York-based private equity
firm. CCP III AIV VII Holdings, L.P. is a limited partnership
company created as an investment vehicle.

CB Blizzard Co-Invest Holdings, L.P. is a limited partnership
company created as an investment vehicle. Blizzard Aggregator, LLC
is a limited liability company created as an investment vehicle.

Centerbridge Associates III, L.P. is the general partner of CCP III
AIV VII Holdings, L.P. and CB Blizzard Co-Invest Holdings, L.P. CCP
III Cayman GP Ltd. is the general partner of Centerbridge
Associates III, L.P. and the sole manager of Blizzard Aggregator,
LLC.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC is an investment management company based
in New York City. BofA Securities, Inc. is a brokerage firm based
in New York, New York. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC is an investment
management company based in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                           
      
         Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
         WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
         111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700
         Chicago, IL 60604
         Telephone: (312) 984-0000
         E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com

               - and –

         Matthew M. Guiney, Esq.
         Kevin G. Cooper, Esq.
         WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
         270 Madison Ave., 9th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 545-4600
         E-mail: guiney@whafh.com
                 kcooper@whafh.com


GOL LINHAS AEREAS: Schall Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Gol Linhas
Aereas Inteligentes S.A. ("Gol" or "the Company") (NYSE: GOL) 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 14,
2019 and July 22, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before November 10, 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. Gol suffered from material weaknesses in
its internal controls. The Company’s negative net working capital
and net capital deficiency created doubt over its ability to exist
as a going concern. 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 Gol,
investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

GOOGLE INC: Canadian Provinces File Unlawful Data Collection Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lyle Adriano, writing for Insurance Business Canada, reports that
lawyers across several Canadian provinces have filed proposed class
action lawsuits, which allege that Google has been unlawfully
collecting and selling off the personal information of Canadians
without consent.

The complaints allege that via Google Services, Google Ads and
Google Analytics, the tech giant "turns Canadians' electronics into
tracking devices, which it uses to build profiles on almost every
internet user in Canada," said Luciana Brasil, partner at Branch
MacMaster, in a press release announcing the lawsuits.

The lawsuits, which name both Google and its parent company
Alphabet as defendants, additionally allege that even people Google
has no relationship with are affected by the company's information
gathering.

"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," Brasil added in a statement.

The lawyers also accused Google of violating consumer protection
and competition laws, by misrepresenting its own privacy and data
practices to users. The lawsuits were filed in British Columbia,
Ontario, and Quebec.

In an interview with IT World Canada, Brasil explained that even if
a user has no relationship with Google -- a user that does not use
the Chrome browser or Gmail, for instance -- information on their
device can still be collected by a website that uses Google
Analytics or Google Ads.

"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," she said, adding
that most people do not even know this type of privacy breach is
happening in the background.

"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," Brasil stated.
"It's to try and extract a monetary value from (my) information."
[GN]


GRAND BRANDS: Drink Mixes Have Synthetic Flavor, Tedesco Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARY TEDESCO, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated,
and the general public v. GRAND BRANDS, INC., DBA TRUE CITRUS OR
TRUE LEMON, Case No. 3:20-cv-01928-TWR-JLB (S.D. Cal., Sept. 28,
2020), is brought the Defendant for intentional and negligent
misrepresentations, fraud by omission, breach of express and
implied warranties, and violations of California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and California's Unfair
Competition Law.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged false and deceptive
advertising and marketing of its drink-mix products, which contain
synthetic flavoring chemical. The Products include True Lemon
Original Lemonade, True Lemon Raspberry Lemonade, True Lemon
Strawberry Lemonade and True Lime Black Cherry. The Products' front
and back label representations of "Naturally Flavored," "Made from
Real Lemons" or "Real Limes," with "No Artificial Sweeteners," and
describes the product ingredients as "Crystallized Lemon" lead
consumers, including the Plaintiff, to believe that they are
naturally fruit-flavored drink mixes and healthier than other
similar drink mixes.

In reality, the Plaintiff alleges, each of the Products contains a
synthetic flavoring chemical called dl-malic acid, which is not
disclosed on the Products' front and back labels.

As a result of the Defendant's misrepresentations, the Plaintiff
and Class members paid a premium price for the drink mixes,
according to the complaint. Had they known the truth of the
Defendant's misrepresentations, they would not have purchased the
Products or would have paid less than they did.

Grand Brands, Inc., doing business as True Lemon and True Citrus,
is a manufacturer of drink mixes with its principal place of
business located at 11501 Pocomoke Court, in Baltimore,
Maryland.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
         Alexis M. Wood, Esq.
         Kas L. Gallucci, Esq.
         Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
         Elisa Pineda, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
         651 Arroyo Drive
         San Diego, CA 92103
         Telephone: (619) 696-9006
         Facsimile: (619) 564-6665

               - and –

         David Elliot, Esq.
         ELLIOT LAW OFFICE, P.C.
         3200 Fourth Avenue, Suite 207
         San Diego, CA 92013
         Telephone: (858) 228-7997


GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 23 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded company. 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.

GWRE Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/guidewire-software-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=9381&wire=1

Guidewire Software, Inc. (NYSE:GWRE)

GWRE Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 6, 2019 -
March 4, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : September 23, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/guidewire-software-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=9381&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
Guidewire Software, Inc. 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.

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. [GN]

GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Portnoy Law Reminds of September 23 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Guidewire, Software, Inc. (NYSE: GWRE)
investors that acquired shares between March 6, 2019 and March 4,
2020. Investors have until September 23, 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.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company's transition to the cloud was not going well;
(2) Guidewire's cloud-based products needed to be improved to meet
customer needs and catch-up with rival systems; (3) 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. 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
23, 2020.

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. [GN]

HDFC BANK: Faces Class Action Suits Brought by 3 Law Firms
----------------------------------------------------------
moneycontrol.com reports that three US-based law firms have filed
class action lawsuits against private lender HDFC Bank for
allegedly engaging in false or "misleading" statements regarding
its business, operational and compliance policies, and for its
failure to inform investors about the bank's improper internal
controls on vehicle loans.

The lawsuits have been filed in the US District Court for the
Eastern District of New York. [GN]


HDFC BANK: Rosen Legal Files Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------
A law firm in the US has filed a class action suit against HDFC
Bank, claiming damages for the losses incurred by investors because
of "materially false and misleading" representations made by
India's largest private sector lender.

The suit by Rosen Legal specifically names the bank's managing
director and chief executive Aditya Puri, his chosen successor
Sashidhar Jagdishan and company secretary Santosh Haldnakar, who
are the defendants in the suit, according to a copy of the
complaint uploaded on the website.

The complaint did not mention the exact amount of the damages
sought, though it maintained that thousands of investors might have
suffered.

HDFC Bank could not be immediately reached for comment.

According to the suit, bank officials "engaged in a plan, scheme,
conspiracy and course of conduct, pursuant to which they knowingly
or recklessly engaged in acts, transactions, practices and courses
of business which operated as a fraud and deceit", resulting in the
losses to investors.

The allegations pertain to the vehicle finance vertical, where the
bank later acknowledged to have found some improprieties which
resulted in some executives being acted against.

The bank had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and
internal control over financial reporting, maintained improper
lending practices in the vehicle financing making the operations
unsustainable and all this was likely to have a negative impact on
its financial condition and reputation, it alleged. [GN]

HONDA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Odyssey Transmission Issues
----------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that Honda
Odyssey transmission problems have caused a class action lawsuit
that alleges 9-speed ZF 9HP automatic transmissions suffer from
delayed shifting, loud noises while shifting, rough shifting, rough
acceleration/deceleration and sudden power loss.

The Honda transmission lawsuit includes all current and former
owners or lessees who purchased or leased 2018-2019 Odyssey
minivans equipped with 9-speed automatic transmissions.

The plaintiffs who sued say Honda began equipping certain vehicles
with 9-speed transmissions allegedly to increase fuel economy. But
the class action alleges any improved fuel economy came at the
expense of transmission problems.

One of the plaintiffs says she purchased a new 2019 Honda Odyssey,
but within the first few months the minivan experienced harsh or
delayed shifting and engagement, delayed accelerations, banging
into gear, hesitation, jerking, shuddering, lurching and a lack of
power.

The plaintiff says Honda hasn't been able to repair the Odyssey and
she doesn't feel safe.

According to the plaintiff, she returned the minivan to the
dealership at 8,447 miles and told technicians the minivan jerked
when accelerating below 40 mph. However, the technician drove the
Odyssey and couldn't find anything wrong. No repairs were made and
the minivan was returned to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff took the Odyssey minivan back to the dealership at
9,746 miles complaining the transmission jerked when accelerating
from a stop. But again Honda said the Odyssey was working as
designed, and it was returned to the customer.

"During one service visit, Ms. Browning drove the vehicle
accompanied by a service technician to demonstrate the problem.
During the drive, the vehicle exhibited delayed acceleration
followed by a bang, which the service technician acknowledged he
heard. In response, the service technician kept the vehicle for
further inspection and a software update. However, after each
visit, Ms. Browning's vehicle was returned to her with no permanent
repair."

The plaintiff says she finally traded the Odyssey for a different
vehicle, "at a large monetary loss."

The lawsuit alleges multiple transmission problems cause unsafe
conditions, not only to Odyssey occupants but to all others on the
roads. The alleged transmission problems make it difficult to
change lanes safely, make turns, merge into traffic and accelerate
from stops at intersections.

According to the class action, Honda has issued multiple technical
service bulletins (TSBs) to dealers concerning the ZF 9HP
transmission problems.

Additionally, the plaintiffs say the automaker created a customer
service campaign due to the transmissions, but Odyssey owners and
lessees continue to experience problems with their minivans.

The lawsuit also references a report from Road & Track Magazine
which said the ZF 9HP transmission "uses an electronic shifter . .
. [that] takes an eternity to engage drive, its shifts are clunky,
and it's painfully slow to react to manual commands."

Honda also allegedly refuses to extend the warranties or recall the
Odysseys even though the automaker has knowledge of customer
complaints, service campaigns, TSBs and dealer repair orders.

The Honda Odyssey transmission lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California: Browning,
et al., v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., et al.

The plaintiffs are represented by Capstone Law APC, and Berger
Montague PC.

CarComplaints.com has complaints about the 2018 Honda Odyssey, 2019
Honda Odyssey and other Odyssey model years. [GN]


IDS PROPERTY: MSP Recovery Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC v. IDS PROPERTY
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2020-016388-CA-01, was removed
from the Florida Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in
and for Miami-Dade County to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on September 16, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-23842-UU to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff obtained assignments from
Medicare Payers, including AvMed Inc., to recover payment that the
Defendant failed to pay pursuant to its primary obligation.

The Plaintiff is a shell litigation vehicle established by the
Plaintiff's attorneys, whose business model is to seek Medicare and
Medicaid reimbursement payments from private insurers like the
Defendant.

IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company operates as an insurance
company. The Company offers property and casualty insurance
services throughout the United States.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Edward M. Holt, Esq.
          MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, P.C.
          2400 Regions/Harbert Plaza
          1900 Sixth Avenue
          North Birmingham, AL 35203
          E-mail: tholt@maynardcooper.com

               - and -

          Ramon A. Abadin, Esq.
          RAMON A. ABADIN, P.A.
          232 Andalusia, Suite 200
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 768-9839
          E-mail: rabadin@abadinlaw.com


INSPERITY INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of September 21 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded company. 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.

NSP Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/insperity-inc-loss-form?prid=9381&wire=1

Insperity, Inc. (NYSE:NSP)

NSP Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 11, 2019
- February 11, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : September 21, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/insperity-inc-loss-form?prid=9381&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
Insperity, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (a) the Company had failed to
negotiate appropriate rates with its customers for employee benefit
plans and did not adequately disclose the risk of large medical
claims from these plans; (b) Insperity was experiencing an adverse
trend of large medical claims; (c) as a mitigating measure, the
Company would be forced to increase the cost of its employee
benefit plans, causing stunted customer growth and reduced customer
retention; and (d) the foregoing issues were reasonably likely to,
and would, materially impact Insperity's financial results.

You have until the lead plaintiff 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. [GN]

INSPERITY INC: Portnoy Law Advises of Sept. 19 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Insperity, Inc. (NYSE: NSP) investors
that acquired shares between February 11, 2019 and February 11,
2020. Investors have until September 19, 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.

The lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, February 11,
2019 through February 11, 2020, Defendants failed to disclose, and
would continue to omit, the following adverse facts pertaining to
the Company's business, operations, and financial condition, which
were known to or recklessly disregarded by Defendants: (i) the
Company had failed to negotiate appropriate rates with its
customers for employee benefit plans and did not adequately
disclose the risk of large medical claims from these plans; (ii)
Insperity was experiencing an adverse trend of large medical
claims; (iii) as a mitigating measure, the Company would be forced
to increase the cost of its employee benefit plans, causing stunted
customer growth and reduced customer retention; and (iv) the
foregoing issues were reasonably likely to, and would, materially
impact Insperity's financial results.

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
19, 2020.

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. [GN]

LEXINFINTECH HOLDINGS: Robbins Geller Reminds of Nov. 9 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit was filed on behalf of purchasers of LexinFintech Holdings
Ltd. (NASDAQ: LX) securities between December 21, 2017 and August
24, 2020 (the "Class Period") and purchasers or acquirers of
LexinFintech American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") pursuant and/or
traceable to LexinFintech's December 21, 2017 initial public
offering (the "IPO"). The LexinFintech class action lawsuit charges
LexinFintech and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and/or the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The first-filed case, captioned Solis v.
LexinFintech Holdings Ltd., No. 20-cv-01562, is pending in the
District of Oregon and is assigned to Judge Michael H. Simon. A
second case was filed in the District of New Jersey, captioned Vela
v. LexinFintech Holdings Ltd., No. 20-cv-12606, and is assigned to
Judge Madeline Cox Arleo.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased LexinFintech securities during the Class
Period and/or LexinFintech ADSs pursuant and/or traceable to the
IPO to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the LexinFintech class
action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other
class members in directing the LexinFintech class action lawsuit.
The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate
the LexinFintech class action lawsuit. An investor’s ability to
share in any potential future recovery of the LexinFintech class
action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If
you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the LexinFintech class
action lawsuit or have questions concerning your rights regarding
the LexinFintech class action lawsuit, please provide your
information here or contact, Brian Cochran of Robbins Geller, at
800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at bcochran@rgrdlaw.com.
Lead plaintiff motions for the LexinFintech class action lawsuit
must be filed with the court no later than November 9, 2020.

LexinFintech, through its subsidiaries, operates as an online
consumer finance platform for young professionals in the People’s
Republic of China. On December 21, 2017, pursuant to its IPO,
LexinFintech's ADSs began trading on the NASDAQ Global Market under
the symbol "LX."

The LexinFintech class action lawsuit alleges that, during the
Class Period and in the Registration Statement issued in connection
with the IPO, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) LexinFintech had reported
artificially low delinquency rates; (ii) LexinFintech’s business
model exposed shareholders to enormous losses; (iii) LexinFintech
had exaggerated its user base; (iv) LexinFintech was facilitating
direct peer-to-peer lending in contravention of Chinese law; (v)
LexinFintech had engaged in undisclosed related-party transactions;
(vi) LexinFintech lacked adequate internal controls; and (vii) as a
result, defendants’ statements about LexinFintech’s business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On August 25, 2020, Grizzly Research published a report describing,
among other things, how LexinFintech: (i) was reporting
artificially low delinquency rates by giving borrowers in default
new funds to make payments; (ii) had a business model that exposed
shareholders to enormous losses; (iii) was still conducting direct
peer-to-peer lending despite claiming otherwise, (iv) lacked
internal controls; and (v) had conducted undisclosed related-party
transactions. On this news, the price of LexinFintech shares fell
more than 5.5%, damaging investors.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities class action litigation.
With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of
the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For
seven consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has
ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top
law firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders
and total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller
attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered
tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond
securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins
Geller also specializes in implementing corporate governance
reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors
worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by
courts, professional organizations, and the media as leading
lawyers in the industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor
more information.[GN]

LOCKHEED MARTIN: Mismanages Hazardous Toxins, Grayson Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
PHYLISS GRAYSON, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, Case No. 6:20-cv-01770
(M.D. Fla., Sept. 28, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for
strict liability, public and private nuisance, negligence, willful
and wanton conduct, and medical monitoring for continual screening
and detection of illnesses, diseases, or disease processes.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged dangerous and reckless
mismanagement of extremely hazardous toxins, including heavy
metals, persistent environmental pollutants, and Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC) at its weapons manufacturing facilities at 5600
Sand Lake Road, in Orlando, Florida. The Defendant allegedly failed
to carefully manage these extremely hazardous toxins from the
moment they arrived at the Orlando Facility.

According to the complaint, Lockheed Martin stored toxins in
leaking storage tanks, collected and transported waste materials in
leaking underground piping systems, and dumped thousands of tons of
highly toxic waste sludges into trenches dug throughout the Orlando
Facility. The severe and widespread soil and groundwater
contamination at the Orlando Facility poses extreme risks to those
who live and work nearby.

The Plaintiff and Class Members have been and continue to be
exposed to this contamination by activities that cause contaminated
soils to become airborne and move offsite, according to the
complaint. Moreover, the Defendant's efforts to treat contaminated
soil and groundwater by installing numerous packed tower air
strippers and air sparge systems and soil vapor extraction systems
failed to contain the gaseous toxins extracted from the soil and
groundwater treatment systems, instead they expelled concentrated
amounts of these harmful chemicals directly into the air that the
Plaintiff and Class Members breathe.

Lockheed Martin Corporation is an American aerospace, defense,
arms, security, and advanced technologies company, with its
headquarters and principal place of business at 6801 Rockledge
Drive, in Bethesda, Maryland.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:       
            
         T. Michael Morgan, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
         20 N Orange Ave., Suite 1600
         Orlando, FL 32801
         Telephone: (407) 418-2031
         Facsimile: (407) 245-3384
         E-mail: mmorgan@ForThePeople.com

                - and –

         Rene F. Rocha, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN
         COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
         400 Poydras St., Suite 1515
         New Orleans, LA 70130
         Telephone: (954) 318-0268
         Facsimile: (954) 327-3018
         E-mail: rrocha@ForThePeople.com

                - and –

         Frank M. Petosa, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN
         COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
         8151 Peters Road, 4th Floor
         Plantation, FL 33324
         Telephone: (954) 327-5366
         Facsimile: (954) 327-3018
         E-mail: fpetosa@ForThePeople.com

                - and –

         Michael F. Ram, Esq.
         Marie N. Appel, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN
         COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
         711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
         San Francisco, CA 94102
         Telephone: (415) 358-6913
         Facsimile: (415) 358-6923
         E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com
                 mappel@forthepeople.com


LOUISIANA: Court Grants Motion to Withdraw Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as J.H., by and through his
mother and next friend, N.H.; I.B., by and through his parents and
next friends, A.B. and I.B., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. JOHN BEL EDWARDS, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY
AS GOVERNOR OF LOUISIANA; THE LOUISIANA OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE;
EDWARD DUSTIN BICKHAM, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS INTERIM DEPUTY
SECRETARY OF THE LOUISIANA OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE; JAMES WOODS,
IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE DIRECTOR OF THE ACADIANA CENTER FOR
YOUTH; SHANNON MATTHEWS, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE DIRECTOR
OF THE BRIDGE CITY CENTER FOR YOUTH; SHAWN HERBERT, IN HER OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS THE DIRECTOR OF THE SWANSON CENTER FOR YOUTH AT MONROE;
and RODNEY WARD, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
THE SWANSON CENTER FOR YOUTH AT COLUMBIA, Case No.
3:20-cv-00293-JWD-EWD (M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge John W.
DeGravelles entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiffs' Motion to Withdraw Motion for
      Class Certification;

   2. denying without prejudice the Plaintiff-Petitioners'
      Motion for Class Certification to Plaintiffs' right to re-
      urge the motion after discovery;

   3. granting the Plaintiffs' Rule 56(d) Motion to Defer or
      Deny OJJ Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Pending
      Discovery;

   4. denying without prejudice Louisiana Office of Juvenile
      Justice Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment to OJJ's
      right to refile after the completion of discovery.

   5. referring to the Magistrate Judge for a scheduling and
      discovery conference; and

   6. denying as moot OJJ's Unopposed Motion for Extension of
      Time in light of the other rulings.

Louisiana is a southeastern U.S. state on the Gulf of Mexico. Its
history as a melting pot of French, African, American and
French-Canadian cultures is reflected in its Creole and Cajun
cultures.

A copy of the Court's Order is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/33nGAx6 at no extra charge.[CC]

MORGAN STANLEY: December 12 Proof of Claim Filing Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Before the
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

In the Matter of Morgan Stanley and Co. LLC; Morgan Stanley ABS
Capital I Inc.; and Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC
Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-15982

SUMMARY DISTRIBUTION PLAN NOTICE OF MORGAN STANLEY FAIR FUND
ESTABLISHED BY THE SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION ("SEC")

If you purchased Eligible Certificates known as the certificates in
the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2007-NC4 ("NC4") and/or
the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2007-HE7 ("HE7"), made
on or before the date of the issuance of the first monthly
remittance report issued to investors by the securities
administrator for the Trust and not sold within that time-frame,
you may be eligible for compensation.  For NC4, the Eligible
Purchase Period ends on June 29, 2007.  For HE7, the Eligible
Purchase Period ends on October 24, 2007.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY.
YOU MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR RECOVERY FROM THE MORGAN STANLEY FAIR
FUND.
THIS NOTICE CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR RIGHTS.

What this Case is About

On July 24, 2014 the Commission issued an Order Instituting
Cease-and-Desist Proceedings pursuant to Section 8A of the
Securities Act of 1933, Making Findings, and Imposing a
Cease-and-Desist Order ("Order") against Morgan Stanley and Co. LLC
(f/k/a Morgan Stanley and Co. Incorporated), Morgan Stanley ABS
Capital I Inc., and Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC
(collectively "Morgan Stanley" or "Respondents").  The Order
authorized the creation of a Fair Fund pursuant to Section 308(a)
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended.

The Commission charged Morgan Stanley and Co. LLC and its
affiliates with misleading public disclosures regarding the number
of delinquent loans in two subprime residential mortgage-backed
securities transactions offered in 2007 - NC4 and HE7
(collectively, the "Trusts"), in violation of Sections 17(a)(2) and
(3) of the Securities Action of 1933 ("Securities Act").  As stated
in the Order, Morgan Stanley failed to remove or accurately
disclose loans with either current and/or historical delinquencies
made in each transaction offering documents.

Pursuant to the Order, Respondents paid disgorgement of
$160,627,852, prejudgment interest of $17,995,437 and a civil money
penalty of $96,376,711, for a total of $275,000,000 to be
distributed to harmed investors.  On February 6, 2015, Tax
Administrator, Damasco & Associates, LLP, now known as Miller
Kaplan Arase, LLP, was appointed to handle the tax obligations of
the Fund.  On February 4, 2016, the  Commission entered an Order
appointing Garden City Group, LLC ("GCG") now known as Epiq Class
Action and Claims Solutions ("Epiq") as the Fund Plan Administrator
to assist in developing a Distribution Plan to distribute monies in
the Fair Fund to investors harmed by the violations alleged in the
Order.  

The SEC approved the Plan in its entirety on June 30, 2020.

Who is Eligible for Compensation

To qualify for a payment from the Fair Fund, you must have
purchased Eligible Certificates before the date of the issuance of
the first monthly remittance report issued to investors by the
securities administrator for the Trust and not sold before June 29,
2007 in the NC4 Trust and not before October 24, 2007 in the HE7
Trust as described in the Plan.  The Plan is available on the Fair
Fund's website at www.MSFairFund.com.

Instructions for Submitting a Proof of Claim Form

You must complete and sign the Proof of Claim form and submit it to
the Fund Plan Administrator no later than December 12, 2020 at the
address or email address listed below in order to be eligible to
recover from the Fair Fund:

Morgan Stanley Fund
P.O. Box 9349
Dublin, OH 43017-4249
Questions@MSFairFund.com

If you have any questions, or if you would like to receive a Proof
of Claim Form in the mail, you may call (855) 907-3235 in the
United States, send an email to Questions@MSFairFund.com, or visit
www.MSFairFund.com.  [GN]


NANO-X IMAGING: Bernstein Liebhard Announces Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action has been filed on
behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of
Nano-X Imaging Ltd. ("Nano-X" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NNOX)
between August 21, 2020 and September 15, 2020 (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

According to the Complaint, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Nano-X’s
commercial agreements and its customers were fabricated; (2)
Nano-X’s statements regarding its "novel" Nanox System were
misleading as the Company never provided data comparing its images
with images from competitors’ machines; (3) Nano-X’s submission
to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") admitted the Nanox
System was not original; and (4) as a result, defendants’ public
statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times.

On September 15, 2020, Citron Research ("Citron") published a
report entitled, "Nano-X Imaging (NNOX) A Complete Farce on the
Market - Theranos 2.0", which summarized Nano-X as "nothing more
than a science project with a simple rendering, minimal R&D, fake
customers, no FDA approval, and fraudulent claims that are beyond
the realm of possibility."

On this news, Nano-X’s stock price fell $12.41 per share, or more
than 25%, over the next two trading days to close at $36.80 per
share on September 16, 2020, damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 16, 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 Nano-X securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/nanoximagingltd-nnox-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-308/apply
contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

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

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2020 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]

NANO-X IMAGING: Bragar Eagel Announces Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
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 Nano-X Imaging
Ltd. (NASDAQ: NNOX) securities between August 21, 2020 and
September 15, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until
November 16, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.

On September 15, 2020, Citron Research ("Citron") published the
report entitled, "Nano-X Imaging (NNOX) A Complete Farce on the
Market - Theranos 2.0" (the "Citron Report"). The Citron Report
summarized Nano-X as "this $3 billion company is nothing more than
a science project with a simple rendering, minimal R&D, fake
customers, no FDA approval, and fraudulent claims that are beyond
the realm of possibility."

On this news, Nano-X's stock price fell $12.41 per share, or more
than 25%, over the next two trading days to close at $36.80 per
share on September 16, 2020.

The complaint, filed on September 16, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Nano-X’s commercial
agreements and its customers were fabricated; (2) Nano-X’s
statements regarding its "novel" Nanox System were misleading as
the Company never provided data comparing its images with images
from competitors’ machines; (3) Nano-X’s submission to the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration admitted the Nanox System was not
original; and (4) as a result, defendants’ public statements were
materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

If you purchased Nano-X 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]

NANO-X IMAGING: Kirby McInerney Announces Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on behalf of those who acquired Nano-X Imaging
Ltd. ("Nano-X" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NNOX) securities during
the period from August 21, 2020 through September 15, 2020 (the
"Class Period"). Investors have until November 16, 2020 to apply to
the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Nano-X’s commercial agreements and its customers were
fabricated; (2) Nano-X’s statements regarding its "novel" Nano-X
System were misleading as the Company never provided data comparing
its images with images from competitors’ machines; (3) Nano-X’s
submission to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
admitted the Nano-X System was not original; and (4) as a result,
defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

If you acquired Nano-X 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]

NANO-X IMAGING: Schall Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Nano-X
Imaging Ltd. ("Nano-X" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: NNOX) 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 August 21,
2020 and September 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before November 16, 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. Nano-X fabricated its supposed commercial
agreements with customers. The Company’s statements about its
"novel" Nanox System were misleading and it failed to present data
comparing the system to competitors' systems. In fact, the
Company’s submission to the FDA admitted its system was not
original. 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 Nano-X, investors suffered
damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

NAT'L HOCKEY: Former Kamloops Blazers' Forward Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press/Kamloops This Week reports that a proposed
class-action lawsuit alleges some of North America's most powerful
hockey leagues are conspiring to limit opportunities for young
players.

The claim was filed by Kobe Mohr, a 21-year-old Lloydminster,
Alta., man who played for four teams in the Western Hockey League
from 2015 to 2020.

The NHL, WHL, Quebec Major Junior Hockey League, Ontario Hockey
League, American Hockey League, ECHL and Hockey Canada are listed
as defendants.

The suit alleges the defendants participated in "an unlawful
conspiracy, arrangement or agreement" to limit opportunities for
Mohr and other Canadians to make a living playing pro hockey
between the ages of 18 and 20.

The document claims the defendants have created a system where the
overwhelming majority of players will never reach the top pro
leagues, instead spending years playing for "nominal sums of money,
all to the financial advantage of the defendants."

None of the allegations has been proven in court and the lawsuit
still needs to be certified by the courts to become a class-action.
No statements of defence have been filed.

The AHL declined to comment, while a CHL spokesman said the league
has not yet been served with a statement of claim. None of the
other organizations mentioned in the lawsuit was able to
immediately provide a comment.

The suit points to another structure of hockey in Europe and
Russia, where pro clubs can sign young players to pro contracts and
assign them to junior or reserve teams.

"Overall, Canadian-based players that are playing in major junior
leagues have substantially less choices and freedom, if any, than
European-based players, who have the opportunity to play in the AHL
or ECHL before reaching the age of 20 and be paid a salary
negotiated by a professional association," the suit states.

The suit alleges the NHL and their teams pay bonuses to major
junior clubs when their players are drafted, creating an unlawful
arrangement between the defendants.

In May, the Canadian Hockey League settled three class-action
lawsuits filed by current and former junior players seeking backpay
for minimum wage.

The settlements amounted to a total of $30 million.

Mikael Lalancette, a Montreal-based hockey reporter, tweeted each
CHL team, including the Blazers, must pay $266,667 as its share of
the settlement.

Blazers' president Don Moores was asked for comment, but told KTW
there is a ban on discussing the settlement publicly.

The CHL has always considered major junior players -- typically
ranging from 16 to 20 years old -- student athletes.

Players are currently eligible for post-secondary school
scholarships, with each season spent in the league being worth one
year of tuition, books and compulsory fees. Players also get money
for out-of-pocket expenses, equipment, billeting and travel costs
while on a CHL roster. [GN]


NIALL INC: Faces Lora Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
EDUARDO LORA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. NIALL, INC. d/b/a LILY FLANAGAN'S PUB and NIALL B.
CROWE, Case No. 2:20-cv-04514 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 23, 2020), is
brought against the Defendants for their violation of the overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Plaintiff, who has worked for the Defendants as a kitchen
helper from February 1, 2019, to December 5, 2019, alleges that the
Defendants required him to work at least 71 hours per week without
paying his overtime rate of pay at one and one-half times his
regular rate of pay for each hour he worked in excess of 40 per
week. Moreover, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff's spread
of hours pay and failed to provide the Plaintiff with accurate
and/or complete wage statements on each pay day.

Niall, Inc. d/b/a Lily Flanagan's Pub, operates as a pub at 345
Deer Park Avenue, in Babylon, New York, owned by Defendant Niall B.
Crowe.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis M. Leon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
          108 West 39th Street, Suite 602
          New York, NY 10018
          Tel: (212) 583-7400
          E-mail: LLeon@Cafaroesq.com


NIKOLA CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Announces Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action has been filed on
behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of
Nikola Corporation ("Nikola" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: NKLA)
between June 4, 2020 and September 9, 2020 (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Nikola's founder, Trevor Milton,
materially misrepresented the Company's technology and business.
The Company's profitability and business prospects were massively
overstated. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements
were false and materially misleading throughout the class period.

On September 10, 2020, Hindenburg Research issued a report titled:
"Nikola: How to parlay an Ocean of Lies into a Partnership with the
Largest Auto OEM in America." In that report Hindenburg claimed
that it "gathered extensive evidence--including recorded phone
calls, text messages, private emails, and behind-the-scenes
photographs detailing dozens of false statements by the Company's
founder Trevor Milton."

On this news the Company's stock price fell during intraday trading
on September 10, 2020.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 16, 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 Nikola securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/nikolacorporation-nkla-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-307/apply/
contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

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

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2020 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]

NIKOLA CORP: 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
Arizona on behalf of investors that purchased Nikola Corporation
(NASDAQ: NKLA) securities between March 3, 2020 and September 15,
2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until November 16, 2020
to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

On September 10, 2020, Hindenburg Research published a report
entitled, "Nikola: How to Parlay An Ocean of Lies Into a
Partnership With the Largest Auto OEM in America" (the "Hindenburg
Report"). The Hindenburg Report suggested that the firm had
gathered extensive evidence on false statements made by Nikola’s
founder Trevor Milton, including that Milton misrepresented, the
Company’s battery and fuel cell technology and the size of the
Company’s order book. Moreover, the Hindenburg Report claimed
that Milton used these Misrepresentations to substantially grow the
Company and secure partnerships with top auto companies.

On this news, Nikola’s stock price fell $4.80 per share, or
11.3%, to close at $37.57 per share on September 10, 2020.

The complaint, filed on September 16, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) VectoIQ did not engage in
proper due diligence regarding its merger with Nikola; (2) Nikola
overstated its "in-house" design, manufacturing, and testing
capabilities; (3) Nikola overstated its hydrogen production
capabilities; (4) as a result, Nikola overstated its ability to
lower the cost of hydrogen fuel; (5) Nikola founder and Executive
Chairman, Trevor Milton, tweeted a misleading "test" video of the
Company’s Nikola Two truck; (6) the work experience and
background of key Nikola employees, including Mr. Milton, had been
overstated and obfuscated; (7) Nikola did not have five Tre trucks
completed; and (8) as a result, defendants’ public statements
were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
According to the suit, these true details were disclosed by a
market research firm.

If you purchased Nikola 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 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.

         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Marion Passmore, Esq.
         Tel No: (212) 355-4648
         E-mail: investigations@bespc.com [GN]

NIKOLA CORP: Kirby McInerney Announces Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Arizona on behalf of those who acquired Nikola Corporation
("Nikola" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NKLA) securities during the
period from March 3, 2020 through September 15, 2020 (the "Class
Period"). Investors have until November 16, 2020 to apply to the
Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) VectoIQ did not engage in proper due diligence
regarding its merger with Nikola; (2) Nikola overstated its
"in-house" design, manufacturing, and testing capabilities; (3)
Nikola overstated its hydrogen production capabilities; (4) as a
result, Nikola overstated its ability to lower the cost of hydrogen
fuel; (5) Nikola founder and Executive Chairman, Trevor Milton,
tweeted a misleading "test" video of the Company’s Nikola Two
truck; (6) the work experience and background of key Nikola
employees, including Mr. Milton, had been overstated and
obfuscated; (7) Nikola did not have five Tre trucks completed; and
(8) as a result, defendants’ public statements were materially
false and/or misleading at all relevant times. According to the
suit, these true details were disclosed by a market research firm.

If you acquired NKLA 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]

NIKOLA CORP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Nikola Corporation (NASDAQ: NKLA, NKLAW), f/k/a
VectoIQ Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ: VTIQ, VTIQW, VTIQU), between
March 3, 2020 and September 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Nikola investors
under the federal securities laws.

To join the Nikola class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1943.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) VectoIQ did not engage in proper due diligence regarding
its merger with Nikola; (2) Nikola overstated its "in-house"
design, manufacturing, and testing capabilities; (3) Nikola
overstated its hydrogen production capabilities; (4) as a result,
Nikola overstated its ability to lower the cost of hydrogen fuel;
(5) Nikola founder and Executive Chairman, Trevor Milton, tweeted a
misleading "test" video of the Company’s Nikola Two truck; (6)
the work experience and background of key Nikola employees,
including Mr. Milton, had been overstated and obfuscated; (7)
Nikola did not have five Tre trucks completed; and (8) as a result,
defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times. According to the suit, these true
details were disclosed by a market research firm.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
16, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1943.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]

NIKOLA CORPORATION: Pomerantz Law Firm Announces Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Nikola Corporation  ("Nikola" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
NKLA) and certain of its officers.   The class action, filed in
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
and docketed under 20-cv-04354, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise,
acquired Nikola securities between June 4, 2020, and September 9,
2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Nikola securities during the
class period, you have until November 16, 2020, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com
or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Nikola purports to operate as an integrated zero-emissions
transportation systems provider.  The Company purports to design
and manufacture battery-electric and hydrogen-electric vehicles,
electric vehicle drivetrains, vehicle components, energy storage
systems, and hydrogen fueling station infrastructure.  The Company
also purports to develop electric vehicle solutions for military
and outdoor recreational applications.  Nikola was founded in 2015
by Defendant Trevor Milton ("Milton"), and in June 2020, the
Company's securities began trading publicly after the execution of
a reverse merger with VectoIQ Acquisition Corp.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Defendant Milton had repeatedly
misrepresented and/or exaggerated Nikola's financial,
technological, and operational profile; (ii) the foregoing
misrepresentations were intended to, and did, present a materially
false image of the Company's growth and success, thereby
artificially inflating the Company's stock price; (iii) the
foregoing misrepresentations were foreseeably likely to subject the
Company to enhanced regulatory scrutiny and/or enforcement, along
with reputational harm when the truth came to light;  and (iv) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On September 10, 2020, Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg") published
a report entitled, "Nikola: How to Parlay An Ocean of Lies Into a
Partnership With the Largest Auto OEM in America" (the "Hindenburg
Report" or the "Report").  Asserting that it had gathered
"extensive evidence—including recorded phone calls, text
messages, private emails, and behind-the-scenes photographs,"
Hindenburg represented that it had identified "dozens of false
statements by" Milton, which had led Hindenburg to conclude that
Nikola "is an intricate fraud built on dozen of lies over the
course of . . . Milton's career."  Defendant Milton made these
misrepresentations, the Report asserted, to substantially grow the
Company and secure partnerships with top auto companies.

On this news, Nikola's stock price fell $4.80 per share, or 11.33%,
to close at $37.57 per share on September 10, 2020.

Then, on September 14, 2020, after the market had closed, Bloomberg
reported that the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") was
investigating Nikola to assess the merits of the Hindenburg
Report.

Finally, on September 15, 2020, during intra-day trading, the Wall
Street Journal reported that the United States Department of
Justice had joined the SEC's investigation of Nikola.

On this news, Nikola's stock fell an additional $0.17 per share
during intra-day trading, to close at $32.83 on September 15, 2020,
an 8.27% decline from its previous close on September 14, 2020.

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

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

OLD DOMINION: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Flips Gravitystorm Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GRAVITYSTORM, LLC, Appellant, v. OLD DOMINION
INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee, Case No. 4D20-295 (Fla. Dist. App.),
the District Court of Appeal of Florida for the Fourth District
reversed the order compelling appraisal and dismissing the
Appellant's putative class action.

Gravitystorm, the Insured, appealed an order compelling appraisal
and dismissing its putative class action.  It argued that there is
no appraisable issue because the only dispute involves a question
of law that the trial court must resolve.  The issue raised in the
Insured's amended complaint is whether title and registration
transfer fees must be included in the "actual cash value" paid for
a vehicle declared a total loss.

The Appellate Court agrees with the Insured that it is a question
of policy interpretation for the Court, not a disputed issue of
fact about the "amount of loss" for appraisal.  Similarly, the
insurer has not shown that disagreement about the precise amount of
fees is an appraisable factual issue, rather than a pure legal
question based upon statutory interpretation.  Accordingly, it
reversed the order compelling appraisal and dismissing the action,
and remanded for further proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 9, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ybe4wtth from Leagle.com.

Jacob L. Phillips -- firm@normandpllc.com -- and Edmund A. Normand
of Normand PLLC, Orlando, Scott Edelsberg of Edelsberg Law, P.A.,
Aventura, Andrew J. Shamis and Garrett O. Berg of Shamis & Gentile
P.A., Miami, and Rachel Dapeer of Dapeer Law P.A., Miami, for
appellant.

Michael Menapace -- mmenapace@wiggin.com -- of Wiggin and Dana LLP,
Hartford, CT, and Cynthia G. Angelos -- info@jangeloslaw.com -- of
Law Offices of Cynthia G. Angelos P.A., Port St. Lucie, for
appellee.


ONESPAN INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of October 19 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges OneSpan Inc. (NASDAQ: OSPN) investors to submit
their losses now. A securities fraud class action has been filed
and certain investors may have valuable claims.

Class Period: May 9, 2018 - Aug. 11, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Oct. 19, 2020
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/OSPN
Contact An Attorney Now: OSPN@hbsslaw.com
        844-916-0895

OneSpan Inc. (OSPN) Securities Class Action:

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
misrepresented and concealed that: (i) OneSpan had inadequate
disclosure controls and procedures over financial reporting; (ii)
as a result, OneSpan overstated its revenue relating to certain
contracts with customers involving software licenses in its
financial statements spread out over the first quarter of 2018 to
the first quarter of 2020; (iii) as a result, it was foreseeably
likely that the Company would eventually have to delay one or more
scheduled earnings releases, conference calls, and/or financial
filings with the SEC; (iv) OneSpan downplayed the negative impacts
of errors in its financial statements; and (v) all the foregoing,
once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material negative
impact on the Company's financial results and reputation.

The market allegedly began to learn the truth on Aug. 4, 2020, when
OneSpan postponed its Q2 2020 earnings release and conference call
by 1 week, blaming the delay on prior period revenue recognition
problems relating to certain software license contracts.

Then, according to the complaint, on Aug. 11, 2020, OneSpan (1)
announced it would not timely file its Q2 2020 financial statements
on Form 10-Q with the SEC, (2) revealed the revenue recognition
problems stretched from Q1 2018 through Q1 2019, (3) reported that
same quarter year-over-year revenues had declined, and (4) withdrew
its FY 2020 earnings guidance.

On this news, OneSpan's common share price fell $12.36 per share,
or nearly 40%.

Most recently, on Aug. 14, 2020, the company filed its Form 10-Q
revealing that it (1) overstated its current contract assets for
the fiscal year-ended Dec. 31, 2019 by about 34%, and (2)
understated net losses for the three and six months ended June 30,
2019.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving OneSpan
intentionally cooked its books," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens
Berman partner leading the investigation.

If you are a OneSpan investor, click here to discuss your legal
rights with Hagens Berman.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
OneSpan 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 OSPN@hbsslaw.com.

                       About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and eighty attorneys.  The firm
represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in
complex litigation.  More about the firm and its successes is
located at hbsslaw.com [GN]


PARTY CITY: McInnis Sues Over Illegal Collection of Fingerprints
----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLEY MCINNIS individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PARTY CITY CORPORATION, Case No. 2020L001103 (Ill.
Cir., DuPage Cty., Sept. 28, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant for violations of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant disregards the
statutorily protected privacy rights of the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated employees by unlawfully collecting,
obtaining, storing, disseminating, and using their biometric data.

Specifically, the Defendant violated and continues to violate BIPA
because it did not and continues not to: (a) properly inform the
Plaintiff and Class members in writing of the specific purpose and
length of time for which their fingerprints were being collected,
obtained, stored, and used; (b) provide a publicly available
retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying their
fingerprints; nor (c) receive a written release from Plaintiff or
the members of the Class to collect, capture, or otherwise obtain
fingerprints.

Party City Corporation is an owner and operator of a party supply
store in Naperville, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         David Fish, Esq.
         Mara Baltabols, Esq.
         THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
         200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
         Naperville, IL 60563
         Telephone: (630) 355-7590
         Facsimile: (630) 778-0400
         E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
                 mara@fishlawfirm.com


PEABODY ENERGY: OK Firefighters PRS Sues Over Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. PEABODY ENERGY
CORPORATION, GLENN L. KELLOW, and AMY B. SCHWETZ, Case No.
1:20-cv-08024 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 28, 2020), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
resulting to the decline in the market value of the Company's
securities.

The lawsuit is a securities class action brought on behalf of the
Plaintiff and all persons or entities, who purchased or otherwise
acquired Peabody common stock from April 3, 2017, through October
28, 2019, inclusive.

According to the complaint, on April 3, 2017, the start of the
Class Period, Peabody emerged from bankruptcy protection and
reported record production output, while simultaneously touting the
Company's "record safety" achievements and its "ongoing commitment
to ensuring safe, productive operations." However, unknown to the
market at that time, the Defendants failed to disclose, and would
continue to omit, the following adverse facts pertaining to the
safety practices at the Company's North Goonyella mine, which were
privately known to or recklessly disregarded by the Defendants: (a)
The Company had failed to implement adequate safety controls at the
North Goonyella mine to prevent the risk of a spontaneous
combustion event; (b) The Company failed to follow its own safety
procedures; and (c) As a result, the North Goonyella mine was at a
heightened risk of shutdown.

The truth about Peabody's inadequate safety practices was revealed
when, on September 28, 2018, a fire erupted at the mine, forcing
Peabody to suspend operations indefinitely. Following the fire, the
Defendants assured the market that the Company had a feasible plan
to remediate and reopen the North Goonyella mine, and that it would
be able to extract significant coal at the mine in the near-term,
the suit says. Further, the truth about the said feasibility of
Peabody's plan to restart operations at North Goonyella was
revealed through a series of disclosures.

The latest one was on October 29, 2019, wherein Peabody disclosed
that the Queensland Mines Inspectorate was placing strict
restrictions on restarting operations at the North Goonyella mine
and that as a result Peabody was forced to drastically adjust the
reentry plan, ultimately announcing a three-year or more delay
before any meaningful coal could be produced. On this news, Peabody
shares declined $3.56 per share, or 22 percent.

Headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, Peabody Energy Corp. is the
largest private sector coal company in the world. Its primary
business consists of the mining, sale, and distribution of coal,
which is purchased for use in electricity generation and
steelmaking.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
          Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
          Francis P. McConville, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com
                  ebelfi@labaton.com
                  fmcconville@labaton.com


PEACH STATE: Faces Oliver FCRA Suit Over Use of Consumer Report
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL OLIVER, JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PEACH STATE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION f/k/a
GWINNETT FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 1:20-cv-03842-SCJ-RGV (N.D.
Ga., Sept. 16, 2020), is a consumer class action arising from the
Defendant's violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

According to the complaint, on August 14, 2020, the Defendant
confirmed with the Plaintiff that he had accepted a Help Desk
Support Specialist position in its Lawrenceville, Georgia corporate
office and that his employment was contingent on the background
check. On August 18, 2020, the Defendant obtained a consumer report
on Mr. Oliver from Vericon Resources, a consumer reporting agency.

Due to the results of the background check, the Defendant rescinded
Mr. Oliver's job offer and had not provided him with a copy of the
consumer report and a written description of his rights under the
FCRA, before taking such alleged action, according to the
complaint. When the Plaintiff received the consumer report days
later directly from Vericon Resources, he discovered that the
consumer report contained inaccurate information that made him
appear to have a criminal record that did not belong to him.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant systematically violates
Section 1681b(b)(3) of the FCRA by using consumer reports to take
adverse employment action without, beforehand, proving him, as the
subject of the report, sufficient and timely notification and a
copy of the complete report and summary of rights under the FCRA.

Peach State Federal Credit Union is a financial cooperative serving
members throughout Georgia and South Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey B. Sand, Esq.
          Andrew L. Weiner, Esq.
          WEINER & SAND LLC
          800 Battery Avenue SE, Suite 100
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (404) 205-5029
          Facsimile: (866) 800-1482
          E-mail: aw@atlantaemployeelawyer.com
                  js@atlantaemployeelawyer.com


PNC MERCHANT: Wins Dismissal of Choi's Beer Suit Over Annual Fee
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHOI'S BEER SHOP, LLC, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PNC MERCHANT SERVICES
COMPANY, L.P., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-5768 (FB) (CLP) (E.D.
N.Y.), Judge Frederic Block of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).

Plaintiff Choi's Beer brings the breach of contract class action
against PNC.  The class action complaint alleges that in July 2017,
the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to provide
payment processing services.  The contract states that the
Defendant may charge a reasonable annual fee with 30 days' notice
to offset various internal costs.  According to the complaint, the
Defendant, in breach of the contract, assessed an unreasonable fee
with less than 30 days' notice.

On Sept. 3, 2019, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that it
would be charging an annual fee in the amount of $109.95.  On Sept.
21, 2019, less than 30 days later, the annual fee was assessed and,
on Oct. 2, 2019, the annual fee was withdrawn from the Plaintiff's
account.  The Plaintiff alleges that the fee was unreasonable and
only charged to pad the Defendant's bottom line.

The contract also requires the Plaintiff to provide notice of any
disputed fees within 60 days of the fee being assessed.  On Oct. 9,
2019, the Plaintiff mailed notice to the Defendant disputing its
2019 annual fee.  Two days later, it filed the class action
complaint, alleging the Defendant assesses the same annual fee on
all customers.

On Oct. 16, 2019, the Defendant refunded the 2019 fee to the
Plaintiff's account.  It now moves to dismiss under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).  It contends that the refund renders the
action moot because the Plaintiff does not allege any damages other
than the $109.95 fee.

Judge Block agrees as he can no longer can grant any effectual
relief.  The Plaintiff puts forth two arguments in opposition --
neither of which are persuasive.  First, the Plaintiff argues that
the refund was unsolicited and, therefore, should not impact the
relief requested.  However, it certainly "solicited" a refund by
sending notice disputing the fee.  Second, the Plaintiff argues
that its request for declaratory and injunctive relief must
survive.  However, these requests are premised on speculation that
the Defendant will assess unreasonable fees in the future, says the
Court.  Speculative requests for injunctive or declaratory relief
do not confer standing.

Accordingly, the Defendant refund renders the Plaintiff's claim
moot and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, rules Judge
Block.  The Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 9, 2020 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yagfr6bj from Leagle.com.

E. ADAM WEBB, ESQ. -- Contact@WebbLLC.com -- WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND,
LLC, Atlanta, GA, for the Plaintiff.

JUSTIN J. KONTUL, ESQ. -- jkontul@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH LLP,
Pittsburgh, PA, for the Defendants.


PORTLAND GENERAL: 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 company. Shareholders who purchased shares in the
following company 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.

Portland General Electric Company (NYSE:POR)

Investors Affected : April 24, 2020 - August 24, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Portland General Electric Company. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) PGE lacked effective internal
controls over its energy trading practices; (2) 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)as
a result, the Company was reasonably likely to incur significant
losses; 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/portland-general-electric-company-loss-submission-form/?id=9409&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. [GN]

POSITIVE LIVING: Settles Privacy Class Action Suit for $1.2MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
citynews1130.com reports that a Vancouver-based class-action
lawsuit involving a breach of privacy for people with HIV has been
settled for more than $1 million.

The lawsuit was launched on behalf of 796 members of the Positive
Living Society, an agency that offered support to people living
with HIV/AIDs.

In September, 2016, a mass email was directed to members asking
them if they'd like to take part in UBC research. That mass email
failed to 'blind copy' other recipients' email addresses, thus
revealing the identity of other members, and in essence, their HIV
status.

The settlement sees $1.2 million paid out by the Positive Living
Society, as well as UBC -- which was undertaking a study when the
email was released -- and the Providence Health Care Society.

Plaintiffs will receive about $1,000 each.

Positive Living delivered a letter of apology to those involved in
the lawsuit in the spring.

The Positive Living Society closed its doors permanently in March,
saying revenue for the society had been declining for the last
couple of years. [GN]

REINSURANCE GROUP: Fails to Provide Consumer Report, Sanders Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN SANDERS, JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. REINSURANCE GROUP OF AMERICA INCORPORATED,
Case No. 4:20-cv-01305 (E.D. Mo., Sept. 23, 2020), is brought
against the Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant offered the Plaintiff a
full-time job as a Senior Security Risk Analyst on April 20, 2020,
which the Plaintiff immediately accepted and on the same day, he
signed a background check authorization from Griffin Personnel
Group, who is a consumer reporting agency. Unfortunately, the
Plaintiff did not pass the background check. When the Plaintiff was
called by the Defendant to a meeting on May 15, 2020, to inform him
about the result, the Defendant, however, did not provide him a
copy of the consumer report nor was he given any explanation why he
was being denied the employment.

The FCRA provides that any person "using a consumer report for
employment purposes" who intends to take any "adverse action based
in whole or in part on the report," must provide the consumer with
a copy of the report and a written description of the consumer's
rights under the FCRA.

Reinsurance Group of America Incorporated conducts background
checks on applicants for employment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles Jason Brown, Esq.
          Jayson A. Watkins, Esq.
          BROWN & WATKINS LLC
          301 S. US 169 Hwy.
          Gower, MO 64454
          Tel: 816-505-4529
          Fax: 816-424-1337
          E-mail: brown@brownandwatkins.com
                  Watkins@brownandwatkins.com

                - and –

          Jeffrey B. Sand, Esq.
          Andrew L. Weiner, Esq.
          WEINER & SAND LLC
          800 Battery Avenue SE, Suite 100
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Tel: 404-205-5029
          Tel: 404-254-0842
          Fax: 866-800-1482
          E-mail: aw@atlantaemployeelawyer.com
                  js@atlantaemployeelawyer.com


SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Monopolizes Auto Card Shufflers, Giuliano Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALFRED T. GIULIANO, as Liquidation Trustee for RIH ACQUISITIONS NJ,
LLC dba THE ATLANTIC CLUB CASINO HOTEL, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. SCIENTIFIC GAMES CORPORATION;
BALLY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., d/b/a SHFL ENTERTAINMENT or SHUFFLE
MASTER; and BALLY GAMING, INC. d/b/a BALLY TECHNOLOGIES f/k/a BALLY
GAMING AND SYSTEMS f/k/a SHFL ENTERTAINMENT, INC. f/k/a SHUFFLE
MASTER, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-05262 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 4, 2020),
alleges violation of the Sherman Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants are
engaged in the monopolization of the market for automatic card
shufflers used at casinos through the Defendants' abuse of the
patent system and judicial process to exclude and drive out
competitors from the market.

According to the complaint, the Defendants procured patents by
fraud and then asserted those patents in sham lawsuits against
competitors, which effectively excluded competitors from the market
and caused the Plaintiff and others similarly situated to pay more
for automated card shufflers than they otherwise would have in a
competitive market.

The Plaintiff, a direct purchaser of automated card shufflers, and
others like it have suffered as a result of the Defendants'
monopolization and exclusion of competitors, forcing their direct
customers--purchasers and lessees to pay supracompetitive prices
for automated card shufflers while the Defendants collect monopoly
rents.

Scientific Games Corporation provides gambling products and
services. The Company offers technology platforms, robust systems,
engaging game content, and related marketing solutions. Scientific
Games serves customers worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon M. McNulty, Esq.
          CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          120 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 899-9090
          Facsimile: (312) 251-1160
          E-mail: smm@cliffordlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
          Bonny Sweeney, Esq.
          Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          600 Montgomery St., Suite 3200
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 633-1908
          Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
          E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeld.com
                  bsweeny@hausfeld.com
                  clebsock@hausfeld.com
                  sstein@hausfeld.com

              - and -

          Scott Martin, Esq.
          Jeanette Bayoumi, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          Broad Financial Center
          33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (646) 357-1195
          Facsimile: (212) 202-4322
          E-mail: smartin@hausfeld.com
                  jbayoumi@hausfeld.com


SEACOAST COMMERCE: Filings on EFSC Sale Lack Info, Parshall Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL PARSHALL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. SEACOAST COMMERCE BANC HOLDINGS, ALLAN W. ARENDSEE,
RICHARD M. SANBORN, DAVID H, BARTRAM, LISA M. BETYAR, ROBERT
DEPHILIPPIS, IRVING FELDKAMP, RICHARD S. LEVENSON, TIMOTHY K.
O'CONNOR, B. TED FIELD, ENTERPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES CORP.,
ENTERPRISE BANK & TRUST, and SEACOAST COMMERCE BANK, Case No.
1:20-cv-01300-UNA (D. Del., Sept. 28, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the proposed acquisition of Seacoast Commerce by
Enterprise Financial Services Corp.

On August 20, 2020, Seacoast's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with
Enterprise, Enterprise Bank & Trust, and Seacoast Commerce Bank,
pursuant to which Seacoast's stockholders including the Plaintiff
will receive 0.5061 shares of Enterprise common stock for each
share of Seacoast common stock they own.

According to the complaint, the Defendants filed a materially
misleading Recommendation Statement with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 11, 2020, wherein the statement
omits material information concerning the proposed transaction. The
omissions and false and misleading statements in the Registration
Statement are material in that a reasonable stockholder will
consider them important in deciding how to vote on the proposed
transaction, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Recommendation Statement: a) fails
to disclose the financial and operating forecasts and projections
of Seacoast; b) omits material information regarding the analyses
performed by the Company's financial advisor, Keefe, Bruyette &
Woods, Inc.; and c) fails to disclose whether the Company entered
into any confidentiality agreements that contained standstill
and/or "don't ask, don't waive" provisions.

Seacoast Commerce Banc Holdings is a bank holding company with one
wholly-owned banking subsidiary, Seacoast Bank.

Enterprise Bank & Trust is a Missouri state-chartered trust company
with banking powers, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Enterprise
Financial Services Corp.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 210
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
          E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
                  bdl@rl-legal.com
                  gms@rl-legal.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324-6800
          Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
          E-mail: rm@maniskas.com


SLING TV: Web Site Is Inaccessible to Blind, Monegro Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANKIE MONEGRO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SLING TV L.L.C., Case No. 1:20-cv-07832 (S.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 23, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its alleged
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired, legally blind person and is
dependent on screen-reading software when reading website content
using his computer. He alleges that the Defendant's website,
http://www.sling.com/,is not equally accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

According to the complaint, when the Plaintiff visited the
Defendant's website on multiple occasions, the last occurring in
September 2020, to make a purchase, the Plaintiff has encountered
multiple access barriers and was denied a shopping experience
similar to that of a sighted individual. The website allegedly 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 asserts that the Defendant purportedly engaged in
acts of intentional discrimination because it failed to comply with
the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines, thereby, failing to provide the Plaintiff
and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to its
Website similar to that of a sighted individual.

Sling TV L.L.C. is a streaming service company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


STAAR SURGICAL: Hagens Berman Reminds of October 19 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges STAAR Surgical Company (NASDAQ: STAA) investors
to contact the firm now.  A securities fraud class action has been
filed and certain investors may have valuable claims.

Class Period: Feb. 26, 2020 - Aug. 10, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Oct. 19, 2020
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/STAA
Contact An Attorney Now: STAA@hbsslaw.com
        844-916-0895

STAAR Surgical Company (STAA) Securities Class Action:

According to the complaint, STAAR and senior management repeatedly
overstated and/or mischaracterized (1) the company's sales and
growth in China, (2) its marketing spend, and (3) its research and
development expenditures.

Investors began to learn the truth, according to the complaint,
after the markets closed on Aug. 5, 2020, when STAAR reported
disappointing Q2 2020 sales and a net loss versus net income for
the prior year second quarter.  In addition, the company revealed
its massive- and growing- exposure to a single distributor in China
who accounted for 53% of Q2 2020 net sales versus 49% for the
year-earlier quarter, and who accounted for 57% of trade
receivables versus 43% for Q1 2020.

Then, on Aug. 11, 2020, research firm J Capital published a
scathing report calling STAAR's China success story into serious
question.  More specifically, J Capital accused the company of
overstating 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 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.  J Capital also found STAAR's
largest China client bought only about half the lenses STAAR
reported.

These events caused the price of STAAR shares to sharply decline.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving STAAR cooked its
books by inflating its China sales," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens
Berman partner leading the investigation.

If you are a STAAR investor, click here to discuss your legal
rights with Hagens Berman.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding STAAR
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 STAA@hbsslaw.com.

                       About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and eighty attorneys.  The firm
represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in
complex litigation.  More about the firm and its successes is
located at hbsslaw.com. [GN]


STAAR SURGICAL: Schall Law Firm Announces Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against STAAR
Surgical Company ("STAAR" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:STAA) for
violations of Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between February
26, 2020 and August 10, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before October 19, 2020.[GN]

STANTEC INC: Annapolis Citizens Sue Over Illegal Water Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANNAPOLIS CITIZENS CLASS OVERCHARGED FOR WATER-SEWER by LOUDON
OPERATIONS LLC, Putative Class representatives v. STANTEC, Inc.,
Annapolis Water/Sewer Contractor aka Stantec Archit, Inc., Stantec
Consulting Ltd.; and GHD, Inc, Annapolis Water/Sewer Contractor,
aka GHD Pty Ltd, GHD Prop. LLC, DVO, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-02603-BAH (D.D.C., Sept. 16, 2020), is brought behalf of
the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated arising from the
Defendants' practice of overcharging water customers of Annapolis,
Maryland, in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants overcharged Annapolis
water customers at a rate of $10.11 per 1000 gallons--7 times that
of affluent Long Island at $1.45 per 1000 gallons, and 5 times that
of water-scarce Albuquerque, NY, $2.23 per 1000 gallons.
Rate-making by the City of Annapolis is influenced and incited by
its wastewater and water treatment contractors and Defendants,
Stantec and GHD. Both Stantec and GHD have impelled the City to
impose a multiplier levy for higher use for homeowners, who choose
to water their lawns or keep their swimming pools full by an
outrageous penalty rate. The Defendants allegedly compound this
price gouging by imposing arbitrary tariffs for wastewater
treatment, surcharging for sewer usage a random indiscriminate
multiple of 1-2 times water usage rates.

The Defendants, multi-billion-dollar multinational Canadian and
Australian water treatment and wastewater contractors, coaxed and
incentivized the City of Annapolis to boost water rates repeatedly
and contrived outrageous water charges, with the premeditated
motive to recapture funds to pay for their redundant construction
charges for unnecessary and costly replacement of water treatment
and wastewater treatment plants, the suit says.

Plaintiff Loudon Operations LLC, representing Annapolis Citizens
Class Overcharged for Water-Sewer, is the operating subsidiary of
D.C. professional corporation law firm of Lillard & Lillard, P.C.

Stantec, Inc. is a Canadian-based waterworks and wastewater
engineering and consulting firm with 400 locations across six
continents.

GHD Pty Ltd. (formerly known as Gutteridge Haskins & Davey) is an
Australian-based waterworks and wastewater engineering and
environmental consulting firm.

The Plaintiffs, respectfully as, by, and through putative class
representatives, appear pro se.[BN]


SUPER BREAD II: Bid to Quash Filed in Fuentes Suit
--------------------------------------------------
A Motion to Quash has been filed in the class action lawsuit styled
as Fuentes Fuentes, on behalf of herself and other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Super Bread II, Corp., Super
Cakes Corp, doing business as: Super Bread and Super Cakes Bakery,
Defendant, H&S Bakery, Inc., Movant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02826-DKC
(D., Md., Sept. 29, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Labor: Fair
Standards.

Super Bread II Corporation produces and distributes bakery
products.[BN]

The Movant is represented by:

   David William Kinkopf, Esq.
   Gallagher Evelius and Jones LLP
   218 N Charles St Ste 400
   Baltimore, MD 21201
   Tel: (410) 727-7702
   Fax: (410) 468-2786
   Email: dkinkopf@gejlaw.com

     - and -

   Jared Samuel Dvornicky, Esq.
   US District Court
   1502 Marshall St
   Baltimore, MD 21230
   Tel: (215) 285-6377
   Email: jdvornicky@gejlaw.com

TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over 8-Speed Transmission Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that Toyota
8-speed transmission problems have caused a lawsuit that includes
Toyota Highlander and Toyota Sienna vehicles equipped with direct
shift 8AT transmissions.

According to the lawsuit, the 8-speed transmission, also known as
the UA80, causes harsh or delayed shifting, delayed acceleration,
hesitation, jerking, unintended acceleration, lurching and
excessive revving before upshifting.

The 8-speed transmission problems allegedly occur in 2017-present
Highlanders and Siennas, and the plaintiffs who sued claim Toyota
has actively concealed defects in the 8AT transmissions.

The lawsuit says that since their release in the 2017 model year,
the Toyota Sienna and certain Toyota Highlanders have been equipped
with Toyota's UA80 transmissions. The plaintiffs claim the
automaker also uses specific model numbers UA80E and UA80F for the
8-speed transmissions.

In addition, UA80 is used for 6-cylinder vehicles and UB80 is the
designation used for 4-cylinder vehicles, and UA80E is the model
number for transmissions in forward-wheel-drive Highlanders and
Siennas. UA80F is the model number for transmissions in
all-wheel-drive Highlanders and Siennas.

Florida plaintiffs Dennis and Deborah Murphy purchased a new 2018
Highlander XL and within a week the vehicle allegedly experienced
"hesitation and surging when driving at low speeds, in stop-and-go
traffic and when accelerating to join a traffic flow."

In September 2018 when the vehicle had about 2,000 miles on the
odometer, the plaintiffs took the vehicle to a Toyota dealership
which performed diagnostic tests and found the vehicle was
performing normally.

In January 2019 with about 8,730 miles on the odometer, Mr. Murphy
took the vehicle to a Toyota dealership and complained the vehicle
"demonstrated erratic throttle responses at low speeds, hesitating
and exhibiting surges when lightly applying the throttle at parking
lot speeds."

The dealer allegedly couldn't find any problems with the Highlander
and therefore no repairs were made.

In April 2019, Mr. Murphy returned the vehicle to the dealership
and again told technicians the vehicle was "demonstrating erratic
throttle responses, stumbling and surging at low speeds."

The dealership couldn't find any problems, but the lawsuit alleges
a senior technical service adviser admitted the 8-speed
transmission problems "were common to Highlanders and other Toyota
models and were well-known to Toyota and its dealers."

Then in May 2019, Mr. Murphy returned to the dealership and
complained about continued transmission problems, telling dealer
technicians the vehicle needed to be repaired, or Toyota should buy
back the vehicle.

The dealership performed no tests or repairs, but the plaintiff was
told a Toyota representative needed to inspect the vehicle,
something that occurred when the vehicle had about 11,930 miles on
the odometer.

A "Toyota District 2 Fixed Operations Manager" test drove the
vehicle but made no repairs, reporting that he "found it to perform
like a known good vehicle" and did "not exhibit any warrantable
concern."

"[T]oday's vehicles . . . are driven by wire which means they do
not have a throttle cable so they may exhibit very slight lag due
to the ECM processing. The current eight speeds transmissions are
gear to keep the engine in an optimum operating condition which may
not meet the customers desired performance but in every case, a
little extra pressure on the gas pedal improves responsiveness and
customer satisfaction can usually be obtained." - Toyota manager

In October 2019, the plaintiffs took their vehicle to a different
Toyota dealership and again complained about "erratic throttle
responses at low speeds, stumbling, and exhibiting surges when
lightly applying the throttle at low speeds."

The Toyota technician allegedly said the 8-speed transmission
problems were "caused by: internal failure on transaxle assembly"
and consequently "replaced [the] transaxle assembly and associated
parts per bulletin T-SB-0160-18."

However, the plaintiffs claim the Highlander continues to hesitate
and surge when driving at low speeds, in stop-and-go traffic and
when accelerating to join a traffic flow.

And adding to their problems, the plaintiffs allege the vehicle is
even worse now since the transmission transaxle assembly was
replaced.

The class action lawsuit references technical service bulletins
(TSBs) Toyota issued to dealerships concerning the 8-speed
transmissions.

Toyota issued T-SB-0187-17 in February 2017, titled "High RPM Shift
Point," which said some 2017 Sienna vehicles may experience the
following conditions:

   -- Lack of power from stop
   -- High RPM shift points at 2 - 3 shift
   -- Hesitation in lower gears
   -- Holds gear too long

Toyota dealerships were told to perform a software update to modify
the powertrain control module logic for the Siennas.

A month later Toyota issued T-SB-0194-17, titled "Lack of
Power/High RPM Shift Point/Hesitation" for the 2017 Highlander
which said the vehicles may suffer from:

   -- Lack of power
   -- High RPM shift point at the 2 - 3 shift
   -- Hesitation in low gears

Again, dealers were told to update the powertrain control module
software.

In 2018 Toyota issued TSB 0160-18 titled, "Transaxle Whine Noise,
Harsh Shift, MIL ON, or Reduced Power" that applied to the
2017-2018 Toyota Highlander and Toyota Sienna.

However, this time Toyota told technicians to replace the
transmissions with remanufactured transmissions.

According to the class action, the alleged 8AT transmission
problems make driving dangerous and a hazard to occupants in
vehicles and surrounding property when the 8-speed transmissions
hesitate, jerk, lurch and suffer from acceleration issues.

The Toyota 8-speed transmission lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California: Murphy, et
al., v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., et al.

The plaintiffs are represented by Berger Montague PC, Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP, and Greenstone Law APC.

CarComplaints.com has complaints from owners of the Toyota models
named in the transmission class action lawsuit.

  -- Toyota Highlander Complaints - 2017 / 2018 / 2019 / 2020
  -- Toyota Sienna Complaints - 2017 / 2018 / 2019 / 2020 [GN]


TOYOTA MOTOR: Zuo Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Yang Zuo, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Toyota Motor North America
Inc. and Toyota Motor Corporation, Defendants, was transferred from
the District of New Jersey with the assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-06607
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
(Brooklyn) on September 29, 2020, and assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-04624-WFK-CLP.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Motor Vehicle
Prodct Liability filed pursuant to a Diversity-Motor Vehicle
Product Liability.

Toyota Motor North America, Inc. is a holding company of sales and
manufacturing subsidiaries of Toyota Motor Corporation in the
United States. Its services include government and regulatory
affairs, energy, economic research, philanthropy, corporate
advertising and corporate communications.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Chirali V. Patel, Esq.
   CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, pc
   5 BECKER FARM ROAD
   2ND FLOOR
   ROSELAND, NJ 07068
   Tel: (973) 442-5551
   Email: cpatel@carellabyrne.com

     - and -

   James E. Cecchi, Esq.
   Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C.
   5 Becker Farm Road
   Roseland, NJ 07068
   Tel: (973) 994-1700
   Fax: (973) 994-1744
   Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com

The Defendants are represented by:

   Eric F. Gladbach, Esq.
   King & Spalding LLP
   1185 Avenue of the Americas
   New York, NY 10036
   Fax: (212) 556-2222
   Email: egladbach@kslaw.com
   Tel: 212-56-2206




UNUM GROUP: Park Sues in California Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SEJUN PARK, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. UNUM GROUP CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; UNUM
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a Maine corporation, Case No.
2:20-cv-08901 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 28, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' illegal labor policies and practices in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the California Labor Code,
the California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 4, and
the California Business & Professional Code.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants: a) fail to pay overtime
to the Plaintiff and the Collective/Class members at one and
one-half times their regular rates; b) make deductions of the
paychecks in the amount of the overtime premiums; c) fail to
provide meal breaks; d) fail to provide accurate wage statements;
e) fail to indemnify employees' expenses and losses; f) fail to
permit and authorize paid rest periods; and g) engage in unfair
business practices in California.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Claims Examination
Employee from December 2016 to July 2019.

Unum Group Corporation and Unum Life Insurance Company of America
are insurance companies based in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trenton K. Kashima, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          402 West Broadway, Suite 1760
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 762-2125
          Facsimile: (619) 762-2127
          E-mail: TKashima@sommerspc.com

               - and -

          Jack L. Siegel, Esq.
          Stacy W. Thomsen, Esq.
          SIEGEL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          4925 Greenville Avenue, Suite 600
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 790-4454
          E-mail: jack@siegellawgroup.biz
                  stacy@siegellawgroup.biz


URSA OPERATING: Fails to Pay Lease Operators' OT, Velasco Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROKE VELASCO and KLAYTON COSTANZO, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. URSA OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-02923-DDD (D. Colo., Sept. 28, 2020), is brought against
the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Colorado Wage Claim Act, including failure to compensate the
Plaintiffs and other lease operators overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Mr. Velasco and Mr. Costanzo worked for the Defendant as lease
operators from May 2014 to July 2020 and from June 2017 to June
2020, respectively. They alleges that the Defendant misclassified
them as independent contractors.

Ursa Operating Company, LLC, is an oil and gas exploration company
with its principal place of business located at 7700 E. Arapahoe
Road, in Centennial, Colorado.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Don J. Foty, Esq.
         HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P.
         4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
         Houston, TX 77006
         Telephone: (713) 523 0001
         Facsimile: (713) 523 1116
         E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com


VISION PROPERTY: Henderson Files Suit in Michigan
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vision Property
Management, LLC. The case is styled as Rhonda Henderson, Roberta
Faulks and Rachel Church, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Vision Property Management, LLC,
VPM Holdings, LLC, FTE Networks, Inc., US Home Rentals, LLC, Kaja
Holdings, LLC, Kaja Holdings 2, LLC, MI Seven, LLC, In Seven, LLC,
RVFM 4 Series, LLC, ACM Vision V, LLC, ACP Roadmaster, LLC, ACP
Nash, LLC, ACP MP Investments, LLC, DSV SPV 1, LLC, DSV SPV 2, LLC,
DSV SPV 3, LLC, Boom SC, Alan Investments III, LLC, Arnosa Group,
LLC, Arnosa Homes, LLC, Mom Haven 13, LP, Atalaya Capital
Management, LP, Antoni Szkaradek and Alex Szkaradek, Defendants,
Case No. 2:20-cv-12649-SFC-RSW (E.D., Mich., Sept. 29, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Civil Rights:
Other filed pursuant to the Fair Housing Act.

VPM offers personalized full service property management in Oakland
and surrounding areas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Daniel S. Korobkin, Esq.
   American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan
   2966 Woodward Ave.
   Detroit, MI 48201
   Tel: (313) 578-6824
   Fax: (313) 578-6811
   Email: dkorobkin@aclumich.org



YOU FIT HEALTH: Pacheco Sues Over Unlawful Membership Fee Charges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE PACHECO, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. YOU FIT HEALTH CLUBS, LLC and YOU FIT, LLC,
Case No. 3:20-cv-02984-D (N.D. Tex., Sept. 28, 2020), arises from
the Defendants' practice of charging their customers monthly
membership fees, despite closure of all of their locations
following the COVID-19 pandemic, in violation of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and other customers of
Youfit pay a monthly membership fee in exchange for access to
Youfit's gyms and fitness facilities. However, despite the fact
that all of Youfit's gyms and fitness facilities were closed due to
COVID-19 pandemic, Youfit continued charging its customers the full
monthly membership fees.

In doing so, Youfit made the deliberate decision to take millions
of dollars from its customers, who did not have access to the
service Youfit promised, agreed, and warranted to them, the suit
alleges.

YouFit Health Clubs LLC and YouFit, LLC operate a chain of gyms and
fitness facilities across the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          David W. Hodges, Esq.
          HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P.
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
                  dhodges@hftrialfirm.com


[*] Allow Class Action Suits Against Polluters, Says Lawyer
-----------------------------------------------------------
Imran Ariff at Free Malaysia Today reports that more severe
punishments for water pollution should be established in the wake
of the Sungai Gong incident that left 1.2 million households
without water for up to four days, say two environmental
activists.

Roger Chan, head of the Bar Council environment and climate change
committee, says that beyond fines, citizens should have the means
to seek damages.

"The first thing they have to change is to facilitate a class
action suit," he says, adding that Sungai Gong was just the latest
in a string of water disruptions this year.

"We should take up a civil suit against the people who are damaging
our quality of life," he said. A significant amount of damages
could be demanded, given the estimated 5 million people affected by
the disruption, and the duration of the shortage.

Chan said the Environmental Quality Act (EQA) should include a
provision that would create "an easy pathway for anybody to file an
environmental suit at any point of time".

Five men connected with Yip Chee Seng and Sons Sdn Bhd, which owns
a factory linked to the pollution, have been charged and could face
up to 30 years jail and up to RM100,000 in fines if found guilty.

Faizal Parish, director of the Global Environmental Centre agrees
that the EQA needs amending, and says that there are currently
discussions around tabling an update later this year.

Parish called on the government to "significantly increase the
penalties under the act and to establish mandatory minimums on the
penalties."

He says that penalties are too often left up to a judge’s
discretion, which can result in fines too small to act as a
deterrent for big companies.

"If the maximum is low and the court only awards 10% of the
maximum, it's nothing, it’s a slap on the wrist. Some companies
say that’s cheaper than building the treatment facility."

He also said that jail time should be made a minimum punishment,
rather than being left to a court’s judgement.

Roger believes that beyond sanctions, larger moves will be needed
in order to promote "environmental integrity" and truly address the
wider issue of water disruptions.

"I would definitely ask for a royal commission on this if possible,
there have been so many water crises, tell us what happened." [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 ***