/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201116.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, November 16, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 229

                            Headlines

ANTHONY COLEMAN: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in Goff Suit
ARCHDIOCESE OF VANCOUVER: Faces Class Action Over Negligence
AURORA CANNABIS: Howard G. Smith Law Reminds of Dec. 1 Deadline
AURORA CANNABIS: Levi & Korsinsky Alerts of Class Action Filing
BIOMARIN PHARMA: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Nov. 24 Deadline

BIOMARIN PHARMA: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Nov. 24 Motion Deadline
BIOMARIN PHARMA: Hagens Berman Reminds of Nov. 24 Deadline
BIOMARIN PHARMA: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 24 Deadline
BIOMARIN PHARMA: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Nov. 24 Deadline
BLINK CHARGING: Vincent Wong Reminds of Class Action

BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Bid to Dismiss Mishal & Berger Suit Pending
CARDONE EQUITY: Bragar Eagel Reminds of November 20 Deadline
CENTRAL MAINE: Seeks Dismissal of Billing Class Action
CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Oral Argument in Melucci Case Cancelled
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Dec. 1 Motion Deadline

CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Hagens Berman Reminds of Dec. 1 Deadline
CRODA INT'L: Seeks Dismissal of Air Pollutant Class Action
CVS ALBANY: Benjamin Seeks Uniform Maintenance Allowance
CVS: 9th Cir. Reverses Dismissal of Glucosamine Class Action
DCP MIDSTREAM: Fails to Pay OT Wages to Inspectors, Whitman Claims

ELECTRICITY MAINE: Court Approves $14MM Class Action Settlement
ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Summary Judgment Bids in Dougherty Pending
EVERI HOLDINGS: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on Nov. 30
EVOLUS INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Dec. 15 Deadline
EYP GROUP: Dec. 4 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set

FAMILY DOLLAR: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Advertising
FCA CANADA: Court Tosses Certification Motion in Defeat Device Suit
FLUIDIGM CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of November 20 Deadline
GARRETT MOTION: Facing Husson & Gabelli Securities Class Suits
GARRETT MOTION: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of November 24 Deadline

GOHEALTH INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Nov. 20 Motion Deadline
GOHEALTH INC: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Nov. 20 Motion Deadline
GOHEALTH INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of November 20 Deadline
GOHEALTH INC: Johnson Fistel Reminds of Nov. 20 Deadline
GOHEALTH INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds of November 20 Deadline

GOHEALTH INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds of Nov. 20 Deadline
GOHEALTH INC: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of November 20 Deadline
GOLAR LNG: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of Nov. 23 Deadline
GOLAR LNG: Klein Law Firm Reminds of November 23 Deadline
GOLAR LNG: Robbins Geller Reminds of November 23 Deadline

GOLAR LNG: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of November 23 Deadline
GOLAR LNG: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of November 23 Deadline
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Reddick Sues Over Employee Age Discrimination
HSBC: Faces Class Action in US Over Money Laundering Failings
INTERSECT ENT: Yaron Putative Class Suit Ongoing in California

J.B. PRITZKER: Class Certification Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: Xyrem(R) Related Class Suits Ongoing
JELD-WEN INC: Court Grants Prelim. Approval on Class Settlement
JPMORGAN CHASE: $10MM Accord Reached in Indirect Purchasers' Suit
KARYOPHARM THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Nix Suit Over SOPRA Trial Pending

LAS VEGAS SANDS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Dec. 21 Deadline
LG: Refrigerator Defect Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Dec. 15
LONG BEACH, CA: Class Action Mulled Over Business License Fees
LOOP INDUSTRIES: Hagens Berman Reminds of Dec. 14 Motion Deadline
LOOP INDUSTRIES: Kehoe Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Discovery Ongoing in Mason Class Suit
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Gold Settlement Wins Final Approval
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Steele Class Action Ongoing in Canada
LUMENTUM HOLDINGS: Karri Suit over Merger Deal Underway
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Bankruptcy Stays Securities Litigation

MESOBLAST LIMITED: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action Filing
MESOBLAST LIMITED: Robbins Geller Alerts of Class Action Filing
MURDER MYSTERY: Price Employment Suit Removed to W.D. Michigan
NANO-X IMAGING: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Nov. 16 Deadline
NANO-X IMAGING: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Nov. 16 Bid Deadline

NANO-X IMAGING: Zhang Investor Law Reminds of Nov. 16 Deadline
NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: Class Action Set to Get First Day in Court
NETSHOES: November 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
NEW YORK, NY: Fitness Coalition Files Class Action v. Gov. Cuomo
NIELSEN HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss PERS Mississippi Suit Pending

NIKOLA CORP: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Nov. 16 Motion Deadline
NORWEGIAN AIR: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Flight Refunds
NXIVM: Class Action Over Self-Help Practices False Claims Pending
ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Nov. 16 Deadline
PARTNERS PERSONNEL: Chinchilla Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices

PEABODY ENERGY: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Nov. 27 Motion Deadline
PEABODY ENERGY: Gainey McKenna Reminds of November 27 Deadline
PEABODY ENERGY: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of November 27 Deadline
PEABODY ENERGY: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Nov. 27 Deadline
PINTEC TECHNOLOGY: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of Nov. 30 Deadline

PRECIGEN INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action Filing
PRECIGEN INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of December 4 Deadline
QUANTA SERVICES: TNS Liability in Benton Suit Pegged at $8.8MM
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action Filing
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Labaton Sucharow Alerts of Class Action Filing

RUTH'S HOSPITALITY: Guerrero Class Action Ongoing in California
SOUTH CAROLINA: Judge Dismisses Inmates' Coronavirus Class Action
SPRING BANK: Halper Sadeh Reminds of November 27 Deadline
STRATA EQUITY: Zito Suit Removed to South Carolina Federal Court
SUNWORKS INC: Facing Peck Co. Merger Related Putative Class Suit

SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATION: Sas Sues Over Debt Collection Protocol
TACTILE SYSTEMS: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Nov. 30 Motion Deadline
TACTILE SYSTEMS: Klein Law Reminds of Nov. 30 Deadline
TECHNIPFMC PLC: Continues to Defend Prause Securities Class Suit
TEVA PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of November 23 Deadline

TREVENA INC: Consolidated Class Suit Underway in Pennsylvania
TURQUOISE HILL: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of Dec. 14 Deadline
ULTRA PETROLEUM: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Class Action
UNITED PARCEL: Appeal in Hughes Wage-and-Hour Suit Still Pending
UNITED STATES: Bouzerand Appeals Fed. Claims Ruling to Fed. Cir.

UNITED STATES: Hollis Appeals Fed. Claims Ruling to Fed. Cir.
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA: Class Action Gains Four Student Plaintiffs
UNKNOWN KIMBLE: Goff Class Certification Bid Denied as Moot
WELLS FARGO: Thompson Sues Over FCRA Violation in E.D. Virginia
WILLIAMS CO: Trial in Rights Agreement Suit to Begin on Jan. 2021

WILLIAMS CO: Trial in Wisconsin Class Suit to Begin June 2021
WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Nov. 23 Deadline
WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Nov. 23 Deadline
WRIGHT MEDICAL: Suits Related to Stryker Tender Offer Dismissed

                            *********

ANTHONY COLEMAN: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in Goff Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shawn Charles Goff, v.
Anthony Coleman, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01557-DLR-JFM (D. Ariz.),
the Hon. Judge Douglas L. Rayes entered an order:

   1. dismissing without prejudice the Plaintiff's claims for
      monetary relief;

   2 dismissing without prejudice the Defendants Ryan, Coleman,
      and Morris;

   3. dismissing without prejudice the Defendant Shinn in his
      individual capacity;

   4. denying the Plaintiff's requests for class certification
      and appointment of counsel;

   5. directing Defendant Shinn in his official capacity to
      answer the claims for prospective injunctive and
      declaratory relief in the Second Amended Complaint;

   6. directing the Clerk of Court to send the Plaintiff this
      Order, and a copy of the Marshal's Process Receipt &
      Return form (USM-285) and Notice of Lawsuit & Request for
      Waiver of Service of Summons form for Defendant Shinn.

   7. directing the Plaintiff to complete and return the service
      packet to the Clerk of Court within 21 days of the date of
      filing of this Order. The United States Marshal will not
      provide service of process if Plaintiff fails to comply
      with this Order. If Plaintiff does not either obtain a
      waiver of service of the summons or complete service of
      the Summons and Second Amended Complaint on Defendant
      Shinn within 90 days of the filing of the Complaint or
      within 60 days of the filing of this Order, whichever is
      later, the action may be dismissed.

   8. directing the United States Marshal to notify the
      Defendant of the commencement of this action and request
      waiver of service of the summons pursuant to Rule 4(d) of
      the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The notice to
      Defendant must include a copy of this Order; and

   9. directing Defendant Shinn to return the signed waiver
      forms to the United States Marshal, not the Plaintiff,
      within 30 days of the date of the notice and request for
      waiver of service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
      Procedure 4(d)(1)(F) to avoid being charged the cost of
      personal service, if the Defendant Shinn agrees to waive
      service of the Summons and Second Amended Complaint.

The Court said, "The Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and this case
therefore cannot be certified as a class action unless counsel is
appointed. The Court declines to appoint counsel and certify a
class because the Plaintiff has not shown that the four
prerequisites to a class action under Rule 23(a) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, that is, numerosity, typicality,
commonality, and adequacy of representation, are met in this case.
The Plaintiff's request for class certification and appointment of
counsel will therefore be denied. To the extent that Plaintiff
seeks appointment of counsel for himself in this case, the Court
will also deny his request. There is no constitutional right to the
appointment of counsel in a civil case."

A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 2, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pjbGi8 at no extra charge.[CC]


ARCHDIOCESE OF VANCOUVER: Faces Class Action Over Negligence
------------------------------------------------------------
Agnieszka Ruck, writing for Catholic News Service, reports that a
proposed class-action lawsuit filed against the Archdiocese of
Vancouver claims the archdiocese was "systematically negligent" in
protecting parishioners from abuse by clergy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


AURORA CANNABIS: Howard G. Smith Law Reminds of Dec. 1 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith on Oct. 6 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
Aurora Cannabis, Inc. ("Aurora" or the "Company") (NYSE: ACB)
securities between February 13, 2020 and September 4, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Aurora investors have until
December 1, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

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

On September 8, 2020, the Company announced that it expected to
record up to $1.8 billion in goodwill impairment charges in fourth
quarter 2020. According to Aurora's press release, these charges
included "up to $90 million" in fixed asset impairment charges "due
to production facility rationalization, and a charge of
approximately $140 million in the carrying value of certain
inventory, predominantly trim, in order to align inventory on hand
with near term expectations for demand."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.99 per share, or
more than 11%, to close at $7.52 per share on September 8, 2020,
thereby injuring investors.

The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company
had significantly overpaid for previous acquisitions and
experienced degradation in certain assets, including its production
facilities and inventory; (2) the Company's purported "business
transformation plan" and cost reset failed to mitigate the
foregoing issues; (3) accordingly, it was foreseeable that Aurora
would record significant goodwill and asset impairment charges; and
(4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased Aurora securities, have information or would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of
Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem,
Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at
(888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or
visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com.

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

Contacts:
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]


AURORA CANNABIS: Levi & Korsinsky Alerts of Class Action Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP issued a statement regarding a class action
lawsuit against Aurora Cannabis Inc.

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Aurora Cannabis Inc. ("Aurora Cannabis") (NYSE: ACB)
between February 13, 2020 and September 4, 2020. You are hereby
notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced
in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
To get more information go to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/aurora-cannabis-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=10118&wire=5

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (i) Aurora had significantly overpaid for
previous acquisitions and experienced degradation in certain
assets, including its production facilities and inventory; (ii) the
Company's purported "business transformation plan" and cost reset
failed to mitigate the foregoing issues; (iii) accordingly, it was
foreseeable that the Company would record significant goodwill and
asset impairment charges; and (iv) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

If you suffered a loss in Aurora Cannabis you have until December
1, 2020 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

CONTACT:

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


BIOMARIN PHARMA: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Nov. 24 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, on Sept. 29 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of investors that purchased
BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. (NASDAQ: BMRN) securities between
February 28, 2020 and August 18, 2020 (the "Class Period").
Investors have until November 24, 2020 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

BioMarin was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in San Rafael,
California. BioMarin is a biotechnology company that develops and
commercializes therapies for people with serious and
life-threatening rare diseases and medical conditions. The
Company's product candidates include, among others, valoctocogene
roxaparvovec, an investigational adenoassociated virus ("AAV") gene
therapy, which is in Phase 3 clinical development for the treatment
of patients with severe hemophilia A.

On August 19, 2020, BioMarin announced receipt of a Complete
Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA to the Company's Biologics
License Application ("BLA") for valoctocogene roxaparvovec.
BioMarin advised investors that in the CRL, "the FDA introduced a
new recommendation for two years of data from the Company's ongoing
270-301 study (Phase 3) to provide substantial evidence of a
durable effect using Annualized Bleeding Rate (ABR) as the primary
endpoint" and "recommended that the Company complete the Phase 3
Study and submit two-year follow-up safety and efficacy data on all
study participants." In explaining the new recommendation, the "FDA
concluded that the differences between Study 270-201 (Phase 1/2)
and the Phase 3 study limited its ability to rely on the Phase 1/2
study to support durability of effect."

On this news, BioMarin's stock price fell $41.82 per share, or
35.28%, to close at $76.72 per share on August 19, 2020.

The complaint, filed on September 25, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
differences between the Phase 1/2 and Phase 3 study of
valoctocogene roxaparvovec limited the reliability of the Phase 1/2
study to support valoctocogene roxaparvovec's durability of effect;
(ii) as a result, it was foreseeable that the FDA would not approve
the BLA for valoctocogene roxaparvovec without additional data; and
(iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you purchased BioMarin 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 Brandon Walker, Melissa
Fortunato, or Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com,
telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form.
There is no cost or obligation to you.

                 About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

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

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


BIOMARIN PHARMA: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Nov. 24 Motion Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:

BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. (BMRN)
Class Period: 2/28/2020 - 8/18/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 24, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-biomarin-pharmaceutical-inc-securities-litigation

Peabody Energy Corp. (BTU)
Class Period: 4/3/2017 - 10/28/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 27, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-peabody-energy-corporation-securities-litigation

Credit Acceptance Corporation (CACC)
Class Period: 11/1/2019 - 8/28/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 1, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-credit-acceptance-corporation-securities-litigation-1

If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.

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

                        About ClaimsFiler

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

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


BIOMARIN PHARMA: Hagens Berman Reminds of Nov. 24 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman updates investors in the following publicly-traded
company and urges investors who have suffered significant losses to
contact the firm. Further details about the case can be found at
the link provided.

BMRN Investors: https://www.hbsslaw.com/practices/investor-fraud

BioMarin Pharmaceutical (NASDAQ:BMRN) Securities Class Action:

Class Period: Feb. 28, 2020 - Aug. 18, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Nov. 24, 2020
Visit:www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/BMRN
Contact An Attorney Now:BMRN@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895

The complaint alleges that Defendants' statements misrepresented
and concealed material information about BioMarin's valoctocogene
roxaparvovec product candidate, potentially the first gene therapy
approved by the U.S. FDA for hemophilia in the U.S.

Specifically, throughout the Class Period, Defendants misstated or
omitted to disclose that (1) differences between the phase 1/2 and
phase 3 study of valoctocogene roxaparvovec limited the reliability
of the phase 1/2 study to support valoctocogene roxaparvovec's
durability of effect, and (2) as a result, it was foreseeable that
the FDA would not approve BioMarin's Biologics License Application
("BLA") for valoctocogene roxaparvovec without additional data.

Investors allegedly began to learn the truth on Aug. 19, 2020, when
BioMarin announced it received the FDA's complete response letter
("CRL") to the BLA indicating the FDA recommended the company
submit additional data upon completion of the phase 3 study since
the difference between the phase 1/2 and phase 3 studies limited
the FDA's ability to rely on the phase 1/2 study to support the
durability of effect.

Analysts at Guggenheim were shocked by the Company's disclosure,
noting "[t]his news came as a negative surprise to us in light of
mgt commentary and other launch-related prep (by BMRN and other
payers) and pushes out a potential Roctavian approval until
~2022."

This news drove the price of BioMarin shares down over 35% that
day.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Defendants misled
investors about the phase 1/2 reliability for the BLA," said Reed
Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation.

If you are a BioMarin investor or may assist the firm's
investigation, click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens
Berman.

                             # # #

                         About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents
investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex
litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at
hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or follow us on
Twitter at @classactionlaw. [GN]

BIOMARIN PHARMA: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 24 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. (NASDAQ: BMRN)
("BioMarin") between February 28, 2020 and August 18, 2020. You are
hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California. To get more information go to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/biomarin-pharmaceutical-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=10423&wire=5

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (i) differences between the Phase 1/2 and Phase 3
study of valoctocogene roxaparvovec, an investigational
adenoassociated virus gene therapy, limited the reliability of the
Phase 1/2 study to support valoctocogene roxaparvovec's durability
of effect; (ii) as a result, it was foreseeable that the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration would not approve the Biologics License
Application for valoctocogene roxaparvovec without additional data;
and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you suffered a loss in BioMarin you have until November 24, 2020
to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

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

BIOMARIN PHARMA: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Nov. 24 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Oct. 7 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against BioMarin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("BioMarin" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ:BMRN) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, and docketed under 20-cv-06719, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants
who purchased or otherwise, acquired BioMarin securities between
February 28, 2020 and August 18, 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 BioMarin securities during
the class period, you have until November 24, 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.

BioMarin is a biotechnology company that develops and
commercializes therapies for people with serious and
life-threatening rare diseases and medical conditions. The
Company's product candidates include, among others, valoctocogene
roxaparvovec, an investigational adeno-associated virus ("AAV")
gene therapy, which is in Phase 3 clinical development for the
treatment of patients with severe hemophilia A.

Based on BioMarin's Phase 1/2 study results, the investing and
medical community viewed valoctocogene roxaparvovec as a likely
candidate for becoming the first gene therapy approved by the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for hemophilia in the U.S.

In May 2019, BioMarin announced the interim results from its Phase
3 study of valoctocogene roxaparvovec for adults suffering from
severe hemophilia A. The results, although showing the treatment's
effectiveness, disappointed the market because they indicated a
reduction in durability of effectiveness from the results shown in
the Phase 1/2 results. That is, under the Phase 3 results, it was
not clear whether valoctocogene roxaparvovec's effectiveness would
last as long as indicated in the Phase 1/2 study, and thus, whether
valoctocogene roxaparvovec would be a single treatment, or one
requiring more than one treatment over the life of a patient. These
concerns echoed those that first arose in 2018, after the Company
reported a disappointing two-year update from the Phase 1/2 study,
which showed factor VIII levels waning over time.

Apparently dismissing these concerns, in December 2019, BioMarin
submitted a Biologics License Application ("BLA") to the FDA for
valoctocogene roxaparvovec for adults with hemophilia A based on
the interim analysis of the ongoing Phase 3 study of valoctocogene
roxaparvovec, as well as three-year data from the Company's Phase
1/2 study of valoctocogene roxaparvovec. BioMarin also announced
that the European Medicines Agency ("EMA") validated the Company's
Marketing Authorization Application ("MAA") for valoctocogene
roxaparvovec for adults with severe hemophilia A, with the MAA
review to commence in January 2020 under accelerated assessment.

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) differences between the Phase
1/2 and Phase 3 study of valoctocogene roxaparvovec limited the
reliability of the Phase 1/2 study to support valoctocogene
roxaparvovec's durability of effect; (ii) as a result, it was
foreseeable that the FDA would not approve the BLA for
valoctocogene roxaparvovec without additional data; and (iii) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On August 19, 2020, BioMarin announced receipt of a Complete
Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA to the Company's BLA for
valoctocogene roxaparvovec. BioMarin advised investors that in the
CRL, "the FDA introduced a new recommendation for two years of data
from the Company's ongoing 270-301 study (Phase 3) to provide
substantial evidence of a durable effect using Annualized Bleeding
Rate (ABR) as the primary endpoint" and "recommended that the
Company complete the Phase 3 Study and submit two-year follow-up
safety and efficacy data on all study participants." In explaining
the new recommendation, the "FDA concluded that the differences
between Study 270-201 (Phase 1/2) and the Phase 3 study limited its
ability to rely on the Phase 1/2 study to support the durability of
effect."

On this news, BioMarin's stock price fell $41.82 per share, or
35.28%, to close at $76.72 per share on August 19, 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. [GN]


BLINK CHARGING: Vincent Wong Reminds of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Blink Charging
Company. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
There will be no obligation or cost to you.

Blink Charging Company (NASDAQ:BLNK)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/blink-charging-company-loss-submission-form?prid=10418&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 23, 2020
Class Period: March 6, 2020 - August 19, 2020

Allegations against BLNK include 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.

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

BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Bid to Dismiss Mishal & Berger Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
defendants in the class action initiated by Tsemach Mishal and Paul
Berger, have filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' new claims.

On May 25, 2018, plaintiffs Tsemach Mishal and Paul Berger (on
behalf of themselves and the purported class, Plaintiffs) initiated
a purported class action in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware (the Court) against the following defendants: the Company,
Boardwalk GP, LP (Boardwalk GP), Boardwalk GP, LLC and Boardwalk
Pipelines Holding Corp. (BPHC) (together, Defendants), regarding
the potential exercise by Boardwalk GP of its right to purchase the
issued and outstanding common units of the Company not already
owned by Boardwalk GP or its affiliates (Purchase Right).

On June 25, 2018, Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a
Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement, subject to
the approval of the Court (the Proposed Settlement).

Under the terms of the Proposed Settlement, the lawsuit would be
dismissed, and related claims against the Defendants would be
released by the Plaintiffs, if BPHC, the sole member of the general
partner of Boardwalk GP, elected to cause Boardwalk GP to exercise
its Purchase Right for a cash purchase price, as determined by the
Company's Third Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited
Partnership, as amended (the Limited Partnership Agreement), and
gave notice of such election as provided in the Limited Partnership
Agreement within a period specified by the Proposed Settlement.

On June 29, 2018, Boardwalk GP elected to exercise the Purchase
Right and gave notice within the period specified by the Proposed
Settlement. On July 18, 2018, Boardwalk GP completed the purchase
of the Company's common units pursuant to the Purchase Right.

On September 28, 2018, the Court denied approval of the Proposed
Settlement. On February 11, 2019, a substitute verified class
action complaint was filed in this proceeding.

The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was heard by the
Court in July 2019. In October 2019, the Court ruled on the motion
and granted a partial dismissal, with certain aspects of the case
proceeding to trial.

On October 14, 2020, after completion of fact discovery, Plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint.

In light of the amended complaint, Defendants have moved to vacate
the scheduled January 18, 2021 trial date, and have also filed a
motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' new claims.

Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP, through its subsidiaries, owns and
operates integrated natural gas and natural gas liquids and other
hydrocarbons (NGLs) pipeline and storage systems in the United
States. The company operates natural gas pipeline systems in the
Gulf Coast region, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, as well as the
Midwestern states of Tennessee, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, and
Ohio; and NGLs pipelines and storage facilities in Louisiana and
Texas. Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP was founded in 2005 and is
headquartered in Houston, Texas. Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP is
a subsidiary of Boardwalk Pipelines Holding Corp.


CARDONE EQUITY: Bragar Eagel Reminds of November 20 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, on Sept. 29 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of purchasers of interests in
Cardone Equity Fund V, LLC ("Fund V") and Cardone Equity Fund VI,
LLC ("Fund VI"). Investors have until November 20, 2020 to apply to
the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Cardone Capital provides real estate investment opportunities to
the so-called "everyday investor" through real estate crowdfunding.
According to Cardone Capital's website, Cardone Capital "finds the
deals, negotiates the purchase and financing, and closes the deal,"
generating rental payments from creditworthy tenants to pay monthly
cash distributions to investors.

The Cardone Capital class action lawsuit alleges that, in addition
to certain "test the waters" communications, defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding: (1) whether
investors would obtain a 15% internal rate of return on their
investments; (2) the amounts of monthly distributions they would
receive; and (3) investors' debt obligations. The class action
lawsuit further alleges that defendants made materially false and
misleading statements in the offering documents and omitted to
state material facts relating to how the acquisition of properties
to be owned by Fund V and Fund VI would be financed and the
interest Cardone Capital would charge the funds for loaning "the
aggregate principal balance" to acquire those properties. Cardone
Capital also represented to investors that it would pay monthly
distributions based on cash flows from operations when, in fact,
Cardone Capital suspended monthly distributions in April 2020.

If you purchased interests in Cardone Equity Fund V, LLC and
Cardone Equity Fund VI, LLC, 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 Brandon Walker, Melissa Fortunato, or
Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at
(212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no
cost or obligation to you.

               About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

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

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


CENTRAL MAINE: Seeks Dismissal of Billing Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Tux Turkel, writing for Press Herald, reports that a protracted
attempt by a group of five Central Maine Power customers to file a
class-action lawsuit against the utility and its parent companies
should be dismissed, lawyers for CMP argued on Sept. 8 in U.S.
District Court, because a process to dispute inaccurate bills
already is in place at the Maine Public Utilities Commission.

That process, however, hasn't gotten at the root causes of why each
of the customers had higher-than-expected electric bills, lawyers
for the customers told Chief Judge Jon D. Levy, which is why the
lawsuit should go forward.

For most Mainers, the saga of CMP billing problems ended last
January, when the PUC voted to penalize CMP by cutting its earnings
by nearly $10 million over 18 months, citing the company's
longstanding customer service failings and mismanagement of its new
metering and billing system.

The $9.9 million earnings reduction was the largest single
financial penalty ordered for a utility and its shareholders by the
PUC in recent history.

Since then, CMP has been filing monthly reports at the PUC on any
customer-related problems it finds with its SmartCare billing
system and the fixes done to resolve them.

But the PUC's responses fall short of what plaintiffs in the case
say is required to remedy their complaints.

In an interview last year with the Portland Press Herald, attorney
Sumner Lipman estimated that a total of 300,000 customers may have
been overcharged as much as $200 million. Asked if he has evidence
to support that claim, Lipman said he was basing it on the number
of people contacting his office and their average bills, as well as
the CMP Ratepayers Unite customer advocacy group.

"I don't think we can prove 300,000 cases individually," he said at
the time. "But I think we have enough evidence that a jury would
find that this was the general practice. People have a right to a
jury trial."

Since then, the case was moved from Maine Superior Court to federal
court.

CMP's parent company, Iberdrola of Spain, is seeking to have the
case thrown out or at least have the court issue a stay until the
customers pursue remedies offered by the PUC. In a reply filing,
CMP's representatives note that the PUC looked into the allegations
underlying the lawsuit and "found that no systemic defects exist
causing erroneous bills."

They went on to say, "It appears that plaintiffs are dissatisfied
with the PUC's conclusion that the core factual premise of
Plaintiffs' entire case -- that CMP charged for electricity that
plaintiffs did not use -- is just wrong, and they would thus like
to create the specter of a class action in this court, instead of
proving the facts of their individual claims in front of the
regulatory experts."

Lawyers for the customers, however, point to the limitations of the
PUC process, which they say is now irrelevant to the court case.
They say the PUC will not evaluate individual customer claims based
on the premise of a systemic problem and a cover-up to conceal it,
"which is the essence of this court case."

The customers' claim, the plaintiffs' lawyers say, "is that there
was, in fact, a pervasive and systematic failure in CMP's meters
and SmartCare that resulted in erroneous metering and billing, and
that defendants, through CMP, misled customers about it."

Those arguments formed the basis for the Sept. 8 court proceeding,
which was held remotely via Zoom.

Gavin McCarthy, the attorney representing Iberdrola, CMP and its
domestic parent, Avangrid, noted that an independent auditor
process ramping up at the PUC can get to the bottom of remaining
customers' complaints of high bills.

"We will know if any of these five Maine plaintiffs has actually
been billed for electricity they didn't use," McCarthy told the
court.

But those high bills occurred there years ago, Levy noted. How
could audits help now?

Either way, McCarthy said, the plaintiffs can bring their own
evidence and experts to the PUC and if not satisfied, could appeal
to the state's Supreme Judicial Court.

But Jeff Russell, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said the audit
process was of no value to his clients, who may not even be
eligible for the reviews. The PUC already had found no systemic
error, blaming the high bills on extreme cold and an ill-timed rate
increase. But his clients have evidence that meter defects could be
the cause, despite the PUC's conclusions.

"We believe the (PUC's) investigation was inadequate," he said.

In his questioning, Levy tried to assess how long it would take for
the plaintiffs to find resolution via the two different paths.
Russell noted that this case was filed more than two years ago, and
that another two years or more could pass before it is resolved.

Sensitive to the passage of time, Levy said he'd consider the
arguments and release a written decision promptly. [GN]


CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Oral Argument in Melucci Case Cancelled
-------------------------------------------------------------
Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3,
2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
oral argument on the company's motion to dismiss the purported
securities class action suit entitled, Melucci v. Corcept
Therapeutics Incorporated, et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-01372-LHK, has
been cancelled.

On March 14, 2019, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California by Nicholas Melucci (Melucci v. Corcept Therapeutics
Incorporated, et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-01372-LHK).

The complaint named the company and certain of its executive
officers as defendants asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
alleges that the defendants made false and materially misleading
statements and failed to disclose adverse facts about the company's
business, operations, and prospects.

The complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from August
2, 2017 to February 5, 2019 and seeks unspecified monetary relief,
interest and attorneys' fees.

On October 7, 2019, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel. The lead plaintiff's consolidated complaint was filed on
December 6, 2019.

The company moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on January
27, 2020. Rather than oppose the company's motion to dismiss, on
March 20, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint. On May 11, 2020, the company moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint.

The company received plaintiff's opposition to the company's motion
on June 25, 2020 and filed its reply on July 27, 2020. Oral
argument of the company's motion to dismiss was set for October 8,
2020, but the Court cancelled oral argument and will decide the
matter based on the briefs already submitted by the parties.

The Court did not state when it expects to arrive at a decision.

Corcept said, "We will respond vigorously to plaintiff’s claims,
but cannot predict the outcome of this matter."

Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated discovers, develops, and
commercializes drugs for the treatment of severe metabolic,
oncologic, and psychiatric disorders in the United States. Corcept
Therapeutics Incorporated was founded in 1998 and is headquartered
in Menlo Park, California.


CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Dec. 1 Motion Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:

BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. (BMRN)
Class Period: 2/28/2020 - 8/18/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 24, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-biomarin-pharmaceutical-inc-securities-litigation

Peabody Energy Corp. (BTU)
Class Period: 4/3/2017 - 10/28/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 27, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-peabody-energy-corporation-securities-litigation

Credit Acceptance Corporation (CACC)
Class Period: 11/1/2019 - 8/28/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 1, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-credit-acceptance-corporation-securities-litigation-1

If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.

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

                        About ClaimsFiler

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

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


CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Hagens Berman Reminds of Dec. 1 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman updates investors in the following publicly-traded
company and urges investors who have suffered significant losses to
contact the firm. Further details about the case can be found at
the link provided.

CACC Investors: https://www.hbsslaw.com/practices/investor-fraud

Credit Acceptance Corp. (NASDAQ:CACC) Securities Fraud Class
Action:

Class Period: Nov. 1, 2019 - Aug. 28, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Dec. 1, 2020
Visit:www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/CACC
Contact An Attorney Now:CACC@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
misrepresented and concealed that: (1) CACC topped off packaged and
securitized pools of loans with higher-risk loans; (2) the company
made high-interest subprime auto loans it knew borrowers could not
repay; (3) borrowers were subject to hidden finance charges,
resulting in loans exceeding the state law mandated usury rate
ceiling; (4) the company engaged in illegal debt collection
practices; and, (5) that the company was likely to face regulatory
scrutiny and possible penalties.

Investors allegedly began to learn the ugly truth on Aug. 28, 2020,
when the Massachusetts Attorney General sued Credit Acceptance. The
AG alleged that since 2013 the company topped off packaged and
securitized loan pools with higher-risk loans despite telling
investors otherwise. The AG also alleged Credit Acceptance's
business model is predicated on making loans to borrowers who are
unlikely to repay them then engaging in abusive or unlawful debt
collection practices to make money.

This news sent the price of Credit Acceptance shares crashing
$85.36 lower, or over 18%, during the next two trading days.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Credit Acceptance
concealed its deceptive and illegal lending and collection
practices," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading
the investigation.

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

                                # # #

                          About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents
investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex
litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at
hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or follow us on
Twitter at @classactionlaw. [GN]




CRODA INT'L: Seeks Dismissal of Air Pollutant Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Sebastien Malo, writing for Reuters, reports that a Delaware
federal court should toss a proposed class action lawsuit that
accuses a subsidiary of specialty chemicals maker Croda
International PLC of knowingly putting the health of nearby
residents at risk by emitting a carcinogenic chemical at the
facility, the company said in a court filing.

Croda Inc told the U.S. District Court of the District of Delaware
on Oct. 13 that the class proposed by a resident of the northern
Delaware town of New Castle, where the company operates its Atlas
Point manufacturing plant, lacks standing because none of the
putative class members would include people diagnosed with cancer.
Fear of developing a disease is an impermissible claim under
Delaware law, Croda argued. [GN]



CVS ALBANY: Benjamin Seeks Uniform Maintenance Allowance
--------------------------------------------------------
AHKILAH BENJAMIN, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. CVS ALBANY, L.L.C., CVS PHARMACY, INC., and
CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, Case No. 159244/2020 (N.Y. Super., New York
Cty., October 29, 2020) seeks to recover uniform maintenance
allowance pursuant to New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations.

The Plaintiff commenced this action on behalf of herself and a
putative class of individuals who are presently or were formerly
employed by the Defendants at CVS stores in New York from March 20,
2014 to the present and were paid at or below the New York's
minimum wage rate for at least one week.

The Plaintiff alleges that since at least March 20, 2014, the
Defendants required her and other similarly situated employees in
New York to wear uniforms without laundering those uniforms and
without providing compensation to such employees for the laundering
or maintenance of those uniforms, in violation of the New York
Labor Law and the NYCRR.

CVS Albany, L.L.C. operates pharmacy and drug stores. The Company
serves customers in the United States. The Company is wholly owned
by CVS Pharmacy, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          Jack L. Newhouse, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
          E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com

CVS: 9th Cir. Reverses Dismissal of Glucosamine Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports that a consumers' class action
lawsuit, under California law, alleging that CVS markets
glucosamine supplements with false and misleading health claims as
to benefits for joints, is not preempted by federal law, the Ninth
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held, reversing an order of
dismissal.

"The district court's ruling mistakenly broadened the FDCA
preemption doctrine beyond acceptable public policy limits," a
memorandum opinion by a three-judge panel, filed on Oct. 9,
declares.

The opinion reverses an order by District Court Judge Cathy Ann
Bencivengo of the Southern District of California dismissing the
putative class action, without leave to amend. She determined that
plaintiff James Kroessler's state law claims, under the Unfair
Competition Law and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, are preempted
by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA").

Bencivengo found, and the Ninth Circuit agreed, that
representations by CVS about its supplement are "structure/function
claims" - which relate to how the supplement is intended to affect
the human body - as opposed to "disease claims" which tell of how
the product will cure, treat or prevent a disease.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Oct. 9 reinstated a
putative class action In which it is asserted that glucosamine
supplements sold by CVS do not have the promised health benefits.
The diversity action, alleging causes of action under California
statutes, is not preempted by federal law, a three-judge panel
held.

Private actions against makers of supplements, which are not
permitted under federal law, may proceed in state courts, it has
been held, where state requirements parallel those set forth in the
FDCA.

Under federal law, structure/function claims are permitted if they
meet specified requirements, including the existence of
substantiation for them. Bencivengo declared that Kroessler's
lawsuit would impermissibly "impose state-law requirements that
differ from the federal requirements," explaining:

"Although the FDCA requires manufacturers to have substantiation
for their structure/function claims, California law does not allow
private plaintiffs to demand substantiation for advertising
claims."

Ninth Circuit Opinion

District Court Judge Eric F. Melgren of the District of Kansas,
sitting by designation, wrote the opinion reversing the order of
dismissal. He said:

"[J]ust because California law prohibits private plaintiffs from
forcing defendants to substantiate their advertising claims, that
does not mean California law prohibits those plaintiffs from
attacking defendants' substantiation….[U]nder California law, a
plaintiff retains the burden of production and the burden of proof
but can nevertheless challenge a defendant's substantiation."

He observed:

"CVS may attack the sufficiency of Kroessler's evidence at summary
judgment or trial—and it may well succeed at those stages. But at
this stage, FDCA preemption does not prevent Kroessler's state law
claims from proceeding."

Leave to Amend

Melgren also said Kroessler should be granted leave to amend his
complaint to state a cause of action based on "implied" disease
claims.

"Because Kroessler may have been able to 'bolster' his complaint
with allegations of extra-label evidence showing that CVS's
glucosamine-based supplements present implied disease claims, the
court erred by denying him leave to amend his complaint based on
futility," he wrote.

The case is Kroessler v. CVS Health Corp., 19-55671. [GN]


DCP MIDSTREAM: Fails to Pay OT Wages to Inspectors, Whitman Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOEL WHITMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DCP MIDSTREAM, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-03352 (D. Colo.,
November 10, 2020) arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act for failing to pay the Plaintiff and
the Class members overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in a single workweek.

The complaint contends that Mr. Whitman and the other workers like
him were improperly classified as independent contractors,
typically worked 10 hour shifts, and regularly worked more than 60
hours per week with no overtime pay.

From approximately March 2017 until March 2019, Whitman worked for
DCP as a utility and coating inspector.

DCP Midstream, LLC operates as an energy company. The Company
specializes in gathering, processing, compressing, transporting,
and storing natural gas. DCP Midstream serves customers in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

ELECTRICITY MAINE: Court Approves $14MM Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Chrisos, writing for WGME, reports that more than 40,000
customers of Electricity Maine will receive money as part of a
class-action lawsuit settlement approved on Oct. 14 in U.S.
District Court, according to court records.

Judge Lance Walker signed off on the agreement, which could cost
the company as much as $14 million.

The lawsuit was filed four years ago, alleging competitive energy
supplier Electricity Maine deceived Maine consumers and cost them
millions of dollars.

"Between 2011 and 2014, Defendant Electricity Maine, LLC, enrolled
nearly 200,000 Maine households and small businesses in its
electricity-supply services with the promise of substantial cost
savings, according to the lawsuit. Instead of decreasing consumers'
electricity bills, however, Electricity Maine, through Defendants'
fraud and deception, cost Maine ratepayers at least $35 million.
This civil action seeks to remedy the significant financial harm
caused by Defendants' scheme."

The settlement creates a $14 million fund to pay claims.

More than 200,000 people were eligible to make a claim, but
Portland attorney Benjamin Donahue, who represents the plaintiffs,
told Judge Walker that only about 43,000 people filed valid
claims.

Donahue said those customers will be paid about $3.2 million, which
calculates to an average payout of about $75.

To receive payment under the settlement, a claim had to be
submitted by September 10, 2020.

Electricity Maine and its corporate owner, Spark Energy, also
agreed to pay attorney fees and costs but denies the allegations of
wrongdoing.

"With respect to the settlement, we are happy to have the matter
resolved and remain committed to providing Mainers choices with
respect to their electricity supply." [GN]


ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Summary Judgment Bids in Dougherty Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Esperion Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motions for
summary judgments in the putative class action suit entitled, Kevin
L. Dougherty v. Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., et al. (E.D. Mich.,
No. 16-cv-10089), is pending.

On January 12, 2016, a purported stockholder of the Company filed
the putative class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, against the Company and
Tim Mayleben.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company and Mr. Mayleben violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
SEC Rule 10b-5 by allegedly failing to disclose in an August 17,
2015, public statement that the FDA would require a cardiovascular
outcomes trial before approving the Company's lead product
candidate.

The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages in
connection with an allegedly inflated stock price between August
18, 2015, and September 28, 2015, as well as attorneys' fees and
costs.

On May 20, 2016, an amended complaint was filed in the lawsuit and
on July 5, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

On December 27, 2016, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss with prejudice and entered judgment in the Company’s
favor. On January 24, 2017, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit filed a
motion to alter or amend the judgment. In May 2017, the court
denied the plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment.

On June 19, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and on September 14, 2017, they
filed their opening brief in support of the appeal. The appeal was
fully briefed on December 7, 2017, and it was argued before the
Sixth Circuit on March 15, 2018. On September 27, 2018, the Sixth
Circuit issued an opinion in which it reversed the district
court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.

On October 11, 2018, the Company filed a petition for rehearing en
banc and, on October 23, 2018, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
directed plaintiffs to respond to that petition. On December 3,
2018, the Sixth Circuit denied the Company's petition for en banc
rehearing, and on December 11, 2018, the case was returned to the
federal district court by mandate from the Sixth Circuit.

On December 26, 2018, the Company filed an answer to the amended
complaint, and on March 28, 2019, the Company filed its amended
answer to the amended complaint.

On September 15, 2020, the Company filed a motion for summary
judgment, and the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment, and on October 23, 2020, the parties filed oppositions to
both motions for summary judgment.

Esperion said, "The Company is unable to predict the outcome of
this matter and is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the
amount or range of loss, if any, that could result from an
unfavorable outcome."

Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., a lipid management company, focuses on
developing and commercializing oral therapies for the treatment of
patients with elevated low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C).
Esperion Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 2008 and is
headquartered in Ann Arbor, Michigan.


EVERI HOLDINGS: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on Nov. 30
------------------------------------------------------------
Everi Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the final hearing
to consider approval of the settlement in the case, Geraldine
Donahue, et. al. v. Everi FinTech, et. al., is scheduled for
November 30, 2020.

Geraldine Donahue, et. al. v. Everi FinTech, et. al. ("Donahue"),
is a putative class action matter filed on December 12, 2018, in
the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Division,
Chancery Division.

The original defendant was dismissed and the Company was
substituted as the defendant on April 22, 2019.

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
alleges that Everi FinTech and the Company (i) have violated
certain provisions of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
(FACTA) by their failure, as agent to the original defendant, to
properly truncate patron credit card numbers when printing cash
access receipts as required under FACTA, and (ii) have been
unjustly enriched through the charging of service fees for
transactions conducted at the original defendant’s facilities.

Plaintiff seeks an award of statutory damages, attorney's fees, and
costs.

The parties have reached an agreement in principle for settlement
of this matter, which will include the settlement and resolution of
all the FACTA-related matters pending against the Company and Everi
FinTech.

In the third quarter of 2020, the court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement agreement between the parties, which
will include the settlement and resolution of all the FACTA-related
matters pending against Everi.

The final approval hearing is scheduled for November 30, 2020.

The third-party claims administrator began contacting potential
claimants via electronic and regular mail as of September 1, 2020.


The objection date was October 19, 2020 and claims forms must be
postmarked by February 1, 2021.

Everi Holdings Inc., incorporated on February 4, 2004, is a holding
company. The Company operates through subsidiaries, including Everi
Games Holding Inc. (Everi Games Holding) and Everi Payments Inc.
(Everi Payments or Payments). The Company operates through two
segments: Games and FinTech. The Company provides video and
mechanical reel gaming content and technology solutions, integrated
gaming payments solutions, and compliance and efficiency software.
The company is based in Las Vegas, Nevada.


EVOLUS INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Dec. 15 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Evolus,
Inc. ("Evolus" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EOLS) securities between
February 1, 2019 and July 6, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Evolus investors have until December 15, 2020 to file a lead
plaintiff motion.

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

On July 6, 2020, the U.S. International Trade Commission ("ITC")
issued its Final Initial Determination in a case alleging that
Evolus stole certain trade secrets to develop Jeuveau™. The ITC
Judge found that Evolus misused the botulinum toxin strain as well
as the manufacturing processes that led to its development and
manufacture. As a result, the ITC Judge recommended a ten-year long
ban on Evolus' ability to import Jeuveau™ into the United States
and a ten-year long cease and desist order preventing Evolus from
selling Jeuveau™ in the United States.

On this news, Evolus' share price declined dramatically, falling
37% over the course of two trading days, to close at $3.35 on July
8, 2020, thereby injuring investors.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the actual source of
botulinum toxin bacterial strain, along with the manufacturing
processes used to develop Jeuveau, originated with and were
misappropriated from Medytox; (2) that adequate evidentiary support
existed for the allegations that the Company misappropriated
certain trade secrets relating to the botulin toxin strain and the
manufacturing processes for the development of Jeuveau; (3) as a
result, Evolus faced a actual danger of regulatory and/or court
action, ceasing the import, marketing, and sale of Jeuveau; (4)
which in turn jeopardized the Company's ability to commercialize
Jeuveau in the United States and generate revenue; and (5) that any
revenues generated from the sale of Jeuveau were based on Evolus'
unlawful actions, including the misappropriation of trade secrets
and secret manufacturing processes belonging to Allergan and
Medytox; and (6) that, as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you purchased Evolus securities, have information or would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of
Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem,
Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at
(888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or
visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com. [GN]

EYP GROUP: Dec. 4 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pollack Solomon Duffy LLP, a law firm with offices in Boston and
New York, and Rupp Baase Pfalzgraf Cunningham, LLC, a law firm with
offices throughout New York State, on Oct. 6 announced the filing
of a class action lawsuit on behalf of a class of holders of notes
issued by EYP Group Holdings, Inc. or EYP Holdings, Inc. in
connection with the creation of the EYP Employee Stock Ownership
Plan and sale of stock in EYP on or about June 28, 2016. The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages under, among other things, federal
securities laws, for the named plaintiffs and class members who
sold stock in connection with the ESOP transaction on or about June
28, 2016. The action has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York and is titled Kohlberg,
et al. v. Birdsey, et al., Civil Action No. 20-cv-6250.

On October 5, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint alleging
that Long Point Capital, Inc., certain of its affiliates, and
certain board members of EYP made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material facts
about EYP's business. Specifically, the Amended Complaint alleges
that Defendants conspired to provide false information to inflate
valuations used to price the EYP stock, allowing Long Point as the
controlling stockholder to receive more than $40 million in cash,
while saddling EYP with debt that made notes issued to minority
stockholders for their stock uncollectible.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from the
date of this notice, or December 4, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.

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 A POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY OF DAMAGES IS NOT
DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. [GN]


FAMILY DOLLAR: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Advertising
-------------------------------------------------------------
Keller and Heckman LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that on August 25, 2020, Sheehan & Associates P.C., on
behalf of a proposed class of New York consumers, filed a class
action lawsuit against Family Dollar Stores, Inc., alleging that
the company is misleadingly advertising its Eatz-brand Smoked
Almonds as "smoke" flavored despite the fact that the almonds have
not gone through the smoking food preparation process.

Plaintiffs identified "Natural Smoke Flavor" on the ingredient
list, and from this disclosure, inferred that the almonds derived
their smoke flavor not from the smoking process but from this added
natural flavor. Plaintiffs allege that consumers would expect that
foods with a "smoke" flavor have undergone an actual smoking
process and that Defendant's product should have been labeled with
a qualifying term such as "Naturally Flavored."

This lawsuit is almost identical to another lawsuit recently filed
by the same firm regarding a Smoked Gouda Artisan Cheese product
sold by Dietz & Watson, Inc. and may be a harbinger of further
lawsuits against smoke flavored products. Keller & Heckman will
continue to monitor and report on trends in the food litigation
space. [GN]



FCA CANADA: Court Tosses Certification Motion in Defeat Device Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin O'Brien, Esq. -- kobrien@osler.com -- and Waleed Malik, Esq.
-- wmalik@osler.com -- of Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, in an
article for Mondaq, report that evidence of compensable loss is a
fundamental prerequisite for a class action. An Ontario court
recently applied that principle to deny certification in Maginnis
and Magnaye v FCA Canada. The plaintiffs tried to certify an action
alleging that they purchased vehicles containing emissions defeat
devices, but the manufacturer was repairing the devices so that
they would comply with emission control regulations. The repairs
achieved an emissions-compliant vehicle and the plaintiffs did not
have evidence of any other compensable loss. Therefore, the Court
dismissed their certification motion.

Background: regulatory charges relating to defeat devices led to
class actions

In January 2017, U.S. environmental agencies charged Fiat Chrysler
Automobile ("FCA") with installing defeat devices that made certain
of its diesel vehicles appear to comply with environmental
regulations when they did not. In January 2019, without admitting
liability, FCA agreed to recall the impugned vehicles and repair
the defeat devices. FCA launched a recall and repair program in
both Canada and the U.S. in May 2019.

The plaintiffs each purchased "EcoDiesel" jeeps manufactured by FCA
that the plaintiffs claimed had been outfitted with emissions
defeat devices. They launched a class action shortly after FCA was
charged in the U.S. and subsequently asked Justice Belobaba of the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice to certify their class action
against FCA and certain other defendants.

Court decision: certification refused because no evidence of
compensable harm

There was no dispute that FCA's repairs eliminated the defeat
device and rendered FCA's vehicles compliant with emissions
regulations. In addition, the parties agreed that no class action
should be certified without at least some evidence of compensable
harm. Therefore, the motion turned on a threshold question: had the
plaintiffs provided any evidence of compensable harm?

The plaintiffs argued they had provided the necessary evidence. In
particular, they said they were harmed because they paid a premium
price for the promise of "clean diesel" engines and because, they
alleged, FCA's repairs adversely affected their vehicle's fuel
economy and performance. According to Justice Belobaba, there was
no evidence supporting either argument and so the plaintiffs failed
to substantiate any compensable loss.

Justice Belobaba then turned to the legal basis for dismissing the
motion. He noted that a certification motion where there is no
evidence of compensable harm can be dismissed on three bases: a
judge can rule that (i) there is no evidence of two or more people
seeking access to justice under s. 5(1)(b) of the Class Proceedings
Act, (ii) the plaintiff is not a suitable representative plaintiff
as required under s. 5(1)(e) because they have sustained no loss
and have no stake in the potential outcome, or (iii) the class
action is not a preferable procedure as required under s. 5(1)(d).
Justice Belobaba relied on the final basis because it cut to the
core purpose of class actions. The preferability analysis considers
the goals of access to justice, behaviour modification and judicial
economy, and certifying a class action in the absence of
compensable loss would not serve any of those goals.

Conclusion

Maginnis provides legal and practical takeaways for class action
defendants. Legally, it reiterates that plaintiffs must provide
evidence (and not just allegations) of compensable loss to
successfully certify their action. Practically, it demonstrates how
proactive steps by a defendant may stave off class actions and how,
by solving customer complaints (where practical), defendants can
resolve an injury that could otherwise support certification. [GN]


FLUIDIGM CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of November 20 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Oct. 7 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of Fluidigm
Corporation. 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.

FLDM Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/fluidigm-corporation-information-request-form?prid=9858&wire=1

Fluidigm Corporation (NASDAQ:FLDM)

FLDM Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 7, 2019
- November 5, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 20, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/fluidigm-corporation-information-request-form?prid=9858&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Fluidigm
Corporation made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Fluidigm was experiencing
longer sales cycles; (2) as a result, Fluidigm's revenue was
reasonably likely to decline; 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.

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

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

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

GARRETT MOTION: Facing Husson & Gabelli Securities Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Garrett Motion Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company is
facing putative securities class action suits entitled, Steven
Husson, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. Garrett Motion Inc., Olivier Rabiller, Alessandro
Gili, Peter Bracke, Sean Deason, and Su Ping Lu, Case No.
1:20-cv-07992-JPC (SDNY) and The Gabelli Asset Fund, The Gabelli
Dividend & Income Trust, The Gabelli Value 25 Fund Inc., The
Gabelli Equity Trust Inc., SM Investors LP and SM Investors II LP,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Su
Ping Lu, Olivier Rabiller, Alessandro Gili, Peter Bracke, Sean
Deason, Craig Balis, Thierry Mabru, Russell James, Carlos M.
Cardoso, Maura J. Clark, Courtney M. Enghauser, Susan L. Main,
Carsten Reinhardt, and Scott A. Tozier, Case No. 1:20-cv-08296-JPC
(SDNY).

On September 25, 2020, a putative class action securities complaint
was filed against Garrett Motion Inc. and certain current and
former Garrett officers and directors, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  

The case bears the caption: Steven Husson, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Garrett Motion Inc.,
Olivier Rabiller, Alessandro Gili, Peter Bracke, Sean Deason, and
Su Ping Lu, Case No. 1:20-cv-07992-JPC (SDNY) (the "Husson
Action").  

The Husson Action asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, for securities fraud and control person
liability.  

On September 28, 2020, the plaintiff sought to voluntarily dismiss
his claim against Garrett Motion Inc.; this request has been
referred to the judge for approval.

On October 5, 2020, another putative class action securities
complaint was filed against certain current and former Garrett
officers and directors, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  

This case bears the caption: The Gabelli Asset Fund, The Gabelli
Dividend & Income Trust, The Gabelli Value 25 Fund Inc., The
Gabelli Equity Trust Inc., SM Investors LP and SM Investors II LP,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Su
Ping Lu, Olivier Rabiller, Alessandro Gili, Peter Bracke, Sean
Deason, Craig Balis, Thierry Mabru, Russell James, Carlos M.
Cardoso, Maura J. Clark, Courtney M. Enghauser, Susan L. Main,
Carsten Reinhardt, and Scott A. Tozier, Case No. 1:20-cv-08296-JPC
(SDNY) (the "Gabelli Action").

The Gabelli Action also asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act.  

Based on the publicly-available dockets, service has not yet been
effected for either the Husson Action or the Gabelli Action.   

Garrett said, "The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to
the claims of the plaintiffs and any liability for the alleged
claims is not currently probable or reasonably estimable."

Based in Switzerland, Garrett Motion Inc. designs, manufactures and
sells highly engineered turbocharger and electric-boosting
technologies for light and commercial vehicle original equipment
manufacturers ("OEMs") and the global vehicle and independent
aftermarket.


GARRETT MOTION: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of November 24 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Oct. 6
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Garrett Motion Inc. (NYSE: GTX)
(OTC: GTXMQ) between October 1, 2018 and September 18, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Garrett investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Garrett class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1950.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.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) due to its agreement to indemnify and reimburse Honeywell
for certain asbestos-related liability, Garrett was saddled with an
unsustainable level of debt; (2) Garrett had a highly leveraged
capital structure that posed significant challenges to its overall
strategic and financial flexibility; (3) Garrett's ability to gain
or hold market share was impaired; (4) Garrett was reasonably
likely to seek bankruptcy protection; and (5) as a result of the
foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Garrett'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
24, 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-1950.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.

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.

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]


GOHEALTH INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Nov. 20 Motion Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded
companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the
links below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can
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. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class
members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select
a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

Odonate Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:ODT)

Class Period: December 7, 2017 - August 21, 2020

Deadline: November 16, 2020
For more info: www.bgandg.com/odt

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) tesetaxel was not as safe or well-tolerated as
the Company had led investors to believe; (2) consequently,
tesetaxel's commercial viability as a cancer treatment was
overstated; and (3) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Nano-X Imaging Ltd. (NASDAQ:NNOX)

Class Period: August 21, 2020 - September 15, 2020

Deadline: November 16, 2020
For more info: www.bgandg.com/nnox

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially 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.

GoHealth, Inc. (NASDAQ:GOCO)

Class Period: GoHealth securities Class A common stock issued in
connection with its July 2020 initial public stock offering (the
"IPO")

Deadline: November 20, 2020
For more info: www.bgandg.com/goco

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) since the first half of 2020, the Medicare
insurance industry was undergoing a period of elevated churn; (2)
the Company was exposed to a higher risk of customer churn due to
its unique business model and limited carrier base; (3) the Company
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 its
efforts to expand into new geographies, develop new carrier
partnerships and worsening product mix; (4) the Company had entered
into materially less favorable revenue sharing arrangements with
its external sales agents; and (5) these adverse financial and
operational trends were internally projected by GoHealth to
continue and worsen following the IPO.

Contact:

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


GOHEALTH INC: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Nov. 20 Motion Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:
     
Coty, Inc. (COTY)
Class Period: 10/3/2016 - 5/28/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 3, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-coty-inc-securities-litigation-2
     

Nikola Corporation (NKLA, NKLAW) f/k/a VectoIQ Acquisition Corp.
(VTIQ, VTIQW, VTIQU)
Class Period: 3/3/2020 - 9/20/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 16, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-nikola-corporation-securities-litigation

GoHealth, Inc. (GOCO)
Class Period: Shares issued in connection with the July 2020
initial public stock offering
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 20, 2020
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-gohealth-inc-securities-litigation
       

If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.

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

                        About ClaimsFiler

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

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


GOHEALTH INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of November 20 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges GoHealth, Inc. (NASDAQ: GOCO) investors to
contact the firm now.   A securities class action related to
GoHealth's initial public offering has been filed and certain
investors may have valuable claims.

Class Period: July 12, 2020 – Sept. 21, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Nov. 20, 2020
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/GOCO
Contact An Attorney Now: GOCO@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895

GoHealth (GOCO) Securities Class Action:

The complaint alleges that GoHealth's IPO offering documents
contained materially false and misleading statements and omissions.
Specifically, the offering documents allegedly misrepresented or
failed to disclose that: (1) the Medicare insurance industry was
undergoing a period of elevated customer churn that began in the
first half of 2020; (2) GoHealth's unique business model and its
limited carrier base exposed the company to a higher risk of churn;
(3) GoHealth suffered from degradations in customer retention as a
result of elevated churn; (4) GoHealth had already entered into
materially less favorable revenue sharing arrangements with its
external sales agents; and, (5) GoHealth internally projected these
adverse trends would continue and worsen after its IPO.

The IPO offering documents allowed GoHealth to go public, issuing
43.5 million shares to investors at $21 per share for total
proceeds of about $913.5 million.

However, since the IPO, GoHealth has reported disappointing
financial performance resulting from the material facts omitted in
the IPO offering documents and its common stock has suffered
significant price declines. By Sept. 15, 2020, GoHealth Class A
common stock closed at just $12.53 per share, or over 40% below the
$21 per share price investors paid for the stock in the IPO less
than two months previously.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving GoHealth's IPO
offering documents misrepresented or omitted churn data when going
public," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the
investigation.

If you are a GoHealth investor or may assist the firm's
investigation, click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens
Berman.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
GoHealth 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 GOCO@hbsslaw.com.

                     About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents
investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex
litigation.   More about the firm and its successes is located at
hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or follow us on
Twitter at @classactionlaw.

Contact:
Reed Kathrein, 844-916-0895 [GN]


GOHEALTH INC: Johnson Fistel Reminds of Nov. 20 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Fistel, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of GoHealth, Inc. (NASDAQ:
GOCO) Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the
registration statement issued in connection with GoHealth's July
2020 initial public offering (the "IPO"). GoHealth provides an
end-to-end health insurance marketplace that purportedly
specializes in matching consumers with Medicare Advantage plans.

On June 19, 2020, GoHealth filed with the SEC a registration
statement for the IPO on Form S-1 (the "Registration Statement"),
which was used to sell to the investing public 43.5 million shares
of GoHealth Class A common stock at $21 per share, for total gross
proceeds of $913.5 million.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement was
negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements
of material fact, omitted material facts necessary to make the
statements contained therein not misleading, and failed to make
necessary disclosures required under the rules and regulations
governing its preparation. 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.

Since the IPO, the price of GoHealth Class A common stock has
suffered significant price declines. 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.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must move the Court no later than November 20, 2020.  A lead
plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing the GoHealth class action lawsuit.  The lead plaintiff
can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the GoHealth
class-action lawsuit.  An investor's ability to share any potential
future recovery of the GoHealth class action lawsuit is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.  If you are interested in
learning more about the case, please contact Jim Baker
(jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471.  If you email, please
include your phone number.

There is no cost or obligation to you.

                     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]

GOHEALTH INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds of November 20 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of those who acquired
GoHealth, Inc. ("GoHealth" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: GOCO)
securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's July 2020
initial public offering (the "IPO"). Investors have until November
20, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in
the lawsuit.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. At the time of GoHealth's IPO, the
Medicare insurance market was suffering from elevated churn, which
began in the first half of 2020. The Company itself suffered from a
higher risk of customer churn based on its unique business model.
The Company experienced eroding customer persistency and poor
retention due to the market and its own business model. Based on
these facts, the Company's public statements throughout the IPO
period were false and materially misleading. When the market
learned the truth about GoHealth, investors suffered damages.

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

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

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


GOHEALTH INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds of Nov. 20 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of GoHealth, Inc. There is no cost
to participate in the suit. If you suffered a loss, you have until
the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you
as lead plaintiff.

GoHealth, Inc. (NASDAQ:GOCO)

The GoHealth lawsuit is on behalf of all purchasers of GoHealth
Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration
statement issued in connection with GoHealth's July 2020 initial
public offering.

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 20, 2020

According to the complaint, GoHealth, Inc. allegedly made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (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 initial
public offering.

Learn about your recoverable losses in GOCO:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/gohealth-inc-loss-submission-form?id=9990&from=1

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

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

GOHEALTH INC: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of November 20 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Sept. 28 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against certain officers of GoHealth, Inc.  ("GoHealth"
or the "Company") (NASDAQ: GOCO).   The class action, filed in
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, and docketed under 20-cv-05701, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased
or otherwise, acquired GoHealth Class A common stock pursuant
and/or traceable to the registration statement issued in connection
with GoHealth's July 2020 initial public offering (the "IPO"),
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 (the
"Securities Act") against GoHealth, certain of GoHealth's officers
and directors, and the private equity sponsor of the IPO and its
affiliates.

If you are a shareholder who purchased GoHealth securities during
the class period, you have until November 20, 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.

GoHealth provides an end-to-end health insurance marketplace that
purportedly specializes in matching consumers with Medicare
Advantage plans. Based in Chicago, Illinois, GoHealth is organized
as a holding company, with GoHealth Holdings, LLC ("GHH") as the
Company's principal asset, which houses the Company's operations.
GHH was formerly known as Blizzard Parent, LLC ("Blizzard"), until
it was acquired by the private equity firm Centerbridge (defined
below) in September 2019 for $1.1 billion in equity and cash (the
"Acquisition"). In connection with the Acquisition, Centerbridge
also agreed to pay the Company's selling shareholders up to $275
million worth of additional contingent consideration, to be paid in
the form of common and senior preferred earnout units, if the
Company achieved certain earnings targets in late 2019 and 2020.

Immediately following the Acquisition, GoHealth reported tremendous
growth. From September 13, 2019, through December 31, 2019,
GoHealth purportedly generated $308 million in net revenues,
compared to just $231 million during the period from January 1,
2019, through September 12, 2019. Thus, GoHealth stated that it had
generated substantially more revenues in the three-and-a-half
months following the Acquisition than in the eight-and-a-half
months preceding the Acquisition. Indeed, GoHealth claimed to have
generated more revenues in the three-and-a-half months following
the Acquisition than it did during the Company's entire 2018 fiscal
year.

GoHealth also represented that its business model was highly
profitable, offering the best lifetime value of commissions ("LTV")
per consumer acquisition cost ("CAC") of any of its peers. LTV
refers to the commission revenues that GoHealth expected to receive
from insurance carriers in connection with an approved submission
for an insurance policy by a new consumer over time, factoring in a
variety of variables such as contracted commission rates, carrier
mix, policy persistency, and the number of expected submissions.
CAC refers to the cost to GoHealth of acquiring its consumers.
Thus, LTV/CAC is a type of profitability metric that generally
refers to how much of a return GoHealth expected on its consumer
acquisition investments. GoHealth represented that its LTV/CAC
ratio for its Medicare Internal segment (the Company's largest and
most profitable segment) was 3.9x and 2.7x for 2019 and its
first-quarter 2020, respectively, significantly higher than the
1.7x LTV/CAC ratio the Company stated it had achieved during the
first quarter of 2019 and, by some estimates, roughly double
GoHealth's peers.

Although GoHealth generated net losses in 2019, the Company claimed
that this was because it was in growth mode and seeking to expand
its presence as a dominant force in the Medicare insurance
marketplace. The Company's adjusted earnings before interest,
taxes, depreciation, and amortization ("EBITDA")—a metric
tailored by management ostensibly to show the Company's core
profitability by excluding certain costs—increased considerably
in the lead-up to the IPO. GoHealth claimed that its adjusted
EBITDA had grown by 388% year over year to $170 million during its
pro forma 2019 and by 394% year over year to $35 million during the
first quarter of 2020. As a result of its apparently exceptional
earnings growth, GoHealth incurred $75 million in contingent
consideration liability from the close of the Acquisition through
the end of the first quarter of 2020 to be paid out to the
Company's prior owners.

Unlike many competitors, the Company focused its business on just
two insurance carriers: Humana and Anthem. In the first quarter of
2020, 74% of GoHealth's entire net revenues were derived from just
these two carriers. This carrier concentration was even higher for
GoHealth's all-important Medicare segments at roughly 85% of all
segment revenues, despite the fact that Humana and Anthem were
estimated to account for just 23% of total Medicare Advantage
market-wide enrollment.

GoHealth considers insurance carriers to be its primary customers,
rather than consumers because the carriers are responsible for
paying commissions to GoHealth in exchange for GoHealth reliably
placing policies in compliance with applicable regulations and
carrier-specific requirements. The Company does not receive any
revenues directly from consumers. The carriers utilize GoHealth as
a scalable means of acquiring customers that can be more
cost-effective than developing internal acquisition capabilities.
According to GoHealth, the Company's high LTV/CAC ratio was
primarily the result of the Company's unique competitive advantages
in the services it provides to its insurance carrier partners. As
described by the Company, GoHealth's "Best-in-Class Medicare
LTV/CAC Ratio" is "Driven by Proprietary Technology, Business
Processes, Data and Highly Skilled Agents."

On June 19, 2020, just nine months after the Acquisition, GoHealth
filed with the SEC a registration statement for the IPO on Form
S-1, which, after two amendments, was declared effective on July
14, 2020 (the "Registration Statement"). On July 16, 2020, GoHealth
filed with the SEC a prospectus for the IPO on Form 424B4, which
incorporated and formed part of the Registration Statement. The
Registration Statement was used to sell to the investing public
43.5 million shares of GoHealth Class A common stock at $21 per
share, for total gross proceeds of $913.5 million. Proceeds from
the IPO were used primarily for the purpose of paying the Company's
insiders and Centerbridge and consummating financial obligations
which had arisen from the Acquisition.

The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement for the IPO
was negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue
statements of material fact, omitted material facts necessary to
make the statements contained therein not misleading, and failed to
make necessary disclosures required under the rules and regulations
governing its preparation. 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.

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
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]


GOLAR LNG: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of Nov. 23 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
Jakubowitz Law announces that a securities fraud class action
lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of Golar LNG
Limited who purchased shares within the class period listed below.
Shareholders interested in representing the class of wronged
shareholders have until the lead plaintiff deadline to petition the
court. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that
you serve as a lead plaintiff. For more details and to speak with
our firm without cost or obligation, follow the links below.

Golar LNG Limited (NASDAQ:GLNG)

CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT GLNG:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/golar-lng-limited-loss-submission-form/?id=10438&from=1

Class Period: April 30, 2020 - September 24, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 23, 2020

The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
certain employees, including the Chief Executive Officer of Hygo
Energy Transition Ltd. f/k/a Golar Power Limited ("Hygo"), had
bribed third parties, thereby violating anti-bribery policies; (2)
as a result, the Company was likely to face regulatory scrutiny and
possible penalties; (3) as a result of the foregoing reputational
harm, Hygo's valuation ahead of its initial public offering would
be significantly impaired; 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.

Jakubowitz Law is vigorous in pursuit of justice for shareholders
who have been the victim of securities fraud.[GN]

GOLAR LNG: Klein Law Firm Reminds of November 23 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Golar LNG Limited. There is no
cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a loss, you have
until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint
you as lead plaintiff.

Golar LNG Limited (NASDAQ:GLNG)
Class Period: April 30, 2020 - September 24, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 23, 2020

The GLNG lawsuit alleges that throughout the class period, Golar
LNG Limited made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) certain employees, including
the Chief Executive Officer of Hygo Energy Transition Ltd. f/k/a
Golar Power Limited (“Hygo”), had bribed third parties,
thereby violating anti-bribery policies; (2) as a result, the
Company was likely to face regulatory scrutiny and possible
penalties; (3) as a result of the foregoing reputational harm,
Hygo's valuation ahead of its initial public offering would be
significantly impaired; and (4) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

Learn about your recoverable losses in GLNG:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/golar-lng-limited-loss-submission-form?id=9990&from=1

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

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

GOLAR LNG: Robbins Geller Reminds of November 23 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Sept. 28 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the Southern District of New York
on behalf of purchasers of Golar LNG Limited (NASDAQ:GLNG)
securities between April 30, 2020 and September 24, 2020 (the
"Class Period"). The case is captioned Zarabi v. Golar LNG Limited,
No. 20-cv-07926, and is assigned to Judge Jesse M. Furman. The
Golar LNG class action lawsuit charges Golar LNG and certain
individuals with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Golar LNG securities during the Class Period
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Golar LNG class action
lawsuit. A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class
members in directing the Golar LNG class action lawsuit. The lead
plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Golar
LNG class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery of the Golar LNG class action lawsuit is
not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff of the Golar LNG class action lawsuit or have
questions concerning your rights regarding the Golar LNG class
action lawsuit, please provide your information here or contact
counsel, J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff
motions for the Golar LNG class action lawsuit must be filed with
the court no later than November 23, 2020.

Golar LNG provides infrastructure for the liquefaction,
transportation, regasification, and downstream distribution of
liquefied natural gas ("LNG"). Hygo Energy Transition Ltd. f/k/a
Golar Power Limited ("Hygo") is a joint venture between Golar LNG
and investment vehicles affiliated with Stonepeak Infrastructure
Partners. Hygo was formed to develop, own, and operate integrated
LNG-based transportation, downstream solutions, and associated
terminal and power generation infrastructure.

The Golar LNG class action lawsuit alleges that during the Class
Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) certain employees, including Hygo's
CEO, had bribed third parties, thereby violating anti-bribery
policies; (2) as a result, Golar LNG was likely to face regulatory
scrutiny and possible penalties; (3) as a result of the foregoing
reputational harm, Hygo's valuation ahead of its initial public
offering would be significantly impaired; and (4) as a result of
the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Golar LNG's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On September 24, 2020, media reported that Hygo's CEO, defendant
Eduardo Navarro Antonello, was involved in a bribery network
investigated in Brazil's Operation Car Wash. According to reports,
Sapura Energy paid $40 million in bribes for a $2.7 billion
contract with Petrobras and hired lobbyist Mauricio Carvalho to get
inside information and help formulate a winning proposal. Carvalho
then allegedly passed the information to defendant Antonello. The
same day, Golar LNG announced that Hygo had initiated a review of
the allegations against defendant Antonello. On this news, the
price of Golar LNG's shares fell more than 32%, 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.

Contacts:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]


GOLAR LNG: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of November 23 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Oct. 6
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Golar LNG Limited (NASDAQ: GLNG)
between April 30, 2020 and September 24, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Golar
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Golar class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1958.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.

The complaint alleges throughout the Class Period defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) certain employees, including Hygo's CEO, had bribed third
parties, thereby violating anti-bribery policies; (2) as a result,
the Company was likely to face regulatory scrutiny and possible
penalties; (3) as a result of the foregoing reputational harm,
Hygo's valuation ahead of its IPO would be significantly impaired;
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.

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
23, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1958.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.

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.

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]


GOLAR LNG: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of November 23 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Sept. 29 disclosed
that a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed
against Golar LNG Limited ("Golar" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: GLNG)
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the
securities of Golar LNG between April 30, 2020 and August 10, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

If you have incurred losses in the shares of against Golar LNG
Limited, you may, no later than November 23, 2020, request that the
Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class.   Please
contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an
investor in the shares of Golar LNG Limited.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Employees of Golar's joint venture, Hygo
Energy Transition Ltd. ("Hygo"), including Hygo's CEO, engaged in a
scheme to bribe third parties, violating the law.

The filed 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 certain employees, including Hygos' CEO, had bribed
third parties, thereby violating anti-bribery policies;

   -- that, as a result, the Company was likely to face regulatory
scrutiny and possible penalties;

   -- that, as a result of the foregoing reputational harm, Hygos
valuation ahead of its IPO would be significantly impaired; and

   -- that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
was materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On September 24, 2020, media reported that Hygo's CEO Eduardo
Navarro Antonello was involved in a bribery network investigated in
Brazil's Operation Car Wash.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.28.

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

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

Contact:

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


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Reddick Sues Over Employee Age Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
GARFIELD REDDICK, on behalf of himself individually and all other
similarly situated v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY; HP ENTERPRISE
SERVICES, LLC; HEWLETTPACKARD ENTERPRISE CO.; HP, Inc.; and DXC
TECHNOLOGY SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-04597-CAP-RDC (N.D. Ga.,
November 10, 2020) arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants repeatedly discriminated
him and similarly situated employees on the basis of age. Mr.
Reddick further asserts that the Defendants adversely altered the
terms and conditions of his employment, denied him the
opportunities that other employees outside his protected class
received, and terminated his employment, in violation of state and
federal law.

Specifically, the Defendant denied the Plaintiff career advancement
opportunities that were granted to younger less experienced and
qualified employees. On multiple occasions, Mr. Reddick requested
that HP provided him with trainings on HP's technologies,
including, Virtual Connect, OneView, and GreenLake. HP repeatedly
denied Mr. Reddick the opportunity to participate in these
trainings that would have afforded him better job opportunities at
HP. On information and belief, younger employees were provided with
these trainings, the suit says.

Hewlett-Packard Company is an American manufacturer of software and
computer services. The company split in 2015 into two companies: HP
Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise. Headquarters are in Palo Alto,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas R. Kertscher, Esq.
          HILL, KERTSCHER & WHARTON, LLP
          3350 Riverwood Parkway, Suite 800
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (770) 953-0995
          Facsimile: (770) 953-1358
          E-mail: drk@hkw-law.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey L. Hogue, Esq.
          Tyler J. Belong, Esq.
          Marisol Jimenez Gaytan, Esq.
          HOGUE & BELONG
          c/o Hogue & Belong, APC
          170 Laurel Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238-4720
          E-mail: jhogue@hoguebelonglaw.com
                  tbelong@hoguebelonglaw.com
                  mjimenez@hoguebelonglaw.com

HSBC: Faces Class Action in US Over Money Laundering Failings
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua L. Ray, Esq. -- joshua.ray@rahmanravelli.co.uk -- of Rahman
Ravelli Solicitors, in an article for Mondaq, reports that HSBC and
Standard Chartered are facing class action law suits in the U.S.
following allegations that they failed to tackle money laundering.

The legal action comes in the wake of the huge leak of 2,100
suspicious activity reports (SARs) filed with the US Treasury
Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) between
2000 and 2017.

The leaked documents, which have become known as the FinCEN Files,
are at the centre of allegations that the banks did little to
prevent the movement of large amounts of money that were suspected
of being the proceeds of crime.

The class actions are being prepared on behalf of investors in the
two banks, who claim they lost money when the banks' share prices
fell as a result of the leak. HSBC's share price fell to its lowest
level in 25 years when the documents were made public; falling
5.3%. On the same day, Standard Chartered shares fell by 5.8%.

HSBC has said that it has worked since 2012 on improving its
ability to tackle financial crime in more than 60 countries. But
these class action suits show how the financial cost of compliance
failures can go far beyond just regulatory penalties.  By
co-operating with authorities and admitting their guilt, banks like
HSBC and Standard Chartered open themselves up to shareholder
litigation; which can potentially cost tens of millions more in
legal fees and settlements.

This a situation that emphasises the importance of being proactive
in tackling compliance issues. Such an approach can involve
conducting periodic "stress tests" of policies and procedures to
ensure they are fit for purpose. Such an approach is necessary if a
company is to prevent any regulatory problems before they develop
and spread, causing major, costly problems. [GN]


INTERSECT ENT: Yaron Putative Class Suit Ongoing in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intersect ENT, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend itself in a putative class action suit styled,
Yaron v. Intersect ENT, Inc., et al.

In May 2019, a purported stockholder of the Company, Avi Yaron,
filed a putative class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled
Yaron v. Intersect ENT, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-02647,
against the Company and certain individual officers and directors
alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that the Company and the individual officers
made false and/or misleading statements about the Company's
business and seeks unspecified damages and attorney's fees.

The Court appointed the lead plaintiff and set a schedule for
initial motions and pleadings.

By order dated June 19, 2020, the Court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the amended complaint with leave to amend.

On July 29, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against it.

Intersect said, "As of September 30, 2020, the Company has accrued
anticipated settlement costs associated with this lawsuit of $0.4
million which is recorded in "Other current liabilities" on the
condensed consolidated balance sheets."

Intersect ENT, Inc., incorporated on October 6, 2003, is a
commercial-stage drug-device company. The Company develops drugs
for patients with ear, nose and throat (ENT) conditions. The
company is based in Menlo Park, California.


J.B. PRITZKER: Class Certification Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICO CLARK, SHELBY TURNER,
and NATHANIAL FLEMING, v. J.B. PRITZKER, ROB JEFFREYS, WARDEN
WILLIS, WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., JOHN DOE 1, and HINTON, Case
No. 3:20-cv-01133-SPM (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Stephen P.
McGlynn entered an order:

   1. granting the following claims to proceed:

       -- Count 1 will proceed against Pritzker, Jeffreys,
          and Willis.

       -- Count 2 will proceed against Pritzker, Jeffreys,
          Willis, John Doe No. 1, and Hinton.

       -- Count 3 will proceed against Pritzker, Jeffreys,
          Willis, John Doe No. 1, and Hinton.

       -- Count 4 will proceed against Pritzker, Jeffreys,
          Willis, John Doe No. 1, and Hinton.

       -- Count 5 will proceed against Wexford.

       -- Count 6 will proceed against Pritzker, Jeffreys,
          Willis, John Doe No. 1, Hinton, and Wexford.

   2. dismissing Counts 7 and 8 without prejudice;

   3. denying without prejudice the Motion for appointment
      of counsel and the motion for class certification.

   4. deferring ruling on the Motion for Preliminary
      Injunctions;

   5. directing the Defendants to respond to the request
      for a preliminary injunction within 14 days of service
      of the pleadings in this case;

   6. directing the Clerk of Court to prepare for Pritzker,
      Jeffreys, Willis, Wexford, and Hinton: (1) Form 5
      (Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of
      a Summons), and (2) Form 6 (Waiver of Service
      of Summons).

   7. directing the Clerk to mail these forms, a copy of the
      Complaint, the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and
      the Memorandum and Order to each Defendant's place of
      employment as identified by the Plaintiffs;

   8. directing the Defendants to timely file an appropriate
      responsive pleading to the Complaint and shall not
      waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section
      1997e(g); and

   9. advising each Plaintiff that he/she is under a
      continuing obligation to keep the Clerk of Court and
      each opposing party informed of any change in his
      address; the Court will not independently investigate
      his whereabouts.

Based on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to designate the following Counts:

   Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim against Pritzker,
            Jeffrey's, and Willis for overcrowded conditions
            at Menard, which subjected Plaintiffs to
            unconstitutional conditions of confinement,
            including the failure to follow COVID-19 safety
            protocols and delay of medical treatment.

   Count 2: Eighth Amendment claim of against Pritzker,
            Jeffreys, Willis, John Doe No. 1, and Hinton for
            failing to enforce and implement necessary
            safety protocols to protect Plaintiffs from the
            spread of and exposure to COVID-19.

    Count 3: Eighth Amendment claim of denial of adequate
            medical care against Pritzker, Jeffreys, Willis,
            John Doe No. 1, and Hinton for providing
            Plaintiffs delayed and inadequate treatment
            after they contracted COVID-19.

   Count 4: Eighth Amendment claim of cruel and unusual
            punishment against Pritzker, Jeffreys, Willis,
            John Doe No. 1, and Hinton for quarantining
      Plaintiffs in
            unconstitutional conditions of confinement.

   Count 5: Eighth Amendment claim against Wexford for denial of
            adequate medical care to Plaintiffs.

   Count 6: State law claim of intentional infliction of
            emotional distress against Pritzker, Jeffreys,
            Willis, John Doe No. 1, Hinton, and Wexford.

   Count 7: Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against
            Pritzker, Jeffreys, Willis, John Doe no, 1, and
            Hinton for implementing an ineffective grievance
            system.

   Count 8: First Amendment claim against Pritzker,
            Jeffreys, Willis, John Doe No. 1, and Hinton for
            denying the Plaintiffs access to the law library
            and mail.

The Plaintiffs make the following allegations: Menard is
overcrowded, and Wexford Health Sources, Inc., the company
contracted to provide health care to inmates within IDOC,
deliberately understaffs the health care unit at Menard in an
effort to save money. Wexford also attempts to save money by not
adequately training medical staff and allowing nonmedical personnel
to make decisions that affect medical care. As a result, inmates at
Menard do not receive adequate medical, mental health, and dental
care. The Defendants Pritzker, the Governor of Illinois, Jeffreys,
Director of IDOC, and Willis, Warden of Menard, have been made
aware of these issues because of inmate grievances and lawsuits
pertaining to the same. Despite being put on notice that inmates
were being provided inadequate care by Wexford, the Defendants have
failed to fix the problems and to prevent Wexford from
understaffing the health care unit.

A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Nov. 2, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pkhibQ at no
extra charge.[CC]


JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: Xyrem(R) Related Class Suits Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend several class action suit related to Xyrem(R).

On June 17, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by Blue
Cross and Blue Shield Association, or BCBS, against Jazz
Pharmaceuticals plc, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Jazz
Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited, or, collectively, the Company
Defendants.

The BCBS Lawsuit also names Roxane Laboratories, Inc., Hikma
Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Eurohealth (USA), Inc., Hikma
Pharmaceuticals plc, Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Par
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lupin Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc., and
Lupin Inc., or, collectively, the BCBS Defendants.

On June 18 and June 23, 2020, respectively, two additional class
action lawsuits were filed against the Company Defendants and the
BCBS Defendants: one by the New York State Teamsters Council Health
and Hospital Fund in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, and another by the Government
Employees Health Association Inc. in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois (hereinafter referred
to as the GEHA Lawsuit).

On June 18, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California by
the City of Providence, Rhode Island, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, against Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc, and
Roxane Laboratories, Inc., West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp., Hikma
Labs Inc., Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., and Hikma
Pharmaceuticals plc, or, collectively, the City of Providence
Defendants.

On June 30, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by UFCW
Local 1500 Welfare Fund on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, against Jazz Pharmaceuticals Ireland Ltd., Jazz
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Roxane Laboratories, Inc., Hikma
Pharmaceuticals plc, Eurohealth (USA), Inc. and West-Ward
Pharmaceuticals Corp., or collectively the UFCW Defendants
(hereinafter referred to as the UFCW Lawsuit).

On July 13, 2020, the plaintiffs in the BCBS Lawsuit and the GEHA
Lawsuit dismissed their complaints in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and refiled their
respective lawsuits in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

On July 14, 2020, the plaintiffs in the UFCW Lawsuit dismissed
their complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois and on July 15, 2020, refiled their
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

On July 31, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York by the
A.F. of L.-A.G.C Building Trades Welfare Plan on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, against Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc
(hereinafter referred to as the AFL Plan Lawsuit).

The AFL Plan Lawsuit also names Roxane Laboratories Inc., West-Ward
Pharmaceuticals Corp., Hikma Labs Inc., Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc,
Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Par Pharmaceuticals Inc., Lupin Ltd.,
Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Lupin Inc.

On August 14, 2020, an additional class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York by the Self-Insured Schools of California on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, against the Company Defendants,
as well as Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc, Eurohealth (USA) Inc., Hikma
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp., Roxane
Laboratories, Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Endo International,
plc, Endo Pharmaceuticals LLC, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Lupin
Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc., Lupin Inc., Sun Pharmaceutical
Industries Ltd., Sun Pharmaceutical Holdings USA, Inc., Sun
Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Watson Laboratories, Inc.,
Wockhardt Ltd., Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Wockhardt USA
LLC, Mallinckrodt plc, and Mallinckrodt LLC (hereinafter the
Self-Insured Schools Lawsuit).

On September 16, 2020, an additional class action lawsuit was filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, by Ruth Hollman on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, against the same defendants named in the
Self-Insured Schools Lawsuit.

The plaintiffs in certain of the lawsuits are seeking to represent
a class of direct purchasers of Xyrem, and the plaintiffs in the
remaining lawsuits are seeking to represent a class of indirect
purchasers of Xyrem.

Each of the lawsuits generally alleges violations of U.S. federal
and state antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair competition
laws in connection with the Company Defendants' conduct related to
Xyrem, including actions leading up to, and entering into, patent
litigation settlement agreements with each of the other named
defendants.

Each of the lawsuits seeks monetary damages, exemplary damages,
equitable relief against the alleged unlawful conduct, including
disgorgement of profits and restitution, and injunctive relief. It
is possible that additional lawsuits will be filed against the
Company Defendants making similar or related allegations.

Jazz Pharmaceuticals said, "If the plaintiffs were to be successful
in their claims, they may be entitled to injunctive relief or we
may be required to pay significant monetary damages, which could
have a material adverse effect on our business, financial
condition, results of operations and growth prospects."

Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc is a biopharmaceutical company based in
Ireland. It was founded in 2003. One of the company's most
significant products is the United States Food and Drug
Administration approved drug Xyrem, the sodium salt of the
naturally occurring neurotransmitter I3-Hydroxybutyric acid.


JELD-WEN INC: Court Grants Prelim. Approval on Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Drew Vass, writing for Door and Window Market, reports that a U.S.
District Court granted preliminary approval for proposed agreements
to settle class-action lawsuits against door manufacturers Jeld-Wen
Inc. and Masonite Corp. The agreements were made public August 31,
through filings made by both companies with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

According to an article published by the legal news provider
Law360, amid a hearing hosted over video conferencing, U.S.
District Judge John A. Gibney Jr. said he was "really troubled" by
the settlements, "which seek to put the door buyers' claims to rest
for a fraction of the amount that they say they were damaged,"
wrote Law360 reporter Nadia Dreid. According to the terms of the
settlement, Jeld-Wen and Masonite are to receive a full release of
claims through the date of preliminary court approval.

In the August 31 filings, both companies announced they had reached
an agreement with Grubb Lumber Company, Philadelphia Reserve Supply
Company, and a class of direct purchasers of interior molded doors,
agreeing to pay $28 million each to the plaintiffs and the
settlement class.

The suit was filed in 2018 alleging that Jeld-Wen and Masonite
conspired to fix prices, while holding approximately 85% of the
market for certain interior doors. Plaintiffs that purchased
interior molded doors indirectly sought relief under the Sherman
Act, as well as under various state antitrust and consumer
protection laws. In a separate settlement agreement made September
4, 2020, both companies agreed to pay $9.75 million each to the
named plaintiffs of a separate antitrust class action suit.

The court ordered that the proposed notice and plan be submitted by
October 29, 2020, with a Final Fairness hearing scheduled for March
16, 2021. [GN]


JPMORGAN CHASE: $10MM Accord Reached in Indirect Purchasers' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company and 11
other defendants have agreed to settle the class action related to
foreign exchange ("FX") by purported indirect purchasers for a
total of $10 million.

The company (the Firm) previously reported settlements with certain
government authorities relating to its foreign exchange ("FX")
sales and trading activities and controls related to those
activities.

Among those resolutions, in May 2015, the Firm pleaded guilty to a
single violation of federal antitrust law. In January 2017, the
Firm was sentenced, with judgment entered thereafter and a term of
probation ending in January 2020.

The term of probation has concluded, with the Firm remaining in
good standing throughout the probation period.

The Department of Labor granted the Firm a five-year exemption of
disqualification that allows the Firm and its affiliates to
continue to rely on the Qualified Professional Asset Manager
exemption under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
("ERISA") until January 2023. The Firm will need to reapply in due
course for a further exemption to cover the remainder of the
ten-year disqualification period.

A South Africa Competition Commission matter is the remaining
FX-related governmental inquiry, and is currently pending before
the South Africa Competition Tribunal.

In August 2018, the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted final approval to the Firm's
settlement of a consolidated class action brought by U.S.-based
plaintiffs, which principally alleged violations of federal
antitrust laws based on an alleged conspiracy to manipulate foreign
exchange rates and also sought damages on behalf of persons who
transacted in FX futures and options on futures.

Certain members of the settlement class filed requests to the Court
to be excluded from the class, and certain of them filed a
complaint against the Firm and a number of other foreign exchange
dealers in November 2018. A number of these actions remain pending.


Further, putative class actions have been filed against the Firm
and a number of other foreign exchange dealers on behalf of certain
consumers who purchased foreign currencies at allegedly inflated
rates and purported indirect purchasers of FX instruments; these
actions also remain pending in the District Court.

In 2020, the Firm and 11 other defendants agreed to settle the
class action filed by purported indirect purchasers for a total of
$10 million.

That settlement remains subject to court approval.

In addition, some FX-related individual and putative class actions
based on similar alleged underlying conduct have been filed outside
the U.S., including in the U.K., Israel and Australia.

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

JPMorgan Chase & Co. operates as a financial services company
worldwide. It operates through four segments: Consumer & Community
Banking (CCB), Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Commercial
Banking (CB), and Asset & Wealth Management (AWM). JPMorgan Chase &
Co. was founded in 1799 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.


KARYOPHARM THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Nix Suit Over SOPRA Trial Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion
to dismiss the securities class action related to the disclosed
results from the Phase 2 SOPRA study and Part 2 of the Phase 2b
STORM study remains pending.

The company has been named as a defendant in a securities class
action litigation filed on July 23, 2019, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The complaint was filed by the Allegheny County Employees'
Retirement System, against the company and certain of its current
and former executive officers and directors as well as the
underwriters of its public offerings of common stock conducted in
April 2017 and May 2018.

This complaint was voluntarily dismissed on March 12, 2020.

A second complaint was filed by Heather Mehdi on September 17,
2019, in the same court and against the same defendants with the
exception of the underwriters.

In April 2020, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, Myo Thant
("Plaintiff"), who filed an amended complaint on June 29, 2020.

The amended complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws
based on the company's disclosures related to the results from the
Phase 2 SOPRA study and Part 2 of the Phase 2b STORM study, and
seeks unspecified compensatory damages, including interest;
reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' and expert
fees; and such equitable/injunctive relief or other relief as the
court may deem just and proper.

Karyopharm said, "We have reviewed the allegations and believe they
are without merit. We moved to dismiss the complaint on July 31,
2020 and concluded related briefing in September 2020. Before the
court ruled on this motion to dismiss, Plaintiff filed a second
amended complaint. We moved to dismiss the second amended complaint
on November 2, 2020. We intend to defend vigorously against this
litigation."

Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc., incorporated on December 22, 2008, is
an oncology-focused pharmaceutical company. The Company is focused
on the discovery, development, and commercialization of drugs
directed against nuclear export and related targets for the
treatment of cancer and other diseases. The company is based in
Newton, Massachusetts.


LAS VEGAS SANDS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Dec. 21 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
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
Nevada on behalf of investors that purchased Las Vegas Sands
Corporation (NYSE: LVS) securities between February 27, 2016 and
September 15, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until
December 21, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Las Vegas Sands was founded in 1988 and is based in Las Vegas,
Nevada. The Company, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
owns, and operates integrated resorts in Asia and the U.S., which
offer various amenities.

Las Vegas Sands' properties include, among others, the Marina Bay
Sands resort in Singapore, which operates a casino.

On July 19, 2020, Bloomberg News reported that Las Vegas Sands had
settled a lawsuit brought by a former patron, Wang Xi ("Xi"),
meeting his demand for a S$9.1 million ($6.5 million) payment. Xi
reportedly sued the Marina Bay Sands casino in 2019 to recover
S$9.1 million of his funds that the casino allegedly transferred to
other patrons from his casino deposit accounts in 2015 without his
approval, which triggered a probe into the casino by local
authorities. Bloomberg News also reported that the U.S. Department
of Justice ("DOJ") "is also scrutinizing whether anti-money
laundering procedures had been breached in the way the Singapore
casino handles high rollers."

On this news, Las Vegas Sands' stock price fell $1.41 per share, or
2.9%, to close at $47.28 per share on July 20, 2020.

Then, on September 16, 2020, Bloomberg reported that Marina Bay
Sands "has hired a law firm to conduct a new investigation into
employee transfers of more than $1 billion in gamblers' money to
third parties[.]" The article quoted the Singapore Casino
Regulatory Authority ("CRA") as stating that "there were weaknesses
in [Marina Bay Sands'] casino control measures pertaining to fund
transfers[.]"

On this news, Las Vegas Sands' stock price fell $2.18 per share, or
4.2%, to close at $49.67 per share on September 16, 2020.

The complaint, filed on October 22, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational, and
compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
weaknesses existed in Marina Bay Sands' casino control measures
pertaining to fund transfers; (ii) the Marina Bay Sands' casino was
consequently prone to illicit fund transfers that implicated, among
other issues, the transfer of customer funds to unauthorized
persons and potential breaches in the Company's anti-money
laundering procedures; (iii) the foregoing foreseeably increased
the risk of litigation against the Company, as well as
investigation and increased oversight by regulatory authorities;
(iv) Las Vegas Sands had inadequate disclosure controls and
procedures; (v) consequently, all the foregoing issues were
untimely disclosed; and (vi) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

If you purchased Las Vegas Sands 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 Brandon Walker, Melissa
Fortunato, or Marion Passmore 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]

LG: Refrigerator Defect Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Dec. 15
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wroclawski, writing for Consumer Reports, reports that if
you own an LG French-door or side-by-side refrigerator manufactured
between Jan. 1, 2014, and Dec. 31, 2017, you might be entitled to
anywhere from $50 to more than $3,500 in compensation as part of a
class-action lawsuit LG settled.

For details on how you can file a claim, see "How to Know If You're
Covered by the Settlement," below.

According to Amey Park, one of the lawyers representing the
plaintiffs, the lawsuit alleged that almost 1.6 million LG
refrigerators might stop cooling because of compressor-related
problems anywhere from a few months to a few years into ownership.
The settlement covers 31 models.

In the settlement agreement (PDF), LG maintains that the
refrigerators are not defective and denies any wrongdoing. "The
settlement resolves a pending lawsuit about alleged refrigerator
cooling issues," says John Taylor, senior vice president of LG
Electronics USA. "Simply put, we agreed to the settlement to avoid
further litigation costs and in the interest of customer
satisfaction."

As part of the settlement, LG is providing qualifying consumers
with anywhere from $50 to more than $3,500, depending on the
problems they experienced, as well as an extended five-year
warranty (from the purchase date) and enhanced customer care
program for any future repairs related to the problem.

How LG Fridges Perform in CR's Tests and Surveys
LG French-door and side-by-side refrigerators often perform well in
our lab tests, but our 2019 member survey shows that LG
French-doors and side-by-sides only receive Good ratings for
predicted reliability.

"A Good rating on this attribute, which is the middle rating of
CR's ratings scale, means that their problem rate hovers around the
average of what one should expect within the first five years of
ownership for a refrigerator," says Simon Slater, CR's associate
director of survey research. "Compared to other refrigerators we
rate, it is, therefore, middling in terms of reliability."

Our surveys also look at refrigerator problems that arise,
including compressor problems. Our 2019 survey shows that LG
French-doors are an outlier for compressor problems, with 8 percent
of LG French-doors in our sample having such problems, compared
with 3 percent of refrigerators overall. Other outliers for
compressor problems include 9 percent of Bosch side-by-sides, 8
percent of Kenmore French-doors, and 8 percent of Electrolux
side-by-sides.

How to Know If You're Covered by the Settlement
Who qualifies? Consumers who own a covered model manufactured
between Jan. 1, 2014, and Dec. 31, 2017. You can see a list of
covered models with the relevant serial number ranges on the
settlement website. According to Park, LG will also be sending
prequalified claim forms to certain customers in its records.

What are the compensation options? The compensation options vary
depending on the number of so-called "no-cooling events" you've
experienced, how long repairs took, and whether you can provide
proof in the form of receipts, repair invoices, photographs, or
other documents.

With adequate documentation and at least one "no-cooling event,"
you can receive up to full reimbursement for parts and labor, up to
$1,000 for unsuccessful repairs by LG and its authorized repair
providers, up to $1,000 for delayed repairs, up to $3,500 for
property loss, and up to $650 for replacement of the refrigerator.

If your refrigerator has stopped cooling but you can't provide
proof, you can still file a claim with a statement under oath and
receive anywhere from $50 to $450 for repairs and property loss.

LG is also extending the warranty for all settlement class members
to five years from the purchase date and providing them with its
Enhanced Customer Care Program (details below).

For more information on the compensation options, see the
settlement website -- https://www.lgfridgesettlement.com/

What is the Enhanced Customer Care Program? The Enhanced Customer
Care Program is a dedicated customer service program for consumers
who have these refrigerators and continue to experience cooling
issues during the extended warranty period. According to the
settlement website, this program will provide faster repair
service, an increased number of service technicians, and additional
compensation. Qualifying consumers can receive a minimum of $500 up
to the purchase price for three or more "no-cooling events," a
minimum of $400 up to the purchase price for delayed repairs of
more than 30 days, and up to $3,500 for property loss with proof.
The program will last at least three years.

How do I file a claim?
You can file a claim by going to the settlement website and filling
out a claim form. You can also email a completed claim form to LG
or mail the company a physical copy of the form.

What if you own a covered model but haven't had a problem? If you
own a covered model but have yet to experience cooling issues, you
are still eligible to receive the extended five-year warranty and
the Enhanced Customer Care Program as long as a "no-cooling event"
occurs within five years from the purchase date. You will also
receive the benefits through Sept. 22, 2021, even if your warranty,
or the extended five-year warranty, has already expired. You can
obtain these benefits by submitting an Enhanced Warranty Claim Form
(PDF) or contacting LG.

What are the deadlines? The deadline to file a claim for a past
cooling issue is Jan. 11, 2021. If you wish to exclude yourself
from the settlement so that you can bring another lawsuit against
LG related to this problem, or comment on or object to the
settlement, you have until Nov. 23, 2020.

When will you receive the money? Payments will be sent to
qualifying consumers once the settlement receives final approval
from the court. The final approval hearing is set for Dec. 15,
2020, at the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
[GN]


LONG BEACH, CA: Class Action Mulled Over Business License Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Valerie Osier, writing for Long Beach Post, reports that a Belmont
Shore business is mulling whether to sue the city over business
license fees that it collected, despite health orders that
prevented the business from opening most of this year.

Elison Rd., a clothing boutique on Second Street, filed a claim for
damages against the city of Long Beach in June asking for lost
profits and refunds in business license fees after the mandatory
closures of non-essential businesses from COVID-19 from mid-March
to mid-May.

The Long Beach City Attorney's office rejected the claim on July
31, according to Howard Russell, the deputy city attorney, but the
office had no other comment.

Christian Petronelli, the attorney who filed the claim for Elison
Rd., noted that while the loss of profits for businesses in Long
Beach is a broad estimate, the amount of money businesses paid to
operate in the city is more easily proveable.

"It's more about the fact that businesses paid good money for a
12-month business license," and should be refunded, Petronelli
said.

The claim was also filed on behalf of other non-essential
businesses as a precursor to a potential class-action lawsuit.
Other local business owners can contact his practice if they want
to get involved, he said. Petronelli said he's waiting to file suit
until he knows how the rest of the year is going to pan out for
local businesses.

Tattoo shop owners, who had been among the non-essential businesses
still not allowed to reopen, recently filed suit against the state
for the right to reopen.

Retail shops can now reopen, but under strict requirements limiting
the number of customers in the store and other safety measures.

The city, meanwhile, is still trying to figure out what to do about
business license fees. In a Oct. 9 memo from Long Beach's financial
director, John Gross, city staff have been "looking at whether the
services paid for by business fees are actually being provided by
the City" and are looking at other relief options to present to the
City Council in November.

For now, the city is extending the deferral of late payment
penalties until the end of November so businesses can pay their
bills from the city's health and fire departments.

"Businesses able to make payments are encouraged to do so (and many
have), which helps avoid a later cost for those businesses," the
memo said. "However, for those businesses suffering major cash flow
issues, the deferral of license taxes and fees will be of help."
[GN]


LOOP INDUSTRIES: Hagens Berman Reminds of Dec. 14 Motion Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Loop Industries, Inc. (NASDAQ: LOOP) investors
with significant losses to submit your losses now. A securities
fraud class action has been filed and certain investors may have
valuable claims.

Class Period: Sept. 24, 2018 - Oct. 12, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Dec. 14, 2020
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/LOOP
Contact An Attorney Now: LOOP@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895

Loop (LOOP) Securities Fraud Class Action:

The complaint alleges that Loop made false and misleading
statements about its purportedly "proven" technology that breaks
down PET plastic to its base chemicals at a recovery rate of 100%.
The complaint also alleges that Loop misrepresented its
partnerships with key customers.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants failed to
disclose to investors: (1) that Loop scientists were encouraged to
misrepresent the results of Loop's purportedly proprietary process;
(2) that Loop did not have the technology to break PET down to its
base chemicals at a recovery rate of 100%; (3) that, as a result,
the Company was unlikely to realize the purported benefits of
Loop's announced partnerships with Indorama and Thyssenkrupp.

Investors allegedly began to learn the truth on Oct. 13, 2020, when
Hindenburg Research published a report concluding "Loop is smoke
and mirrors with no viable technology." Hindenburg reported that:
(i) Loop's technology is no more efficient or cost effective than
traditional PET recycling methods and its previous claims of
breaking PET down to its base chemicals at a recovery rate of
100%were "'technically and industrially impossible;'" (ii) under
pressure from CEO Daniel Solomita, Loop's scientists were tacitly
encouraged to lie about the results of the Company's process
internally; and (iii) the Indorama partnership has not even been
finalized, and the Thyssenkrupp partnership is on indefinite hold.

Following Hindenburg's report, the price of Loop shares crashed on
Oct. 13, 2020.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Loop inflated its
technological capabilities," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman
partner leading the investigation.

If you are a Loop Industries investor and have significant losses,
or have knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click
here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Loop
Industries 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 LOOP@hbsslaw.com.

                       About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents
investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex
litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at
hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or follow us on
Twitter at @classactionlaw.

Contact:

Reed Kathrein, 844-916-0895
https://www.hbsslaw.com  [GN]


LOOP INDUSTRIES: Kehoe Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating potential securities claims
on behalf of investors of Loop Industries, Inc. ("Loop" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: LOOP) to determine whether the Company engaged
in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices.

Loop investors who purchased, or otherwise acquired, the Company's
securities between September 24, 2018 and October 12, 2020, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), and suffered significant
losses are encouraged to complete Kehoe Law Firm's Securities Class
Action Questionnaire or contact Kevin Cauley, Director, Business
Development, (215) 792-6676, Ext. 802, kcauley@kehoelawfirm.com,
securities@kehoelawfirm.com, to discuss the securities
investigation or potential legal claims.

On October 13, 2020, a class action complaint was filed against
Loop in United States District Court, Southern District of New
York, pursuing claims on behalf of Loop investors under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the class action complaint, throughout the Class
Period, the Loop Defendants, made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Defendants, allegedly, failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) Loop scientists were encouraged to misrepresent the
results of Loop's purportedly proprietary process; (2) Loop did not
have the technology to break PET down to its base chemicals at a
recovery rate of 100%; (3) as a result, the Company was unlikely to
realize the purported benefits of Loop's announced partnerships
with Indorama and Thyssenkrupp; and (4) as a result of the
foregoing, the Loop Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

As a result of the Loop Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions,
and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members, according to the
complaint, have suffered significant losses and damages.

On October 13, 2020, Hindenburg Research issued a report, "Loop
Industries: Former Employees and Plastics Experts Blow The Whistle
On This 'Recycled' Smoke And Mirrors Show[.]"

According to the Hindenburg Research report, "Loop Industries has
never generated revenue, yet calls itself a technology innovator
with a 'proven' solution that is 'leading the sustainable plastic
revolution'[;] Our research indicates that Loop is smoke and
mirrors with no viable technology."

Hindenburg Research's report also stated that "[a] former Loop
employee told [Hindenburg Research] that Loop's scientists, under
pressure from CEO Daniel Solomita, were tacitly encouraged to lie
about the results of the company's process internally. [Hindenburg
Research has] obtained internal documents and photographs to
support their claims."

The Hindenburg Research report also stated that "[a]ccording to a
former employee, Loop's previous claims of breaking PET down to its
base chemicals at a recovery rate of 100% were 'technically and
industrially impossible[.]'"

Further, the Hindenburg Research report stated that "[e]xecutives
from a division of key partner Thyssenkrupp, [which] Loop entered
into a 'global alliance agreement' with in December 2018, told
[Hindenburg Research] their partnership is on 'indefinite' hold and
that Loop 'underestimated' both costs and complexities of its
process."

On this news, shares of Loop were down as much as 32.73% during
intraday trading on October 13, 2020.

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., with offices in New York and Philadelphia, is
a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to
protecting investors from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary
duties, and corporate misconduct.  Combined, the partners at Kehoe
Law Firm have served as Lead Counsel or Co-Lead Counsel in cases
that have recovered more than $10 billion on behalf of
institutional and individual investors.   

This press release may constitute attorney advertising. [GN]


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Discovery Ongoing in Mason Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2,
2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that
discovery is ongoing in the class action suit initiated by Ashleigh
Mason, Dan Morse, Ryan Carroll and Osagie Ehigie.

In August 2017, Ashleigh Mason, Dan Morse, Ryan Carroll and Osagie
Ehigie filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of
all current and former store managers, store managers in training,
installation sales managers and similarly situated current and
former employees alleging that the Company violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL") by
classifying the Mason Putative Class Employees as exempt.

The alleged violations include failure to pay for overtime work.

The plaintiffs sought certification of the Mason Putative Class
Employees for (i) a collective action covering the period beginning
three years prior to the filing of the complaint (plus a tolling
period) through the disposition of this action for the Mason
Putative Class Employees nationwide in connection with FLSA and
(ii) a class action covering the period beginning six years prior
to the filing of the complaint (plus a tolling period) through the
disposition of this action for members of the Mason Putative Class
Employees who currently are or were employed in New York in
connection with NYLL.

The plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages but, in
addition to attorneys' fees and costs, the plaintiffs seek class
certification, unspecified amounts for unpaid wages and overtime
wages, liquidated and/or punitive damages, declaratory relief,
restitution, statutory penalties, injunctive relief and other
damages.

In November 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting
conditional certification for all store managers and store managers
in training who worked within the federal statute of limitations
period.  

In May 2019, the magistrate judge granted the plaintiffs' motion
for conditional certification.  

The litigation is in the discovery stage, which was extended by the
Court from May 2020 to December 18, 2020, and due to COVID-19
complications impacting discovery, the deadline has again been
extended to March 31, 2021.

The Company disputes the Mason Putative Class Employees' claims and
continues to defend the matter vigorously.  

Lumber Liquidators said, "Given the uncertainty of litigation, the
preliminary stage of the case and the legal standards that must be
met for, among other things, class certification and success on the
merits, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or
range of loss, if any, that may result from this action and
therefore no accrual has been made related to this.  Any such
losses could, potentially, have a material adverse effect,
individually or collectively, on the Company’s results of
operations, financial condition and liquidity."

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface
flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories.
The company also offers its products through its Website, catalogs,
and call center. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in
1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Gold Settlement Wins Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2,
2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that final
approval has been granted by the court on the settlement in the
class action suit initiated by Dana Gold.

In 2014, Dana Gold filed a purported class action lawsuit alleging
that certain bamboo flooring that the Company sells (the "Strand
Bamboo Product") is defective (the "Gold Litigation").   

On September 30, 2019, the parties finalized a settlement agreement
that is consistent with the terms of the Memorandum of
Understanding previously disclosed by the Company, which would
resolve the Gold Litigation on a nationwide basis.  

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company will
contribute $14 million in cash and provide $14 million in
store-credit vouchers, with a potential additional $2 million in
store-credit vouchers based on obtaining a claim's percentage of
more than 7%, for an aggregate settlement of up to $30 million.  

The settlement agreement clearly indicates that the settlement does
not constitute or include an admission by the Company of any fault
or liability, and the Company does not admit any fault, wrongdoing
or liability.  

On December 18, 2019, the court issued an order that, among other
things, granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement.


Following the preliminary approval, and pursuant to the terms of
the settlement agreement, in December 2019, the Company paid $1
million for settlement of administrative costs, which is part of
the Gold Cash Payment, to the plaintiff's settlement escrow
account.

Notice has been disseminated to the class members by the settlement
administrator and final approval was granted by the court on
October 22, 2020.  

The Company has notified its insurance carriers and continues to
pursue coverage, but the insurers to date have denied coverage.  

Lumber Liquidators said, "As the insurance claim is still pending,
the Company has not recognized any insurance recovery related to
the Gold Litigation."

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface
flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories.
The company also offers its products through its Website, catalogs,
and call center. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in
1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Steele Class Action Ongoing in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2,
2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
company continues to defend a class action lawsuit in Canada
initiated by Sarah Steele.

On or about April 1, 2015, Sarah Steele filed a purported class
action lawsuit in the Ontario, Canada Superior Court of Justice
against the Company.  

In the complaint, Steele's allegations include strict liability,
breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose,
breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraud by
concealment, civil negligence, negligent misrepresentation and
breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Steele did not quantify any alleged damages in her complaint, but
seeks compensatory damages, punitive, exemplary and aggravated
damages, statutory remedies, attorneys' fees and costs.  

Lumber Liquidators sad, "While the Company believes that a loss
associated with the Steele litigation is possible, the Company is
unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of possible
loss."

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

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface
flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories.
The company also offers its products through its Website, catalogs,
and call center. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in
1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia.


LUMENTUM HOLDINGS: Karri Suit over Merger Deal Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Lumentum Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 26, 2020, that the court ordered
the parties in SaiSravan B. Karri v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No.
3:18-cv-03435-JD  to submit a joint proposed schedule by October
30, 2020.

A Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting was filed on October 30.

On December 10, 2018, the company completed a merger with Oclaro,
Inc., a provider of optical components and modules for the
long-haul, metro and data center markets. Oclaro's products provide
differentiated solutions for optical networks and high-speed
interconnects driving the next wave of streaming video, cloud
computing, application virtualization and other bandwidth-intensive
and high-speed applications.

In connection with the company's acquisition of Oclaro, seven
lawsuits were filed by purported stockholders of Oclaro challenging
the proposed merger (the "Merger").

Two of the seven suits were putative class actions filed against
Oclaro, its directors, Lumentum, Prota Merger Sub, Inc. and Prota
Merger, LLC: Nicholas Neinast v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No.
3:18-cv-03112-VC, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (filed May 24, 2018) (the "Neinast
Lawsuit"); and Adam Franchi v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No.
1:18-cv-00817-GMS, in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware (filed June 9, 2018) (the "Franchi Lawsuit").


Both the Neinast Lawsuit and the Franchi Lawsuit were voluntarily
dismissed with prejudice.

The other five suits, styled as Gerald F. Wordehoff v. Oclaro,
Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03148-NC (the "Wordehoff Lawsuit"),
Walter Ryan v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-03174-VC (the
"Ryan Lawsuit"), Jayme Walker v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No.
5:18-cv-03203-EJD (the "Walker Lawsuit"), Kevin Garcia v. Oclaro,
Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03262-VKD (the "Garcia Lawsuit"), and
SaiSravan B. Karri v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-03435-JD
(the "Karri Lawsuit" and, together with the other six lawsuits, the
"Lawsuits"), were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on May 25, 2018, May 29, 2018, May
30, 2018, May 31, 2018, and June 9, 2018, respectively.

These five Lawsuits named Oclaro and its directors as defendants
only and did not name Lumentum.

The Wordehoff, Ryan, Walker, and Garcia Lawsuits have been
voluntarily dismissed, and the Wordehoff, Ryan, and Walker
dismissals were with prejudice. The Karri Lawsuit has not yet been
dismissed. The Ryan Lawsuit was, and the Karri Lawsuit is, a
putative class action.

The Lawsuits generally alleged, among other things, that Oclaro and
its directors violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder by disseminating an incomplete and
misleading Form S-4, including proxy statement/prospectus.

The Lawsuits further alleged that Oclaro's directors violated
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by failing to exercise proper
control over the person(s) who violated Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act.

The remaining Lawsuit (the Karri Lawsuit) currently purports to
seek, among other things, damages to be awarded to the plaintiff
and any class, if a class is certified, and litigation costs,
including attorneys' fees.

A lead plaintiff and counsel has been selected, and an amended
complaint was filed on April 15, 2019, which also names Lumentum as
a defendant.

A motion to dismiss the amended complaint was granted in part and
denied in part on October 8, 2020.

The Karri Lawsuit remains pending, and the court ordered the
parties to submit a joint proposed schedule by October 30, 2020.

Defendants intend to defend the Karri Lawsuit vigorously.

Lumentum Holdings Inc. manufactures and sells optical and photonic
products in the Americas, the Asia-Pacific, Europe, the Middle
East, and Africa. The company operates through two segments,
Optical Communications and Commercial Lasers. Lumentum Holdings
Inc. was incorporated in 2015 and is headquartered in Milpitas,
California.


MALLINCKRODT PLC: Bankruptcy Stays Securities Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 25, 2020, that a federal district
court has entered an order acknowledging the automatic stay with
respect to a consolidated putative class action suit as to the
Company pursuant to Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code, and the
Company has requested an order from the Bankruptcy Court enjoining
proceedings against the individual named defendants.

In January 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and its CEO in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia, captioned Patricia A. Shenk v. Mallinckrodt plc, et
al. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all persons
who purchased Mallinckrodt's publicly traded securities on a
domestic exchange between November 25, 2014 and January 18, 2017.

The lawsuit generally alleges that the Company made false or
misleading statements related to Acthar Gel and Synacthen to
artificially inflate the price of the Company's stock.

In particular, the complaint alleges a failure by the Company to
provide accurate disclosures concerning the long-term
sustainability of Acthar Gel revenues, and the exposure of Acthar
Gel to Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates.

On January 26, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit,
captioned Jyotindra Patel v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al. was filed
against the same defendants named in the Shenk lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.

The Patel complaint purports to be brought on behalf of
shareholders during the same period of time as that set forth in
the Shenk lawsuit and asserts claims similar to those set forth in
the Shenk lawsuit.

On March 13, 2017, a third putative class action lawsuit, captioned
Amy T. Schwartz, et al., v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al., was filed
against the same defendants named in the Shenk lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.

The Schwartz complaint purports to be brought on behalf of
shareholders who purchased shares of the Company between July 14,
2014 and January 18, 2017 and asserts claims similar to those set
forth in the Shenk lawsuit.

On March 23, 2017, a fourth putative class action lawsuit,
captioned Fulton County Employees' Retirement System v.
Mallinckrodt plc, et al., was filed against the Company, its CEO
and former CFO in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia. The Fulton County complaint purports to be brought on
behalf of shareholders during the same period of time as that set
forth in the Schwartz lawsuit and asserts claims similar to those
set forth in the Shenk lawsuit.

On March 27, 2017, four separate plaintiff groups moved to
consolidate the pending cases and to be appointed as lead
plaintiffs in the consolidated case. Lead plaintiff was designated
by the court on March 9, 2018.

Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on May 18, 2018,
alleging a class period from July 14, 2014 to November 6, 2017, the
Company, its CEO, its former CFO, and Executive Vice President,
Hugh O'Neill, as defendants, and containing similar claims, but
further alleging misstatements regarding payer reimbursement
restrictions for Acthar Gel.

On August 30, 2018, the lead plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the
claims against Mr. O'Neill without prejudice.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint which was
granted in part, and denied in part by the court on July 30, 2019.


On September 1, 2020, the case deadlines were suspended to allow
the parties to pursue a mediation. The defendants intends to
vigorously defend themselves in this matter.

On October 13, 2020, the court entered an order acknowledging the
automatic stay of this litigation as to the Company pursuant to
Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code, and the Company has requested
an order from the Bankruptcy Court enjoining proceedings against
the individual named defendants.

Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments,
Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company
was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United
Kingdom.


MESOBLAST LIMITED: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Mesoblast Limited (NASDAQ:
MESO). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the
court to serve as lead plaintiff.

Mesoblast Limited (NASDAQ: MESO)

Class Period: April 16, 2019 to October 1, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 7, 2020

Mesoblast develops allogeneic cellular medicines using its
proprietary mesenchymal lineage cell therapy platform. Its lead
product candidate, RYONCIL (remestemcel-L), is an investigational
therapy comprising mesenchymal stem cells derived from bone marrow.
In February 2018, the Company announced that remestemcel-L met its
primary endpoint in a Phase 3 trial to treat children with steroid
refractory acute graft versus host disease ("aGVHD").

In early 2020, Mesoblast completed its rolling submission of its
Biologics License Application ("BLA") with the FDA to secure
marketing authorization to commercialize remestemcel-L for children
with steroid refractory aGVHD.

On August 11, 2020, the FDA released briefing materials for its
Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee ("ODAC") meeting to be held on
August 13, 2020. Therein, the FDA stated that Mesoblast provided
post hoc analyses of other studies "to further establish the
appropriateness of 45% as the null Day-28 ORR" for its primary
endpoint. The briefing materials stated that, due to design
differences between these historical studies and Mesoblast's
submitted study, "it is unclear that these study results are
relevant to the proposed indication."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $6.09, or
approximately 35%, to close at $11.33 per share on August 11,
2020.

On October 1, 2020, Mesoblast disclosed that it had received a
Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA regarding its
marketing application for remestemcel-L for treatment of SR-aGVHD
in pediatric patients. According to the CRL, the FDA recommended
that the Company "conduct at least one additional randomized,
controlled study in adults and/or children to provide further
evidence of the effectiveness of remestemcel-L for SR-aGVHD." The
CRL also "identified a need for further scientific rationale to
demonstrate the relationship of potency measurements to the
product's biologic activity."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $6.56, or 35%, to
close at $12.03 per share on October 2, 2020.

The complaint, filed on October 8, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
comparative analyses between Mesoblast's Phase 3 trial and three
historical studies did not support the effectiveness of
remestemcel-L for steroid refractory aGVHD due to design
differences between the four studies; (2) that, as a result, the
FDA was reasonably likely to require further clinical studies; (3)
that, as a result, the commercialization of remestemcel-L in the
U.S. was likely to be delayed; and (4) that, as a result of the
foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

For more information on the Mesoblast class action go to:
https://bespc.com/MESO

             About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

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

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


MESOBLAST LIMITED: Robbins Geller Alerts of Class Action Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Oct. 14 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the Southern District of New York
on behalf of purchasers or acquirers of Mesoblast Limited (NASDAQ:
MESO) securities between April 16, 2019 and October 1, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case is captioned Kristal v.
Mesoblast Limited, No. 20-cv-08430, and is assigned to Judge Philip
M. Halpern. The Mesoblast class action lawsuit charges Mesoblast
and certain of its executives with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Mesoblast securities during the Class Period
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Mesoblast class action
lawsuit. A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class
members in directing the Mesoblast class action lawsuit. The lead
plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the
Mesoblast class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in
any potential future recovery of the Mesoblast class action lawsuit
is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff of the Mesoblast class action lawsuit or
have questions concerning your rights regarding the Mesoblast class
action lawsuit, please provide your information here or contact
counsel, J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff
motions for the Mesoblast class action lawsuit must be filed with
the court no later than December 7, 2020.

Mesoblast develops allogeneic cellular medicines using its
mesenchymal lineage cell therapy platform. Mesoblast's lead product
candidate, RYONCIL (remestemcel-L), is an investigational therapy
comprising mesenchymal stem cells derived from bone marrow. In
February 2018, Mesoblast announced that remestemcel-L met its
primary endpoint in a Phase 3 trial to treat children with steroid
refractory acute graft versus host disease ("SR-aGVHD"). In early
2020, Mesoblast completed its rolling submission of its Biologics
License Application with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") to secure marketing authorization to commercialize
remestemcel-L for children with SR-aGVHD.

The Mesoblast class action lawsuit alleges that during the Class
Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) comparative analyses between
Mesoblast's Phase 3 trial and three historical studies did not
support the effectiveness of remestemcel-L for SR-aGVHD due to
design differences between the four studies; (2) thus, the FDA was
reasonably likely to require Mesoblast to conduct further clinical
studies; (3) as such, Mesoblast's commercialization of
remestemcel-L in the United States was likely to be delayed; and
(4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements
about Mesoblast's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On August 11, 2020, the FDA released briefing materials for its
Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee meeting revealing that Mesoblast
provided post hoc analyses of other studies "to further establish
the appropriateness of 45% as the null Day-28" overall response
rate for its primary endpoint. The briefing materials further
stated that, due to design differences between these historical
studies and Mesoblast's submitted study, "it is unclear that these
study results are relevant to the proposed indication." On this
news, Mesoblast's share price fell by nearly 35%.

Then, on October 1, 2020, Mesoblast disclosed that it had received
a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA regarding its
marketing application for remestemcel-L for treatment of SR-aGVHD
in pediatric patients. According to the CRL, the FDA recommended
that Mesoblast "conduct at least one additional randomized,
controlled study in adults and/or children to provide further
evidence of the effectiveness of remestemcel-L for SR-aGVHD." The
CRL also "identified a need for further scientific rationale to
demonstrate the relationship of potency measurements to the
product's biologic activity." On this news, Mesoblast's share price
fell an additional 35%, further 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]


MURDER MYSTERY: Price Employment Suit Removed to W.D. Michigan
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BRANDON PRICE and MEGAN ONORATO, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE
MURDER MYSTERY COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-01081-PLM-RSK, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the District of Colorado to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Michigan on November 10, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Michigan assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-02474 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged conduct of
misclassifying the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated and
failing to pay them minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Colorado wage laws.

Headquartered in Grand Rapids, Michigan, Murder Mystery Company,
LLC is an entertainment company that is primarily engaged in the
business of presenting theatrical shows at dinner theaters
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brian Mark Schwartz, Esq.
          MILLER CANFIELD PADDOCK & STONE PLC
          150 West Jefferson, Suite 2500
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 963-6420
          E-mail: schwartzb@millercanfield.com

NANO-X IMAGING: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Nov. 16 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 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.

Contact Information:

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


NANO-X IMAGING: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Nov. 16 Bid Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded
companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the
links below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can
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. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class
members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select
a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

Odonate Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:ODT)

Class Period: December 7, 2017 - August 21, 2020

Deadline: November 16, 2020

For more info: www.bgandg.com/odt

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) tesetaxel was not as safe or well-tolerated as
the Company had led investors to believe; (2) consequently,
tesetaxel's commercial viability as a cancer treatment was
overstated; and (3) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Nano-X Imaging Ltd. (NASDAQ:NNOX)

Class Period: August 21, 2020 - September 15, 2020

Deadline: November 16, 2020

For more info: www.bgandg.com/nnox

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially 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.

GoHealth, Inc. (NASDAQ:GOCO)

Class Period: GoHealth securities Class A common stock issued in
connection with its July 2020 initial public stock offering (the
"IPO")

Deadline: November 20, 2020

For more info: www.bgandg.com/goco

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) since the first half of 2020, the Medicare
insurance industry was undergoing a period of elevated churn; (2)
the Company was exposed to a higher risk of customer churn due to
its unique business model and limited carrier base; (3) the Company
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 its
efforts to expand into new geographies, develop new carrier
partnerships and worsening product mix; (4) the Company had entered
into materially less favorable revenue sharing arrangements with
its external sales agents; and (5) these adverse financial and
operational trends were internally projected by GoHealth to
continue and worsen following the IPO.

Contact:

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


NANO-X IMAGING: Zhang Investor Law Reminds of Nov. 16 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law on Oct. 6 announced a class action lawsuit on
behalf of shareholders who bought shares of Nano-X Imaging Ltd.
(NASDAQ: NNOX) between August 21, 2020 and September 15, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
investor losses under the federal securities laws.

To join the class action, go to
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=nano-x-imaging-ltd&id=2426
or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
before the November 16, 2020 DEADLINE. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.

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" 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. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

Lead plaintiff status is not required to seek compensation. You may
retain counsel of your choice. You may remain an absent class
member and take no action at this time.

Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide.

Zhang Investor Law P.C.
99 Wall Street, Suite 232
New York, New York 10005
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com
tel: (800) 991-3756 [GN]


NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: Class Action Set to Get First Day in Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hans van Leeuwen, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that a long-running British class action against National Australia
Bank and its former subsidiary Clydesdale & Yorkshire Bank (CYBG),
now known as Virgin Money, will have its first day in court at the
year's end.

British claims management company RGL has amassed a further 368
small-business claimants and late on Oct. 15 (AEDT) filed their
suit, bringing its claimant count to 509 in a case it says is worth
potentially hundreds of millions of dollars. [GN]


NETSHOES: November 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION

In Re Netshoes Securities Litigation

Index No. 157435/2018

Hon. Andrew Borrok (Part 53)

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

TO:     ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED NETSHOES,
INC. ("NETSHOES" OR THE "COMPANY") COMMON STOCK BEFORE MAY 15,
2018.1

THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT.  IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION.  PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on November 23,
2020, at 10:00 a.m., by Skype Business videoconference before the
Honorable Andrew Borrok, J.S.C., Supreme Court of New York, County
of New York: Commercial Division, 60 Centre Street, New York, NY
10007, to determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement of the
above-captioned action (the "Litigation"), as set forth in the
Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation" or "Settlement"), for
$8,000,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate;2 (2) the Judgment, as provided under the
Stipulation, should be entered; (3) to award Plaintiff's Counsel
attorneys' fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined
in the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), as
discussed below), and, if so, in what amount; (4) to award Lead
Plaintiff for representing the Settlement Class out of the
Settlement Fund and, if so, in what amount; and (5) the Plan of
Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and
adequate.  Details regarding the video conference will be posted
closer to the date of the hearing on the website
www.NetshoesSecuritiesLitigation.com.  Any changes to the hearing
date or time will also be published on that website.

The Litigation is a consolidated securities class action brought on
behalf of those Persons who purchased or acquired Netshoes common
stock before May 15, 2018, against Netshoes, certain of its
officers and directors, and underwriters for the initial public
offering ("IPO") (collectively, "Defendants") for, among other
things, allegedly misstating and omitting material facts from the
Registration Statement and Prospectus filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the IPO.
Lead Plaintiff alleges that these purportedly false and misleading
statements inflated the price of the Company's stock, resulting in
damage to Settlement Class Members when the truth was revealed.
Defendants deny all of Lead Plaintiff's allegations.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED NETSHOES COMMON STOCK BEFORE MAY 15,
2018, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THE
LITIGATION.

To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release
form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than December
17, 2020) or electronically (no later than December 17, 2020).
Your failure to submit your Proof of Claim by December 17, 2020,
will subject your claim to rejection and preclude your receiving
any of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of the
Litigation.  If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not
request exclusion therefrom, you will be bound by the Settlement
and any judgment and release entered in the Litigation, including,
but not limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof
of Claim.

If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more
completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder
(including your right to object to the Settlement), and a Proof of
Claim, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy of the
Stipulation and other settlement documents, online at
www.NetshoesSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by writing to:

Netshoes Securities Litigation Settlement
Claims Administrator
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173108
Milwaukee, WI 53217

Inquiries should NOT be directed to the Defendants, Court, or Clerk
of the Court.  Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or a
Proof of Claim, may be made to Lead Counsel:

SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
Jeffrey P. Jacobson
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (800) 404-7770

IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOU MUST
SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED BY
NOVEMBER 17, 2020, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.
ALL MEMBERS OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS WHO HAVE NOT REQUESTED
EXCLUSION FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT
EVEN IF THEY DO NOT SUBMIT A TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM.

IF YOU ARE A SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT
TO THE SETTLEMENT, PLAN OF ALLOCATION, REQUEST BY PLAINTIFF'S
COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES, AND/OR AWARD
TO LEAD PLAINTIFF FOR REPRESENTING THE SETTLEMENT CLASS.  ANY
OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO LEAD COUNSEL
AND DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL BY NOVEMBER 17, 2020, IN THE MANNER AND
FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.

DATED: SEPTEMBER 28, 2020          

BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
NEW YORK, COUNTY OF NEW YORK:
COMMERCIAL DIVISION
THE HONORABLE ANDREW BORROK, J.S.C.

1     For purposes of this Settlement only, the "Settlement Class"
includes all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Netshoes common stock before May 15, 2018, unless you are
an excluded party under the terms of the Stipulation of
Settlement.

2     Unless otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms shall
maintain the same meaning as those set forth in the Stipulation,
which can be viewed and/or obtained at
www.NetshoesSecuritiesLitigation.com. [GN]


NEW YORK, NY: Fitness Coalition Files Class Action v. Gov. Cuomo
----------------------------------------------------------------
News12 reports that some gym owners are behind a lawsuit that is
trying to strip Gov. Andrew Cuomo of his emergency executive
powers.

The New York Fitness Coalition announced it's filing a class-action
lawsuit against the governor, claiming his COVID-19 restrictions
amount to "tyranny" and have destroyed many local businesses.

Coalition president Charles Cassara says continuing to force gyms
and eateries to operate at minimal capacity is harming the economic
and mental well-being of New Yorkers.

"Thousands of gym owners have already shuttered closed forever, add
to that thousands of restaurants that have been around for decades,
closed," says Cassara. "Sports programs closed. Our children can't
go to school they're not going to have prom, and graduation. At
what point in time do our lives matter."

"This man is controlling every aspect of our life and his emergency
powers need to go," says attorney James Mermigis.

Organizers say restaurant owners, sports leagues and others can
join their lawsuit.

Similar lawsuits have been filed against the governors of
Pennsylvania and Michigan. [GN]


NIELSEN HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss PERS Mississippi Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nielsen Holdings plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss the complaint in the consolidated class action suit led by
Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi remains
pending.

In August 2018, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the Southern District of New York, naming as defendants
Nielsen, former Chief Executive Officer Dwight Mitchell Barns, and
former Chief Financial Officer Jamere Jackson. Another lawsuit,
which alleged similar facts but also named other Nielsen officers,
was filed in the Northern District of Illinois in September 2018
and transferred to the Southern District of New York in December
2018.

The actions were consolidated on April 22, 2019, and the Public
Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi was appointed lead
plaintiff for the putative class.

The operative complaint was filed on September 27, 2019, and
asserts violations of certain provisions of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, based on allegedly false and materially
misleading statements relating to the outlook of Nielsen's Buy (now
"Connect") segment, Nielsen's preparedness for changes in global
data privacy laws and Nielsen’s reliance on third-party data.

Nielsen moved to dismiss the operative complaint on November 26,
2019. Briefing of Nielsen's motion concluded on February 26, 2020.


In addition, in January 2019, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was
filed in New York Supreme Court against a number of Nielsen’s
current and former officers and directors.

The derivative lawsuit alleges that the named officers and
directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company in
connection with factual assertions substantially similar to those
in the putative class action complaint.

The derivative lawsuit further alleges that certain officers and
directors engaged in trading Nielsen stock based on material,
nonpublic information.

By agreement dated June 26, 2019, the derivative lawsuit has been
stayed pending resolution of Nielsen's motion to dismiss the
securities litigation. Nielsen intends to defend these lawsuits
vigorously.

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

Nielsen Holdings plc, together with its subsidiaries, operates as
an information and measurement company. It operates through Buy and
Watch segments. Nielsen Holdings plc was founded in 1923 and is
headquartered in Oxford, the United Kingdom.


NIKOLA CORP: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Nov. 16 Motion Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:
     
Coty, Inc. (COTY)
Class Period: 10/3/2016 - 5/28/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 3, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-coty-inc-securities-litigation-2
     

Nikola Corporation (NKLA, NKLAW) f/k/a VectoIQ Acquisition Corp.
(VTIQ, VTIQW, VTIQU)
Class Period: 3/3/2020 - 9/20/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 16, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-nikola-corporation-securities-litigation

GoHealth, Inc. (GOCO)
Class Period: Shares issued in connection with the July 2020
initial public stock offering
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 20, 2020
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-gohealth-inc-securities-litigation
       

If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.

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

                        About ClaimsFiler

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

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


NORWEGIAN AIR: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Flight Refunds
------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that lawsuits filed
demanding refunds for flights the airlines canceled because of the
COVID-19 pandemic have barely gotten off the ground, with at least
two dismissed by federal judges so far.

In the past month, federal judges in California have dismissed
cases against Norwegian Air Shuttle and Deutsche Lufthansa after
concluding that the airlines did not breach their contracts with
passengers, who ultimately got refunds. [GN]


NXIVM: Class Action Over Self-Help Practices False Claims Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carmen MacBeth, writing for Film Daily, reports that the saga of
NXIVM won't end after its disgraced leader Keith Raniere was set to
receive his sentence in late October. Raniere was found guilty last
year of seven counts involving sex trafficking, exploitation, and
racketeering. He still maintains his innocence and awaits
sentencing at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New
York.

Six months after Raniere's verdict was handed down, over eighty
former members of the NXIVM cult sued the organization. The
accusers come from all over North America, as the NXIVM cult had
branches in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.

A pyramid scheme

The plaintiffs in the suit allege that NXIVM was a giant pyramid
scheme. In fact, via the New York Times, most of the plaintiffs
were never part of DOS, the sex cult within NXIVM. They were suing
the organization for money owed for peddling "false, unscientific
claims" about their self-help practices.

"They get you to not trust your own decision-making process," Sally
Brink told The New York Times. "They tell you that you need them to
make decisions. You start to doubt everything." Brink paid over
$145,000 to NXIVM over the course of several decades.

Brink joined NXIVM to help her run her business. She co-owned a
restaurant in Vermont and worked eighteen-hour days, and she hoped
NXIVM would give her the confidence & tools she needed to be
successful.

Instead, when Brink was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2017, Brink
says NXIVM leadership told her she got the disease to "get her
husband's attention" and she should "do the ethical thing" and die
rather than pay for treatment.

"The Wound"

In the eighth episode of HBO's The Vow called "the wound", members
recall how Keith Raniere used teachings in Jness and the SOP,
women's and men's empowerment groups, to reinforce gender
stereotypes and misogyny. Former NXIVM members reflect on how those
teachings set them up to join DOS or accept the unacceptable
activities DOS carried out.

The Vow delves into how NXIVM hand-picked members from the upper
crust of society like Clare Bronfman and Smallville actress Allison
Mack. Before joining NXIVM members would have to fill out long
questionnaires about themselves and their lives. Mark Vicente
learned from former NXIVM leader Barbara Bouchey NXIVM wanted him
badly – they used his answers to manipulate him into joining and
staying in the cult.

The reason NXIVM wanted elite, visible members of society like
actors, athletes, and heiresses was two-fold. First, the caliber of
their membership would palace them above scrutiny, per Raniere.
Raniere explained to Mark Vicente how people were less likely to
think NXIVM was a cult if rich, famous, influential people were
members. Second, members' deep pockets enabled NXIVM to keep
running and do what they wanted.

Legal & emotional bullying

The over eighty plaintiffs detailed that NXIVM's "methods used in
pyramid schemes" were made worse by the cult's coercive tactics,
making it "physically and psychologically difficult, and in some
cases impossible, to leave the coercive community" via The New York
Times.

The Vow details how NXIVM would use the legal system to drain
people dry if they tried to leave. One woman, Susan Dones,
successfully defended herself against countless lawsuits and
trumped-up criminal charges which would have rendered her
penniless. Another woman, Barbara Bouchey, would have to choose
between paying her lawyers and buying her groceries due to the
onslaught of NXIVM lawsuits.

The reason NXIVM had the funds to attack members who tried to leave
were the deep pockets of Clare Bronfman, NXIVM's head of legal &
heiress to the Seagram Liquor Company fortune. Bronfman's net worth
of $250 million and her willingness to help NXIVM allowed the cult
to punish defectors with endless lawsuits. Bronfman is currently
serving over six years in federal prison for crimes associated with
NXIVM.

Will the lawsuit end up helping Raniere?

NXIVM leader Keith Raniere's lawyer is hopeful about the lawsuit
because he believes it could dismantle witness testimony at
Raniere's trial as "untruthful". "As several of the plaintiffs in
this lawsuit testified at trial that they were not planning on
bringing a lawsuit, Keith's chances on appeal just increased,"
Raniere's attorney, Marc Agnifilo, explained.

Raniere awaits sentencing on October 27 for seven counts he was
convicted of in 2019, including conspiracy, racketeering, and sex
trafficking. Raniere faces fifteen years behind bars minimum and a
life sentence maximum. Raniere's defense team wrote a sentencing
memorandum, over eighty pages long, defending Raniere who still
maintains his innocence and claims NXIVM helped people.

Raniere's continued NXIVM leadership

Frank Parlato, a NXIVM defector who wrote about the cult's
activities for years, speculates Raniere will spend his time in
Colorado's supermax facility due to being caught with burner phones
in jail and continually delivering orders to NXIVM membership.

In September, NXIVM members delivered the petition to the doorstep
of federal prosecutors working on Raniere's case. NXIVM members
placed affidavits in their inboxes and even dropped one off in
person. NXIVM members defended their actions on CBS, describing the
petition from "we the people" as a simple truthfulness test.

Prosecutors merely confirmed the petition's delivery and released
an email sent from Raniere in June regarding a petition he wanted
to send to federal prosecutors. [GN]


ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Nov. 16 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded
companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the
links below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can
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. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class
members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select
a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

Odonate Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:ODT)

Class Period: December 7, 2017 - August 21, 2020

Deadline: November 16, 2020

For more info: www.bgandg.com/odt

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) tesetaxel was not as safe or well-tolerated as
the Company had led investors to believe; (2) consequently,
tesetaxel's commercial viability as a cancer treatment was
overstated; and (3) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Nano-X Imaging Ltd. (NASDAQ:NNOX)

Class Period: August 21, 2020 - September 15, 2020

Deadline: November 16, 2020
For more info: www.bgandg.com/nnox

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially 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.

GoHealth, Inc. (NASDAQ:GOCO)

Class Period: GoHealth securities Class A common stock issued in
connection with its July 2020 initial public stock offering (the
"IPO")

Deadline: November 20, 2020

For more info: www.bgandg.com/goco

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) since the first half of 2020, the Medicare
insurance industry was undergoing a period of elevated churn; (2)
the Company was exposed to a higher risk of customer churn due to
its unique business model and limited carrier base; (3) the Company
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 its
efforts to expand into new geographies, develop new carrier
partnerships and worsening product mix; (4) the Company had entered
into materially less favorable revenue sharing arrangements with
its external sales agents; and (5) these adverse financial and
operational trends were internally projected by GoHealth to
continue and worsen following the IPO.

Contact:

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


PARTNERS PERSONNEL: Chinchilla Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BLANCA CHINCHILLA, as a representative on behalf of the State of
California and other aggrieved employees v. PARTNERS PERSONNEL -
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC. A Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV41558 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., October 29, 2020) is brought pursuant to the Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004 arising from the Defendants' unlawful
labor policies and practices.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in a
systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under the California
Labor Code, including, but not limited to, failure to pay all wages
(including minimum, regular, and overtime compensation); failure to
provide meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to pay all wages
due upon separation of employment; and failure to reimburse
business expenses.

In or around December 2019, the Defendants hired the Plaintiff as
an exempt employee for the position of account executive and
terminated on or about June 19, 2020.

Partners Personnel-Management Services, LLC provides staffing
services to consumers and businesses in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Lo, Esq.
          WORK LAWYERS, PC
          22939 Hawthorne Blvd., #202
          Torrance, CA 90505
          Telephone: (866) 496-7552
          Facsimile: (424) 355-8535
          E-mail: Justin@WorkLawyers.com

PEABODY ENERGY: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Nov. 27 Motion Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:

BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. (BMRN)
Class Period: 2/28/2020 - 8/18/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 24, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-biomarin-pharmaceutical-inc-securities-litigation

Peabody Energy Corp. (BTU)
Class Period: 4/3/2017 - 10/28/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 27, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-peabody-energy-corporation-securities-litigation

Credit Acceptance Corporation (CACC)
Class Period: 11/1/2019 - 8/28/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 1, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-credit-acceptance-corporation-securities-litigation-1

If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.

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

                        About ClaimsFiler

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

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


PEABODY ENERGY: Gainey McKenna Reminds of November 27 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Sept. 29 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Peabody Energy Corporation ("Peabody
Energy" or the "Company") (NYSE: BTU) in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who
purchased or acquired the securities of Peabody Energy between
April 3, 2017 and October 28, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Peabody Energy investors
under the federal securities laws.

The Complaint alleges that 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
known to or recklessly disregarded by Defendants: (1) the Company
had failed to implement adequate safety controls at the North
Goonyella mine to prevent the risk of a spontaneous combustion
event; (2) the Company failed to follow its own safety procedures;
and (3) as a result, the North Goonyella mine was at a heightened
risk of shutdown. Further, according to the Complaint, following
the September 28, 2018 fire and throughout the remainder of the
Class Period, Defendants failed to disclose, and would continue to
omit, the following adverse facts pertaining to the feasibility of
Peabody's plan to restart the North Goonyella mine: (1) the
Company's low-cost plan to restart operations at the mine posed
unreasonable safety and environmental risks; (2) the Australian
body responsible for ensuring acceptable health and safety
standards, the Queensland Mines Inspectorate ("QMI"), would likely
mandate a safer, cost-prohibitive approach; and (3) as a result,
there would be major delays in reopening the North Goonyella mine
and restarting coal production. When the true details entered the
market, the Complaint claims that investors suffered damages.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Peabody
Energy during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the
November 27, 2020 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members
in directing the litigation.  If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com.[GN]


PEABODY ENERGY: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of November 27 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Oct. 2
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Peabody Energy Corporation (NYSE:
BTU) between April 3, 2017 and October 28, 2019, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Peabody
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Peabody class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1962.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.

According to the lawsuit, from April 3, 2017 through September 28,
2018, 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 known to or
recklessly disregarded by defendants: (1) the Company had failed to
implement adequate safety controls at the North Goonyella mine to
prevent the risk of a spontaneous combustion event; (2) the Company
failed to follow its own safety procedures; and (3) as a result,
the North Goonyella mine was at a heightened risk of shutdown.
Further, according to the lawsuit, following the September 28, 2018
fire and throughout the remainder of the Class Period, defendants
failed to disclose, and would continue to omit, the following
adverse facts pertaining to the feasibility of Peabody's plan to
restart the North Goonyella mine: (1) the Company's low-cost plan
to restart operations at the mine posed unreasonable safety and
environmental risks; (2) the Australian body responsible for
ensuring acceptable health and safety standards, the Queensland
Mines Inspectorate ("QMI"), would likely mandate a safer,
cost-prohibitive approach; and (3) as a result, there would be
major delays in reopening the North Goonyella mine and restarting
coal production. 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
27, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1962.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.

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.

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]


PEABODY ENERGY: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Nov. 27 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class-action lawsuit against Peabody
Energy Corporation ("Peabody" or "the Company") (NYSE:BTU) 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 April 3,
2017 and October 28, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before November 27, 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. Peabody failed to follow appropriate
safety controls at its North Goonyella mine, placing it at a
heightened risk of being shut down. The Company followed a low-cost
plan to restart operations that did not address safety and
environmental concerns. The Queensland Mines Inspectorate ("QMI")
was likely to mandate a safer, more costly approach. The Company
suffered further delays reopening the mine based on this
difference. 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 Peabody, 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]

PINTEC TECHNOLOGY: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of Nov. 30 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Oct. 6 disclosed that
a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the American
Depositary Receipts ("ADR's") of Pintec Technology Holdings Limited
("Pintec" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: PT) pursuant and/or traceable
to Pintec's October 2018 initial public offering ("IPO" or the
"Offering").

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

If you have incurred losses in the ADR's of Pintec Technology
Holdings Limited, you may, no later than November 30, 2020, request
that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class.
Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as
an investor in the shares of ADR's of Pintec Technology Holdings
Limited.

In October 2018, Pintec completed its IPO in which it sold more
than 3.7 million American Depositary Receipts at $11.88 per share.

On July 30, 2019, after the market closed, Pintec filed its fiscal
2018 annual report, in which it restated previously disclosed
financial results. Among other things, Pintec reported net income
of $315,000 for fiscal 2018, compared to its prior disclosure of
$1.068 million net income. The Company also disclosed that there
were material weaknesses in its internal control over financial
reporting related to cash advances outside the normal course of
business to Jimu Group, a related party, and to a non-routine loan
financing transaction with a third-party entity, Plutux Labs.

On this news, Pintec's share price fell $0.53, or more than 13%,
over the next several trading sessions, to close at $3.40 per share
on August 5, 2019.

On June 15, 2020, after the market closed, the Company disclosed
that it could not timely file its fiscal 2019 annual report and
that it anticipated reporting a significant change in results of
operations. Specifically, Pintec disclosed that it "erroneously
recorded revenue earned from certain technical service fee on a net
basis" for fiscal 2017 and 2018. Moreover, the Company "announced a
net loss of RMB906.5 million in the full year of 2019 due to
RMB890.7 million of provision for credit loss in amounts due from a
related party, Jimu Group, and RMB200 million of impairment in
prepayment for long-term investment."

Pintec ADR's are presently trading at $0.94, a nearly 95% decline
from the $11.88 per share IPO price.

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

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

Contact:

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


PRECIGEN INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action Filing
---------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class action has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Precigen, Inc. f/k/a
Intrexon Corporation (NASDAQ: PGEN; XON). Stockholders have until
the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead
plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at
the link provided.

Precigen, Inc. f/k/a Intrexon Corporation (NASDAQ: PGEN; XON)

Class Period: May 10, 2017 to September 25, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 4, 2020

On September 25, 2020, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") issued a cease and desist order against Precigen. The cease
and desist order involved "inaccurate reports concerning the
company's purported success converting relatively inexpensive
natural gas into more expensive industrial chemicals using a
proprietary methane bioconversion ('MBC') program." The order noted
that the Company was "primarily using significantly more expensive
pure methane for the relevant laboratory experiments but was
indicating that the results had been achieved using natural gas."
The cease-and-desist order further stated that although the Company
"pitched the MBC program privately to numerous potential business
partners over the course of 2017 and 2018" and "[a] number of these
potential partners performed due diligence on the MBC program
including reviewing lab results and plans for commercialization.
[The Company] has not yet found a partner for the MBC program."

The complaint, filed on October 5, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company was
using pure methane as feedstock for its announced yields for its
methanotroph bioconversion platform instead of natural gas; (2)
yields from natural gas as a feedstock were substantially lower
than the aforementioned pure methane yields; (3) due to the
substantial price difference between pure methane and natural gas,
pure methane was not a commercially viable feedstock; (4) the
Company's financial statements for the quarter ended March 31, 2018
were false and could not be relied upon; (5) the Company had
material weaknesses in its internal controls over financial
reporting; (6) the Company was under investigation by the SEC since
October 2018; and (7) as a result of the foregoing, defendants'
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

For more information on the Precigen class action go to:
https://bespc.com/PGEN

             About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

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

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


PRECIGEN INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of December 4 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Oct. 5
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Precigen, Inc. f/k/a Intrexon
Corporation (NASDAQ: PGEN, XON) between May 10, 2017 and September
25, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for Precigen f/k/a Intrexon investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Precigen class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1964.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.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
to investors that: (1) the Company was using pure methane as
feedstock for its announced yields for its methanotroph
bioconversion platform instead of natural gas; (2) yields from
natural gas as a feedstock were substantially lower than the
aforementioned pure methane yields; (3) due to the substantial
price difference between pure methane and natural gas, pure methane
was not a commercially viable feedstock; (4) the Company's
financial statements for the quarter ended March 31, 2018 were
false and could not be relied upon; (5) the Company had material
weaknesses in its internal controls over financial reporting; (6)
the Company was under investigation by the SEC since October 2018;
and (7) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When
the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December
4, 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-1964.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.

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.

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]


QUANTA SERVICES: TNS Liability in Benton Suit Pegged at $8.8MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quanta Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the trial court in
Lorenzo Benton v. Telecom Network Specialists, Inc., et al., has
determined the amount of liability for Telecom Network Specialists
(TNS) to be approximately US$8.8 million.

In June 2006, plaintiff Lorenzo Benton filed a class action
complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, alleging various wage and hour violations against Telecom
Network Specialists (TNS), a former subsidiary of Quanta.

Quanta retained liability associated with this matter pursuant to
the terms of Quanta's sale of TNS in December 2012.

Benton represents a class of workers that includes all persons who
worked on certain TNS projects, including individuals that TNS
retained through numerous staffing agencies. The plaintiff class in
this matter is seeking damages for unpaid wages, penalties
associated with the failure to provide meal and rest periods and
overtime wages, interest and attorneys' fees.

In January 2017, the trial court granted a summary judgment motion
filed by the plaintiff class and found that TNS was a joint
employer of the class members and that it failed to provide
adequate meal and rest breaks and failed to pay overtime wages.

During 2019 and 2020, the parties filed additional summary judgment
and other motions and a bench trial on liability and damages was
held.

As of July 2020, liability and damages for significantly all claims
had been determined by the trial court, with the amount of
liability for TNS determined to be approximately $8.8 million.

This amount includes damages and interest though the date of the
trial court's orders, but does not include attorneys' fees or
costs, which are yet to be determined.

Quanta believes the court's decisions on liability and damages are
not supported by controlling law and continues to contest its
liability and the damage calculation asserted by the plaintiff
class in this matter.

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

Quanta Services, Inc. provides specialty contracting services in
the United States, Canada, Australia, Latin America, and
internationally. The company serves electric power, energy, and
communications companies, as well as commercial, industrial, and
governmental entities. Quanta Services, Inc. was founded in 1997
and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Royal Caribbean Group (NYSE:
RCL). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the
court to serve as lead plaintiff.

Royal Caribbean Group (NYSE: RCL)

Class Period: February 4, 2020 to March 17, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 7, 2020

The complaint, filed on October 7, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants failed to disclose material facts about
the Company's decrease in bookings outside China, instead
maintaining that it was only experiencing a slowdown in bookings
from China. The Action further alleges that defendants failed to
disclose material facts about the Company's inadequate policies and
procedures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 on its ships. The
truth about the scope of the impact that COVID-19 had on the
Company's overall bookings and the inability of Royal Caribbean to
prevent the virus' spread on its ships was revealed through a
series of disclosures.

First, on February 13, 2020, Royal Caribbean issued a press release
stating that it had canceled 18 voyages in Southeast Asia due to
recent travel restrictions and further warning that recent bookings
had been softer for its broader business.

On this news, Royal Caribbean shares fell over 3 percent.

Second, on February 25, 2020, Royal Caribbean filed its 2019 Form
10-K, indicating that COVID-19 concerns were negatively impacting
its overall business.

On this news, Royal Caribbean shares fell over 14 percent.

Third, on March 10, 2020, Royal Caribbean withdrew its 2020
financial guidance, increased its revolving credit facility by $550
million, and announced that it would take cost-cutting actions due
to the proliferation of COVID-19, further revealing that COVID-19
was severely impacting Royal Caribbean's 2020 customer booking and
that its safety measures were inadequate to prevent the spread of
the virus on its ships.

On this news, Royal Caribbean shares fell over 14 percent.

Fourth, on March 11, 2020, Royal Caribbean's largest competitor,
Carnival, announced a 60-day suspension of all operations,
prompting concern that Royal Caribbean would follow suit. At the
same time, Royal Caribbean also cancelled two cruises, beginning a
series of cancellations and suspensions to follow.

On this news, Royal Caribbean shares fell almost 32 percent.

Fifth, on March 14, 2020, Royal Caribbean announced a suspension of
all global cruises for 30 days.

On this news, Royal Caribbean stock fell over 7 percent.

Sixth, on March 16, 2020, the Company revealed that global
operations could be suspended longer than anticipated, announcing
the cancellations of two additional cruises throughout April and
into May.

On this news, Royal Caribbean shares fell over 7 percent.

Finally, on March 18, 2020, analysts downgraded Royal Caribbean's
stock and slashed their price targets.

On this news, Royal Caribbean shares fell more than 19 percent.

For more information on the Royal Caribbean class action go to:
https://bespc.com/RCL

             About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

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

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


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Labaton Sucharow Alerts of Class Action Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP on Oct. 14 disclosed that on October 7, 2020,
it filed a securities class action lawsuit, against Royal Caribbean
Cruises Ltd. ("Royal Caribbean" or the "Company") (NYSE:RCL) and
certain executive officers (collectively, "Defendants"). If you
purchased or otherwise acquired Royal Caribbean securities from
February 4, 2020 through March 17, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), and were damaged thereby (the "Class"), we encourage you
to contact the Firm.

The lawsuit, captioned City of Riviera Beach General Employees
Retirement System v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., No. 20-cv-24111
(S.D. Fla.) (the "Action"), on behalf of its client City of Riviera
Beach General Employees Retirement System ("Riviera Beach") against
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. ("Royal Caribbean" or the "Company")
(NYSE: RCL) and certain executive officers (collectively,
"Defendants"). The Action asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of all persons
or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Royal Caribbean
securities from February 4, 2020 through March 17, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby (the "Class").

Royal Caribbean is the world's second largest cruise company,
operating 61 cruise ships which visit over 1,000 destinations
across all seven continents. Following the outbreak of COVID-19 in
China, cruise companies, including Royal Caribbean, began to cancel
voyages in that region, and customer bookings were declining
globally as vacationers worried about the global spread of the
virus.

The Action alleges that, from February 4, 2020 through March 17,
2020, Defendants failed to disclose material facts about the
Company's decrease in bookings outside China, instead maintaining
that it was only experiencing a slowdown in bookings from China.
The Action further alleges that Defendants failed to disclose
material facts about the Company's inadequate policies and
procedures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 on its ships.

The truth about the scope of the impact that COVID-19 had on the
Company's overall bookings and the inability of Royal Caribbean to
prevent the virus' spread on its ships was revealed through a
series of disclosures. First, on February 13, 2020, Royal Caribbean
issued a press release stating that it had canceled 18 voyages in
Southeast Asia due to recent travel restrictions and further
warning that recent bookings had been softer for its broader
business. On this news, Royal Caribbean shares fell over 3
percent.

Second, on February 25, 2020, Royal Caribbean filed its 2019 Form
10-K, indicating that COVID-19 concerns were negatively impacting
its overall business. On this news, Royal Caribbean shares fell
over 14 percent.

Third, on March 10, 2020, Royal Caribbean withdrew its 2020
financial guidance, increased its revolving credit facility by $550
million, and announced that it would take cost-cutting actions due
to the proliferation of COVID-19, further revealing that COVID-19
was severely impacting Royal Caribbean's 2020 customer booking and
that its safety measures were inadequate to prevent the spread of
the virus on its ships. On this news, Royal Caribbean shares fell
over 14 percent.

Fourth, on March 11, 2020, Royal Caribbean's largest competitor,
Carnival, announced a 60-day suspension of all operations,
prompting concern that Royal Caribbean would follow suit. At the
same time, Royal Caribbean also cancelled two cruises, beginning a
series of cancellations and suspensions to follow. On this news,
Royal Caribbean shares fell almost 32 percent.

Fifth, on March 14, 2020, Royal Caribbean announced a suspension of
all global cruises for 30 days. On this news, Royal Caribbean stock
fell over 7 percent.

Sixth, on March 16, 2020, the Company revealed that global
operations could be suspended longer than anticipated, announcing
the cancellations of two additional cruises throughout April and
into May. On this news, Royal Caribbean shares fell over 7
percent.

Finally, on March 18, 2020, analysts downgraded Royal Caribbean's
stock and slashed their price targets. On this news, Royal
Caribbean shares fell more than 19 percent.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Royal Caribbean securities
during the Class Period and were damaged thereby, you are a member
of the "Class" and may be able to seek appointment as Lead
Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff motion papers must be filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida no later than
December 7, 2020. The Lead Plaintiff is a court-appointed
representative for absent members of the Class. You do not need to
seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff to share in any Class recovery
in the Action. If you are a Class member and there is a recovery
for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class
member. You may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in
the Action.

If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have any
questions about this lawsuit, you may contact David J. Schwartz,
Esq. of Labaton Sucharow, at (800) 321-0476, or via email at
dschwartz@labaton.com.

Riviera Beach is represented by Labaton Sucharow, which represents
many of the largest pension funds in the United States and
internationally with combined assets under management of more than
$2 trillion. Labaton Sucharow has been recognized for its
excellence by the courts and peers, and it is consistently ranked
in leading industry publications. Offices are located in New York,
NY, Wilmington, DE, and Washington, D.C. More information about
Labaton Sucharow is available at www.labaton.com.

CONTACT:

David J. Schwartz
(800) 321-0476
dschwartz@labaton.com [GN]


RUTH'S HOSPITALITY: Guerrero Class Action Ongoing in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that  the
company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Quiroz
Guerrero v. Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc., et al.

On February 26, 2018, a former restaurant hourly employee filed a
class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Riverside, alleging that the Company
violated the California Labor Code and California Business and
Professions Code, by failing to pay minimum wages, pay overtime
wages, permit required meal and rest breaks, and provide accurate
wage statements, among other claims.  

On September 2, 2020, the class action lawsuit was amended to
include two additional proposed class representatives.  

This lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties under the California's
Private Attorney's General Act in addition to other monetary
payments (Quiroz Guerrero, et al. v. Ruth's Hospitality Group,
Inc., et al.; Case No RIC1804127).  

Ruth's Hospitality said, "Although the ultimate outcome of this
matter, including any possible loss, cannot be predicted or
reasonably estimated at this time, we have vigorously defended this
matter and intend to continue doing so."

Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, operates, and franchises fine dining restaurants. Its
restaurants offer food and beverage products to special occasion
diners and frequent customers, as well as business clientele. The
Company operates restaurants under the Ruth's Chris Steak House
trade name. The Company was founded in 1965 and is headquartered in
Winter Park, Florida.


SOUTH CAROLINA: Judge Dismisses Inmates' Coronavirus Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Coello Scoello, writing for The Post and Courier, reports that
after months of litigation, a federal judge has dismissed a
class-action lawsuit demanding that South Carolina prisons free
many inmates to prevent coronavirus' spread.

The lawsuit, filed in April, demanded the department release a slew
of inmates, if deemed safe: those over 50 years old, with
preexisting conditions, eligible for medical furlough or parole,
incarcerated for technical parole or probation violations,
parole-eligible and discipline-free for at least a year, and those
within six months of release. It also asked the department to
publish a plan outlining mitigation efforts, a housing strategy for
released inmates who test positive, and a special committee to
guide the precaution.

Over the past several months, SCDC has crafted a sanitation and
quarantine plan that includes mass testing, dedicated isolation
units and private security to mitigate understaffing. As the state
saw new cases ebb after summer, several prisons saw a decrease in
cases.

The ACLU of South Carolina cited the lawsuit as prompting the
prison system's response, while SCDC said the litigation had no
effect on its mitigation strategy. The petitioners didn't contest
the dismissal and the ACLU praised the direction of SCDC's changes,
while pushing for more inmates to be released.

SCDC Director Bryan Stirling has praised staff who work overtime to
keep inmates fed and showered and has daily calls with each
facility's warden to stay up to date as the pandemic morphs.

SCDC works with the parole board, flagging cases of ill inmates who
are eligible for release and have medical conditions that make them
especially vulnerable to COVID-19.

One key improvement is an expedited grievance process for inmates,
according to the ACLU, as inmates have reported worsened conditions
at several facilities. SCDC has said it could not substantiate
inmates' complaints that they'd gone more than a few days without
showers or had guards refuse to wear masks.

On Oct. 11, The Post and Courier reported about the concerns and
fears prisoners have as they live in confined spaces near others
who may be infected with COVID-19. The article reported on deaths
in prison and how prison officials are trying to cope with the dual
role of incarcerating criminals and keeping a medical menace from
ravaging those behind bars. [GN]


SPRING BANK: Halper Sadeh Reminds of November 27 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Halper Sadeh LLP, a global investor rights law firm, on Sept. 27
announced the filing of a shareholder class action lawsuit against
Spring Bank Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: SBPH) in connection with
its merger with F-star Therapeutics Limited. The lawsuit seeks
damages and/or equitable relief on behalf of Spring Bank
shareholders under the federal securities laws.

If you are a Spring Bank shareholder and would like to join the
action, visit Spring Bank Class Action or contact Daniel Sadeh or
Zachary Halper, free of charge, at (212) 763-0060 or
sadeh@halpersadeh.com or zhalper@halpersadeh.com to discuss your
legal rights and options.

Under the terms of the share exchange agreement, Spring Bank will
acquire all of the outstanding share capital of F-star in exchange
for the issuance of newly issued shares of Spring Bank common stock
(the "Proposed Transaction"). Spring Bank shareholders will own
approximately 38.8% of the combined company.

The lawsuit alleges that Defendants issued a materially incomplete
and misleading registration statement recommending that Spring Bank
shareholders vote in support of the Proposed Transaction. According
to the complaint, the registration statement contains materially
incomplete and misleading information concerning, among other
things, Spring Bank's and F-star's financial projections and the
analyses performed by Spring Bank's financial advisor.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 27, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you would like to join the action, visit
https://halpersadeh.com/actions/spring-bank-pharmaceuticals-inc-sbph-stock-merger-fstar/
or contact Daniel Sadeh or Zachary Halper, free of charge, at (212)
763-0060 or sadeh@halpersadeh.com or zhalper@halpersadeh.com to
discuss your legal rights and options.

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 OR YOU MAY REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT.

Halper Sadeh LLP represents investors all over the world who have
fallen victim to securities fraud and corporate misconduct. Our
attorneys have been instrumental in implementing corporate reforms
and recovering millions of dollars on behalf of defrauded
investors.

Contacts:
Halper Sadeh LLP
Daniel Sadeh, Esq.
Zachary Halper, Esq.
(212) 763-0060
sadeh@halpersadeh.com
zhalper@halpersadeh.com
https://www.halpersadeh.com [GN]


STRATA EQUITY: Zito Suit Removed to South Carolina Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Sara Zito, Alvaro Sarmiento, Jr., Mark Shinn, and
Daniel Bermudez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Strata Equity Group Inc., Strata Audubon LLC, Strata
Veridian LLC, Pinnacle Property Management Services LLC, Wendi
Dami-Vazquez, Jacinta Williams, and Conservice LLC, Case No.
2020-CP-08-02090, was removed from the South Carolina Court of
Common Pleas for the County of Berkeley to the U.S. District Court
for the District of South Carolina on October 29, 2020.

The Clerk of the Court for the District of South Carolina assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-03808-MBS to the proceeding.

The case is assigned to the Honorable Judge Margaret B. Seymour.

Strata Equity Group, Inc. operates as a real estate investment
firm. The Company specializes in acquiring land and preparing it
for development, investing, and managing existing multi-family
residential, commercial properties, single family residential, and
renewable energy projects. Strata Equity Group serves customers in
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Frederick Elliotte Quinn, IV, Esq.
          PARKER POE ADAMS AND BERNSTEIN LLP
          200 Meeting Street, Suite 301
          Charleston, SC 29401
          Telephone: (843) 727-2650
          E-mail: elliottequinn@parkerpoe.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kevin Kendrick Bell, Esq.
          ROBINSON GRAY STEPP AND LAFFITTE LLC
          1310 Gadsden Street
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Telephone: (803) 227-1111
          Facsimile: (803) 744-1555
          E-mail: kbell@robinsongray.com

               - and -

          Henry Wilkins Frampton, IV, Esq.
          Victoria Therese Kepes, Esq.
          GORDON AND REES LLP
          40 Calhoun Street, Suite 350
          Charleston, SC 29401
          Telephone: (843) 278-5900
          Facsimile: (843) 804-4691
          E-mail: hframpton@grsm.com
                  vkepes@grsm.com

               - and -

          Peter George Siachos, Esq.
          GORDON AND REES
          18 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 2200
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (973) 549-2500
          Facsimile: (973) 377-1911
          E-mail: psiachos@gordonrees.com

               - and -

          Kevin A Hall, Esq.
          WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON US LLP
          1221 Main Street, Suite 1600
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Telephone: (803) 454-6504
          E-mail: kevin.hall@wbd-us.com

SUNWORKS INC: Facing Peck Co. Merger Related Putative Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sunworks Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission filed on November 2, 2020, that the company
has been named as a defendant in a putative class action suit filed
in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware by a purported
stockholder of the company, in relation to the company's merger
with Peck Company Holdings, Inc.

On August 10, 2020, Sunworks, Inc., a Delaware corporation, entered
into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with The Peck Company
Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Peck"), and Peck Mercury,
Inc., a Delaware corporation and direct wholly owned subsidiary of
Peck ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with
and into Sunworks, with Sunworks continuing as the surviving
corporation (the "Merger").

On October 12, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware by a purported
stockholder of Sunworks regarding the Merger against each of the
members of the Sunworks Board (the "First Complaint").

On October 15, 2020, a second complaint was filed in the United
States District Court in the District of Delaware by a purported
stockholder of Sunworks regarding the Merger against Sunworks,
Peck, Merger Sub and each of the members of the Sunworks Board (the
"Second Complaint").

On October 19, 2020, a third complaint was filed in the United
States District Court in the Southern District of New York by a
purported stockholder of Sunworks regarding the Merger against
Sunworks and each of the members of the Sunworks Board (the "Third
Complaint").

On October 20, 2020, a fourth complaint was filed in the United
States District Court in the Southern District of New York by a
purported stockholder of Sunworks regarding the Merger against
Sunworks and each of the members of the Sunworks Board (the "Fourth
Complaint").

On October 21, 2020, a fifth complaint was filed in the United
States District Court in the District of New Jersey by a purported
stockholder of Sunworks regarding the Merger against Sunworks and
each of the members of the Sunworks Board (the "Fifth Complaint").


On October 22, 2020, a sixth complaint was filed in the United
States District Court in the Eastern District of California by a
purported stockholder of Sunworks regarding the Merger against
Sunworks, Peck, Merger Sub, and each of the members of the Sunworks
Board (the "Sixth Complaint").

On October 23, 2020, a seventh complaint was filed in the United
States District Court in the Eastern District of California by a
purported stockholder of Sunworks regarding the Merger against
Sunworks and each of the members of the Sunworks Board (the
"Seventh Complaint").

On October 23, 2020, an eighth complaint was filed in the United
States District Court in the Northern District of California by a
purported stockholder of Sunworks regarding the Merger against
Sunworks and each of the members of the Sunworks Board (the "Eighth
Complaint" and together with the First, Second, Third, Fourth,
Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Complaints, the "Complaints").
     
The First and Sixth Complaints contend, among other things, that
(i) the consideration to be paid to Sunworks stockholders pursuant
to the Merger is inadequate and (ii) the Registration Statement on
Form S-4 filed with the Commission by Peck on October 1, 2020, and
serving as the preliminary Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus (the
"Original S-4"), contained materially incomplete and misleading
information regarding the Merger.

The First Complaint further alleges that in facilitating the Merger
for the alleged inadequate consideration and the dissemination of
the preliminary Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus, each member of
the Sunworks Board breached his or her fiduciary duties.

The Second Complaint contends, among other things, that the
Original S-4 omits material information regarding the Merger,
rendering it false and misleading.

The Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Complaints
contend, among other things, that the definitive proxy statement on
Schedule 14A, filed with the Commission by Sunworks on October 15,
2020 (the "Proxy Statement"), omits material information regarding
the Merger, rendering it false and misleading.

Each of the Complaints seeks injunctive relief and an award of
plaintiff’s costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and
experts’ fees, and other remedies.

Sunworks Inc. provides solar energy projects operations and
development services. The Company offers project management, solar
performance assessment, procurement, installation, and financing
services. Sunworks serves residential, commercial, agricultural,
and municipal sectors. The company is based in Roseville,
California.


SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATION: Sas Sues Over Debt Collection Protocol
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Synergetic
Communication, Inc. et al. The case is captioned as Ioan Sas, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Synergetic
Communication, Inc. and USI Solutions, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-06434
(N.D. Ill., October 29, 2020).

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The case is assigned to the Honorable Judge Jorge L. Alonso.

Synergetic Communication Inc. is a collection agency with offices
in Houston, Texas, Hopkins, Minnesota, and Post Falls, Idaho.

USI Solutions, Inc. is a debt collection agency located in Bristol,
Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mario Kris Kasalo, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF M. KRIS KASALO, LTD.
          20 North Clark Street, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 726-6160
          E-mail: mario.kasalo@kasalolaw.com

TACTILE SYSTEMS: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Nov. 30 Motion Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Smith reminds investors of the
upcoming November 30, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased
Tactile Systems Technology, Inc. ("Tactile" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: TCMD) securities between May 7, 2018 and June 8, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

On March 20, 2019, an amended Qui Tam complaint against Tactile was
unsealed, alleging that the Company illegally paid hospital staff
to induce physicians to prescribe its medical devices and had
submitted fraudulent claims to Medicare and Veteran's
Administration ("VA").

On this news, Tactile's share price fell $4.53 per share, or over
7%, over two consecutive trading sessions to close at $55.57 per
share on March 22, 2019.

Then, on February 21, 2020, the court denied Tactile's motion to
dismiss the Qui Tam complaint in its entirety. Analysts warned that
"[o]nly two options remain—either this qui tam gets settled out
of court, or it goes to discovery."

On this news, Tactile's share price fell $6.65 per share, or over
10%, to close at $56.09 per share on February 24, 2020.

On June 8, 2020, OSS Research issued a report on alleging that "the
true source of Tactile's growth" is "a kick-back scheme that has
resulted in rampant overprescribing." The OSS Research report also
alleged that "Medicare has recently launched an industry-wide audit
in which Tactile has been disproportionately targeted. 70% of
Tactile's claims audited so far have been retroactively denied."

On this news, Tactile's share price fell $6.05 per share, or over
11%, to close at $45.67 per share on June 9, 2020, thereby injuring
investors.

The complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) while Tactile publicly touted a $4 plus billion or $5
plus billion market opportunity, in fact, the total addressable
market for Tactile's medical devices was materially smaller; (2) to
induce sales growth and share gains, the Company and/or its
employees were engaged in illicit and illegal sales and marketing
activities in violation of applicable federal and state rules and
public payer regulations; (3) the foregoing illicit and illegal
sales and marketing activities increased the risk of a Medicare
audit of the Tactile's claims and criminal and civil liability; (4)
Tactile's profits were in part the product of unlawful conduct and
thus unsustainable; and that as a result of the foregoing, (5) the
Company's public statements, including its year-over-year revenue
growth and the purported growth drivers, were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times; and (6) that, as a result of the
foregoing, the Defendants' statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

If you purchased Tactile securities, you may move the Court no
later than November 30, 2020 to ask the Court to appoint you as
lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a
member of the class action you need not take any action at this
time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and
remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn
more about this class action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire,
of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847,
toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.

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

Contacts:

Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]


TACTILE SYSTEMS: Klein Law Reminds of Nov. 30 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Tactile Systems Technology, Inc.
There is no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a
loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that
the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Tactile Systems Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ:TCMD)
Class Period: May 7, 2018 - June 8, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 30, 2020

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Tactile
Systems Technology, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) while Tactile
publicly touted a $4 plus billion or $5 plus billion market
opportunity, in truth, the total addressable market for Tactile's
pneumatic compression devices was materially smaller; (2) to induce
sales growth and share gains, Tactile and/or its employees were
engaged in illicit and illegal sales and marketing activities in
violation of applicable federal and state rules and public payer
regulations; (3) the foregoing illicit and illegal sales and
marketing activities increased the risk of a Medicare audit of
Tactile's claims and criminal and civil liability; (4) Tactile's
revenues were in part the product of unlawful conduct and thus
unsustainable; and that as a result of the foregoing, (5)
Defendants' public statements, including Tactile's year-over-year
revenue growth, the purported growth drivers, and the effectiveness
of Tactile's internal controls over financial reporting were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Learn about your recoverable losses in TCMD:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/tactile-systems-technology-inc-loss-submission-form?id=9990&from=1

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

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

TECHNIPFMC PLC: Continues to Defend Prause Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
TechnipFMC plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Prause v.
TechnipFMC, et al., No. 4:17-cv-02368 (S.D. Tex.).

A purported shareholder class action filed in 2017 and amended in
January 2018 and captioned Prause v. TechnipFMC, et al., No.
4:17-cv-02368 (S.D. Texas) is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas against the Company and certain
current and former officers and employees of the Company.

The suit alleged violations of the federal securities laws in
connection with the Company's restatement of its first quarter 2017
financial results and a material weakness in its internal control
over financial reporting announced on July 24, 2017.

On January 18, 2019, the District Court dismissed claims under
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended
("Securities Act").

A remaining claim for alleged violation of Section 11 of the
Securities Act in connection with the reporting of certain
financial results in the Company's Form S-4 Registration Statement
filed in 2016 is pending and seeks unspecified damages.

TechnipFMC said, "The Company is vigorously contesting the
litigation and cannot predict its duration or outcome."

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

TechnipFMC plc engages in the oil and gas projects, technologies,
and systems and services businesses. It operates through three
segments: Subsea, Onshore/Offshore, and Surface Technologies. The
company was formerly known as Technip SA and changed its name to
TechnipFMC plc in January 2017. TechnipFMC plc was founded in 1958
and is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom.


TEVA PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of November 23 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Sept. 28
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries
Limited (NYSE: TEVA) between October 29, 2015 and August 18, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Teva investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Teva class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1956.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.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding Teva's
business, operational, and compliance policies. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Teva had made substantial illegal kickback
payments to charitable foundations to cover Medicare co-payment
obligations of patients taking Copaxone; (2) accordingly, Teva's
revenues derived from Copaxone were in part the product of unlawful
conduct and thus unsustainable; (3) the foregoing misconduct
subjected Teva to a foreseeable risk of heightened regulatory
scrutiny and enforcement, as well as reputational harm when the
truth became known; and (4) as a result, defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

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
23, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1956.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.

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.

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]


TREVENA INC: Consolidated Class Suit Underway in Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trevena, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated purported class action suit
pending before the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

In October and November 2018, the Company and certain current and
former officers and directors were sued in three purported class
actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, or the EDPA, alleging violations of the federal
securities laws.

In January 2019, the three lawsuits were consolidated into one
action, and on May 29, 2019, the District Court appointed a group
of five individual investors as lead plaintiffs.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed on August 2, 2019,
alleging, among other things, that the Company and two former
officers made false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and prospects, including certain
statements made relating to the Company's End-of-Phase 2 meeting
with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and certain statements
concerning top-line results from the Company's Phase 3 studies.

The plaintiffs seek, among other remedies, unspecified damages,
attorneys' fees and other costs, and unspecified equitable or
injunctive relief.

On October 2, 2019, the Company moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint on the basis that there were no false statements
and no scienter as a matter of law.

On August 28, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss.

On October 2, 2020, the Company and the individual defendants filed
their answer to the amended complaint.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit, and the
Company intends to vigorously defend itself and its former officers
against the allegations.

Trevena, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the
development and commercialization of treatment options that target
and treat diseases affecting the central nervous system. The
company was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Chesterbrook,
Pennsylvania.



TURQUOISE HILL: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of Dec. 14 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Jakubowitz Law announces that a securities fraud class action
lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of Turquoise Hill
Resources Ltd. who purchased shares within the class period listed
below. Shareholders interested in representing the class of wronged
shareholders have until the lead plaintiff deadline to petition the
court. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that
you serve as a lead plaintiff. For more details and to speak with
our firm without cost or obligation, follow the links below.

Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd. (NYSE:TRQ)

CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT TRQ:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/turquoise-hill-resources-ltd-loss-submission-form/?id=10438&from=1

Class Period: July 17, 2018 - July 31, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 14, 2020

The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
the progress of underground development of Oyu Tolgoi was not
proceeding as planned; (ii) there were significant undisclosed
underground stability issues that called into question the design
of the mine, the projected cost and timing of production; (iii) the
company's publicly disclosed estimates of the cost, date of
completion and dates for production from the underground mine were
not achievable; (iv) the development capital required for the
underground development of Oyu Tolgoi would cost substantially more
than a billion dollars over what the company had represented; and
(v) Turquoise Hill would require additional financing and/or equity
to complete the project.

Jakubowitz Law is vigorous in pursuit of justice for shareholders
who have been the victim of securities fraud. Attorney advertising.
Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]

ULTRA PETROLEUM: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminded
purchasers of the securities of Ultra Petroleum Corp. (OTC:UPLCQ)
between April 13, 2017 and August 8, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important November 2, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline
in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Ultra investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Ultra class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1942.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.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
to investors that: (1) Ultra's proved reserves were materially
overstated and, therefore, worth hundreds of millions of dollars
less than represented; (2) Ultra's proved undeveloped reserves were
of de minimis value because they contained low quality deposits
that lacked a commercially viable path to development; (3) Ultra
was unable to meet the production and development estimates
provided to investors and such estimates lacked a reasonable basis;
(4) Ultra was unable to withstand even a modest downturn in the
price of natural gas because, inter alia, Ultra's business had less
financial and production flexibility than claimed; (5) Ultra did
not have the technical or financial capabilities or available asset
base to sustainably grow its oil and natural gas production by any
meaningful amount; and (6) Ultra lacked the production capabilities
or asset base necessary to meaningfully grow production through
horizontal well drilling, and initial test wells were not
representative of Ultra's actual horizontal well prospects. 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-1942.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.

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.

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]

UNITED PARCEL: Appeal in Hughes Wage-and-Hour Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the plaintiffs'
appeal from the court-granted motion for judgment in the case
styled, Hughes v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. and United
Parcel Service, Inc., remains pending.

The company is a defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in state
and federal courts containing various class action allegations
under state wage-and-hour laws.

At this time, the company do not believe that any loss associated
with any such matter will have a material impact on its operations
or financial condition.

One of these matters, Hughes v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc.
and United Parcel Service, Inc. had previously been certified as a
class action in Kentucky state court.

In the second quarter of 2019, the court granted the company's
motion for judgment on the pleadings related to the wage-and-hour
claims.

The plaintiffs have appealed this decision.

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

United Parcel Service, Inc. provides letter and package delivery,
specialized transportation, logistics, and financial services. It
operates through three segments: U.S. Domestic Package,
International Package, and Supply Chain & Freight. United Parcel
Service, Inc. was founded in 1907 and is headquartered in Atlanta,
Georgia.


UNITED STATES: Bouzerand Appeals Fed. Claims Ruling to Fed. Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Angela Bouzerand, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ANGELA BOUZERAND, WAYNE
PESEK, AMY PESEK, and FRED PAUL FRENGER, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. THE UNITED STATES, Case No.
1:17-cv-01195-LAS, in the United States Court of Federal Claims.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action complaint against the
Defendant to seek just compensation for the taking of Plaintiffs'
and the Class' private property for public use when the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers flooded their homes by releasing water from the
Addicks and Barker reservoirs in Houston, Texas.

As a result of the Defendant's decision to release water from
Addicks and Barker, approximately 4,000 homes that were not
otherwise going to flood during the storm, were inundated with
water and are currently uninhabitable. Thousands of families,
including Plaintiffs and the Class, are now displaced from their
homes with no assurances from the Defendant for when they will be
able to return or whether they will be compensated for the damage
it caused to their private properties. Therefore, thousands of
families are left not knowing where they will sleep, whether they
will be able to afford temporary shelter, or whether they will be
able to afford to rebuild their homes after the water recedes, the
suit says.

The appellate case is captioned as Bouzerand v. United States, Case
No. 21-1197, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the appellate case is set as follows:

   -- Entry of Appearance is due on November 24, 2020;

   -- Certificate of Interest is due on November 24, 2020;

   -- Docketing Statement is due on December 10, 2020; and

   -- Appellants' brief is due on January 11, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants ANGELA BOUZERAND, WAYNE PESEK, AMY PESEK,
FRED PAUL FRENGER, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77706
          Telephone: (713) 554-9077
          E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com  

Defendant-Appellee UNITED STATES is represented by:

          Director, Commercial Litigation Branch
          Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice
          PO Box 480
          Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044
          E-mail: c-natcourts.appeals@usdoj.gov

UNITED STATES: Hollis Appeals Fed. Claims Ruling to Fed. Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Wayne Hollis, Jr. and Peggy Hollis filed an appeal from
a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Wayne Hollis, Jr. and
Peggy Hollis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. USA, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01300-LAS,
in the United States Court of Federal Claims.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action complaint against the
Defendant to seek just compensation for the taking of Plaintiffs'
and the Class' private property for public use when the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers flooded their homes by releasing water from the
Addicks and Barker reservoirs in Houston, Texas.

The appellate case is captioned as Hollis v. United States, Case
No. 21-1201, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the appellate case is set as follows:

   -- Entry of Appearance is due on November 24, 2020;

   -- Certificate of Interest is due on November 24, 2020;

   -- Docketing Statement is due on December 10, 2020; and

   -- Appellants' brief is due on January 11, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants WAYNE HOLLIS, JR. and PEGGY HOLLIS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Rand Patrick Nolen, Esq.
          FLEMING, NOLEN & JEZ, LLP
          2800 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 4000
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 621-7944

Defendant-Appellee UNITED STATES is represented by:

          Director, Commercial Litigation Branch
          Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice
          PO Box 480
          Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044
          E-mail: c-natcourts.appeals@usdoj.gov

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA: Class Action Gains Four Student Plaintiffs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Nelson, writing for The Gainesville Sun, reports that a
year-old lawsuit challenging the University of Florida's freshman
orientation fees has gained four student plaintiffs -- making five
total -- as the university and state board of governors ask for
more time to review the complaints against them.

The suit, filed Sept. 20 last year by the mother of a UF student,
contends she and others paid more than state law allowed for
freshman orientation, or Preview, and application fees. The parties
want a refund, and asked for the fees to return to state law
maximums.

The Sun, and later a state audit, revealed earlier that month that
UF charged anywhere between $75-$200 per student for Preview over
the last decade. UF also charged more than the $30 limit on
non-refundable fees for freshman applications.

The four students added to the lawsuit in June -- Michelle Gresser,
Max Chern, Jonathan Charles and Juliana Boisse -- said they paid
upward of $75 or more for their orientation experiences between
2016 and 2018. In her initial filing, Lisa Browning said she
shelled out $200 for Preview in 2016.

A Preview orientation flyer from two years ago, filed in September
in the court records, describes the event as a mandatory program
costing $75 and an additional $50 per guest. UF officials have
since said the program wasn't mandatory, but students said they
were given the clear impression that it was.

State law caps the amount universities can charge for orientation
at $35. If universities charge more than that, they must delineate
the cost and make the extra services optional. According to the
Florida Auditor General report, UF officials said students who paid
more than the $35 limit were given meals and housing that the extra
costs covered.

The auditors said when they asked for records to document
justification for the extra fees, UF did not provide any.

By charging more than the law allows, the auditor's report
determined the university collected roughly $4.1 million more than
it should have in the past five years for Preview. In application
fees, the audit reported UF charged $35 per freshman from July 2016
to October 2019, raking in $460,320 in extra funds.  

Hessy Fernandez, UF's Director of Issues Management & Crisis
Communications, said the university cannot comment about active
litigation and would not say whether UF intends to reimburse
students.

The case, assigned to Circuit Court Judge Monica Brasington, names
UF's Board of Trustees, former President for Student Affairs David
Parrott and the Florida Board of Governors. UF President Kent
Fuchs, initially named in the lawsuit, has been removed.

"Based on what we're trying to accomplish, which is our efforts to
get the students back the money we think they're owed, the best way
to do that would be to get a verdict against the UF Board of
Trustees, David Parrott and the Board of Governors," said Paul
Rothstein, the Gainesville attorney representing Browning and the
students.

Renee Fargason, the Board of Governors' spokeswoman, would not
comment.

Parrott was terminated from UF in April 2019, and Associate Vice
President of Student Affairs Norbert Dunkel resigned after a UF
internal investigation found "improper financial administration"
within Student Affairs, which oversees Preview.

On Oct. 12, both UF and the Board of Governors asked the judge for
more time to review the complaints filed against them.

For now, the case is considered a "putative" class action lawsuit,
meaning the court has not ruled whether the case can continue as a
certified class action based on each party's claims.

If class-action status is granted, the plaintiffs will act on
behalf of, and seek refunds for anyone who paid a nonrefundable
application fee between April 2014-2019, and anyone who paid the
extra Preview orientation cost between August 2014 to 2019. [GN]


UNKNOWN KIMBLE: Goff Class Certification Bid Denied as Moot
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shawn Charles Goff, v.
Unknown Kimble, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01392-DLR—JFM (D.
Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Douglas L. Rayes entered an order:

   1. denying as moot the Plaintiff's motion for class
      certification and appointment of counsel;

   2. dismissing the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint and
      this action for failure to state a claim, and the Clerk of
      Court must enter judgment accordingly; and

   3. directing the Clerk of Court to make an entry on the
      docket stating that the dismissal for failure to state a
      claim may count as a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. section
      1915(g). The docket shall reflect that the Court, pursuant
      to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(a)(3) 18 and Federal Rules of
      Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A), has considered whether an
      appeal 19 of this decision would be taken in good faith
      and finds Plaintiff may appeal in forma pauperis.

Because the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim in his Second
Amended Complaint, the Court held that it will dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint. "Leave to amend need not be given if a
complaint, as amended, is subject to dismissal," the Court said.

The Court explained its discretion to deny leave to amend is
particularly broad where the Plaintiff has previously been
permitted to amend his complaint. Repeated failure to cure
deficiencies is one of the factors to be considered in deciding
whether justice requires granting leave to amend. The Plaintiff has
made three efforts at crafting a viable complaint and appears
unable to do so despite specific instructions from the Court. The
Court also held that further opportunities to amend would be
futile. Therefore, the Court, in its discretion, will dismiss the
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint without leave to amend. The
Court will deny as moot the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification and to Appoint Counsel.

On July 10, 2020, the Plaintiff Shawn Charles Goff, who is confined
in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Lewis, filed a pro se civil
rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 18 section 1983 and an
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a July 22, 2020 Order,
the Court dismissed the Complaint because the Plaintiff had failed
to state a claim. The Court gave the Plaintiff 30 days to file an
amended complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the
Order.

On August 21, 2020, the Plaintiff filed his First Amended
Complaint. In a September 22, 2020 Order, the Court dismissed the
First Amended Complaint because the Plaintiff had failed to state a
claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file a second amended
complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order. On
October 23, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint
and a Motion for Class Certification and to Appoint Counsel.

A copy of the Court's Order is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/38muqHz at no extra charge.[CC]

WELLS FARGO: Thompson Sues Over FCRA Violation in E.D. Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A. The case is styled as Erica M. Thompson, individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case
No. 2:20-cv-00532-AWA-DEM (E.D. Va., October 29, 2020).

The lawsuit arises from consumer credit-related issues pursuant to
the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The case is assigned to Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. operates as a bank. The Company offers
online and mobile banking, home mortgage, loans and credit,
investment and retirement, wealth management, and insurance
services. Wells Fargo Bank serves commercial, retail, and
institutional customers in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
          Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
          KELLY GUZZO PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424-7576
          Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
          E-mail: aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
                  kkelly@kellyguzzo.com

               - and -
    
          Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq.
          Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES
          763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: craig@clalegal.com
                  lenbennett@clalegal.com

WILLIAMS CO: Trial in Rights Agreement Suit to Begin on Jan. 2021
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that trial in
the consolidated purported class action suit related to a
stockholder rights agreement is scheduled to begin January 11,
2021.

On March 19, 2020, the company's board of directors approved the
adoption of a limited duration stockholder rights agreement (Rights
Agreement) and declared a distribution of one preferred stock
purchase right for each outstanding share of common stock.

The Rights Agreement is intended to protect the interests of the
company and its stockholders by reducing the likelihood of another
party gaining control of or significant influence over us without
paying an appropriate premium considering recent volatile markets.


Each preferred stock purchase right represents the right to
purchase, upon certain terms and conditions, one one-thousandth
(.001) of a share of Series C Participating Cumulative Preferred
Stock, $1.00 par value per share. Each one-thousandth (.001) of a
share of Series C Participating Cumulative Preferred Stock, if
issued, would have rights similar to one share of our common stock.


The distribution of preferred stock purchase rights occurred on
March 30, 2020, to holders of record as of the close of business on
that date. The Rights Agreement expires on March 20, 2021.

On August 27, 2020, a purported shareholder filed a putative class
action lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery challenging the
Rights Agreement.

The plaintiff alleges that the individual members of the company's
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties by adopting the
Rights Agreement.

The complaint seeks declaratory relief, an injunction against the
agreement, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs, which are not
expected to be material.

On September 3, 2020, a purported shareholder filed a separate
putative class action lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery,
asserting identical claims to the August 27, 2020 lawsuit.

The court consolidated the lawsuits, and trial is scheduled to
begin January 11, 2021.

The Williams Companies, Inc. operates as an energy infrastructure
company primarily in the United States. The Williams Companies,
Inc. was founded in 1908 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma.


WILLIAMS CO: Trial in Wisconsin Class Suit to Begin June 2021
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that trial in
the putative class action suit pending before a Wisconsin federal
district court is scheduled to begin June 14, 2021.

Direct and indirect purchasers of natural gas in various states
filed individual and class actions against the company, the
company's former affiliate WPX Energy, Inc. (WPX) and its
subsidiaries, and others alleging the manipulation of published gas
price indices and seeking unspecified amounts of damages.

Such actions were transferred to the Nevada federal district court
for consolidation of discovery and pre-trial issues. The company
agreed to indemnify WPX and its subsidiaries related to this
matter.

In the individual action, filed by Farmland Industries Inc.
(Farmland), the court issued an order on May 24, 2016, granting one
of the company's co-defendant's motion for summary judgment as to
Farmland's claims.

On January 5, 2017, the court extended such ruling to the company,
entering final judgment in its favor. Farmland appealed. On March
27, 2018, the appellate court reversed the district court's grant
of summary judgment, and on April 10, 2018, the defendants filed a
petition for rehearing with the appellate court, which was denied
on May 9, 2018.

The case was remanded to the Nevada federal district court and
subsequently has been remanded to its originally filed court, the
Kansas federal district court.

In the putative class actions, on March 30, 2017, the court issued
an order denying the plaintiffs' motions for class certification.
On June 13, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit granted the plaintiffs' petition for permission to appeal
the order.

On August 6, 2018, the Ninth Circuit reversed the order denying
class certification and remanded the case to the Nevada federal
district court.

The company reached an agreement to settle two of the actions, and
on April 22, 2019, the Nevada federal district court preliminarily
approved the settlements, which are on behalf of Kansas and
Missouri class members.

The final fairness hearing on the settlement occurred August 5,
2019, and a final judgment of dismissal with prejudice was entered
the same day.

Two putative class actions remain unresolved, and they have been
remanded to their originally filed court, the Wisconsin federal
district court. Trial is scheduled to begin June 14, 2021.

The Williams said, "Because of the uncertainty around the remaining
unresolved issues, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of
potential exposure at this time. However, it is reasonably possible
that the ultimate resolution of these actions and our related
indemnification obligation could result in a potential loss that
may be material to our results of operations. In connection with
this indemnification, we have an accrued liability balance
associated with this matter and, as a result, have exposure to
future developments."

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

The Williams Companies, Inc. operates as an energy infrastructure
company primarily in the United States. The Williams Companies,
Inc. was founded in 1908 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma.


WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Nov. 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 common stock of Wrap
Technologies, Inc. ("Wrap" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: WRTC) between
July 31, 2020, and September 23, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, 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:(1) the Company had concealed the results of the LAPD BolaWrap
pilot program, which demonstrated that the BolaWrap was
ineffective, expensive, and sparingly used in the field; and (2) as
a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false
and/or misleading at all relevant times.

On September 23, 2020, White Diamond Research published a report
entitled "Wrap Technologies: Disastrous LAPD BolaWrap Pilot Program
Results, No Evidence These Have Been Communicated To Investors"
alleging, among other things, that the Company's trial pilot
program with the LAPD was a disaster, and that the Company had not
disclosed the results to investors.

On this news, securities of Wrap fell $2.07 per share, or 25.43% to
close at $6.07 per share on September 23, 2020.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 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 Wrap securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/wraptechnologiesinc-wrtc-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-314/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.

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


WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Nov. 23 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of those who acquired Wrap
Technologies, Inc. ("Wrap" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: WRTC)
securities during the period from July 31, 2020 through September
23, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until
November 23, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company had concealed the results of the LAPD
BolaWrap pilot program, which demonstrated that the BolaWrap was
ineffective, expensive, and sparingly used in the field; and (2) 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 Wrap securities, have information, or would like to
learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of
Kirby McInerney at 212-371-6600, by email at
investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to
discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters
without any cost to you.

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

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

Contacts:

Kirby McInerney LLP
Thomas W. Elrod, Esq., (212) 371-6600
investigations@kmllp.com
www.kmllp.com [GN]


WRIGHT MEDICAL: Suits Related to Stryker Tender Offer Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wright Medical Group N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 27, 2020, that litigation related
to a tender offer from Stryker Corporation has been dismissed.

On November 4, 2019, the company entered into a definitive
agreement with Stryker and its subsidiary, Stryker B.V. Under the
terms of the purchase agreement, and upon the terms and subject to
the conditions thereof, Stryker B.V. has commenced a tender offer
to purchase all of the outstanding ordinary shares of Wright for
$30.75 per share, without interest and less applicable withholding
taxes, in cash (the Offer). The Offer is currently scheduled to
expire at 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, on August 31, 2020, but may be
extended in accordance with the terms of the purchase agreement
between Stryker and Wright.

On January 15, 2020, John Thompson, a purported shareholder of the
Company, filed a putative class action lawsuit against the company,
members of its board of directors, Stryker B.V., and Stryker
Corporation in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware.  The lawsuit is captioned Thompson v. Wright Medical
Group N.V., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00061 (the Thompson Action).

The complaint filed in the Thompson Action alleged that the company
and the members of its board of directors violated federal
securities laws and regulations by failing to disclose material
information in the Schedule 14D-9 filed in connection with the
transactions contemplated by the Stryker purchase agreement, which
the plaintiff in the Thompson Action alleged rendered the Schedule
14D-9 false and misleading.

In addition, the plaintiff in the Thompson Action alleged that
members of the company's board of directors and Stryker acted as
controlling persons of the company within the meaning of and in
violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act to influence and
control the dissemination of the allegedly defective Schedule
14D-9.

The plaintiff in the Thompson Action sought, among other things, an
order enjoining consummation of the transactions contemplated by
the Stryker purchase agreement; rescission of such transactions if
they have already been consummated and rescissory damages; an order
directing the company's board of directors to file a Schedule 14D-9
that does not contain any untrue statements of material fact and
that states all material facts required or necessary to make the
statements contained therein not misleading; a declaration that the
defendants violated certain federal securities laws and
regulations; and an award of plaintiff's costs, including
attorneys' fees and expenses.

On January 31, 2020, William Grubb, a purported shareholder of the
Company, filed a lawsuit against the company and members of its
board of directors in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York. The lawsuit is captioned Grubb v.
Wright Medical Group N.V., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00553 (the
Grubb Action).

The complaint filed in the Grubb Action alleged that the company
and the members of its board of directors violated federal
securities laws and regulations by failing to disclose material
information in the Schedule 14D-9 filed in connection with the
transactions contemplated by the Stryker purchase agreement, which
the plaintiff in the Grubb Action alleged rendered the Schedule
14D-9 false and misleading.

In addition, the plaintiff in the Grubb Action alleged that members
of the company's board of directors acted as controlling persons of
the company within the meaning of and in violation of Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act to influence and control the dissemination of
the allegedly defective Schedule 14D-9.

The plaintiff in the Grubb Action sought, among other things, an
order enjoining consummation of the transactions contemplated by
the Stryker purchase agreement; rescission of such transactions if
they have already been consummated and rescissory damages; a
declaration that the defendants violated certain federal securities
laws and regulations; and an award of plaintiff's costs, including
attorneys' fees and expenses.

On April 9, 2020, Gracie Woodward, a purported shareholder of the
Company, filed a lawsuit against the company and members of its
board of directors in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware. The lawsuit is captioned Woodward v. Wright
Medical Group N.V., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-494 (the Woodward
Action).

The complaint filed in the Woodward Action alleged that the company
and the members of its board of directors violated federal
securities laws and regulations by failing to disclose material
information in the Schedule 14D-9 filed in connection with the
transactions contemplated by the Stryker purchase agreement, which
the plaintiff in the Woodward Action alleged rendered the Schedule
14D-9 false and misleading.

In addition, the plaintiff in the Woodward Action alleged that
members of the company's board of directors acted as controlling
persons of the company within the meaning of and in violation of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act to influence and control the
dissemination of the allegedly defective Schedule 14D-9. The
plaintiff in the Woodward Action sought, among other things, an
order enjoining consummation of the transactions contemplated by
the Stryker purchase agreement; rescission of such transactions if
they have already been consummated and rescissory damages; a
declaration that the defendants violated certain federal securities
laws and regulations; and an award of plaintiff's costs, including
attorneys' fees and expenses.

On April 15, 2020, Marcy Curtis, a purported shareholder of the
Company, filed a putative class action lawsuit against the company,
members of its board of directors, Stryker B.V., and Stryker
Corporation in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware. That suit is captioned Curtis v. Wright Medical Group
N.V., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00509 (the Curtis Action).

The complaint filed in the Curtis Action alleged that the company
and the members of its board of directors violated federal
securities laws and regulations by failing to disclose material
information in the Schedule 14D-9 filed in connection with the
transactions contemplated by the Stryker purchase agreement, which
the plaintiff in the Curtis Action alleged rendered the Schedule
14D-9 false and misleading.

In addition, the plaintiff in the Curtis Action alleged that
members of the company's board of directors and Stryker acted as
controlling persons of the company within the meaning of and in
violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act to influence and
control the dissemination of the allegedly defective Schedule
14D-9.

The plaintiff in the Curtis Action sought, among other things, an
order enjoining consummation of the transactions contemplated by
the Stryker purchase agreement; rescission of such transactions if
they have already been consummated and rescissory damages; an order
directing our board of directors to file a Schedule 14D-9 that does
not contain any untrue statements of material fact and that states
all material facts required or necessary to make the statements
contained therein not misleading; a declaration that the defendants
violated certain federal securities laws and regulations; and an
award of plaintiff's costs, including attorneys' fees and
expenses.

On April 28, 2020, Shiva Stein, a purported shareholder of the
Company, filed a lawsuit against the company, members of its board
of directors, Stryker B.V., and Stryker Corporation in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware. That suit is
captioned Stein v. Wright Medical Group N.V., et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-00582.

The complaint filed in the Stein Action alleged that the company,
the members of its board of directors, and the Stryker defendants
violated federal securities laws and regulations by failing to
disclose material information in the Schedule 14D-9 filed in
connection with the transactions contemplated by the Stryker
purchase agreement, which the plaintiff in the Stein Action alleged
rendered the Schedule 14D-9 false and misleading.

In addition, the plaintiff in the Stein Action alleged that members
of our board of directors acted as controlling persons of the
company within the meaning of and in violation of Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act to influence and control the dissemination of the
allegedly defective Schedule 14D-9.

The plaintiff in the Stein Action sought, among other things, an
order enjoining consummation of the transactions contemplated by
the Stryker purchase agreement; rescission of such transactions if
they have already been consummated and rescissory damages; and an
award of plaintiff's costs, including attorneys' fees and
expenses.

Wright Medical said, "While the Company believed the Federal
Shareholder Actions were entirely meritless, to avoid any risk that
those litigations might delay or otherwise adversely affect the
transactions contemplated by the Stryker purchase agreement, and to
minimize costs and risk, the Company filed with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 18, 2020 certain
limited supplemental disclosures regarding the transactions
contemplated by the Stryker purchase agreement, and the plaintiffs
in the Federal Shareholder Actions agreed that such disclosures
mooted all of their claims."

The Thompson Action, Grubb Action, Curtis Action and Woodward
Action were dismissed on September 22, 2020, and the Stein Action
was dismissed on September 23, 2020.

Wright Medical Group N.V., a medical device company, designs,
manufactures, markets, and sells upper and lower extremities, and
biologics products in the United States, Europe, the Middle East,
Africa, Canada, Asia, Australia, and Latin America. The company was
founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Amsterdam, the
Netherlands.



                            *********

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 ***