/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201204.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, December 4, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 243

                            Headlines

ALTERYX INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Class Action
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Kahn Swick Reminds of Class Action
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Class Action
AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Loses Bid to Dismiss Martinek Securities Suit
ANAPLAN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action

APPLE INC: Faces Shareholders Class Action Over Cook's Comment
ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: March 11 Final Hearing on Wong Settlement
ASPEN HOME: Squire Patton Discusses Ruling in Eder Case
AT WORLD PROPERTIES: Metroff Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
AUSTRALIA: Cafe Owner Mulls Lawsuit Over Melbourne's Curfew

AUSTRALIA: Melbourne Restaurants Mull Class Suit Over Dining Plan
BAHAMAS PARADISE: To Settle Seafarers' Class Action for $875K
BAIDU INC: Klein Law Reminds of Class Action
BAIDU INC: Portnoy Law Reminds of Class Action
BLINK CHARGING: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action

CABOT OIL: Kahn Swick Reminds of Class Action
CAREPARTNERS: Faces Ontario Privacy Breach Class Action
CENTURYLINK INC: Dismissal of Houser Suit Under Appeal
COMMUNITY OPTIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Garcia Says
CONNECTICUT: 2nd Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Liberian Community Suit

CONSOL ENERGY: Casey-Fitzwater Consolidated Class Suit Underway
CONSUMER CELLULAR: Thomas Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
DCM SERVICES: Vega Files Suit in M.D. Florida Over FDCPA Violation
DICKEY'S BARBECUE: Kostka Says Card Info Exposed After Data Breach
DIRECT CAPITAL: Faces Fabricant Suit Over Unsolicited Calls

DIRECT MARKETING: Rowan Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
DIRECTV LLC: Judge Rushing Reverses Arbitration Ruling in Mey Case
EASTMAN KODAK: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action
EI DU PONT: Continues to Defend PFAS-Related Class Suit in Ohio
ENTERPRISE RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Campos Suit Says

FENNEC PHARMA: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Class Action
FIRST AMERICAN: ClaimsFiler Reminds of December 24 Deadline
FORD MOTOR: O'Connor Files Second Amended Complaint
FOREST RIVER: Truitt Files Breach of Contract Suit in N.D. Indiana
FORTRESS BIOTECH: Cushman Sues Over 23.98% Drop in Share Price

FQSR LLC: Seeks Extension of Time to Respond to Redmond Suit
FUNKO INC: Appeal on Suit's Dismissal Pending
FUNKO INC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Ferreira-Nahas Suit Pending
FUNKO INC: Continues to Defend Kanugonda Class Suit
GEMINI CAPITAL: Facilities Inaccessible to Disabled, Brito Claims

GENIUS BRANDS: Klein Law Reminds of Class Action
GENIUS BRANDS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action
GLOBE LIFE: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Jan. 7
GLOBE LIFE: Subsidiaries Facing Bell Putative Class Suit
GOHEALTH INC: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Class Action

HANLEES AUTO: Arbitration Ruling in Jarboe Labor Suit Affirmed
HAWAIIAN HOST: Toy et al. Sue Over Deceptive Packaging of Candies
HDFC BANK: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Class Action
HERBALIFE INT'L: Court Reopens Class Action Against Distributors
INKSTER, MI: $130,000 Settlement in Garner Suit Has Final Approval

INNATE PHARMA: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of December 22 Deadline
JP MORGAN: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Dec. 23 Deadline
JUUL: Bay City Public Schools Join Nationwide Vaping Lawsuit
LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LIVENT CORP: 2018 IPO Plaintiffs Seek Preliminary OK of Settlement

MAINE: Wins Dismissal of Habeas Corpus Petition in Denbow Suit
MDL 2570: Stay on CTO for Stephens v. Cook Medical Suit Lifted
MDL 2740: 17 Taxotere (Docetaxel) Suits Moved to E.D. Louisiana
MDL 2741: Court Vacates CTO for Loeffler v. Monsanto Roundup Suit
MDL 2753: Stegenga vs. Atrium Medical Transferred to New Hampshire

MDL 2804: 8 Prescription Opiate Suits Moved to N.D. Ohio
MDL 2804: Court Denies Bid to Remand 3 Prescription Opiate Suits
MDL 2814: 2 Suits vs. Ford Motor Moved to C.D. California
MDL 2873: NJAW AFFFs Suit vs. DuPont Transferred to South Carolina
MDL 2913: Patel and Cunningham Suits vs. Juul Labs Moved to Calif.

MDL 2921: 2 Suits vs. Allergan USA Moved to District of New Jersey
MDL 2921: Skuba v. Allergan Moved to District of New Jersey
MDL 2959: Proven Networks Patent Suits Transferred to W.D. Texas
MDL 2960: Court Denies Centralization of Landlord Suits v. Gap
MDL 2961: Show Cause Order Vacated for 13 COVID-19 Insurance Suits

MDL 2962: Show Cause Order Vacated for 17 COVID-19 Insurance Suits
MDL 2963: Show Cause Order Vacated for 66 COVID-19 Insurance Suits
MDL 2964: 21 COVID-19 Insurance Suits Transferred to N.D. Illinois
MDL 2965: Show Cause Order Vacated for 14 COVID-19 Insurance Suits
MERCK & CO: Appeals Class Certification of Direct Purchasers

MIDDLEBURY COLLEGE: Student's Class Action Seeks Tuition Refund
NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
NATIONAL HOCKEY: Sued Over Conspiracy to Exploit Teenage Players
NATIONAL VISION: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit vs. FirstSight Pending
NETFLIX: Municipalities File Streaming Revenue Class Action

NETWORK CAPITAL: Trim Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
NIKOLA CORPORATION: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Class Action
NINTENDO OF AMERICA: Faces A.C. Suit Over Faulty Game Controllers
ONESPAN INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of Class Action
ONESPAN INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Class Action

PALMER & COMPANY: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PATENAUDE & FELIX: Reeves Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
PEABODY ENERGY: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Class Action
PEABODY ENERGY: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Class Action
PERRIGO CO: Class Action Notice of Pendency Issued in Roofers

PERRIGO CO: Overarching Conspiracy Related Suits Ongoing
PERRIGO CO: Suits Over Alleged Price-Fixing Underway in Canada
PINTEREST INC: Faces Hessong Suit Over 17% Decline in Share Price
QIHOO 360: Court Dismisses Altimeo Securities Suit With Prejudice
RESIDEO TECH: Hearing on Bid to Nix Securities Suit Set for Dec. 1

RICHEMONT NORTH AMERICA: Cota Files ADA Suit in S.D. California
SHARP ELECTRONICS: January 7 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
SHELBY COUNTY, TN: County Jail Covid-19 Risk Class Action Amended
STAAR SURGICAL: Hagens Berman Reminds of Class Action
STAAR SURGICAL: Vincent Wong Reminds of Class Action

STATE COLLECTION: McGee Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
TASTY BAKING: Bertino Labor Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania
TOYOTA MOTOR: Illegally Collects GAP Coverage Fees, Martin Claims
ULTRA PETROLEUM: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Class Action
VAXART INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of Class Action

VENATOR MATERIALS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Pending
VILLA COLOMBO: Faces Class Suit Over Negligence, Substandard Care
VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA: Lawson Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas
WALMART STORES: Court Narrows Claims in Calif. Workers' Wage Suit
WISCONSIN APPLE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Henges Suit Claims

WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Class Action

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Had $844MM Claim Reserves at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Had $54.0MM A&E Reserves at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECO Had 201 Cases Pending at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Accrues $34MM for Suits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Ed Spent $17MM for Manhattan Incident

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Had 227 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro Had $4.2MM Asbestos Coverage at September 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Unit Had $91MM Claims Reserves at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Faces 8,346 Active Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Had 17,160 PI Suits at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll Rand Had $113.4MM Reserve at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Had 11,800 PI Cases at September 25
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Defends 119 Cases at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Faces 30 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Had 211 PI Lawsuits at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Had $72.4MM Libby Costs at Sept. 30


                            *********

ALTERYX INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Alteryx, Inc.  ("Alteryx" or the "Company") (NYSE: AYX) and
certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in United States
District Court for the Central District of California, and docketed
under 20-cv-01886, is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise, acquired
Alteryx securities between May 6, 2020 and August 6, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period").  Plaintiff pursues claims against
the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

Shareholders who purchased Alteryx securities during the class
period had until October 19, 2020, to ask the Court to appoint them
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.

Alteryx is a data analytics company that offers a
subscription-based platform for customers to access, prepare, and
analyze data from a multitude of sources, then deploy and share
analytics at scale to make data-driven decisions.

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) that the Company was unable to
close large deals within the quarter and deals were pushed out to
subsequent quarters or downsized; (ii) that, as a result, Alteryx
increasingly relied on adoption licenses to attract new customers;
(iii) that, as a result, and because of the nature of adoption
licenses, the Company's revenue was reasonably likely to decline;
and (iv) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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

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

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]

AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Kahn Swick Reminds of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors with
losses in excess of $100,000 that they had until October 19, 2020
to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action
lawsuit against American Electric Power, Inc. ("AEP") (NYSE: AEP),
if they purchased the Company's securities between November 2, 2016
and July 24, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio.

What You May Do

If you purchased securities of AEP and would like to discuss your
legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to
recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost
to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at
1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-aep/ to learn more. If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, the
deadline to file a petition to the Court was October 19, 2020.

                        About the Lawsuit

AEP and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

The alleged false and misleading statements and omissions include,
but are not limited to, that: (i) the Company was involved in the
"the largest public corruption case in Ohio history"; (ii) the
Company secretly funneled significant funds to political operatives
to bribe politicians to pass legislation beneficial to the Company
("HB6"); (iii) the Company partially funded a massive, misleading
advertising campaign to support HB6 and concealed its involvement
via a web of dark money entities and front companies; (iv) the
Company aided efforts to undermine a ballot initiative to repeal
HB6; (v) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' Class Period
statements regarding the Company's regulatory and legislative
efforts were materially false and misleading; (vi) as a result of
the foregoing, the Company would face increased scrutiny; (vii) the
Company was subject to undisclosed risk of reputational, legal and
financial harm; (viii) the bribery scheme would jeopardize the
benefits the Company sought by HB6; (ix) contrary to the Company's
repeated public statements regarding a transition to clean energy,
it sought a dirty energy bailout; (x) contrary to the Company's
repeated public statements regarding protection of its customers'
interests, the Company sought an extra and state-mandated surcharge
on its customers' bills; and (xi) as a result of the foregoing,
AEP's financial statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On this news, the price of AEP's shares plummeted.

The case is Nickerson v. American Electric Power, Inc., No.
20-cv-4243.

                     About Kahn Swick

Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, whose partners include former Louisiana
Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's
premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a
variety of clients - including public institutional investors,
hedge funds, money managers and retail investors - in seeking to
recover investment losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by
publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California
and Louisiana. [GN]

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

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

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

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

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

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Loses Bid to Dismiss Martinek Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York denied the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the case, JAN MARTINEK, Plaintiff, v. AMTRUST FINANCIAL
SERVICES, INC., BARRY D. ZYSKIND, GEORGE KARFUNKEL, and LEAH
KARFUNKEL, Defendants, Case No. 19 Civ. 8030 (KPF) (S.D. N.Y.).

Martinek brings the putative securities class action against
AmTrust, and AmTrust executives Zyskind, Karfunkel, and Karfunkel.
The Plaintiff alleges that he and other putative class members
suffered losses when the Defendants made false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's preferred stock trading on the
New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") following the Individual
Defendants' buyout of the Company's common stock.  The Plaintiff
has brought securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

AmTrust is an insurance company founded and controlled by the
Karfunkel-Zyskind Family.  Between 2013 and 2016, AmTrust issued
six different series of preferred stock and depositary shares,
raising almost $1 billion from the public.  The shares of preferred
stock were redeemable or callable at various times in the future,
but none of the series was redeemable or callable prior to August
2019.

For years prior to the Individual Defendants' buyout proposal,
AmTrust engaged in accounting practices that, when finally
investigated by the SEC, the New York Department of Financial
Services, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, resulted in
AmTrust having to restate approximately three years of financial
statements from 2013 to 2017.  As a result of adverse publicity
resulting from the restatement of several years of AmTrust's
financial statements, increases in loss reserves, and the
disclosure of the SEC investigation, AmTrust's stock price dropped
by half -- from $27 to approximately $13.46 -- over the first three
quarters of 2017.

At the same time, AmTrust management represented to the investing
public that the poor performance of AmTrust stock was to be
short-lived, the Karfunkel-Zyskind Family and Stone Point Capital
LLC, a private equity firm specializing in management buyouts,
approached the AmTrust Board, disclosing their intention to take
the Company private.  The Individual Defendants began preparing for
a take-private acquisition on May 25, 2017, when AmTrust issued
24,096,384 shares of common stock in a private placement, solely to
the Karfunkel-Zyskind Family, at $12.45 per share.  The transaction
increased the Karfunkel-Zyskind Family's control over AmTrust by
about 10%, bringing them to a position of over 50% ownership of
AmTrust.

On Jan. 9, 2018, Trident Pine Acquisition LP, an affiliate of Stone
Point, together with the Individual Defendants and certain entities
controlled by them, sent a letter to the Board of Directors of
AmTrust proposing the potential acquisition of all of AmTrust's
outstanding shares of common stock not already owned or controlled
by the Karfunkel-Zyskind Family.  In the Proposal Letter, the
Acquisition Group offered a purchase price of $12.25 per share in
cash -- the lowest price for AmTrust common stock in the preceding
five years.  The Proposal Letter was signed by David Wermuth (VP
and Secretary of the general partner of Trident), Zyskind, George
Karfunkel, and Leah Karfunkel.

Following several weeks of negotiations between and among the
Board, the Special Committee, and others, AmTrust announced on
March 1, 2018, that it had entered into a definitive merger
agreement with Evergreen Parent, L.P., an entity formed by the
Acquisition Group whereby the Karfunkel-Zyskind Family, the
Company's majority controlling stockholder, and Stone Point would
acquire the Company's minority common shares for $13.50 per share.
Stone Point and the Karfunkel-Zyskind Family also announced in the
March 1, 2018 Press Release that the Merger would allow AmTrust to
be able to focus on long term decisions, without the emphasis on
short-term results.

The Merger was heavily criticized that it became clear to the
Defendants that the vote on the Proposal would likely not satisfy
the majority-of-the-minority condition to which Defendants had
agreed in order to comply with Delaware corporate law.
Accordingly, the vote on the Merger was adjourned.  Following
adjournment, Icahn and Zyskind engaged in negotiations, and within
a day, the Acquisition Group agreed to increase its offer by $1.25
per share, to $14.75 per share.  In less than a month, Icahn's
investment in 18.4 million AmTrust common shares had netted him
approximately $23 million; he agreed to support the Merger at the
revised price, terminate his proxy battle, and dismiss his
lawsuit.

In light of the nominal increase the Merger consideration now fell
(albeit barely) within ISS' fairness range.  Consequently, ISS
modified its determination, recommending the Merger.  On June 21,
2018, a majority of unaffiliated stockholders (67.4%) voted to
approve the Merger.  The Merger closed on Nov. 29, 2018, and the
Acquisition Group acquired the remaining unaffiliated shares of
AmTrust's common stock.  Less than two months later, on Jan. 18,
2019, AmTrust issued a press release announcing the delisting of
all six series of preferred stock (as well as two series of
subordinated notes), the last remaining publicly traded AmTrust
equity securities.

According to the Plaintiff, the impact of the announcement was
devastating to the approximately $1 billion worth of preferred
stock then outstanding.  Specifically, on the next trading day
following the announcement of the delisting, the prices of all
series of preferred stock dropped, as Barron's reported, by almost
40%, losing over $300 million in value in one day.  Barron's also
noted that the delisting was a seeming reversal of promises that
AmTrust managers made to the SEC and state insurance regulators.

On Feb. 7, 2019, AmTrust filed a Form 15 advising that it had
terminated listing of all series of preferred stock.  The Form 15,
signed by Stephen Ungar, Senior VP, General Counsel and Secretary
of AmTrust, was entitled "Certification and Notice of Termination
of Registration Under Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 or Suspension of Duty to File Reports Under Sections 13 and
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934."

The Plaintiff filed the Complaint, styled as a putative class
action, on Aug. 28, 2019.  On Sept. 6, 2019, he reported that the
notice required to be published by the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act had been published on Aug. 30, 2019, in PR
Newswire.  On Sept. 9, 2019, the Court issued a motion schedule for
any party wishing to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff.  It
received a motion only from the Plaintiff.  Accordingly, on Nov.
18, 2019, the Court issued an order appointing Martinek as the Lead
Plaintiff, to represent purchasers of AmTrust preferred stock from
Jan. 22, 2018 to Jan. 18, 2019, inclusive, and approving his
selection of Wolf Popper LLP as the lead counsel.

On Jan. 27, 2020, the Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the
Complaint.  The Plaintiff filed his opposition brief on March 13,
2020.  On April 6, 2020, the Defendants submitted a request for
oral argument on their motion.  The Court endorsed the Defendants'
letter explaining that it would order oral argument if and when it
decided that oral argument would aid the Court in resolving the
motion.  It has now reviewed the motion papers and has determined
that oral argument is unnecessary.

The Plaintiff argues that each of the Defendants' representations
about AmTrust's preferred stock remaining listed on the NYSE
following the Merger was a material misstatement.  In response, the
Defendants argue that the Plaintiff has not shown that these
statements were false when made, and in any event, such statements
are protected forward-looking statements that cannot give rise to a
Section 10(b) claim.  Both sides group such alleged misstatements
into five groups.

Judge Failla opines that (i) while the Plaintiff proffers several
types of alleged misstatements, the representations that are most
clearly actionable are the Defendants' statements that the
preferred stock "will" continue to be listed post-Merger; (ii) the
Defendants' statements regarding their "expectations" that the
preferred stock will continue to remain listed to be actionable;
and (iii) at the time of issuing the preferred shares, AmTrust had
no duty to inform investors of the fact that it could one day
voluntarily delist its Securities, a fact which federal law has
always made clear.

The Complaint also alleges that the Individual Defendants violated
Section 20(a).  In moving to dismiss, the Defendants argue that the
Section 20(a) claim must fail because the Plaintiff has: (i) failed
to plead a Section 10(b) or Rule 10b-5 claim against AmTrust; and
(ii) not adequately pleaded that any Individual Defendant culpably
participated in securities fraud.  However, the Judge has already
found that the Plaintiff has stated a primary violation of Section
10(b) and adequately pleaded scienter.  The Plaintiff has certainly
alleged facts showing that the Individual Defendants knew or should
have known that AmTrust, over whom the Individual Defendants had
control, was engaging in fraudulent conduct.  Accordingly, the
Plaintiff has adequately pleaded his Section 20(b) claim.

For the reasons explained, Judge Failla denied the Defendants'
motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 14, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxnawpvn from
Leagle.com.


ANAPLAN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Anaplan Inc. Shareholders
interested in serving as lead plaintiff had 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.

PLAN Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/anaplan-inc-information-request-form?prid=10220&wire=1

Anaplan Inc. (NYSE:PLAN)

PLAN Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased November 21,
2019 - February 26, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 23, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/anaplan-inc-information-request-form?prid=10220&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Anaplan
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was undergoing sales
organization and execution challenges; (2) these organizational
challenges were causing the Company to miss on closing very
important large deals; and (3) as a result, Anaplan's financial
guidance for "calculated billings growth" was baseless and
unattainable. Further, while in possession of this material
non-public information, Anaplan insiders dumped approximately $30
million worth of Anaplan stock at artificially inflated prices.

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

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

APPLE INC: Faces Shareholders Class Action Over Cook's Comment
--------------------------------------------------------------
fudzilla.com reports that Apple must face a proposed class action
lawsuit by shareholders who accused Chief Executive Tim Cook of
concealing falling demand for iPhones in China.

US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said shareholders led by a
UK pension fund can sue over Cook's comment made on a 1 November
2018, analyst call that Apple was facing sales pressure in some
emerging market.

In the call, he specifically said that China was not in that
category. However a few days afterwards, Apple told suppliers to
curb production, and unexpectedly cut its quarterly revenue
forecast by up to $9 billion, which Cook blamed in part on pressure
on China's economy from US-China trade tensions.

This lowered revenue forecast was the first Apple had since the
iPhone's launch in 2007. Shares of Apple fell 10 percent the next
day, erasing $74 billion of market value.

Apple and Cook have said there was no proof they defrauded or
intended to defraud the plaintiffs. The company did not immediately
respond to requests for comment.

In a 23-page decision, Rogers said shareholders alleged that Cook's
statements on the analyst call about China were materially false
and misleading.

She said that while Cook might not have known specifics about
"troubling signs" in China that the company had begun seeing, it
"strains credulity" he would have been in the dark about the trade
tensions and their possible impact on Apple.

The plaintiffs raised a "strong inference" that Cook knew about the
risks when discussing China on the analyst call, and a "cogent and
compelling inference that Cook did not act innocently or with mere
negligence", Rogers wrote.

The plaintiffs are led by the Norfolk County Council as
Administering Authority of the Norfolk Pension Fund, located in
Norwich, England. [GN]

ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: March 11 Final Hearing on Wong Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Arlo Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 27, 2020, that final approval
hearing of the settlement in Wong v. Arlo Technologies, Inc. et
al., No. 19-CV-00372, is scheduled for March 11, 2021.

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

Some of these actions also name as defendants the underwriters in
the Company's initial public offering ("IPO") and NETGEAR, Inc. The
actions pending in state court are Aversa v. Arlo Technologies,
Inc., et al., No. 18CV339231, filed Dec. 11, 2018; Pham v. Arlo
Technologies, Inc. et al., No. 19CV340741, filed January 9, 2019;
Patel v. Arlo Technologies, Inc., No. 19CV340758, filed January 10,
2019; Perros v. NetGear, Inc., No. 19CV342071, filed February 1,
2019; Vardanian v. Arlo Technologies, Inc., No. 19CV342318, filed
February 8, 2019; and Hill v. Arlo Technologies, Inc. et al., No.
19CV343033, filed February 22, 2019.

On April 26, 2019, the state court consolidated these actions as In
re Arlo Technologies, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, No. 18CV339231.


The action pending in federal court is Wong v. Arlo Technologies,
Inc. et al., No. 19-CV-00372 (the “Federal Action”).
    
The plaintiffs in the State Action filed a consolidated complaint
on May 1, 2019. The plaintiffs allege that the Company failed to
adequately disclose quality control problems and adverse sales
trends ahead of its IPO, violating the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other
relief on behalf of investors who purchased Company common stock
issued pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO.

On June 21, 2019, the court stayed the State Action pending
resolution of the Federal Action, given the substantial overlap
between the claims. The court has set a case management conference
for December 16, 2020, so the parties can provide an update
regarding the Federal Action.

In the Federal Action, the court appointed a shareholder named
Matis Nayman as lead plaintiff. On June 7, 2019, the plaintiff
filed an amended complaint. Plaintiff alleges violations of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, based on alleged materially false and
misleading statements about the Company's sales trends and
products.

In the amended complaint, the plaintiff sought to represent a class
of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common
stock (i) during the period between August 3, 2018 through December
3, 2018 and/or (ii) pursuant to or traceable to the IPO.

Plaintiff seeks class certification, an award of unspecified
damages, an award of costs and expenses, including attorneys’
fees, and other further relief as the court may deem just and
proper.

On August 6, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The
court granted that motion, and the plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint. On June 12, 2020, the plaintiff filed an unopposed
motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement for
$1.25 million. The settlement remains subject to further court
approval.

On September 24, 2020, the court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement. The final approval hearing is scheduled
for March 11, 2021.

Arlo said, "As of September 27, 2020, the Company had accrued a
loss contingency of $1.25 million for the Federal Action,
reflecting the amounts owed under the settlement agreement. In
October 2020, the Company made a $1.25 million payment to an escrow
account administered by the court and plaintiff's counsel. The
Settlement Fund shall be deemed to be in the custody of the court
and shall remain subject to the jurisdiction of the court until
such time as the Settlement Fund is distributed pursuant to the
settlement agreement and/or further order of the court.

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

ASPEN HOME: Squire Patton Discusses Ruling in Eder Case
-------------------------------------------------------
Brent Owen, Esq. -- brent.owen@squirepb.com -- of Squire Patton
Boggs, in an article for TCPA World, reports that TCPA class
actions cause headaches, or worse. Courts agree. The Eleventh
Circuit recently described the in terrorem character of the TCPA
class action, observing the "pressure to settle the case" no matter
the merits. See Cordoba v. DIRECTV, LLC, 942 F.3d 1259, 1276 (11th
Cir.  2019).

But refusing to participate is not a good back up plan. The United
States District Court of the Middle District of Florida recently
granted a plaintiff "leave to conduct class certification and
damages-related discovery." Eder v. Aspen Home Improvements, Inc.,
Case No. 8:20-cv-1306-T-23JSS, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183768, *2
(M.D. Fla. Oct. 2, 2020).  Citing other recent decisions, that
court explained: "It would be unjust to prevent Plaintiff from
attempting to demonstrate the elements for certification of a class
without the benefit of discovery, due to the defendant's failure to
participate in the case." Id. So even though the defendant "failed
to appear in this action, class certification-related discovery is
warranted." Id. at *3.

A defendant that declines to participate in a TCPA class action may
only cause more problems in the long run. [GN]


AT WORLD PROPERTIES: Metroff Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against At World Properties,
LLC. The case is styled as Biljana Metroff, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. At World Properties,
LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-07050 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 30, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

At World Properties, LLC operates as a real estate brokerage
company. The Company offers sales, receivership, asset
preservation, property management, consulting, and development
services related to the acquisition of mortgage notes including
residential and commercial properties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Telephone: (630) 575-8181
          Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com


AUSTRALIA: Cafe Owner Mulls Lawsuit Over Melbourne's Curfew
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mary Gearin, writing for ABC News, reports that lawyers for a cafe
owner seeking to sue the Victorian Government have told the Supreme
Court that there is "serious doubt" about the legal legitimacy of
Melbourne's curfew.

Michelle Loielo, 41, says she fears losing her home because her
Mornington Peninsula business is struggling under the city's
stringent stage 4 restrictions, which include a curfew from 9:00pm
until 5:00am.

Ms. Loielo, who has flagged her intention to run for Liberal Party
preselection at the next state election, said her business's
turnover had dropped from $20,000 a week to $400.

In a directions hearing, counsel for Ms. Loielo told the court the
curfew was a deprivation of human rights, not just for her and her
three children, but for "millions of healthy citizens".

"There is no other example in the history of this country where
millions of healthy citizens have been arbitrarily detained in
their homes, deprived of liberty and [the] right to move freely by
the direction of an administrative decision-maker," said Vanessa
Plain, who is acting for Ms. Loielo.

Ms. Plain told Justice Tim Ginnane the curfew violates Ms Loielo's
right to freedom of movement, right to liberty and right to not be
subject to arbitrary detention, under the Charter of Human Rights
and Responsibilities Act.

She told the judge the gravity of the claims would have
ramifications not just for Ms. Loielo and her children, "but for
the millions of Victorian adults and children in detention,
effectively at the behest of the Premier of Victoria".

Despite her arguments for the case to be immediately referred to
the Court of Appeal because of its "extraordinarily unprecedented
nature", the judge said procedural fairness meant he would need to
see more submissions before he made his decision.

A directions hearing was set for last Sept. 2.

Call for curfew to be declared invalid

On Sept. 14, lawyers for Ms. Loielo filed a motion in the Supreme
Court against Michelle Giles, who is Victoria's Deputy Public
Health Commander, for the city's curfew to be declared "unlawful
and invalid".

They claim that the curfew is not "reasonably proportionate" and
that public health officials behind the lockdown failed to take
into account the "social and psychological impact" of the measure
and their client's human rights.

Ms. Loielo said she was not seeking any damages or compensation.

"The ultimate goal is to be able to stop at BP on the way home and
grab my milk and bread as I used to," Ms Loielo said.

Opposition Leader Michael O'Brien said the Coalition backed the
action and believed it had a good chance of success.

"There is every chance Daniel Andrews has acted illegally in
locking down 5 million Victorians and that's why it's so important
that this case go to court and be tested," Mr. O'Brien said.

Civil class action blames Government for second wave job losses

The Victorian Government is also facing legal action from workers
who lost their jobs during the second round of coronavirus
restrictions in the state.

Lawyer Tony Carbone, who is representing plaintiffs including a
21-year-old worker made redundant from his roadside assistance job,
said they were suing for people's loss of income during stage 3 and
4 restrictions.

"But for the State Government's inept handling of the hotel
quarantine, we wouldn't have had the second round of lockdowns and
people wouldn't have lost their jobs," he said.

"What I want to make clear is this -- we're not blaming the
Government for any job losses prior to the second round of
lockdowns.

"We're saying that this claim picks up anyone that has lost their
job because of the second round of lockdowns."

The civil suit argues that the State Government is liable for
damages because of its handling of the hotel quarantine system.

Mr. Carbone said there was no need to wait until the independent
inquiry into the hotel quarantine system had concluded.

"There's enough information out there to show that this second
round of lockdowns is due to the incompetent handling -- and
really, the negligence -- of the Government appointing the security
companies to look after returned travellers," he said.

"It's all out there."

Mr. Carbone said the second lockdown had devastated many employers,
some of whom would not reopen.

"Most employers that I spoke to prior to the second round of
lockdowns were very optimistic about getting back to 60 per cent,
70 per cent or 80 per cent of capacity by the end of the year," he
said.

"I've spoken to a lot of these people in recent times and they've
been very, very disheartened."

A spokesperson for the Victorian Government said: "As this matter
is before the courts, it'd be inappropriate to comment any
further." [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Melbourne Restaurants Mull Class Suit Over Dining Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Mitchell, writing for 3AW693, reports that some of Melbourne's
most iconic restaurants are banding together, threatening the
government with class action over its "unrealistic" plan to
overhaul the city's restaurants and bars.

They say they have been continually "ignored" and stonewalled by
Daniel Andrews.

Chin Chin owner Chris Lucas said the industry was on the verge of a
"wipe out" and needed to be trusted to do the right thing.

"We have a track record and we need to be trusted," he told Neil
Mitchell.

"They (government) don't trust business and don't trust us as
experts of our own operations.

"Of course we want to fight the virus, of course we don't want
deaths in the community and of course we want to open safely.

"Time and time again we have pleaded with the government and put
proposals to them that clearly demonstrate that Melbourne's
restaurant industry can exert world's best practice when it comes
to opening up safely."

Mr. Lucas said he wasn't opposed to outdoor dining, but it
shouldn't be seen as the solution.

"It's not a substitute for an industry which 99 per cent of its
business model is built on indoor dining in what is a cool climate
city," he said.

"We are happy to consider outdoor dining, but not at the cost of
keeping our restaurants closed based on these unrealistic targets."
[GN]


BAHAMAS PARADISE: To Settle Seafarers' Class Action for $875K
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Coyne, writing for TradeWinds, reports that Bahamas Paradise
Cruise Line is prepared to set aside $875,000 to settle claims
against it by a handful of seafarers stuck in Florida after the
Covid-19. [GN]



BAIDU INC: Klein Law Reminds of Class Action
--------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Aurora Cannabis 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.

Aurora Cannabis Inc. (NYSE:ACB)
Class Period: February 13, 2020 - September 4, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 1, 2020

The complaint alleges that during the class period Aurora Cannabis
Inc. made 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.

Learn about your recoverable losses in ACB:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/aurora-cannabis-inc-loss-submission-form-2?id=10243&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]

BAIDU INC: Portnoy Law Reminds of Class Action
----------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advised investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Baidu, Inc. (NASDAQ: BIDU) investors
that acquired shares between April 8, 2016 and August 13, 2020.
Investors had until October 19, 2020 to seek an active role in this
litigation.

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

Baidu founded iQIYI in 2010. Baidu currently owns an approximately
56% controlling interest in iQIYI.

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

Baidu's American depositary share ("ADS") price fell $7.83 per ADS,
or 6%, on this news, to close at $116.74 per ADS on August 14,
2020, damaging investors.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.

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

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

BLINK CHARGING: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Blink Charging Company.
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff had 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.

BLNK Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/blink-charging-company-information-request-form?prid=10220&wire=1

Blink Charging Company (NASDAQ:BLNK)

BLNK Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 6, 2020 -
August 19, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 23, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/blink-charging-company-information-request-form?prid=10220&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Blink
Charging Company made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) many of Blink's charging
stations are damaged, neglected, non-functional, inaccessible, nor
non-accessible; (ii) Blink's purported partnerships and expansions
with other companies were overstated; (iii) the purported growth of
the Company's network has been overstated; and (iv) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

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

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

CABOT OIL: Kahn Swick Reminds of Class Action
---------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, the former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., reminded investors that
they had only until October 13, 2020 to file lead plaintiff
applications in securities class action lawsuits against Cabot Oil
& Gas Corporation (NYSE: COG), if they purchased the Company's
securities between October 23, 2015, and June 12, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). These actions are pending in the United
States District Courts for the Southern District of Texas and
Middle District of Pennsylvania.

What You May Do

If you purchased securities of Cabot and would like to discuss your
legal rights and how these cases might affect you and your right to
recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost
to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at
1-877-515-1850 or via email to learn more. Those wishing to serve
as a lead plaintiff in these class actions by overseeing lead
counsel with the goal of obtaining a fair and just resolution,
requested this position by application to the Court last October
13, 2020 .

About the Lawsuits

Cabot and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

On June 15, 2020, the Attorney General of Pennsylvania announced
fifteen criminal counts against the Company, including nine
felonies, following recommendations from a grand jury investigation
that noted the Company's "long-term indifference" to pollution
damage to water supplies caused by its faulty gas wells. On this
news, the price of Cabot's shares plummeted.

The first-filed case is Windler v. Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation, et
al, 20-cv-02827.

                            About Kahn Swick

Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, whose partners include former Louisiana
Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's
premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a
variety of clients - including public institutional investors,
hedge funds, money managers and retail investors - in seeking to
recover investment losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by
publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California
and Louisiana. [GN]

CAREPARTNERS: Faces Ontario Privacy Breach Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Waddell Phillips PC, Schneider Law Firm PC, and Howie Sacks & Henry
LLP have commenced a proposed class action on behalf of the
hundreds of thousands of Ontarians whose personal information was
compromised in the 2018 CarePartners privacy breach.

CarePartners has an estimated 237,000 patients across Ontario, and
is a home healthcare service provider partner of the Local Health
Integration Network provincial health authorities.

On June 18, 2018, CarePartners announced that it had been subject
to a hack and privacy breach involving employee and patient
information. Subsequently, the cyber attackers who claimed
responsibility for the hack announced that they had been able to
steal virtually all of the data on CarePartners' servers, including
full employee records and medical files for CarePartners patients.
They claimed that CarePartners was utilizing vulnerable software
that had not been updated in years, and had failed to encrypt any
of the data on their servers.

The claim alleges that CarePartners did not notify its patients
about the breach until after a national news broadcast revealed
that the hackers had provided reporters with stolen copies of
private health records for thousands of CarePartners' patients.

Cyber attacks on healthcare providers have become increasingly
common. The need to be hyper-vigilant and to ensure that security
measures are current is the expected standard.

"That none of the data extracted by the cyber attackers was
encrypted demonstrates just how unprepared CarePartners was to meet
the bare minimum of cyber security standards. Consistently updated
information protection tools, including strong encryption, are
essential in today's rapidly evolving technological world," said
Cary Schneider, a founding partner at Schneider Law Firm PC and
cyber breach specialist.

"Personal health information is the most sensitive type of personal
information, and corporations that store personal health
information must meet correspondingly high privacy protection
standards. CarePartners failed to do that, and its patients and
employees paid the price," says Paul Miller, a partner at Howie
Sacks & Henry LLP who specializes in class actions and mass torts.

The class action team is being led by Margaret Waddell, founding
partner of Waddell Phillips PC, who is recognized by multiple
lawyer ranking agencies as a leader in plaintiff-side class
actions, and has acted as class counsel on a number of prominent
cases. Waddell says, "In our opinion, CarePartners' lack of
transparency regarding the breach and the efforts it has made to
retrieve and protect its clients' most sensitive health information
is egregious. Clients have a right to know what has happened to
their health records, and why they were not properly protected."

Further information regarding the proposed class action will be
posted as it becomes available at
https://waddellphillips.ca/class-actions/carepartners-class-action.

Contact:
Tina Q Yang                           
Waddell Phillips PC                
(647) 847-2294                      
tina@waddellphillips.ca [GN]


CENTURYLINK INC: Dismissal of Houser Suit Under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the plaintiffs in
the putative shareholder class action suit entitled, Houser et al.
v. CenturyLink, et al. have taken an appeal from the court decision
dismissing the complaint, and the appeal is pending.

On September 14, 2020, the company announced the "Lumen" brand
launch and effective September 18, 2020, began trading under the
ticker symbol "LUMN." As a result, CenturyLink, Inc. is referred to
as "Lumen Technologies," or simply "Lumen." The legal name
"CenturyLink, Inc." is expected to be formally changed to "Lumen
Technologies, Inc." upon satisfying all applicable legal
requirements.

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

The complaint asserts claims on behalf of a putative class of
former Level 3 shareholders who became CenturyLink, Inc.
shareholders as a result of the company's acquisition of Level 3.

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

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

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

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

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

COMMUNITY OPTIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Garcia Says
------------------------------------------------------------
JUANA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COMMUNITY OPTIONS, INC.; and COMMUNITY
OPTIONS NEW YORK, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05711
(E.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2020) is an action against the Defendants'
failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff Garcia was employed by the Defendants as staff.

Community Options, Inc. is a nonprofit organization located in the
State of New Jersey. The Organization provides community based
residential and employment support services to people with mental
retardation, autism, physical disabilities, traumatic brain injury,
and dual diagnoses. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Q. Davis, Esq.
          Rachel M. Haskell, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER Q. DAVIS, PLLC
          80 Broad Street, Suite 703
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (646) 430-7930


CONNECTICUT: 2nd Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Liberian Community Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the
judgment of the district court dismissing the lawsuit commenced by
the Liberian Community Association of Connecticut, et al., against
Connecticut officials; but remanded with instructions to amend the
judgment to clarify that the state law claims were dismissed
without prejudice.

The appellate case is LIBERIAN COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF
CONNECTICUT, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated,
LOUISE MENSAH-SIEH, on behalf of herself and her minor children
B.D. and S.N., on behalf of themselves and those similarly
situated, VICTOR SIEH, on behalf of themselves and those similarly
situated, EMMANUEL KAMARA, on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated, ASSUNTA NIMLEY-PHILLIPS, on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated, LAURA SKRIP, on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated, RYAN BOYKO, on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated, ESTHER YALARTAI, on behalf
of themselves and those similarly situated, BISHOP HARMON YALARTAI,
on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NED LAMONT, Governor, DEIDRE S. GIFFORD,
Acting Commissioner of Public Health, JEWEL MULLEN, Former
Commissioner of Public Health, Defendants-Appellees, Case No.
17-1558 (2d Cir.).

The case arises out of the Ebola epidemic that ravaged West Africa
between 2014 and 2016.  In response to the epidemic, then-Governor
Dannel Malloy declared a public health emergency in the State of
Connecticut.  The declaration authorized Dr. Jewel Mullen,
then-Commissioner of Public Health, to isolate or quarantine
individuals whom she believed had been exposed to or could transmit
the Ebola virus.  She ordered 21-day quarantines for two Ph.D.
candidates -- Ryan Boyko and Laura Skrip -- and six members of the
Mensah-Sieh family who had recently emigrated from Liberia.  None
of the quarantined individuals were infected with Ebola.

Appellants Boyko, Skrip, the Mensah-Siehs, Assunta Nimley-Phillips,
Bishop Harmon Yalartai, Esther Yalartai, and the Liberian Community
Association of Connecticut filed a putative class-action suit in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut challenging
the state officials' actions on Feb. 8, 2016.  They primarily
alleged violations of their substantive and procedural due process
rights and the Fourth Amendment.

All the Appellants sought declaratory and injunctive relief; Boyko
and the Mensah-Siehs also sought damages from Dr. Mullen.  They
allege that the Appellees, inter alia, (1) violated the substantive
due process rights of Boyko, Skrip and the Mensah-Siehs by
quarantining them without medical or epidemiological justification
and in a manner that substantially exceeded the least restrictive
means necessary; (2) violated their procedural due process rights
by failing to make individualized assessments or providing adequate
notice and an opportunity to challenge their quarantines; and (3)
violated the Fourth Amendment by unreasonably seizing them through
the quarantines.

They also asserted various state law tort claims, and moved to
certify a class consisting of all persons who will or intend to
travel from Ebola-affected countries to Connecticut and are at risk
of the Defendants subjecting them to an unlawful and scientifically
unjustified quarantine.

The Defendants -- the Governor and Commissioners of Public Health
-- moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and failure to state a
claim under Rule 12(b)(6), and they opposed the motion for class
certification.

As to these constitutional claims, the district court dismissed the
claims for injunctive relief under Rule 12(b)(1), for lack of
standing, and dismissed the claims for damages under Rule 12(b)(6),
on the basis of Dr. Mullen's assertion of qualified immunity.  The
court also denied the motion for class certification, concluding
that the proposed class is too speculative to satisfy the
numerosity requirement for class certification.  Accordingly, the
district court entered judgment dismissing the action, although the
judgment did not specify that the state claims were dismissed
without prejudice.  The appeal followed.

The Appellants advance two principal arguments on appeal: first,
that they have standing to seek prospective relief, and, second,
that Dr. Mullen is not entitled to qualified immunity on Boyko and
the Mensah-Siehs' damages claim.  

The Second Circuit disagrees as to both arguments and discerns no
error in the district court's standing or qualified immunity
analysis.  The Second Circuit finds that the Appellants failed to
plead a sufficient likelihood that, under the revised policy, any
of them faces a substantial risk of suffering a future injury.
They have failed plausibly to allege any basis for concluding that
they will be threatened with quarantine by Connecticut state
officials who act within the revised policy.  They merely allege
that they must make travel plans under the reasonable fear of being
subject to another unjustified and unlawful quarantine.  The notion
that the Appellants must undertake reasonable efforts in the
present to avert injury in the future is also speculative, and they
lack standing to pursue any of their prospective claims.

Regarding the claim for damages against Dr. Mullen, Boyko and the
Mensah-Siehs -- the only Appellants seeking damages -- advance
three legal bases for their claim: substantive due process,
procedural due process, and the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on
unreasonable seizures.

The Second Circuit only examines whether, at the time of Dr.
Mullen's alleged conduct, it was clearly established that her
conduct ran afoul of these constitutional protections.  It finds
that there was by no means a "robust consensus" on the proper
standard for analyzing quarantine claims at the time of the conduct
at issue.  As the Supreme Court has recognized, public officials
cannot be expected to predict the future course of constitutional
law based on their reading of a handful of non-precedential
opinions.  Neither civil commitment law nor other infectious
disease cases had clearly articulated the substantive due process
standard the Appellants urge should have governed Dr. Mullen's
actions.  Accordingly, the district court did not err in affording
qualified immunity as to the claim.

In addition, while the full panoply of their rights under state law
was not immediately conveyed to them in writing, nor was a hearing
convened, the Appellants point to no case that clearly establishes
that Dr. Mullen violated the Constitution by failing to undertake
these measures.  The Court has been unable to find -- and the
Appellants do not identify -- any cases articulating federal
procedural due process protections in the quarantine context.

Finally, the Appellants assert that Dr. Mullen's over-inclusive
sweep was not reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, because in
quarantining Boyko, Skrip, and the Mensah-Siehs, she departed from
what is scientifically justified for a particular disease.
According to them, all the Plaintiffs had no known exposure to
Ebola, Boyko had undergone several blood tests confirming that he
did not have the disease, and Boyko and Skrip had been assured by
CDC representatives that any interactions with a person in their
hotel who later developed symptoms posed no risk.

To be clear, the Court need not and does not reach the merits of
the Appellants' constitutional claims.  It concludes simply that
the district court did not err in determining that no clearly
established law existed at the time of Dr. Mullen's actions such
that every reasonable official would have known that her conduct
fell outside the boundaries of due process and Fourth Amendment
constraints.  No significant precedent had previously articulated
the requirements of substantive due process, procedural due
process, or the Fourth Amendment in the quarantine or infectious
diseases contexts, as urged by the Appellants.   In such
circumstances, the district court properly concluded that Dr.
Mullen is entitled to qualified immunity.

The Second Circuit has considered the Appellants' remaining
arguments and finds them to be without merit.  For the foregoing
reasons, the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district
court but remanded with instructions to amend the judgment to
clarify that the state law claims were dismissed without
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Second Circuit's Aug. 14, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2mk33l9 from Leagle.com.

D'LANEY GIELOW (Michael J. Wishnie -- michael.wishnie@yale.edu --
Amy Kapczynski, Dana Bolger, Kyle Edwards, Megha Ram, on the
briefs), Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization, Yale Law
School, New Haven, CT, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

JEREMY ERSHOW -- jershow@jenner.com -- (Susan J. Kohlmann --
skohlmann@jenner.com -- Jeremy M. Creelan, Irene M. Ten Cate, on
the briefs), Jenner & Block LLP, New York, NY.

(Robert M. Palumbos, Duane Morris LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for George
J. Annas, Jennifer Bard, Leo Beletsky, Micah Berman, Scott Burris,
Erwin Chemerinsky, Linda C. Fentiman, Lance Gable, Brandon Garrett,
Lawrence O. Gostin, Jonathan Hafetz, Helen Hershkoff, Peter D.
Jacobson, Jonathan Kahn, Renee M. Landers, Sylvia A. Law, Jenny S.
Martinez, Seema Mohapatra, Burt Neuborne, Wendy Parmet, Aziz Rana,
Judith Resnik, Kermit Roosevelt, Charity Scott, and Stephen I.
Vladeck, as amici curiae).

(Kim E. Rinehart -- krinehart@wiggin.com -- Wiggin and Dana, LLP,
New Haven, CT, for Yale New Haven Health Services Corporation,
Hartford Hospital, The Hospital of Central Connecticut, Backus
Hospitals, MidState Medical Center, Windham Hospital, Saint Francis
Hospital and Medical Center, Johnson Memorial Hospital, Saint
Mary's Hospital, Bristol Hospital, and Western Connecticut Health
Network, Inc., as amici curiae).

(Dan Barrett, ACLU Foundation of Connecticut, Hartford, CT, and
Esha Bhandari, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York,
NY, for American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties
Union of Connecticut, Doctors Without Borders/Medécins Sans
Frontières USA as amici curiae).

(Ann O'Leary and Kathleen Hartnett, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP,
Palo Alto, CA, and David A. Barrett and Yotam Barkai, Boies
Schiller Flexner LLP, New York, NY, for Mark Barnes, Leana Wen, and
Jeffrey Duchin as amici curiae).

ROBERT J. DEICHERT, Assistant Attorney General, for George Jepsen,
Attorney General, Hartford, CT, for Defendants-Appellants.


CONSOL ENERGY: Casey-Fitzwater Consolidated Class Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend the "Casey-Fitzwater" consolidated class action
suit.

A class action lawsuit was filed on August 23, 2017 on behalf of
two nonunion retired coal miners against Consolidation Coal Company
("CCC"), CONSOL of Kentucky Inc. ("COK"), CONSOL Buchanan Mining
Co., LLC and Kurt Salvatori in West Virginia Federal Court alleging
ERISA violations in the termination of retiree health care
benefits.

Filed by the same lawyers who filed the Fitzwater litigation, and
raising nearly identical claims, the Plaintiffs contend they relied
to their detriment on oral promises of "lifetime health benefits"
allegedly made by various members of management during Plaintiffs'
employment and that they were not provided with copies of Summary
Plan Documents clearly reserving to the Company the right to modify
or terminate the Retiree Health and Welfare Plan.

Plaintiffs request that retiree health benefits be reinstated for
them and their dependents and seek to represent a class of all
nonunion retirees of any subsidiary of the Company's former parent
that operated or employed individuals in McDowell or Mercer
Counties, West Virginia, or Buchanan or Tazewell Counties, Virginia
whose retiree welfare benefits were terminated.

On December 1, 2017, the trial court judge in Fitzwater signed an
order to consolidate Fitzwater with Casey. The Casey complaint was
amended on March 1, 2018 to add new plaintiffs, add defendant
CONSOL Pennsylvania Coal Company, LLC and eliminate defendant
CONSOL Buchanan Mining Co., LLC in an attempt to expand the class
of retirees.

On October 15, 2019, the Plaintiffs' supplemental motion for class
certification was denied on all counts.

On July 15, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal with the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on the Order denying class
certification. The Fourth Circuit denied the Plaintiffs' appeal on
August 14, 2020.

On October 1, 2020, the District Court entered a pretrial order
setting the trial date for November 16, 2020.

The Company believes it has a meritorious defense and intends to
vigorously defend this suit.

CONSOL Energy Inc. produces and exports bituminous coal. It owns
and operates its mining operations in the Northern Appalachian
Basin. The company owns and operates the Pennsylvania Mining
Complex (PAMC), which comprises three underground mines, including
Bailey, Enlow Fork, and Harvey; and CONSOL Marine Terminal located
in the port of Baltimore. CONSOL Energy Inc. was founded in 1864
and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.

CONSUMER CELLULAR: Thomas Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Consumer Cellular
Inc. The case is styled as George L. Thomas, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Consumer Cellular Inc.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00251-H-BU (N.D. Tex., Nov. 30, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Consumer Cellular is an American postpaid mobile virtual network
operator founded by John Marick and Greg Pryor in October 1995. The
company offers cellphones, no-contract cellphone plans, and
accessories with a focus on users age 50-plus.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Telephone: (630) 575-8181
          Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com


DCM SERVICES: Vega Files Suit in M.D. Florida Over FDCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DCM Services, LLC.
The case is styled as Carmen I. Vega, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. DCM Services, LLC, Case No.
6:20-cv-02186 (M.D. Fla., Nov. 30, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

DCM Services, LLC, is a third-party collection agency with a
primary focus on estate recoveries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander J. Taylor, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone: (630) 575-8181
          Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com


DICKEY'S BARBECUE: Kostka Says Card Info Exposed After Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------------
DEMI KOSTKA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DICKEY'S BARBECUE RESTAURANTS, INC., Case No.
3:20-cv-03424-K (N.D. Tex., Nov. 16, 2020) is an action brought by
the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, whose private and confidential financial information,
including credit card and debit card numbers, expiration dates,
cardholder names, internal card verification codes, and other
payment card information was compromised in a massive security
breach of Dickey's computer servers and payment card environment
between July 2019 and August 2020.

According to cybersecurity expert Krebs on Security, highly
sensitive consumer card information for an estimated three million
payment cards used at the Defendant's restaurant locations are made
available for purchase on the notorious dark Web commerce site
Joker's Stash as a result of the data breach. The Plaintiff and
other similarly situated consumers, thereby, have had their highly
sensitive card information exposed to criminals.

The complaint further alleges that the Defendant's failure to
implement adequate data security measures to protect its customers'
sensitive card information directly and proximately caused injuries
to Plaintiff and class members. Despite the well-publicized and
ever-growing threat of security breaches involving payment card
networks and systems, and even though these types of data breaches
were and are occurring frequently throughout the restaurant and
retail industries, the Defendant failed to ensure that it
maintained adequate data security measures to protect customer card
information from criminals.

The Plaintiff and class members seek to recover damages caused by
the Defendant's negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied
contract, and unjust enrichment. Additionally, the Plaintiff seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief as a result of the Defendant's
unlawful conduct, the suit says.

Dickey's Barbecue Restaurants, Inc. is a family-owned franchise
that operates smoked-meat and barbecue restaurant locations called
Dickey's Barbecue Pit across the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cory S. Fein, Esq.
          CORY FEIN LAW FIRM
          712 Main Street, Suite 800
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (281) 254-7717
          Facsimile: (530) 748-0601
          E-mail: cory@coryfeinlaw.com

               - and -

          Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
          Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq.
          Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
          Alex M. Kashurba, Esq.
          CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER
            & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
          One Haverford Centre
          361 Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: (610) 642-8500
          E-mail: bfj@chimicles.com
                  awf@chimicles.com
                  seh@chimicles.com
                  amk@chimicles.com

               - and -

          Ben Barnow, Esq.
          Erich P. Schork, Esq.
          Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq.
          BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          205 W. Randolph St., Suite 1630
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 621-2000
          Facsimile: (312) 641-5504
          E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
                  e.schork@barnowlaw.com
                  aparkhill@barnowlaw.com

DIRECT CAPITAL: Faces Fabricant Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DIRECT CAPITAL SOURCE, INC.; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case 2:20-cv-10663 (C.D. Cal.,
Nov. 23, 2020) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making
unsolicited calls pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Direct Capital Source, Inc. is an online financial services
company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          Tom E. Wheeler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (323) 306-4234
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                  twheeler@toddflaw.com


DIRECT MARKETING: Rowan Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Direct Marketing
Group LLC. The case is styled as Nathan Rowan, individually and on
behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v.
Direct Marketing Group LLC, Case No. 8:20-cv-02248 (C.D. Cal., Nov.
30, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Direct Marketing Group specializes in bringing customers to
businesses, through efficient digital marketing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN PA
          400 NW 26th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Telephone: (305) 469-5881
          Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com


DIRECTV LLC: Judge Rushing Reverses Arbitration Ruling in Mey Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
Elliot Mincberg, writing for People for the American Way, reports
that Trump Fourth Circuit judge Allison Rushing wrote a 2-1
decision reversing a district court and requiring a consumer to
arbitrate a complaint against DIRECTV for making unwanted and
illegal telemarketing calls, even though she had never signed an
arbitration agreement with that company. The August 2020 case,
which also stopped the consumer from pursuing a class action to
obtain broader relief, is Mey v. DIRECTV, LLC.

In 2017, Diana Mey filed a lawsuit against DIRECTV, contending that
it had violated federal law by calling her cell phone to push
DIRECTV and related products, even though her phone was registered
on the national "do not call" list. She filed the suit as a class
action to try to get relief on behalf of herself and many others
who suffered the same problem.

DIRECTV claimed, however, that Mey could not file a class action
and had to submit to arbitration of her individual claims because
of an arbitration agreement she signed with AT&T Mobility when she
entered into a cell-phone service contract with it in 2012.
Although DIRECTV had nothing to do with AT&T Mobility in 2012, AT&T
Inc. acquired DIRECTV in 2015, and now controls both DIRECTV and
AT&T Mobility. DIRECTV claimed that the agreement Mey signed to
arbitrate all claims and not file a class action concerning
disputes with AT&T Mobility and its "affiliates" now also covers
DIRECTV.

A district court rejected DIRECTV's argument, finding that the
dispute with that corporation "does not fall within the ambit of
the arbitration agreement." DIRECTV appealed.

In a 2-1 decision written by Trump judge Rushing, the Fourth
Circuit reversed the district court and ruled that Mey could not
file a class action and must instead arbitrate her individual
claims against DIRECTV.  Rushing claimed that the provision in the
arbitration agreement that covered "affiliates" also encompassed
DIRECTV, even though there was no affiliation until three years
after the agreement was signed and even though the services
provided by the two companies are completely different. Based on
the broad language of the contract, the general "presumption" that
disputes should be arbitrated, and cases ruling that a company can
become an "affiliate" of another company for arbitration agreement
purposes after the agreement is signed, Rushing ruled that Mey must
arbitrate her dispute with DIRECTV and could not file a class
action lawsuit.

Judge Pamela Harris strongly dissented. DIRECTV provides satellite
television services, she pointed out, "not cell-phone service."
Although she agreed that a later affiliate could come under an
arbitration agreement like this one, she explained that under
"standard principles of contract law," such a later affiliate must
have some connection to the cell-phone service covered by the
contract. A person signing the agreement, she went on "would have
no reason to believe she was signing away her right to sue any and
all corporate entities that might later come under the same
corporate umbrella as AT&T Mobility, regardless of whether they
were connected in any way to the provision of her cell-phone
service." The agreement language is clear enough, Harris continued,
that "no presumption could override it." Harris pointed out that
the "only other case" to have addressed this specific issue, a
district court case in California, reached "precisely" the
conclusion that she and the district court did.

Judge Harris also noted the extraordinarily broad reach and
consequences of Rushing's opinion. AT&T Mobility has over 165
million subscribers who have signed arbitration agreements. That
means that, according to the majority, "half the country is bound
to arbitrate any dispute, occurring at any time, with any entity
that ever is subsumed under the massive AT&T Inc. corporate
umbrella." And no AT&T Mobility customer can file a lawsuit against
"any one" of such entities, which include Warner Brothers, HBO, and
Turner, "for any reason," in a class action or otherwise.

Trump judge Rushing's troubling opinion thus does much more than
harm Diana Mey and others who have received illegal DIRECTV
telemarketing calls. It also accelerates the trend, begun by the
Roberts Court, of harming consumers by forcing individual
arbitration of complaints about corporate misconduct and preventing
effective methods like class actions to seek relief. [GN]


EASTMAN KODAK: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Eastman Kodak Company.
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff had 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.

KODK Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/eastman-kodak-company-information-request-form-2?prid=9956&wire=1

Eastman Kodak Company (NYSE:KODK)

KODK Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased July 27, 2020 -
August 11, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : October 13, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/eastman-kodak-company-information-request-form-2?prid=9956&wire=1

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

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

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

EI DU PONT: Continues to Defend PFAS-Related Class Suit in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5,
2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
company continues to defend against a nationwide class action suit
in Ohio related to Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS) water contamination.

The company (EID) is a defendant in three lawsuits: an action by
the State of Ohio based on alleged damage to natural resources, a
putative nationwide class action brought on behalf of anyone who
has detectable levels of PFAS in their blood serum, and an action
by the City of Dayton claiming losses related to the investigation,
remediation and monitoring of polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)in
water supplies.

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

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company operates as a science and
technology-based company in the United States and internationally.
The company was founded in 1802 and is headquartered in Wilmington,
Delaware. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company is a subsidiary of
DowDuPont Inc.

ENTERPRISE RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Campos Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR CAMPOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ENTERPRISE RESTAURANT LLC d/b/a AMARANTH;
and JEAN FRANCOIS MARCHAND, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-09862
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff Campos was employed by the Defendants as busboy.

Enterprise Restaurant LLC d/b/a Amaranth is engaged in the
restaurant business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1180
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181


FENNEC PHARMA: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc.
You can review a copy of the Complaint by visiting the link 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.

Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ:FENC)
Class Period: February 11, 2020 - August 10, 2020
Deadline: November 2, 2020
For more info: www.bgandg.com/fenc

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) the manufacturing
facilities for PEDMARK, the Company's sole product candidate, did
not comply with current good manufacturing practices; (2) as a
result, regulatory approval for PEDMARK was reasonably likely to be
delayed; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. [GN]

FIRST AMERICAN: ClaimsFiler Reminds of December 24 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of the pending deadline in the First American Financial
Corp. (FAF) securities class action lawsuit:

First American Financial Corp. (FAF)
Class Period: 2/17/2017 - 10/22/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 24, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-first-american-financial-corp-securities-litigation

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

FORD MOTOR: O'Connor Files Second Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------
A second consolidated amended complaint was filed in the case,
JUSTIN O'CONNOR, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-5045 (N.D. Ill.) on Sept. 25, 2020.

This development came after Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, dismissed O'Connor's first amended complaint in an Aug.
7, 2020 Memorandum Opinion & Order available at
https://tinyurl.com/yxzguzjb from Leagle.com.

Plaintiff O'Connor commenced the putative class action complaint
against Defendant Ford Motor for damages allegedly arising out of
the Defendant's sale and lease of 2017 to 2019 Model Year Ford
F-150 trucks with defective 10R80 10-speed automatic transmissions.
In July 2018, the Plaintiff leased a 2018 Ford F-150 XLT 3.5
EcoBoost with 10R80 10-speed transmission from Fox Valley Ford (now
called Gerald Ford) in North Aurora, Illinois.  The vehicle was
designed, manufactured, sold, distributed, advertised, marketed,
and/or warranted by Defendant Ford.

The Plaintiff proposes to bring the lawsuit on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals composed of persons in Illinois who
formerly owned or currently own or lease a 2017 to 2019 Model Year
Ford F-150 truck with a 10R80 10-speed automatic transmission.

The lawsuit concerns alleged defects in the Vehicles' 10R80
10-speed automatic transmission.  The Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant knew or should have known that the Vehicles contained a
design and/or manufacturing defect that can cause the Transmissions
to shift harshly, slip gears, hesitate, or surge. Plaintiff alleges
that, because of the Defect, the Vehicles are likely to suffer
serious damages and potentially catch fire if accidents occur,
causing an unreasonable and extreme risk of serious bodily harm or
death to the Vehicles' occupants and others in the vicinity.

Yet, according to the Plaintiff, the Defendant failed to disclose
the defect to him or the proposed class members at the time they
purchased or leased their Vehicles or any time after.  The
Plaintiff alleges that had he or the other proposed class members
known about the defective Transmissions at the time of sale or
lease, they would not have purchased their Vehicles or would have
paid less for them.  He allegedly paid and continues to pay a
premium for a defective vehicle which poses a safety hazard to
himself, his family, and others.

The Plaintiff alleges that since the 10R80 Transmission was
introduced, drivers have repeatedly complained about difficulty
shifting and vehicle lunging and/or jerking to Ford.  As a result
of these complaints, the Defendant allegedly knew or should have
known by 2018 through sufficient product testing or other methods
that the Vehicles contained the Transmission Defect.  The Plaintiff
alleges on information and belief, the Defendant's "adaptive
transmission shift strategy" fails to remedy the shifting problems
reported in Class Vehicles.  

Despite knowing this, it allegedly took no further steps to remedy
the issue, leaving the Plaintiff and the other Class Members with
knowingly defective Class Vehicles.  The Defendant has not recalled
the Class Vehicles to repair the Transmission Defect and has not
offered to reimburse Class Vehicle owners and lessees who incurred
costs relating to the transmission problems.  Ford refuses to
replace or repair the Transmissions and merely states that the
abrupt and harsh shifting is normal.

Based on these allegations, the Plaintiff brings a federal claim
for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and Illinois state
law claims for breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranty, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act ("ICFA"), negligence, and unjust enrichment.
He requests that the Court certifies the action as a class and
seeks actual, punitive, and statutory damages, injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees, costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest.

More specifically, in his first claim, for breach of express
warranty, the Plaintiff alleges that Ford expressly warranted in
writing that the vehicles were covered by certain warranties in
Ford's "New Vehicle Limited Warranty."  In his second claim, for
breach of implied warranty, he alleges that Defendant had actual
knowledge of and received timely notice regarding the Transmission
Defect, yet failed and refused to offer an effective remedy even
after receiving numerous consumer complaints.  The Plaintiff's
third claim is for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, a
federal statute designed to protect consumers against deceptive
warranty practices.

In his fourth claim, for violation of the ICFA, the Plaintiff
alleges that Defendant engaged in deceptive trade practices by
failing to disclose and actively concealing the dangers and risks
posed by the Class Vehicles and/or the defective Transmissions
installed in them, depriving Class members of the benefit of their
bargains with Defendant.  His fifth claim is for common law
negligence, alleging that the Defendant had a duty to design and
manufacture a product that would be safe for its intended and
foreseeable uses and users.  Finally, he asserts a claim for unjust
enrichment, alleging that the Defendant's actions allegedly caused
the Class members to pay a higher price for their vehicles which
actually had lower values.

The Defendant initially filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint.  It moved to dismiss both of the state law warranty
claims because, among other things, the Plaintiff fails to allege
that he provided the Defendant with pre-suit notice of any alleged
breach of warranty.

Judge Dow, in his Aug. 7 Dismissal Order, agreed with the
Defendant's contention on the issuance of pre-suit notice.

The Defendant also moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's ICFA claim on
the basis that it fails to state a claim with particularity as
required by Rule 9(b).  Judge Dow also agreed on this argument.
The complaint does not identify anything in the three excerpts that
is purportedly false.  Nor does it allege that the Plaintiff
reviewed the website before leasing his Vehicle -- or relied on
some other deceptive or misleading statement from the Defendant.
Without a plausible link tying any particular statement by the
Defendant to the Plaintiff's purchase of the Vehicle, the Plaintiff
also fails to allege proximate causation, as required to state a
claim for violation of the ICFA.

The Defendant further argued that the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment
claim fails because it is premised on the same conduct underlying
the Plaintiff's legally deficient ICFA claim and because it
independently fails to satisfy Rule 9(b).  Judge Dow found that the
Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim is premised on the same factual
allegations as his underlying ICFA claim, which fails to comply
with Rule 9(b).

The Judge also agreed with the Defendant's argument that the
Plaintiff's negligence claim is barred by the economic loss
doctrine, which is also known as the Moorman doctrine in Illinois.
The complaint does not allege that the Plaintiff has suffered any
non-economic damage.  He does not claim to have suffered any
physical injuries as a result of driving his Vehicle with an
allegedly defective Transmission.  Nor does the Plaintiff allege
that the sudden or dangerous malfunctioning of the Transmission
resulted in damage to any property (other than, perhaps, the
Vehicle itself, although he does not make that clear).  The
Plaintiff offers no legal support for his position that having a
legal duty to provide certain information somehow transforms a
company that sells goods into a company that is "in the business of
supplying information.  

Nevertheless, Judge Dow's August 2020 dismissal of the O'Connor
case is without prejudice to the filing of a second amended
complaint.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on
Sept. 25.

The Defendant has also filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint, which is due to be heard on Feb. 18, 2021.


FOREST RIVER: Truitt Files Breach of Contract Suit in N.D. Indiana
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forest River, Inc.
The case is captioned as Randy Truitt, Lance Kuykendall, Carlton
Whitmire, David Trupp, Kevin Herinckx, Fred Smith, Individually,
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Forest River, Inc.,
an Indiana corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-00964-JD-MGG (N.D. Ind.,
Nov. 17, 2020).

The lawsuit alleges breach of contract and is assigned to Judge Jon
E. DeGuilio.

Forest River Inc. is an American manufacturer of recreational
vehicles, cargo trailers, utility trailers, pontoon boats, and
buses.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq.
          Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD LLP
          One Indiana Sq Ste 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636-6481
          Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
          E-mail: sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com
                  rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com  

FORTRESS BIOTECH: Cushman Sues Over 23.98% Drop in Share Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS CUSHMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FORTRESS BIOTECH, INC., LINDSAY A.
ROSENWALD, and ROBYN M. HUNTER, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05767
(E.D.N.Y., November 27, 2020) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants issued materially false
and misleading statements about Fortress Biotech's business,
operational and compliance policies with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission to artificially inflate the Company's stock
price from December 11, 2019 to October 9, 2020. Specifically, the
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) IV Tramadol was not safe for the intended
patient population; (ii) as a result, it was foreseeable that the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would not approve the New
Drug Application (NDA) for IV Tramadol; and (iii) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

When a Complete Response Letter (CRL) from the FDA was disclosed
about why the NDA of the Company's IV Tramadol product cannot be
approved, Fortress's stock price fell $1.00 per share, or 23.98%,
to close at $3.17 per share on October 12, 2020. As a result of the
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions and the precipitous decline
in the market value of the company's common stock, the Plaintiff
and other Class members have suffered significant losses and
damages.

Fortress Biotech, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company with
principal executive offices located at 2 Gansevoort Street, 9th
Floor, New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:  
                                
         Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
         J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
         POMERANTZ LLP
         600 Third Avenue
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 661-1100
         Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
         E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                 ahood@pomlaw.com

              - and –

         Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
         POMERANTZ LLP
         10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Telephone: (312) 377-1181
         Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
         E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

FQSR LLC: Seeks Extension of Time to Respond to Redmond Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CEDRIC D. REDMOND, Individually and on behalf
all others similarly situated v. FQSR LLC d/b/a KBP FOODS, Case No.
1:20-cv-06809 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 17, 2020), the Defendant filed First
Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's
class action complaint on November 19, 2020.

The Defendant states that it filed its Notice of Removal on
November 17, 2020. The Defendant further asserts that its
responsive pleading to Plaintiff's class action complaint is due to
be filed by November 24, 2020. Due to the extensive nature of the
allegations contained in the class action complaint, the Defendant
requests an extension of 21 days (until December 15, 2020) to
respond to the class action complaint.

The lawsuit alleges personal injury-related damages and is assigned
to the Hon. Judge Thomas M. Durkin.

FQSR, LLC, doing business as KBP Foods, owns, operates, and
franchises fast food restaurants. The Company serves customers
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joel W. Rice, Esq.
          Franklin Z. Wolf, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          10 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 3450
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 346-8061
          Facsimile: (312) 346-3179

FUNKO INC: Appeal on Suit's Dismissal Pending
---------------------------------------------
Funko, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020, that the appeal on the order of
dismissal in the consolidated putative class action suit entitled,
In re Funko, Inc. Securities Litigation, is pending.

Between November 16, 2017 and June 12, 2018, seven purported
stockholders of the Company filed putative class action lawsuits in
the Superior Court of Washington in and for King County against the
Company, certain of its officers and directors, ACON Funko
Investors, L.L.C., Fundamental Capital, LLC and Funko
International, LLC, the underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering (IPO), and certain other defendants.

On July 2, 2018, the suits were ordered consolidated for all
purposes into one action under the title In re Funko, Inc.
Securities Litigation.

On August 1, 2018, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, ACON,
Fundamental, and certain other defendants. On October 1, 2018, the
Company moved to dismiss the action. The motion was fully briefed
as of November 30, 2018 and oral argument on the motion was held on
May 3, 2019. On August 2, 2019, the Superior Court of Washington in
and for King County dismissed the consolidated action, allowing
plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint.

The Court found, inter alia, that "Funko's statements regarding its
financial disclosures were not materially false or misleading" and
that "plaintiffs have not shown that Funko's 'opinion statements'
were false or that such statements were not simply corporate
optimism or puffery."

On October 3, 2019, plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated
complaint. The Company moved to dismiss that complaint on December
5, 2019. The motion was fully briefed as of March 17, 2020, and
oral argument on the motion was held on May 15, 2020.

On August 5, 2020, the Superior Court of Washington in and for King
County dismissed the consolidated action with prejudice.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Washington Court of
Appeals on September 4, 2020. That appeal is pending.

Funko, Inc., a pop culture consumer products company, designs,
sources, and distributes licensed pop culture products in the
United States, China, Vietnam, and the United Kingdom. Funko, Inc.
was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Everett, Washington.

FUNKO INC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Ferreira-Nahas Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Funko, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020, that briefing on the motions to
dismiss filed in the consolidated Ferreira-Nahas putative class
action suits is expected to conclude on December 30, 2020.

On March 10, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California against the Company and
certain of its officers, entitled Ferreira v. Funko, Inc. et al.

The complaint alleges that the Company and its officers violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making
allegedly materially misleading statements in the Company's October
31, 2019 announcement of third quarter 2019 financial results and
third quarter 2019 Form 10-Q, as well as by omitting material facts
necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading.

The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Two additional complaints making substantially similar allegations,
Nahas v. Funko, Inc. et al. and Dachev v. Funko, Inc. et al. were
filed April 3, 2020 in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California and April 9, 2020 in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington,
respectively.

On June 11, 2020, the Central District of California actions were
consolidated for all purposes into one action under the Ferreira
caption, and a lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

Lead plaintiff filed the consolidated complaint on July 31, 2020,
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors, as
well as entities affiliated with ACON Funko Investors, L.L.C.

All defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated action on October
2, 2020, and briefing on the motions to dismiss is expected to
conclude on December 30, 2020.

On June 25, 2020, the Dachev action was voluntarily dismissed.

Funko, Inc., a pop culture consumer products company, designs,
sources, and distributes licensed pop culture products in the
United States, China, Vietnam, and the United Kingdom. Funko, Inc.
was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Everett, Washington.

FUNKO INC: Continues to Defend Kanugonda Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Funko, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, Kanugonda v. Funko, Inc. et
al.

On June 4, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit entitled Kanugonda
v. Funko, Inc. et al. was filed in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington against the Company, certain
of its officers and directors, and certain other defendants.

On January 4, 2019, a lead plaintiff was appointed in that case.

On April 30, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
against the previously named defendants.

The parties to the federal action, now captioned Berkelhammer v.
Funko, Inc. et al., have agreed to a stay of that action pending
developments in the state case.

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

Funko, Inc., a pop culture consumer products company, designs,
sources, and distributes licensed pop culture products in the
United States, China, Vietnam, and the United Kingdom. Funko, Inc.
was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Everett, Washington.

GEMINI CAPITAL: Facilities Inaccessible to Disabled, Brito Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS BRITO, Plaintiff v. GEMINI CAPITAL ACQUISITIONS OF DELAWARE,
LLC; VITAFOODS ENTERPRISES IV, LLC; PARTY CAKE BAKERY VI INC.;
HATEM BROTHERS INC; and KURATA & MCCANN LLC. Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-24703-CMA (S.D. Fla., Nov. 16, 2020) is brought on behalf
of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated mobility-impaired
individuals for injunctive relief, a declaration of rights,
attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

Mr. Brito is an individual with disabilities as defined by and
pursuant to the ADA. He, is, among other things, a paraplegic
(paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae down) and is therefore
substantially limited in major life activities due to his
impairment, including, but not limited to, not being able to walk
or stand. He requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff visits the Defendants'
commercial properties and business on or about October 9, 2020 and
October 13, 2020 wherein he encountered multiple violations of the
ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the
properties and business located therein. Among the architectural
barriers that the Plaintiff encountered during his visit are
inaccessible parking spaces, inaccessible entrance route and path
of travel, and inaccessible facilities and public restrooms.

The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff
by denying him access to full and equal enjoyment of the goods,
services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations
of its place of public accommodation, the suit says.

The case was terminated on November 16, 2020.

The Defendants are engaged in various types of business enterprises
whose commercial properties are located at 15400 SW 88th St. in
Miami, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
          Beverly Virues, Esq.
          GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L.
          4937 S.W. 74th Court
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 553-3464
          Facsimile: (305) 553-3031
          E-mail: ajperez@lawgmp.com
                  bvirues@lawgmp.com

GENIUS BRANDS: Klein Law Reminds of Class Action
------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Genius Brands International, Inc
(NASDAQ: GNUS) alleging that the Company violated federal
securities laws.

Class Period: March 17, 2020 and July 5, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020

Learn more about your recoverable losses in GNUS:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/genius-brands-international-inc-loss-submission-form?id=10238&from=5

According to the Genius Brands lawsuit defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
information regarding: (i) Nickelodeon's purported broadcast
expansion of Genius's Rainbow Rangers cartoon; (ii) subscription
fees for the Kartoon Channel!; and (iii) the Company's growth
potential and overall prospects as a company.

Shareholders had until October 19, 2020 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

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

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

GNUS Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/genius-brands-international-inc-information-request-form?prid=10220&wire=1

Genius Brands International, Inc (NASDAQ:GNUS)

GNUS Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 17, 2020 -
July 5, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/genius-brands-international-inc-information-request-form?prid=10220&wire=1

According to the Genius Brands lawsuit, defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
information regarding: (i) Nickelodeon's purported broadcast
expansion of Genius's Rainbow Rangers cartoon; (ii) subscription
fees for the Kartoon Channel!; and (iii) the Company's growth
potential and overall prospects as a company.

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

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

GLOBE LIFE: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Jan. 7
------------------------------------------------------------
Globe Life Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the court scheduled
a hearing for final approval of the settlement for January 7,
2021.

On September 12, 2018, putative class action litigation was filed
against American Income in California's Contra Costa County
Superior Court (Joh v. American Income Life Insurance Company, Case
No. C18-01863) (Joh Action). An amended complaint was filed on
October 18, 2018. American Income removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
(Case No. 3:18-cv-06364-TSH).

A second amended complaint was filed on May 20, 2019. The
plaintiffs, former insurance sales agents of American Income, are
suing on behalf of all current and former trainees and sales agents
who sold insurance for American Income in the State of California
for the four years prior to the filing of the complaint.

The second amended complaint alleges that such individuals are
employees and asserts claims under the California Labor Code,
California Business and Professions Code, and California Private
Attorney General Act.

The complaint seeks compensatory damages, penalties and attorney
fees on claims for failure to pay wages/commissions, failure to
appropriately pay agents at termination, failure to provide
itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse expenses,
misclassification and unfair business practices.

On October 18, 2018, putative class action litigation was filed
against Torchmark Corporation and American Income in California’s
Los Angeles County Superior Court (Golz v. American Income Life
Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 18STCV01354) (Golz Action).

American Income removed the case to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California (Case No.
2:18-cv-09879 R (SSx)).

An amended complaint was filed on February 5, 2019. On February 6,
2019, Torchmark Corporation was dismissed without prejudice and the
case proceeded with respect to American Income.

On April 2, 2019, the District Court granted American Income's
motion to dismiss four of the five causes of action asserted. The
amended complaint's remaining claim alleges that plaintiff, as an
American Income insurance agent trainee in California, was an
employee who should have been compensated accordingly.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of individuals in
California who trained to contract as American Income agents and
who subsequently worked as contracted agents. The class period is
alleged to begin four years prior to the complaint's filing.

The complaint seeks restitution under the California Business and
Professions Code for alleged unfair business practices such as
failure to pay minimum wage and overtime, failure to provide meal
and rest breaks, and failure to reimburse business expenses. The
lawsuit is currently stayed.

On December 14, 2018, putative class action litigation was filed
against American Income in United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (Hamilton v. American Income Life
Insurance Company, Case No. 4:18-cv-7535-KAW) (Hamilton Action).

An amended complaint was filed on January 23, 2019. The plaintiffs,
former insurance sales agents of American Income, are suing on
behalf of all current and former trainees and sales agents who sold
insurance for American Income in the State of California for the
last four years prior to the filing of the complaint.

The lawsuit alleges that putative class members are employees and
asserts claims under the California Labor Code, California Business
and Professions Code, and California Private Attorney General Act.


The complaint seeks compensatory damages, penalties and attorney
fees on claims for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime,
failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to appropriately
pay agents at termination, failure to provide itemized wage
statements, failure to reimburse expenses, misclassification and
unfair business practices.

With respect to the related cases above, on August 6, 2020, the
plaintiffs in the Joh and Hamilton Actions jointly moved for
preliminary approval of a settlement of all class and
representative claims, which broadly covers "all individuals who
trained to become and/or worked as sales agents in California for
Defendant during the last four years prior to the filing of the
original Complaint in Joh and whose training and/or work began
before August 16, 2019."

Plaintiffs' preliminary motion anticipated that the proposed
settlement would resolve all claims in the Joh and Hamilton
Actions, and in doing so, encompass pending claims asserted in the
Golz Action for the settlement period.

On August 1, 2020, the Northern District of California granted the
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and
scheduled a hearing for final approval of the settlement for
January 7, 2021.

Globe Life Inc. (formerly Torchmark Corporation), incorporated on
November 29, 1979, is an insurance holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, provides a range of life and health
insurance products and annuities to a base of customers. The
Company's segments include life insurance, health insurance,
annuities and investment. The life insurance segment includes
traditional and interest-sensitive whole life insurance as well as
term life insurance. Effective August 8, 2019, Torchmark
Corporation changed its corporate name to Globe Life Inc. The
company is based in McKinney, Texas.

GLOBE LIFE: Subsidiaries Facing Bell Putative Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Globe Life Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that American Income and
National Income Life Insurance Company is facing a putative class
action suit entitled Natalie Bell, Gisele Mobley, Ashly Rai, and
John Turner v. American Income Life Insurance Company and National
Income Life Insurance Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-07046.

On August 5, 2020, putative class and collective action litigation
was filed against American Income and National Income Life
Insurance Company in United States District Court for the Central
District of California.

The lawsuit alleges that insurance agent trainees should have been
classified as employees, and after contracting should have been
classified as employees instead of independent contractors.
Plaintiffs Bell and Rai are former California agents who also
assert claims under California law on behalf of a putative
California class, for the four years prior to February 13, 2020
through case conclusion.

They make claims under (a) the California Labor Code for alleged
meal and rest break violations, overtime, minimum wage, alleged
failure to pay wages at the time of termination, expense
reimbursement, and alleged failure to provide accurate wage
statements; and (b) the California Business and Professions Code
for alleged unfair business practices. They also seek liquidated
damages, penalties and attorney's fees under California law.

Plaintiff Turner is a former New York agent who asserts a claim
under New York law on behalf of a putative New York class for the
six years prior to February 13, 2020 through case conclusion. He
makes a claim under the New York Labor Law for alleged failure to
pay minimum wage and overtime, and for expense reimbursement.

Plaintiff Mobley is a former Florida agent who asserts a claim
under Florida law on behalf of a putative Florida class for the
five years prior to February 13, 2020 through case conclusion.

She makes a claim under the Florida General Labor Regulations,
including the Florida Minimum Wage Act, for alleged failure to pay
all wages owed.

The plaintiffs also assert a national collective action on behalf
of all "similarly situated" individuals for minimum wage, overtime,
liquidated damages, penalties, an accounting and attorney's fees
and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act for the three years
prior to February 13, 2020 through case conclusion.

Globe Life said, "With respect to the aforementioned litigation, at
this time, management believes that the possibility of a material
judgment adverse to the Company is remote."

Globe Life Inc. (formerly Torchmark Corporation), incorporated on
November 29, 1979, is an insurance holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, provides a range of life and health
insurance products and annuities to a base of customers. The
Company's segments include life insurance, health insurance,
annuities and investment. The life insurance segment includes
traditional and interest-sensitive whole life insurance as well as
term life insurance. Effective August 8, 2019, Torchmark
Corporation changed its corporate name to Globe Life Inc. The
company is based in McKinney, Texas.

GOHEALTH INC: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminded
investors of the deadline in the GoHealth, Inc. securities class
action lawsuit:

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 company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
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]

HANLEES AUTO: Arbitration Ruling in Jarboe Labor Suit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS JARBOE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HANLEES
AUTO GROUP et al., Defendants and Appellants, Case No. A156411
(Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the First
District, Division Three, affirmed the trial court's order granting
in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to compel Jarboe
to arbitrate claims, and declining to stay the PAGA claim.

Plaintiff Jarboe was hired by DKD of Davis, Inc., doing business as
Hanlees Davis Toyota.  Shortly after he began working, Jarboe was
transferred to Leehan of Davis, Inc., doing business as Hanlees
Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram Kia.  Hanlees is a group of automobile
dealerships in Northern California.  The dealerships function as
separate corporate entities.  Three individual Defendants -- Dong
K. Lee, Kyong S. Han, and Dong I. Lee. -- own the Hanlees group.

As part of the hiring process, Jarboe was required to sign two
separate agreements, each containing an arbitration provision.
Both agreements were form contracts offered on a non-negotiable,
take-it or leave it basis, with little or no time for Jarboe to
review them.

Following his termination at Leehan of Davis, Jarboe brought the
wage and hour action individually and on behalf of a putative class
against the Hanlees, its 12 affiliated dealerships, including DKD
of Davis and Leehan of Davis, and the three individual Defendants.
He alleges numerous Labor Code violations, including: failure to
provide meal and rest periods; failure to pay overtime
compensation; failure to pay for all hours worked; and failure to
pay for waiting time compensation. In addition to various tort
claims, including fraud and conversion, the complaint alleges an
unfair competition claim, as well as a PAGA claim.  All, but one
cause of action, are asserted against all the Defendants without
differentiation.  The fifth cause of action (failure to timely pay
all earned wages) is alleged solely against the Hanlees group.  The
complaint seeks damages and injunctive relief, as well as civil
penalties under the PAGA.

The Defendants moved to stay the action and compel arbitration.
The trial court determined that there was an enforceable
arbitration agreement, finding evidence that Jarboe electronically
signed the Application and ink signed the Employment Agreement.
While the Employment Agreement was procedurally unconscionable, it
was not substantively unconscionable.  Except for Jarboe's
individual claims against DKD of Davis, the trial court denied the
motion to compel.  

The trial court determined that the Defendants failed to establish
that the Employment Agreement applied to entities other than the
named "Company": DKD of Davis.  It also determined that Jarboe's
PAGA cause of action could proceed in court because an employee
bringing a PAGA action is not acting on his or her own behalf, but
on behalf of the state and the state is not bound by the employee's
prior agreement, including any waiver of his right to bring a
representative action.  The trial court denied the Defendants'
motion to stay the PAGA claim pending completion of the arbitration
of Jarboe's private claims.

The Defendants contend that the trial court erred by concluding the
arbitration provision in the Employment Agreement was limited to
its signatories.  They argue that Hanlees, its affiliated
dealerships, and the individual owners were entitled to compel
arbitration either under the terms of the agreement, as third party
beneficiaries or under the theory of equitable estoppel.

The Appellate Court holds that the trial court correctly refused to
compel arbitration.  Although the Defendants contend the Employment
Agreement contains the same operative language, there is an
important difference.  Unlike the Application, the Employment
Agreement defines the "Company."  It is DKD of Davis.  Thus, even
if the individual Defendants have standing to compel arbitration as
"owners" of the company, it is in the limited context of their
ownership of DKD of Davis, the "Company" named in the Employment
Agreement.  Jarboe's claims against DKD of Davis were ordered to
arbitration.

The integration clause in the Employment Agreement is not expressly
limited to the terms of Jarboe's at will employment.  By its terms,
the Employment Agreement expressly superseded the prior
Application.  Accordingly, any attempt by the Defendants to vary
the terms of the Employment Agreement is barred by the parole
evidence rule.  There is no basis to conclude that Jarboe intended
the arbitration provision in the Employment Agreement would apply
to all the Defendants.

Regarding equitable estoppel, Jarboe is not seeking to obtain
benefits under his employment agreement with DKD of Davis against
Hanlees and the other dealerships under the Employment Agreement,
as there are none, and he is arbitrating the claims against his
employing company.  Simply put, the inequities that the doctrine of
equitable estoppel is designed to address are not present.

The Defendants then argue that the trial court erred in refusing to
stay both Jarboe's PAGA claim and his remaining wage and hour
claims against the nonsignatory Defendants, while his individual
claims against DKD of Davis are being arbitrated.  

The Appellate Court concludes the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in declining to stay the PAGA action pending the
arbitration of Jarboe's individual claims.  Because a PAGA claim is
representative and does not belong to an employee individually, an
employer should not be able dictate how and where the
representative action proceeds.  Because an action under the act is
designed to protect the public, and the potential impact on
remedies other than civil penalties is ancillary to the action's
primary objective, the one-way operation of collateral estoppel in
the limited situation does not violate the employer's right to due
process of law.

Finally, Jarboe argues the trial court should have ruled that the
Arbitration Agreements were unenforceable in their entirety due to
both procedural and substantive unconscionability.  Jarboe,
however, has not appealed from the trial court's order compelling
arbitration of his individual claims against DKD of Davis.  Nor
could he, because an order compelling arbitration is not
appealable.  Moreover, the general rule is that a respondent who
has not appealed from a judgment may not assert error on appeal.
Accordingly, the Appellate Court does not address Jarboe's claim
that the Arbitration Agreements were unenforceable due to
unconscionability.

Based on the foregoing, the Appellate Court affirmed the trial
court's order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants'
motion to compel Jarboe to arbitrate claims and declined to stay
the PAGA claim.  Jarboe will recover his costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's Aug. 14, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y24kt9ks from Leagle.com.

John P. Boggs -- jboggs@employerlawyers.com -- Roman Zhuk, Fine,
Boggs, & Perkins, LLP for Appellants.

Nicholas A. Carlin -- nac@phillaw.com -- Brian S. Conlon --
bsc@phillaw.com -- Phillips, Erlewine, Given, & Carlin, LLP for
Respondent.


HAWAIIAN HOST: Toy et al. Sue Over Deceptive Packaging of Candies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Toy and Andrea Ward, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Hawaiian Host Candies of L.A. Inc., Case No.
8:20-cv-02191-DOC-ADS (C.D. Cal., Nov. 17, 2020) arises from the
Defendant's misleading, false, unfair, and deceptive packaging of
its Hawaiian Host Candies' products in violation of the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competition
Law, the California False Advertising Law, the Colorado Consumer
Protection Act and the Nevada Deceptive Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Hawaiian Host Candies' packaging is
designed to reinforce the misconception that they are from Hawaii,
when in fact the candies are produced in California. Both
Plaintiffs say they relied on the product packaging when deciding
whether to make their purchase, causing them to reasonably believe
the chocolates were made in Hawaii. The Plaintiffs further asserts
that the product packaging includes hibiscus flowers, palm trees,
Hawaiian landmarks and other references to Hawaiian culture,
creating the impression the product is made from the said state.
The package also states "HAWAIIAN HOST, INC. Honolulu Hawaii
96817."

Hawaiian Host Candies of L.A. Inc. was founded in 1980. The
company's line of business includes the manufacturing of candy and
other confectionery products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Aubry Wand, Esq.
          THE WAND LAW FIRM
          400 Corporate Pointe Suite 300
          Culver City, CA 90230
          Telephone: (310) 590-4503
          Facsimile: (310) 590-4596
          E-mail: awand@wandlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Joshua Nassir, Esq.
          Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
          FARUQI AND FARUQI LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256-2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
          E-mail: jnassir@faruqilaw.com  
                  bheikali@faruqilaw.com

HDFC BANK: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against HDFC Bank Limited. You can
review a copy of the Complaint by visiting the link 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.

HDFC Bank Limited (NYSE:HDB)
Class Period: July 31, 2019 - July 10, 2020
Deadline: November 2, 2020
For more info: www.bgandg.com/hdb

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) HDFC Bank had inadequate disclosure controls and
procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (2) as a
result, the Bank maintained improper lending practices in its
vehicle-financing operations; (3) accordingly, earnings generated
from the Bank's vehicle-financing operations were unsustainable;
(4) all the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to
have a material negative impact on the Bank's financial condition
and reputation; and (5) as a result, the Bank's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. [GN]

HERBALIFE INT'L: Court Reopens Class Action Against Distributors
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael A. Mora, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal court
in Miami has reopened a class action seeking more than $140 million
in damages against 44 of the top distributors of a global nutrition
supplement company.

And if the plaintiffs prevail, Shannon Derouselle, a business law
professor not involved in the litigation, said the case could have
far-reaching implications for other multilevel marketing
companies.

The dispute pending before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida allegedly stems from the shattered dreams of
thousands of Herbalife International members, who claim that top
distributors told them that through hard work and an effective
sales strategy, they too could achieve "life-changing financial
success."

Etan Mark, a partner at Mark, Migdal & Hayden in Brickell who
represents the plaintiff, said Herbalife, which operates as a
multilevel marketing company, makes money by recruiting other
people.

"One of the things that our case has done differently is that we're
employing a strategy where we're viewing these high-level
distributors as critical agents in this scheme that we alleged has
defrauded our clients here," Mark said.

Brian A. Howie, a partner at Quarles & Brady in Phoenix, Arizona,
who represents the defendants, did not respond to request for
comment. The main argument articulated by Herbalife attorneys has
been that signed contracts with the "aggrieved distributors"
mandated arbitration of any dispute, according the appellate
ruling, But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
denied that argument in July.

Now, pending mediation, U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke has
scheduled a trial to take place on March 14, 2022, against 44 of
Herbalife's top-performing distributors.

Herbalife, a public company headquartered in Los Angeles,
California, announced $1.3 billion in sales in the second quarter
generated by its nearly five million members. The global nutrition
company attributed the success to the effectiveness of personalized
selling through a direct business model.

The 40-year-old company also touts trends, such as global obesity
and the rise of entrepreneurship, as the reason its members are
successful in selling its products and recruiting new members.

However, in August, Herbalife paid penalties of around $122 million
to resolve the U.S. Department of Justice's investigation over the
company's violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The
company has also suffered from a string of multimillion-dollar
losses in court in the last several years over allegations that it
has unprofitable sales practices.

Among the plaintiffs in the case in the Southern District of
Florida is Patricia Rodgers, who became a Herbalife member in June
2010, according to court documents. With her husband, the pair
spent over $100,000 on Herbalife, including $20,000 on the
so-called "Circle of Success" events.

At the Circle of Success events, which the couple frequented
several dozen times, they were assured by Herbalife's top
distributors that "success was just around the corner," and they
were encouraged to attend every single event, according to court
document.

In the process, the Rodgers cashed out a retirement account and a
settlement annuity, sold jewelry and borrowed money from family
members in the pursuit of the "promise of riches," according to
court documents. They claimed to receive no benefit from the
purchases of Herbalife's products.

Shannon Derouselle, a business law professor at the University of
Miami and attorney at DeRouselle Legal Advisors in Coral Gables who
is not involved in the case, said these kinds of events are common
in multilevel marketing companies whose business model is premised
on the need to recruit more and more people to sell their
products.

And if the plaintiffs are successful in the Southern District of
Florida, Derouselle said other businesses that are recognized as
legitimate multilevel marketing companies could be impacted.

"We have to ask the question whether the Federal Trade Commission
will take further action in determining if these companies are
legitimate," Derouselle said. "Or whether there should be some
additional regulations regarding how they sell products and market
the potential profits to folks who are thinking about signing up."
[GN]


INKSTER, MI: $130,000 Settlement in Garner Suit Has Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GARNER PROPERTIES & MANAGEMENT, LLC, CHRISTOPHER
GARNER and OLIVIA HEMARATANATORN Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF INKSTER,
GINA TRIPLETT, MCKENNA ASSOCIATES, INC. and JIM WRIGHT, Defendants,
Case No. 17-cv-13960 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Paul D. Borman of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
Division, granted final approval of the proposed class settlement
and the request for attorney fees, costs and incentive fees.

The case is a class action on behalf of a class of residential
property owners who have been fined for failing to have a
certificate of occupancy for a rental property and who allege that
the Defendants violated certain due process rights related to the
administration of the city of Inkster's Building Regulations Code
and its adoption of the International Property Maintenance Code.

The Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint on Dec. 7, 2017 and
an Amended Class Action Complaint on Aug. 23, 2018.  The Plaintiffs
bring the class action on behalf of a class of persons who own
residential real property in the City and have been fined for
failing to have a certificate of occupancy for a rental property.

After engaging in formal discovery and lengthy settlement
negotiations, the parties reached a settlement and, on Jan. 17,
2020, the Court granted the parties' joint motion for certification
of a settlement class and preliminary approval of the settlement
and class notice.  

The Settlement Class is defined as:

   All persons or entities that paid any registration or
   inspection fee to the City of Inkster under the City's Rental
   Dwellings or Rental Units section of its Building Regulations
   Code from Dec. 7, 2014 through the date of the Order
   Preliminarily Approving the Settlement and Settlement Class.

The Court appointed the Plaintiff as the Class Representative and
the Plaintiff's attorneys (Aaron D. Cox of Aaron D. Cox, PLLC and
Mark K. Wasvary of Mark K. Wasvary, P.C.) as the Class Counsel.  

The Defendants agreed to make available a total of $130,000 to pay
valid class member claims, to pay a $1,000 incentive payment to the
Plaintiff, and to pay attorney's fees and reasonable litigation
expenses to the Class Counsel, as approved by the Court.  In
addition to the monetary relief, the Settlement Agreement requires
that if an inspection of a rental property is refused, the City
will seek an administrative warrant for such inspection.  

In accordance with the Court's Jan. 17, 2020 Order, the Class
Notice and Claim Form were mailed to the last known address of
4,185 Class members, and, according to the Plaintiff, the Notice
and Claim Form were also posted on the Class Counsel's website.  No
objections to the proposed Settlement Agreement have been filed
with the Court and there was only one request for exclusion from
the Class.

The Plaintiff has now filed two motions: (1) the Plaintiff's
Unopposed Motion in Support of Attorney Fees, Costs and Incentive
Fee; and (2) the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion in Support of Final
Approval of Settlement.  The Court conducted a Final Fairness
Hearing using Zoom videoconference technology.

Judge Borman finds that the class satisfies the requirements of
Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3).  Accordingly, the Judge certifies the
Settlement Class.

Next, the Judge finds that the class notice is reasonable.  The
process was reasonable and adequate under the circumstances
presented.  Further, based on the Feb. 5, 2020 submission by the
Defendants, het finds that notice was served on the appropriate
federal and state officials as required by the Class Action
Fairness Act.

The Judge then approves the Settlement as fair, reasonable and
adequate.  The Settlement Agreement was the result of arms'-length
negotiations by qualified counsel, reached only after discovery on
the merits, and with the parties' understanding of the strengths
and weaknesses of their respective positions, and there is no
indication that there was any fraud or collusion.  The complexity,
expense, and likely duration of litigation also weigh in favor of
settlement.  The reaction of absent class members weigh in favor of
the settlement.  Finally, there do not appear to be any
countervailing public interests that would suggest that the Court
should disapprove the Settlement Agreement, and allowing settlement
in the matter will promote the fair and expeditious resolution of
the matter.

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Class Counsel will
be paid 1/3 of the Settlement Fund ($43,333.33) as attorneys' fees,
plus their out-of-pocket litigation expense of $9,722.51, subject
to Court approval.  The Judge finds that $43,333.33 in attorney's
fees is reasonable under the circumstances of the case, and the
$1,000 award fairly compensates the Plaintiff for its efforts in
the litigation and adequately incentivizes others to serve as the
class representatives in similar cases.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 14, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4zp8u3o from
Leagle.com.


INNATE PHARMA: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of December 22 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Innate Pharma SA
shareholders.  Investors have until the deadline listed below to
file a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz to discuss their legal
rights in these class actions at 310-914-5007 or by email to
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com.

Innate Pharma SA (NASDAQ: IPHA)
Class Period:   March 10, 2020 - September 8, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 22, 2020

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 that: (1) Innate touted
the results of their various Phase 2 trials as being within
expectations; (2) Innate continued to reassure investors that they
were eligible for the $100 million payment upon first dosing of
Phase 3 trials; (3) Innate failed to timely disclose their
renegotiations with AstraZeneca to split the $100 million payment
into two $50 million payments, to be partially contingent on
performance during the Phase 3 trials; and (4) as a result,
Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

To be a member of these class actions, you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish
to learn more about these class actions, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The
Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100,
Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com.   If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

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

JP MORGAN: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Dec. 23 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of JP
Morgan Chase & Co.  Investors have until the deadline listed below
to file a lead plaintiff motion.

JP Morgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM)
Class Period: February 23, 2016 - September 23, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 23, 2020

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 that: (1) traders at the
Company, with the knowledge and consent of their superiors,
manipulated the precious metals market by "spoofing," or placing
fake orders to generate the appearance of market demand; (2) the
Company had insufficient controls and compliance protocols to
enable it to identify and stop the misconduct; (3) the Company's
earnings in the physical commodity market were, at least in part,
ill-gotten; (4) such conduct would result in enhanced regulatory
scrutiny; (5) the Company provided misleading information to CFTC
investigators at early stages of the investigation into the
misconduct; (6) resolution of the governmental investigation into
the Company would result in a record-breaking $920 million fine;
and (7) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

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 the class action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law
Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los
Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com.   If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
[GN]

JUUL: Bay City Public Schools Join Nationwide Vaping Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Caitlyn French, writing for MLive, reports that the Bay City Public
Schools made a move to seek legal recourse against a large vaping
company accused of marketing to children.

The Board of Education approved an agreement on Sept. 14, with
Frantz Law Group to participate with other school districts across
the country in a lawsuit against JUUL, a San Francisco-based
company that manufactures nicotine vaping products and
e-cigarettes. MLive previously reported that JUUL sold colorful
vaping devices that use "pods" disguising the taste of nicotine
with fruity or candy-flavored vapor and that each pod can contain
as much nicotine as a pack of cigarettes.

Attorney William Shinoff of the Frantz Law Group attended the
virtually held board meeting on Sept. 14 to give a rundown of the
lawsuit and what participation could mean for the district.
According to Shinoff, the lawsuit involves school districts from
across the country. While it might sound like a class action
lawsuit, Shinoff said the result is not quite the same.

"It's treated as though a class-action for purpose of litigation
but when it comes time to recovery, you're not getting a token
reward of damages," he said. "You're actually getting your full
needs met of what the recovery would be."

The case will be litigated out of federal court in San Francisco,
Shinoff said. School districts like Bay City's would file their
case locally and it would automatically get transferred to join
other districts' cases being heard in San Francisco.

Shinoff said there are three areas that the firm is focusing on for
helping districts like Bay City Public Schools as they look to the
future with the ultimate goal to help curb vaping among young
students. Those areas are deterrence, education and supervision.

For deterrence, Shinoff said the suit aims to have JUUL pay for
technology such as vaping detectors in bathrooms to deter the use
of vaping products on campus. These detectors can run for about
$5,000 a piece, according to Shinoff.

Recovery monies obtained from a successful suit would also provide
possible funding for extra supervision staff or for counselors to
deal with the social and emotional issues related to nicotine
addiction, said Shinoff, while also providing approximately 10
years worth of funding for districts to use to inform students
about the products and the dangers associated with them.

"Because of how they marketed the product and because of the lack
of information that the children who are the consumers really know
about the product, education is key to be able to advise them about
what they're really putting in their body and what the harm of the
product is," he said.

Shinoff told the school board there is no cost to the district to
be involved in the case, emphasizing not a penny would be spent
from its general fund.

"There is no cost to be involved, we handle these cases on what is
called a contingency fee basis, which means if there is monetary
recovery for the district, the district will not be responsible for
any fees or costs," he said. "My firm is paid through a percentage
of the district's recovery."

The Board of Education unanimously approved the agreement, with
Trustee Tom Baird expressing his support.

"I just think it's a win-win for the district, I don't see how we
can go wrong," Baird said.

Meanwhile, Michigan as a whole joined a multi-state investigation
and coalition in Feburary 2020 that started investigating JUUL's
marketing and sales practices, including targeting of youth, claims
regarding nicotine content, and statements regarding risks, safety
and effectiveness as a smoking cessation device. [GN]


LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Leapfrog Enterprises,
Inc. The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-10024-GHW (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2020).

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

LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc. is an educational entertainment and
electronics company based in Emeryville, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com


LIVENT CORP: 2018 IPO Plaintiffs Seek Preliminary OK of Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Livent Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that plaintiffs in the
consolidated suit entitled, In re Livent Corporation Securities
Litigation, No. 2019-0501229, filed a motion seeking preliminary
approval of the settlement.

Beginning on May 13, 2019, purported stockholders of the Company
filed putative class action complaints in the Pennsylvania Court of
Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, and in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in connection with the
Company's October 2018 initial public offering (IPO).

On August 20, 2019, the actions then pending in federal court were
consolidated under the caption, Nikolov v. Livent Corp., et al.,
No. 19-cv-02218. In an order entered on September 23, 2019, the
actions then pending in state court were consolidated under the
caption, In re Livent Corporation Securities Litigation, No.
2019-0501229.

The operative complaints in both the state and federal actions
assert claims against the Company and certain of its current and
former executives and directors in connection with the Company's
October 2018 IPO.

The actions also name as defendants the underwriters in the IPO and
FMC Corporation, whom the Company is generally obligated to
indemnify. The complaints allege generally that the offering
documents for the IPO failed to adequately disclose certain
information related to the Company's business and prospects, in
purported violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and/or 15 of the
Securities Act.  

The complaints seek unspecified damages and other relief on behalf
of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Livent common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO offering
documents.

On October 11, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss the state action
in its entirety, and on November 18, 2019, defendants moved to
dismiss the federal action in its entirety.

On June 29, 2020, the state court denied the motion to dismiss the
state action, while on July 2, 2020, the federal court granted the
motion to dismiss the federal action in its entirety.

On July 7, 2020, in light of the federal court's decision,
defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the state court's
denial of the motion to dismiss the state action. On July 29, 2020,
defendants filed a motion seeking permission to appeal the state
court's order denying defendant's motion to dismiss. On July 31,
2020, plaintiffs in the federal action filed a notice of appeal.

On October 27, 2020, defendants entered into a stipulation of
settlement with the state court plaintiffs to pay $7.4 million to
resolve all claims related to the IPO.

On October 29, 2020, the state court plaintiffs filed a motion
seeking preliminary approval of the settlement.

Livent said, "If approved, the settlement would resolve all pending
litigation relating to the IPO, including the claims in both the
state and federal actions. All deadlines in the state and federal
actions are currently stayed in light of the settlement."

As of September 30, 2020, the Company has accrued a net loss
contingency of $2.5 million, consisting of a $7.4 million
settlement accrued liability offset by a $4.9 million insurance
reimbursement receivable, in connection with the pending
settlement.

Livent Corporation is a lithium company. The Company is focused on
producing performance lithium compounds. Its primary products
include battery-grade lithium hydroxide, butyllithium and high
purity lithium metal. Its produces lithium compounds for use in
applications that have specific performance requirements, including
battery-grade lithium hydroxide for use in high performance
lithium-ion batteries. The company is based in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.

MAINE: Wins Dismissal of Habeas Corpus Petition in Denbow Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEPH A. DENBOW et al., Petitioners, v. MAINE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al., Respondents, Case No.
1:20-cv-00175-JAW (D. Me.), Judge John A. Woodcock, Jr. of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maine granted the Respondents'
motion to dismiss the Petitioners' petition for habeas corpus
seeking relief for state inmates in the face of the COVID-19
pandemic.

Beginning in March 2020, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court issued
emergency pandemic management orders to respond to COVID-19.  These
orders limited the case types that would be routinely scheduled and
heard, with later orders incrementally increasing the case types
that would be scheduled.  From the first of these orders, the
Supreme Judicial Court allowed the hearing of motions for review of
bail for defendants held in custody and criminal matters related to
a defendant's incarceration.  The order also provided that a type
of case not routinely being heard could still be scheduled and
heard upon a showing of urgent and compelling reasons.

On May 27, 2020, the Maine Judicial Branch issued a five-phase
approach for the anticipated resumption of all functions of the
Maine state courts by Sept. 7, 2020.  The plan made clear that
state courts would continue to schedule and hear arraignments,
first appearances, and motions for review of bail for people in
state custody.  Additionally, under the plan, state courts could
schedule and hear all other case types and proceedings by video or
audio conference.  A party could still request that a matter be
heard or scheduled by the Superior Court.  Effective June 1, 2020,
Maine courthouses were open from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, with visitor restrictions for entrants.

In three cases related to ballot initiatives and unrelated to
conditions of confinement in state prisons and jails, the Maine
state courts moved quickly.

On April 13, 2020, Mr. Denbow, through the same counsel
representing him in the case, the American Civil Liberties Union of
Maine, filed an emergency petition against the state of Maine for
post-conviction review in the Oxford County, Maine Superior Court.
Mr. Denbow filed a supporting memorandum of law, as well as an
emergency motion for release on bail and leave to file an unsworn
petition.  In his state court petition, he makes arguments similar
to the arguments he is making in his petition in the Court.

On May 15, 2020, Petitioners Denbow and Sean R. Ragsdale filed a
petition for habeas corpus and complaint against the Respondents,
Maine Department of Corrections ("MDOC") and Randall A. Liberty,
the commissioner of the MDOC, on behalf of themselves and a
putative class of those similarly situated.

On May 18, 2020, the Petitioners filed a motion for a temporary
restraining order or preliminary injunction.  On May 27, 2020, the
Respondents filed a response to the motion for a TRO.  The
Petitioners filed a reply on May 29, 2020.  The Court held oral
argument by Zoom hearing on June 2, 2020.  It denied the motion for
TRO on June 8, 2020.

On June 22, 2020, the Respondents filed a motion to dismiss
alleging the Petitioners' failure to exhaust state remedies.  On
July 13, 2020, the Petitioners responded.  On July 15, 2020, the
Respondents informed the Court that they did not wish to seek leave
to file a reply, but they nonetheless filed a letter to the Court
citing eight new cases that had been decided since their moving
brief was filed and new substantive information about one of the
Petitioners' state post-conviction case.

The Court interpreted the letter as a reply due to the substantial
volume of new authority and, in fairness to the Petitioners,
granted Petitioners an opportunity to file a sur-reply.  The
Petitioners filed a sur-reply on July 20, 2020.  On Aug. 6, 2020,
the Court ordered the Petitioners to confirm whether Mr. Denbow had
appealed the denial of his state court post-conviction review
petition.  That same day, the Petitioners responded that he had not
filed a notice of appeal.

The Respondents assert that it is settled law in the First Circuit
that Section 2254's rigorous statutory exhaustion requirement
applies in the case.  They state that Mr. Denbow has a pending
petition for post-conviction review in the Maine Superior Court on
the same claims he brings before the Court and thus very much has
the right to raise the question presented in the courts of the
state and is thus barred by Section 2254(c).  They state that the
only way for Petitioners to overcome the exhaustion requirement is
to demonstrate that one of Section 2254's two exceptions to
exhaustion applies to their claims, which they describe as a "heavy
burden" the Petitioners are unable to meet.

The Petitioners assert that the Court should apply and excuse the
prudential exhaustion requirement of 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 or, if
the statutory exhaustion provision of 28 U.S.C. Section 2254
applies, reject the Respondents' motion to dismiss because at the
time the petition was filed, it appeared that state Court remedies
would be unavailable or ineffective to provide necessary relief.
They also note that inn their motion, the Respondents make no
showing that class relief is available under any of the potential
remedies on which they rely.  Finally, they contend that if the
Court is not inclined to deny the Motion to Dismiss outright, it
should defer a final ruling on the Motion and retain jurisdiction
until the issue of whether class relief is available is resolved in
the state courts.

Judge Woodcock holds that statutory exhaustion requirement of 28
U.S.C. Section 2254 is applicable.  And although maintaining the
current action would be more efficient than multiple separate
individual claims initiated in state court, the he is not convinced
that proceeding in state court would be as onerous as the
Petitioners contend.  While he found multiple cases taking this
basic approach, the Judge did not find any cases supporting the
Petitioners' proposition that the unavailability of a class remedy
in state court excuses the exhaustion of all the class members.

The Judge agrees with the Petitioners that the proper time to
evaluate whether it appears that there was an absence of available
State corrective process when the Petitioners filed their petition
in the case is at the point the petition was filed.  As such, he
does not consider developments in Mr. Denbow's PCR petition case
subsequent to his filing the federal habeas petition on May 15,
2020.  The Petitioners cannot show that the PCR process was not
available to them and do not argue that it was inadequate to
achieve the relief they seek.

The Judge understands and is concerned about the extraordinary
circumstances posed by the COVID-19 pandemic and its potentially
grave risk to inmates.  But the State judiciary in Maine is no
doubt equally aware and equally concerned about the risks the
COVID-19 virus poses to state inmates and he draws comfort from its
view that the state courts in Maine are just as capable of
efficiently addressing critical legal issues affecting fundamental
rights as the federal court.

Finally, the Petitioners argue that, in the alternative, the Court
should defer a ruling or stay proceedings until the state court
determines whether a class remedy is available under Maine law.  As
he already discussed, however, the Judge finds that the Petitioners
have failed to exhaust, regardless of whether a state class action
is available.  Because the Petitioners' petition contains only
unexhausted claims and the lack of a state class remedy does not
excuse failure to exhaust, he declines to stay the case.  He does,
however, dismiss the action without prejudice because its ruling
does not reach the merits of the Petitioners' claims and, if
necessary, once they have exhausted their state remedies, they may
reinitiate their claims in the Court.

For these reasons, Judge Woodcock granted the Respondents' Motion
to Dismiss, and dismissed without prejudice the Petitioners'
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Injunctive and
Declaratory Relief.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 14, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y3shmedf from Leagle.com.


MDL 2570: Stay on CTO for Stephens v. Cook Medical Suit Lifted
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: COOK MEDICAL, INC., IVC FILTERS MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2570,
the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an
order lifting the stay of the Panel's conditional transfer order
designated as "CTO-102" filed on September 10, 2020, insofar as it
relates to the action styled, Stephens v. Cook Medical
Incorporated, et al.,) N.D. Alabama, C.A. No. 5:20-01257. The
action is transferred to the Southern District of Indiana for
inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 being conducted by the Honorable
Richard L. Young.

A conditional transfer order was filed in the Stephens action on
September 10,2020. Prior to expiration of that order's 7-day stay
of transmittal, defendant Huntsville Hospital Associated and
plaintiff in Stephens filed notices of opposition to the proposed
transfer. The parties later filed motions and briefs to vacate the
conditional transfer order. The Panel has now been advised that
defendant Huntsville Hospital Associated is no longer a party to
this action and that plaintiff has withdrawn her opposition to
transfer.

A full-text copy of the Court's November 17, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/mzGK2S


MDL 2740: 17 Taxotere (Docetaxel) Suits Moved to E.D. Louisiana
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: TAXOTERE (DOCETAXEL) PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2740, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order
transferring 17 actions from the District of New Jersey to the
Eastern District of Louisiana and, with the consent of that court,
assigned them to the Honorable Jane Triche Milazzo for inclusion in
the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiffs in the actions move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the
Panel's orders that conditionally transferred their actions to MDL
No. 2740. Defendants Sanofi U.S. Services Inc. and Sanofi-Aventis
U.S. LLC (together, Sanofi) oppose the motions to vacate.

After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Caldwell finds
these actions involve common questions of fact with the actions
previously transferred to MDL No. 2740, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. No party disputes that, like many of the
already-centralized actions, the actions before the Panel involve
factual questions arising out of allegations that Taxotere
(docetaxel), a chemotherapy drug, causes permanent hair loss, and
that defendants were aware of this possible side effect and failed
to warn patients.

In support of the motions to vacate, plaintiffs argue that removal
of their actions was improper, and the transferor court should
decide their motions for remand to state court. Jurisdictional
issues do not present an impediment to transfer of factually
related cases, as plaintiff can present these arguments to the
transferee judge.

Plaintiffs also argue that two summary judgment rulings in MDL No.
2740 would "claim" several of these cases. But the Panel does not
consider "[t]he prospect of an unfavorable ruling by the transferee
court or the possibility that another district judge may be more
favorably disposed to a litigant's contention... in exercising its
discretion under Section 1407."

Finally, plaintiffs suggest that their claims can be more
efficiently litigated in the state court Multicounty Litigation,
which has fewer cases pending than in MDL No. 2740. But the cases
now before the Panel are not pending in New Jersey state court.
Plaintiffs' argument presumes the success of their motions to
remand to state court. Vacatur, therefore, could result in similar
claims pending in at least three different courts.

A full-text copy of the Court's September 30, 2020 Transfer Order
is available at https://is.gd/u5m8Dq


MDL 2741: Court Vacates CTO for Loeffler v. Monsanto Roundup Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No.
2741, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has vacated the Panel's conditional
transfer order designated "CTO-219" with respect to the action
styled, LOEFFLER v. MONSANTO COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:20-01062 in the
District of Arizona.

Defendant Monsanto Company moves under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the
Panel's order conditionally transferring the District of Arizona
Loeffler action to the Northern District of California for
inclusion in MDL No. 2741. Plaintiff opposes the motion.

After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Caldwell concludes
that inclusion of Loeffler in MDL No. 2741 would not serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses or promote the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation. The actions in this MDL
involve allegations that plaintiffs developed non-Hodgkin's
lymphoma or certain other haematopoietic cancers, including
multiplemyeloma, as a result of exposure to Monsanto's
glyphosate-based herbicides. Plaintiff argues that transfer of
Loeffler is appropriate because she alleges that she has been
diagnosed with "smoldering myeloma." The parties do not dispute
that smoldering myeloma is not cancer, but rather a clonal plasma
cell disorder that often, though not always, develops into multiple
myeloma. Transferring Loeffler to the MDL thus would constitute an
expansion of the litigation to non-cancerous conditions.

Such an expansion is not appropriate at this juncture. While there
are still efficiencies to be gained through transfer of potential
tag-along actions involving the cancers that are the subject of the
litigation, MDL No. 2741 is sufficiently mature that transfer of
actions involving new injuries is not warranted. General causation
discovery is complete, and defendant recently announced a
settlement that potentially may resolve all or most of the actions
currently in the MDL. Adding cases involving a new injury will only
complicate pretrial proceedings and the resolution of the
litigation.

Plaintiff argues that she will have to duplicate the discovery
conducted in the MDL absent transfer. Alternatives exist, though,
to minimize any potential for duplicative discovery. In particular,
relevant discovery of Monsanto obtained in the MDL can be made
available to plaintiff in Loeffler.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 5, 2020 Order is available
at https://is.gd/g8fH8o


MDL 2753: Stegenga vs. Atrium Medical Transferred to New Hampshire
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: ATRIUM MEDICAL CORP. C-QUR MESH PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2753, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an
order transferring the action styled, STEGENGA v. ATRIUM MEDICAL
CORP., ET AL., C.A.  No. 1:20-03589, from the Northern District of
Illinois to the District of New Hampshire and, with the consent of
that court, assigned to the Honorable Landya B.  McCafferty for
inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiff in the Stegenga action moves under Panel Rule 7.1 to
vacate the Panel's order that conditionally transferred his action
to MDL No. 2753.  Defendant Atrium Medical Corporation (Atrium)
opposes the motion to vacate.

After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Caldwell finds
this action involves common questions of fact with the actions
previously transferred to MDL No. 2753, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation.  No party disputes that Stegenga shares questions of
fact with MDL No. 2753 actions.  Like many of these actions,
Stegenga involves factual questions arising out of allegations that
defects in defendants' C-Qur mesh products incite an allergic or
inflammatory response that causes severe complications.  In
addition to his claims against Atrium involving the C-Qur mesh,
plaintiff also alleges he was implanted with hernia mesh products
manufactured by C.R.  Bard Inc. and Davol Inc. (together, Bard).
Plaintiff alleges these products also were defective.

In support of the motion to vacate, plaintiff argues that MDL No.
2753 includes claims only involving Atrium hernia mesh products,
and that his claims and injuries regarding the Atrium and Bard
hernia mesh products are indivisible.  He argues that,
consequently, (1) the MDL No. 2753 transferee court has no
authority over his claims against Bard; and (2) transfer to MDL No.
2753 may result in his claims proceeding in two districts.  He also
expresses concern that the Panel ultimately may transfer his claims
against Bard to MDL No. 2846 -- In re Davol, Inc./C.R.  Bard, Inc.,
Polypropylene Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation.

Judge Caldwell does not find these arguments persuasive.
Plaintiff's primary concern appears to be that the Panel will
separate these claims against the two sets of defendants.  But the
Panel's conditional order transferred all claims in Stegenga,
including those against Bard, to MDL No. 2753.  And no party
disputes that plaintiff's claims against Atrium and Bard should
remain together.  Plaintiff's view that the MDL No. 2753 transferee
court lacks authority to adjudicate his claims against Bard is
incorrect.  When the Panel transfers a case to an MDL, the
transferee judge has authority over pretrial proceedings in all
aspects of that case.  As the Panel consistently has held, Section
1407 transfer does not require a complete identity or even a
majority of common factual issues.  Indeed, MDL No. 2846 --
involving claims of defects in hernia mesh products manufactured by
Bard -- also includes actions brought by plaintiffs alleging
implantation with hernia mesh products manufactured by other
defendants.  Should the MDL No. 2753 transferee judge determine
after close scrutiny that inclusion of this action would not
benefit the litigation, then Section 1407 remand can be
accomplished with a minimum of delay.  

A full-text copy of the Court's September 30, 2020 Transfer Order
is available at https://is.gd/ka80Cb


MDL 2804: 8 Prescription Opiate Suits Moved to N.D. Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION, MDL
No. 2804, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring eight
actions to the Northern District of Ohio and, with the consent of
that court, assigned them to the Honorable Dan A. Polster for
inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiffs in eight actions move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the
orders conditionally transferring their respective actions to MDL
No. 2804. Various defendants oppose the motions.

After considering the arguments of counsel, Judge Caldwell finds
these actions involve common questions of fact with the actions
previously transferred to MDL No. 2804, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. Moreover, transfer is warranted for the reasons set
forth in the Panel's order directing centralization. In that order,
the Panel held that the Northern District of Ohio was an
appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual
questions regarding the allegedly improper marketing and
distribution of various prescription opiate medications into
states, cities, and towns across the country.

Despite some variances among the actions before the Panel, all
share a factual core with the MDL actions: the manufacturer and
distributor defendants' alleged knowledge of and conduct regarding
the diversion of these prescription opiates, as well as the
manufacturers' allegedly improper marketing of the drugs. These
actions therefore fall within the MDL's ambit.

Plaintiffs oppose transfer by principally arguing that federal
jurisdiction is lacking over their cases. But opposition to
transfer based on a jurisdictional challenge is insufficient to
warrant vacating conditional transfer of factually related cases.
Most opponents of transfer also argue that including their actions
in this large MDL will cause them inconvenience and delay the
progress of their actions, including the resolution of their remand
motion. Given the undisputed factual overlap with the MDL
proceedings, transfer is justified in order to facilitate the
efficient conduct of the litigation as a whole.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 1, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/6Nc375


MDL 2804: Court Denies Bid to Remand 3 Prescription Opiate Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION, MDL
No. 2804, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has denied the plaintiffs' motions for
Section 1407 remand of three actions pending in the Northern
District of Ohio.

These actions are:

   * COUNTY OF HARRIS v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL., C.A. No.
1:18-45677 (S.D. Texas, C.A. No. 4:18-00490)

   * ROCKWALL COUNTY v. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, C.A. No. 1:19-45859
(S.D. Texas, C.A. No. 4:19-02181)

   * ELLIS COUNTY v. WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC., ET AL., C.A.
No. 1:19-45860 (S.D. Texas, C.A. No. 4:19-02256)

Plaintiffs in the actions move under Panel Rule 10.3 for Section
1407 remand to the Southern District of Texas. Defendant ICU
Medical Sales, Inc., in the Southern District of Texas Harris
County supports Section 1407 remand. Defendants oppose Section 1407
remand of these actions.

After considering the argument of counsel, the Panel denies the
motions for Section 1407 remand. The Panel ordered centralization
in this docket in December 2017. In that order, the Panel held that
the Northern District of Ohio was an appropriate Section 1407 forum
for actions sharing factual questions regarding the allegedly
improper marketing and distribution of various prescription opiate
medications into states, cities, and towns across the country.  The
actions before the Panel have been pending in the MDL for about one
(Rockwall County and Ellis County) or two years (Harris County). No
party disputes that these actions are squarely related to the MDL
proceedings, which now comprises nearly 2, 900 cases.

Plaintiffs filed these Section 1407 motions, which seek return to
the transferor court to obtain a ruling on their motions to remand
to state court, without first obtaining a suggestion of remand from
the transferee judge. Panel Rule 10.3(a) counsels that the Panel is
"reluctant to order a remand absent the suggestion of the
transferee judge." Indeed, a party moving for Section 1407 remand
without such a suggestion "bears a strong burden of persuasion."
Plaintiffs have not met that burden here. Judge Polster, in his
capacity as transferee judge, has become familiar with the issues
in this litigation by presiding over extensive and highly contested
pretrial proceedings. He is in the best position to determine the
future course of actions in the MDL. The Panel affords transferee
judges a wide degree of discretion in their case management
decisions. Remand of these cases without the transferee judge's
suggestion is not appropriate at this time.

Despite plaintiffs' failure to carry their burden, the Panel
observes that plaintiffs are, of course, entitled to a ruling on
their motion to remand. The Panel is confident that the transferee
judge will address motions to remand to state court in due course.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 1, 2020 Order is available
at https://is.gd/jEvQzQ


MDL 2814: 2 Suits vs. Ford Motor Moved to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: FORD MOTOR CO. DPS6 POWERSHIFT TRANSMISSION
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2814, Judge Karen K.
Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has
entered an order transferring the actions styled, GARCIA, ET AL. v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:20-04088 in the Northern
District of California; and PARKER, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
ET AL., C.A. No. 3:20-01023 in the Southern District of California,
to the Central District of California and, with the consent of that
court, assigned them to the Honorable Andre Birotte, Jr., for
inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiffs in two actions move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the
Panel's orders conditionally transferring the actions to MDL No.
2814. Defendant Ford Motor Company opposes the motions to vacate
and supports transfer.

After considering the parties' arguments, Judge Caldwell finds that
the actions share questions of fact with the actions transferred to
MDL No. 2814, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 will
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the
just and efficient conduct of this litigation. The actions in MDL
No. 2814 involve common factual questions arising out of
allegations that the DPS6 PowerShift transmission installed in
certain Ford Fiesta and Ford Focus vehicles is defective and
negatively affects the drivability, safety, and useful life of the
vehicles. The Judge finds that plaintiffs' actions involve the same
factual issues. The Parker complaint asserts claims based on
"severe transmission issues" in a 2016 Ford Focus equipped with a
DPS6 PowerShift transmission. And the Garcia action asserts claims
based on multiple shuddering and stalling problems, as well as
other defects, in a 2018 Ford Focus equipped with a DPS6 PowerShift
transmission.

Plaintiffs in Parker principally object to transfer on the ground
that the primary claim in their action concerns an engine defect,
rather than a transmission defect. As a threshold matter, this
assertion is not supported by the complaint. As Ford points out,
there is no mention of an engine defect in the Parker complaint.
The only defect specifically alleged is a transmission defect. But
accepting as true plaintiffs' assertion that they plead engine
defects alongside their transmission claims, transfer still is
appropriate. "[T]he presence of additional facts or differing legal
theories" does not prevent the transfer of an action that shares
factual issues with those in the MDL. Moreover, in this MDL, the
Panel already has determined that actions alleging both DPS6
transmission defects and "additional problems unrelated to the
transmission" are appropriate for transfer.

Plaintiffs in Garcia argue that their actions are beyond the
boundaries of the MDL because the Ford Focus vehicles in the MDL
are model years 2012 to 2016, while their Ford Focus is model year
2018. The Panel has held, however, that the MDL is not limited to
2012 to 2016 Ford Focus vehicles, in the context of deciding to
transfer an action involving a 2017 Ford Focus with an allegedly
defective DPS6 transmission. In doing so, the Panel explained:

"While the initial transfer order does refer to "Ford Focus model
years 2012 to 2016" in a footnote, the common factual questions
described by the order are those "arising out of allegations that
the DPS6 PowerShift transmission installed in certain Ford Fiesta
and Ford Focus vehicles is defective" . . . . Plaintiffs' claims
will involve the same factual questions, even though they have 2017
model year vehicles."

There is no reason to treat actions involving the 2018 Ford Focus
any differently given that the 2018 model year also is equipped
with the DPS6 PowerShift transmission and allegedly suffers from
the same kinds of shuddering and drivability problems alleged in
the previously centralized actions.

Additionally, consistent with the initial transfer order, the MDL
already includes other model year vehicles with the DPS6 PowerShift
transmission, including the 2018 Ford Focus. As Ford correctly
notes, the Panel has transferred other potential tag-along actions
involving such vehicles. And the transferee judge has allowed
direct filing of actions involving the 2018 Ford Focus and other
model years in the MDL.

The Garcia plaintiffs also argue that their action fails to meet
two other alleged requirements for transfer -- assertion of a
fraud-based claim and a relationship to the Vargas class settlement
resolving certain DPS6 transmission claims. But the initial
transfer order does not impose any such criteria for transfer, nor
do any tag-along transfer orders. Rather, all transfer orders in
this MDL have made clear that an action is appropriate for transfer
based on the presence of common factual questions involving an
allegedly defective DPS6 PowerShift transmission.

The Garcia plaintiffs further argue that their actions are
factually dissimilar from the actions in the MDL because(1)they do
not allege, and need not prove, a "defect"-- or Ford's pre-sale
knowledge of a "defect" -- to prevail on their warranty claims; and
(2) their warranty claims turn on vehicle-specific impairments,
repairs, and damages. These arguments are unpersuasive. The Garcia
complaint plainly alleges that the vehicle has a "defect" or is
"defective" at least 16 times, and specifically alleges that the
vehicle is "defective in materials and workmanship." It further
alleges that plaintiffs experienced recurring DPS6 transmission
problems that required them "to bring the Vehicle in on multiple
occasions."

The action's other alleged differences, which essentially concern
plaintiffs' evidentiary burdens and vehicle-specific issues, also
are no obstacle to transfer.  According to Judge Caldwell, the
presence of additional facts or differing legal theories is not
significant where, as here, the actions arise from a common factual
core.

Lastly, the Garcia plaintiffs argue that transfer will delay the
resolution of their action and that litigating in an MDL will be
costly and inconvenient. In deciding transfer, the Panel "look[s]to
the overall convenience of the parties and witnesses, not just
those of a single plaintiff or defendant in isolation." Here, the
overall interests of convenience and efficiency will be served by
transferring Garcia, as the action shares significant factual
questions with the actions in the MDL, and likely will benefit from
the common discovery and the transferee judge's expertise on the
issues.

A full-text copy of the Court's September 30, 2020 Transfer Order
is available at https://is.gd/xFNrg3


MDL 2873: NJAW AFFFs Suit vs. DuPont Transferred to South Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2873, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order
transferring the action styled, NEW JERSEY-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY,
INC. v. E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No.
1:18-02767, from the District of New Jersey to the District of
South Carolina and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the
Honorable Richard M. Gergel for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.

Defendants E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company and The Chemours
Company move under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407(c) to transfer the action
(NJAW I ) to the District of South Carolina for inclusion in MDL
No. 2873. Plaintiff New Jersey-American Water Company, Inc.,
opposes the motion.

MDL No. 2873 involves allegations that aqueous film-forming foams
(AFFFs) used at airports, military bases, or other locations to
extinguish liquid fuel fires caused the release of perfluorooctane
sulfonate (PFOS) and/or perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) into local
groundwater and contaminated drinking water supplies. When the
Panel centralized this docket, it denied a motion by 3M to extend
the scope of the MDL to encompass not just cases involving AFFFs,
but all cases relating to 3M's manufacture, management, disposal,
and sale of per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS, an umbrella
term that includes PFOS and PFOA). Plaintiff argues that transfer
of NJAW I is inappropriate because it does not involve allegations
regarding AFFFs, but instead alleges that plaintiff's Penns Grove
water system was contaminated by PFOA discharged from a DuPont
manufacturing facility (the Chambers Works). Plaintiff in NJAW I
asserts a single claim under the New Jersey Spill Compensation and
Control Act (the Spill Act).

Were the Panel to view NJAW I in isolation, the Panel might agree
with plaintiff's characterization of that action as unrelated to
MDL No. 2873. But plaintiff filed a second complaint (NJAW II) that
was transferred, without opposition, to MDL No. 2873. That action
initially asserted products liability and nuisance claims against
eight defendants, all of which were AFFF manufacturers and none of
which was DuPont.

In March 2020, though, plaintiff amended its complaint in NJAW II
to, inter alia, add DuPont as a defendant and to add a claim under
the Spill Act. DuPont raised concerns with plaintiff and the court
in NJAW I that plaintiff was pursuing a duplicative claim in the
MDL. In response, plaintiff again amended its complaint in NJAW II.
This time, plaintiff: (a) restricted its claims against DuPont to
AFFF product liability theories; (b) removed from the complaint a
list of all of plaintiff's water supply systems (which included the
Penns Grove system) and substituted a statement that"[s]ome but not
all of NJAW's water systems have been contaminated with Defendants'
products;" and (c) removed the Spill Act claim.

Plaintiff argues that, as amended, NJAW I and NJAW II do not
overlap, and thus do not share common factual questions that would
merit transferring NJAW I to the MDL. Specifically, plaintiff
contends that its most recent amended complaint makes clear that
NJAW II does not assert claims relating to the Penns Grove water
supply system. It does nothing of the sort. Merely stating
that"[s]ome but not all" of plaintiff's water supplies were
contaminated by PFAS stemming from AFFFs leaves open the
possibility that "[s]ome" includes the Penns Grove water supply
system. Thus, in two separate actions, plaintiff is seeking (or
potentially seeking) recovery for PFAS contamination of the same
water supply; in one action from PFAS discharged by the Chambers
Works; in the other from PFAS incorporated into AFFF products.

The Panel previously declined a motion by DuPont to transfer eight
actions pending in the Eastern District of New York to MDL No.
2873. Those actions involved plaintiff water authorities that
allegedly obtained water from a common aquifer. None of those
plaintiffs asserted contamination from AFFF sources, and none was
pursuing a separate action relating to AFFF contamination in the
MDL. In contrast, plaintiff here is asserting two actions that
relate to PFAS contamination of, potentially, the same water
supply. Plaintiff could have asserted all of these claims in the
same action, but instead chose to split these claims across two
actions. It would be inefficient for these actions to proceed
separately and potentially prejudicial to the parties.

Accordingly, after considering the argument of counsel, Judge
Caldwell finds that the action listed on Schedule A involves common
questions of fact with the actions transferred to MDL No. 2873, and
that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation. In the Panel's order
centralizing this litigation, the Judge held that the District of
South Carolina was an appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions in
which plaintiffs allege that AFFF products used at airports,
military bases, or certain industrial locations caused the release
of PFOS and/or PFOA into local groundwater and contaminated
drinking water supplies. The actions in the MDL share factual
questions concerning the use and storage of AFFFs; the toxicity of
PFAS and the effects of these substances on human health; and these
substances' chemical properties and propensity to migrate in
groundwater supplies. For the reasons stated, NJAW I necessarily
shares common questions of fact with NJAW II, which has been
litigated in MDL No. 2873 for nearly two years.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 5, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/UAYLwF



MDL 2913: Patel and Cunningham Suits vs. Juul Labs Moved to Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES,
AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2913, Judge Karen K.
Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has
entered an order transferring the actions styled, PATEL, ET AL. v.
JUUL LABS, INC., ET AL., C.A.  No. 1:20-02222 in the Northern
District of Georgia; and CUNNINGHAM v. JUUL LABS, INC., ET AL.,
C.A.  No. 2:20-02056 in the District of South Carolina, to the
Northern District of California, and, with the consent of that
court, assigned to the Honorable William H.  Orrick III for
inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiffs in actions pending in the Northern District of Georgia
(Patel)and the District of South Carolina (Cunningham) separately
move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's orders
conditionally transferring their respective actions to the Northern
District of California for inclusion in MDL No. 2913.  Defendant
JUUL Labs, Inc. (JLI) opposes both motions.

After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Caldwell finds the
Patel and Cunningham actions involve common questions of fact with
actions transferred to MDL No. 2913, and that transfer will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of the litigation.  The actions in the MDL
share factual questions arising from allegations that "JLI has
marketed its JUUL nicotine delivery products in a manner designed
to attract minors, that JLI's marketing misrepresents or omits that
JUUL products are more potent and addictive than cigarettes, that
JUUL products are defective and unreasonably dangerous due to their
attractiveness to minors, and that JLI promotes nicotine
addiction."  The Patel and Cunningham plaintiffs do not dispute
that their actions implicate those same questions.

In opposition to transfer, plaintiffs argue that vacatur is
warranted because federal subject matter jurisdiction over their
actions is lacking, and they have motions for remand to state court
pending before the respective transferor courts.  The Panel
consistently has held, however, that the pendency of jurisdictional
objections does not pose an impediment to Section 1407 transfer.

A full-text copy of the Court's September 30, 2020 Transfer Order
is available at https://is.gd/aQEizL


MDL 2921: 2 Suits vs. Allergan USA Moved to District of New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: ALLERGAN BIOCELL TEXTURED BREAST IMPLANT
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2921, Judge Karen K.
Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has
entered an order transferring the actions styled, BASSINI v.
ALLERGAN USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:20-cv-02715 in the Eastern
District of New York; and VETTER, ET AL. v. ALLERGAN USA, INC., ET
AL., C.A. No. 1:20-cv-04704 in the Southern District of New York,
to the District of New Jersey and, with the consent of that court,
assigned them to the Honorable Brian R. Martinotti for inclusion in
the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiffs in the two actions A (Bassini and Vetter) move under
Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's orders conditionally
transferring the actions to MDL No. 2921. Defendant Allergan USA,
Inc., opposes the motion to vacate and supports transfer.

After considering the parties' arguments, Judge Caldwell finds that
the actions share questions of fact with the actions transferred to
MDL No. 2921, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 will
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the
just and efficient conduct of this litigation. In its order
establishing MDL No. 2921, the Panel held that centralization was
warranted for actions arising out of "Allergan's announcement on
July 24, 2019, of a voluntary worldwide recall of its BIOCELL
textured breast implants and tissue expanders" related to an
investigation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration into the
risk of breast-implant associated anaplastic large celllymphoma
(BIA-ALCL) associated with the products. The centralized actions
present common factual questions pertaining to the allegation "that
Allergan's BIOCELL textured breast implants and tissue expanders
significantly increase the risk of developing BIA-ALCL, and that
Allergan failed to warn the FDA, patients, and healthcare providers
of this risk." The Bassini and Vetter actions undisputedly involve
the same factual allegations and thus are appropriate for
transfer.

In support of their motions to vacate, plaintiffs in both actions
argue that their actions were improperly removed and the transferor
courts should decide their pending and anticipated motions for
remand to state court. But the Panel consistently has held that
jurisdictional issues do not present an impediment to transfer, as
plaintiffs can present these arguments to the transferee judge.

A full-text copy of the Court's September 30, 2020 Transfer Order
is available at https://is.gd/OaHbly


MDL 2921: Skuba v. Allergan Moved to District of New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: ALLERGAN BIOCELL TEXTURED BREAST IMPLANT
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2921, Judge Karen K.
Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has
entered an order transferring the action styled, SKUBA, ET AL. V.
ALLERGAN PCL, ET AL., C.A.  No. 2:20-cv-01599, from the Eastern
District of Louisiana to the District of New Jersey and, with the
consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Brian R.
Martinotti for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.

Defendant Allergan USA, Inc., moves under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407(c)
for transfer of the Skuba action to the District of New Jersey for
inclusion in MDL No. 2921.  Plaintiffs did not respond to the
motion and, therefore, are deemed to acquiesce in the relief
sought.

After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Caldwell finds
that Skuba involves common questions of fact with the actions
transferred to MDL No. 2921, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation.  In its order establishing MDL No. 2921, the Panel held
that centralization was warranted for actions arising out of
"Allergan's announcement on July 24, 2019, of a voluntary worldwide
recall of its BIOCELL textured breast implants and tissue
expanders" related to an investigation by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration into the risk of breast-implant associated
anaplastic large celllymphoma (BIA-ALCL) associated with the
products.  The centralized actions present common factual questions
pertaining to the allegation "that Allergan's BIOCELL textured
breast implants and tissue expanders significantly increase the
risk of developing BIA-ALCL, and that Allergan failed to warn the
FDA, patients, and healthcare providers of this risk." The Skuba
action undisputedly involves the same core factual allegations and
thus is appropriate for transfer.

The Skuba action alleges that plaintiff Kathryn Skuba was implanted
with Allergan breast implants and tissue expanders, including both
BIOCELL textured implants and various smooth implants and that, as
a result, she suffers from BIA-ALCL and other injuries.  The
allegations concerning the smooth implants present distinct factual
and legal questions not at issue in the MDL.  Still, the overall
interests of convenience and efficiency will be served by transfer
of Skuba, as the action likely will involve common discovery,
dispositive motions, and other pretrial proceedings as to the
textured implant issues.  If the transferee judge finds at any
point in the pretrial proceedings that the inclusion of Skuba will
not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or promote
the just and efficient conduct of this litigation, Section 1407
remand of the action to its transferor court can be accomplished
with a minimum of delay.

A full-text copy of the Court's September 30, 2020 Transfer Order
is available at https://is.gd/IodzrB


MDL 2959: Proven Networks Patent Suits Transferred to W.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: PROVEN NETWORKS, LLC, PATENT LITIGATION, MDL
No. 2959, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring eight
actions pending in two districts to the Western District of Texas
and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Alan
D.  Albright for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Certain accused infringers move under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to
centralize pretrial proceedings in this patent litigation in the
Northern District of California.  This litigation consists of eight
actions, pending in two districts, as listed on Schedule A.
Originally, there were ten actions on the motion, including two
infringement actions in the Northern District of California(F5
Networks and Extreme Networks).  After the motion was filed, the
patentholder voluntarily dismissed the California actions but filed
a new action against F5 Networks, Inc., in the same district(F5
Networks No. II), amending its allegations and legal claims.  F5
Networks No. II is a potential tag-along action in this
litigation.

Patentholder Proven Networks, LLC, opposes centralization and,
alternatively, requests the Western District of Texas as the
transferee district.  Defendant F5 Networks states that it takes no
position on centralization but, in the event of centralization, it
does not oppose the Northern District of California.

At issue in this litigation are five patents owned by Proven
Networks, LLC, in the field of data networking.  Proven Networks
alleges in all actions that the patents originated from
telecommunications and wireless networking research by
Alcatel-Lucent, with the general purpose of managing and optimizing
data flow and storage under varying and adverse data traffic
conditions.  The patents allegedly were transferred from
Alcatel-Lucent to Provenance Asset Group, LLC("Provenance") in
2017, and from Provenance to Proven Networks in early 2020.  The
various accused products in the actions are: (1) storage and
network controllers and associated software;(2) cloud computing;
and (3) network traffic management devices such as routers and
switches and associated software.

In opposing centralization, the patentholder principally argues
that (1) common factual issues are not involved because the
asserted patents vary significantly across actions; (2) the accused
products and infringement issues vary; and (3) the anticipated
consolidation of the seven Western District of Texas actions makes
centralization unnecessary.  The Panel find these arguments
unpersuasive.  First, although different combinations of patents
are asserted in the actions, there is substantial overlap in the
asserted patents.  The claim construction issues in the Western
District of Texas Dell action overlap with all other actions on the
motion.  The issues concerning the '024 and '454 patents are raised
in Dell, the Eastern District of Texas Cisco action, and four other
Western District of Texas actions, and the issues concerning the
'507 patent are raised in Dell, the Northern District of California
F5 Networks No. II action, and one other Western District of Texas
action.  Absent centralization, duplicative claim construction
proceedings on these patents will be necessary.  Second,
differences in the accused products and infringement allegations in
the cases do not prevent centralization where common factual issues
involving claim construction and patent invalidity are shared.
Third, the anticipated consolidation of the Western District of
Texas actions is insufficient to address the risk of duplicative
proceedings and inconsistent rulings.  Actions still would be
proceeding independently in the Northern District of California and
the Eastern District of Texas.  And the record indicates that claim
construction pretrial proceedings already are advancing without
coordination among the parties.

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held,
Judge Caldwell finds that these actions involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization will serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of
this litigation.  All actions share factual questions involving
five patents concerning data networking technology that allegedly
originated with Alcatel-Lucent and subsequently were transferred to
Proven Networks.  There is significant overlap in the patents
asserted in these actions, and thus, overlapping claim construction
and patent validity issues.  Moreover, all actions involve common
factual issues relating to the patents' transfer history and
associated valuation, damages, and standing issues.  Centralization
will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (particularly on the complex and time-consuming matter of
claim construction), and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel and the judiciary.

Judge Caldwell concludes that the Western District of Texas is an
appropriate transferee district for this litigation.  Seven of the
eight actions on the motion are pending in this district, and the
accused infringers in two actions have their headquarters there.
Judge Alan D.  Albright, who presides over six actions, is an
experienced jurist who has the ability and willingness to manage
this litigation efficiently.  Judge Caldwell is confident Judge
Albright will steer this litigation on a prudent course.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 1, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/ESE1Bp


MDL 2960: Court Denies Centralization of Landlord Suits v. Gap
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: THE GAP, INC., COVID-19 LEASE PAYMENT
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2960, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has denied the motion of
tenant movants The Gap, Inc., Old Navy, LLC, Banana Republic, LLC,
and Athleta, LLC, for centralization of seven actions pending in
five districts.

The Gap, Inc., Old Navy, LLC, Banana Republic, LLC, and Athleta,
LLC as tenant movants, move under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to
centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the Northern
District of California or, alternatively, the Eastern District of
Michigan.  The motion encompasses seven actions pending in five
districts.

All responding landlord parties oppose centralization.  The
responding Michigan landlord plaintiffs alternatively request
exclusion if an MDL is formed outside the Eastern District of
Michigan.  Landlord defendant in the Southern District of New York
Gap declaratory judgment action alternatively requests exclusion of
its action from centralized proceedings or suggests centralization
in the Eastern District or Southern District of New York.  Landlord
plaintiff in the potential tag-along action pending in the District
of District of Columbia alternatively suggests centralization in
the District of District of Columbia or the Eastern District or
Southern District of New York.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, Judge
Caldwell concludes that centralization is not necessary for the
convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation.  These actions involve some
factual overlap concerning Gap's decision not to pay rent on its
retail leases nationwide on grounds that the business disruption
caused by the COVID-19 pandemic frustrated the essential purposes
of each of its leases and excused Gap from its obligation to pay
rent.  Gap argues that there will be common fact and expert
discovery concerning, inter alia, the foreseeability of the
pandemic, whether Gap assumed the risk of a pandemic in the leases
at issue, custom and practice in the industry on both assumption of
risk and foreseeability, the effects of the pandemic on safety and
in-person retail shopping, and potential safety measures that
retailers mayor must employ.  Opponents of centralization argue,
inter alia, that(1) there are no relevant, disputed, common factual
questions; (2) to the extent there are any common factual
questions, they are overwhelmed by individual factual questions in
these actions, which will involve different leases, landlords,
properties, and shelter-in-place orders; (3) these are simple
landlord/tenant disputes and any common questions of fact are not
sufficiently complex to warrant centralization ; and (4) several
landlords have sought rulings on early summary judgment motions,
without the need for discovery.

The Panel agrees with opponents that centralization is not
necessary or appropriate here.  Gap maybe correct that these
actions will involve some overlapping factual questions and
discovery.  But the overlap appears to be limited and overshadowed
by the many individual questions in each action relating to the
unique properties, leases, and negotiating parties at issue.  The
Panel are not persuaded that centralized proceedings will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses -- particularly the
various landlords.

The Panel also finds the recent procedural history of the
litigation indicates that centralization "might hinder the orderly
and efficient resolution of these cases." In re JumpSport, Inc.,
('845 &'207) Patent Litig., 338 F.  Supp.  3d 1356, 1357 (J.P.M.L.
2018).  Since Gap filed its motion for centralization, which
included 33 actions, 26 of them have been remanded or settled and
dismissed.  And Gap represents that another action has settled.  In
the weeks since Gap filed its Section 1407 motion, 16 actions --
almost half of those originally included in the centralization
motion -- have settled.  The earliest actions were filed just six
months ago.  Thus, these actions have not "required significant
judicial attention, " and Judge Caldwell finds that centralization
would not promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation.

Gap argues that additional similar actions are likely to be filed
because unresolved rental disputes are pending as to approximately
2,000 leases.  But the Panel currently is presented with just seven
potential tag-along actions for (according to Gap) a total of
thirteen actions, and the Panel is "disinclined to take into
account the mere possibility of future filings in our
centralization calculus." In re Lipitor (Atorvastatin Calcium)
Mktg., Sales Practices &Prods.  Liab.  Litig., 959 F.  Supp.
2d1375, 1376 (J.P.M.L. 2013).  Moreover, it is unclear how many
similar actions already have been filed or will be filed in state
court.  Indeed, of the 33 actions included in Gap's motion for
centralization, 11 have been remanded to state court.  Finally,
given the trend of quick settlements, it may be that most of these
rental disputes are resolved before a lawsuit is filed.

For the actions remaining, it appears that alternatives to
centralization -- such as informal coordination of any common
depositions -- can minimize any overlap in pretrial proceedings.
It does not appear the parties attempted any informal means of
coordination before Gap filed its Section 1407 motion.  Parties
should make such an attempt before resorting to Panel
intervention.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 2, 2020 Order is available
at https://is.gd/RiRVot


MDL 2961: Show Cause Order Vacated for 13 COVID-19 Insurance Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON,
COVID-19 BUSINESS INTERRUPTION PROTECTION INSURANCE LITIGATION, MDL
No. 2961, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has vacated the order to show cause
regarding 13 actions.

At its July 2020 hearing session, the Panel considered two motions
seeking centralization of an industry-wide litigation involving
claims for insurance coverage of business interruption losses
caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the related government orders
suspending, or severely curtailing, operations of non-essential
businesses.  The Panel denied the motions, concluding that the
differences among the many insurers would overwhelm any common
factual questions and hinder the transferee court's ability to
efficiently manage the litigation.  In the briefing on those
motions, several parties proposed that insurer-specific MDLs be
created.  The Panel concluded that it needed "a better
understanding of the factual commonalities and differences among
these actions, as well as the efficiencies that may or may not be
gained through centralization, before creating an insurer-specific
MDL." Therefore, the Panel ordered the Panel Clerk to issue orders
directing the parties to certain actions involving a common insurer
or group of insurers to show cause why those actions should not be
centralized.

One of those orders encompassed the 13 actions, which involve
claims against Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London.  Since the
Panel issued this show cause order, the parties have notified the
Panel of 11 related actions.  Plaintiffs in 12 of these 24 actions
support the creation of a Lloyd's MDL.  They variously suggest five
potential transferee districts; the Southern District of Florida;
the Eastern District of Louisiana; the Western District of
Missouri; the Southern District of New York; and the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.  Plaintiffs in two actions oppose
centralization, as do the responding Lloyd's defendants and
defendant DTW1991 Underwriting Ltd. In the alternative, the Lloyd's
defendants suggest that the Southern District of Florida serve as
the transferee court for this litigation.  Additionally, the Panel
received two briefs by amici curiae, one in support of and one in
opposition to centralization.

After considering the arguments of counsel, Judge Caldwell
concludes that centralization of the Lloyd's actions will not serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation.  Most of the insurance
policies at issue in the Lloyd's actions appear to use one of two
standard forms drafted by the Insurance Services Office (ISO) and
will involve the interpretation of the phrases "direct physical
loss of, " "direct physical loss to, "and "damage to" property, as
well as the application of four common exclusions.  There are,
however, significant differences among the actions that will hinder
the ability of the transferee court to efficiently manage the MDL
-- differences that are likely to increase as more actions are
transferred to the MDL.  For instance, one action (Fire Island
Retreat) involves a homeowners insurance policy, not a business
property insurance policy.  Furthermore, Lloyd's is not a single
insurance company, but rather is an insurance market in which more
than 90 "syndicates" agree to accept several liability for a
percentage of the coverage provided by a particular insurance
policy.  Not only does the subscription nature of the Lloyd's
market mean that the insurers will change from policy to policy,
but some policies are issued on "split markets, " in which
non-Lloyds' insurers participate.  This could dramatically expand
the scope of this MDL.  Indeed, several of the actions, both on the
show cause order and noticed as related to this litigation, involve
non-Lloyd's insurers.  A Lloyd's MDL that pulls in multiple
insurers would introduce the same manageability concerns that
weighed against the creation of an industry-wide litigation in MDL
No. 2942.

Additionally, the parties do not dispute that Lloyd's is a surplus
line carrier (one of the largest such carriers in the United
States).  Lloyd's therefore is not obligated to use ISO forms in
its policies, unlike "admitted" insurers, which are required to use
forms approved by each state's department of insurance.  The
inclusion of non-standard and non-common forms and policy language
would hinder the ability of the transferee court to organize the
litigation and quickly reach the common factual and legal
questions.

This litigation demands efficiency.  As counsel repeatedly
emphasized in their papers and during oral argument, time is of the
essence in this litigation.  Many plaintiffs are on the brink of
bankruptcy as a result of business lost due to the COVID-19
pandemic and the government closure orders.  Efficiency is best
obtained outside the MDL context, Judge Caldwell said.  If these
actions were centralized, the transferee court would have to
establish a pretrial structure to manage numerous plaintiffs, many
of which are pursuing distinct theories of liability.  Given the
likelihood that the scope of any MDL will expand to encompass other
insurers who participated with the Lloyd's market on certain
policies, organization of the defendants also might be necessary.
The court then would have to identify common policies with
identical or sufficiently similar policy language and interpret
those policies under applicable state law.

It thus will take some time to organize this litigation.  In the
meantime, dispositive motions addressing the core policy
interpretation questions are pending in 10 of the 13 show cause
actions, at least five of which are fully briefed.  If plaintiffs'
claims survive these motions, discovery appears relatively
straightforward and much of it will be plaintiff- and
property-specific.  In these circumstances, the actions will reach
resolution more quickly if they remain in the transferor courts.
The Panel impress upon the courts overseeing these actions the
importance of advancing these actions towards resolution as quickly
as possible.

Accordingly, centralization of the actions is not warranted.  To
the extent necessary, alternatives to centralization are available
to minimize any duplication in pretrial proceedings, including
informal cooperation and coordination among the parties and courts.
The Panel also notes that some similar actions are pending in the
same district before multiple judges, and it may be appropriate for
the courts or the parties to seek to relate those before one
judge.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 2, 2020 Order is available
at https://is.gd/Hv9T1g


MDL 2962: Show Cause Order Vacated for 17 COVID-19 Insurance Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY COVID-19 BUSINESS
INTERRUPTION PROTECTION INSURANCE LITIGATION, MDL No. 2962, Judge
Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation has vacated the order to show cause regarding 17
actions.

At its July 2020 hearing session, the Panel considered two motions
seeking centralization of an industry-wide litigation involving
claims for insurance coverage of business interruption losses
caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the related government orders
suspending, or severely curtailing, operations of non-essential
businesses.  The Panel denied the motions, concluding that the
differences among the many insurers would overwhelm any common
factual questions and hinder the transferee court's ability to
efficiently manage the litigation.  In the briefing on those
motions, several parties proposed that insurer-specific MDLs be
created.  The Panel concluded that it needed "a better
understanding of the factual commonalities and differences among
these actions, as well as the efficiencies that may or may not be
gained through centralization, before creating an insurer-specific
MDL."  Therefore, the Panel ordered the Panel Clerk to issue orders
directing the parties to certain actions involving a common insurer
or group of insurers to show cause why those actions should not be
centralized.

One of those orders encompassed the 17 actions, which involve
claims against Cincinnati Insurance Company and related insurers.
Since the Panel issued this show cause order, the parties have
notified the Panel of 49 related actions.  Plaintiffs in 27 of
these 66 actions support the creation of a Cincinnati MDL.  They
variously suggest a number of potential transferee districts,
including: the Northern District of Illinois; the District of
Kansas; the Western District of Missouri; the District of New
Jersey; the Southern District of New York; the Southern District of
Ohio; the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; and the Western
District of Pennsylvania.  Plaintiffs in five actions oppose
centralization, as does Cincinnati and several non-insurer
co-defendants in a related action pending in the Eastern District
of Missouri.  In the alternative, Cincinnati suggests that the
Northern District of Alabama or the Southern District of Ohio serve
as the transferee court for this litigation.  Additionally, the
Panel received two briefs by amici curiae, one in support of and
one in opposition to centralization.

After considering the arguments of counsel, Judge Caldwell said
centralization of the Cincinnati actions will not serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and
efficient conduct of this litigation.  Centralization of these
actions presents a close question.  The insurance policies at issue
in the Cincinnati actions appear to use standard forms drafted by
the Insurance Services Office (ISO) and will involve the
interpretation of common language, such as "direct loss to
property." To the extent discovery is necessary of Cincinnati
regarding the drafting and interpretation of its policies, such
discovery will be common to all actions.  Thus, these actions
present common legal and factual questions that could, in other
circumstances, support centralization.

Common factual questions, however, are not the sole prerequisite
for centralization under Section 1407.  Centralization also must
promote the just and efficient conduct of the actions.  This
litigation demands efficiency.  As counsel repeatedly emphasized in
their papers and during oral argument, time is of the essence in
this litigation.  Many plaintiffs are on the brink of bankruptcy as
a result of business lost due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the
government closure orders.  The most pressing question for the
Panel, therefore, is whether centralization presents the most
efficient means of advancing these actions towards resolution.

Judge Caldwell said efficiency is best obtained outside the MDL
context.  If these actions were centralized, the transferee court
would have to establish a pretrial structure to manage numerous
plaintiffs, many of which are pursuing distinct theories of
liability.  The court also would have to identify common policies
with identical or sufficiently similar policy language and
interpret those policies under applicable state laws.  The
Cincinnati actions are pending in 29 different districts in
nineteen states.  It will take a not insignificant amount of time
to organize this litigation and resolve the central policy
interpretation questions.  In the meantime, dispositive motions
addressing the core policy interpretation questions are pending in
39 of the 66 actions, at least 12 of which are fully briefed.
Rather than have one judge attempt to organize and resolve the core
policy interpretation issues, it strikes the Panel that allowing
the various transferor courts to decide these questions will result
in quicker and more efficient resolution of this litigation.

Furthermore, should plaintiffs' claims survive dispositive rulings
on the policy interpretation questions, discovery appears
relatively straightforward.  While some of this discovery may well
be common (particularly that directed to Cincinnati regarding the
drafting and interpretation of its policy language), much of the
discovery will be plaintiff- and property-specific.  In these
circumstances, it is more likely the actions will reach an
expeditious resolution if they remain in the transferor courts.
The Panel impress upon the courts overseeing these actions the
importance of advancing these actions towards resolution as quickly
as possible.

Accordingly, centralization of the actions is not warranted.  To
the extent necessary, alternatives to centralization are available
to minimize any duplication in pretrial proceedings, including
informal cooperation and coordination among the parties and courts.
The Panel also notes that some similar actions are pending in the
same district before multiple judges, and it may be appropriate for
the courts or the parties to seek to relate those before one
judge.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 2, 2020 Order is available
at https://is.gd/cCn02i


MDL 2963: Show Cause Order Vacated for 66 COVID-19 Insurance Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: HARTFORD COVID-19 BUSINESS INTERRUPTION
PROTECTION INSURANCE LITIGATION, MDL No. 2963, Judge Karen K.
Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has
vacated the order to show cause regarding 66 actions.

At its July 2020 hearing session, the Panel considered two motions
seeking centralization of an industry-wide litigation involving
claims for insurance coverage of business interruption losses
caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the related government orders
suspending, or severely curtailing, operations of non-essential
businesses.  The Panel denied the motions, concluding that the
differences among the many insurers would overwhelm any common
factual questions and hinder the transferee court's ability to
efficiently manage the litigation.  In the briefing on those
motions, several parties proposed that insurer-specific MDLs be
created.  The Panel concluded that it needed "a better
understanding of the factual commonalities and differences among
these actions, as well as the efficiencies that may or may not be
gained through centralization, before creating an insurer-specific
MDL."  Therefore, the Panel ordered the Panel Clerk to issue orders
directing the parties to certain actions involving a common insurer
or group of insurers to show cause why those actions should not be
centralized.

One of those orders encompassed the 66 actions, which involve
claims against the Hartford group of insurers.  Since the Panel
issued this show cause order, the parties have notified the Panel
of 77 related actions.  Plaintiffs in 55 of these 143 actions
support the creation of a Hartford MDL.  They variously suggest a
number of potential transferee districts, including: the District
of Connecticut; the Southern District of Florida; the District of
New Jersey; the Eastern District of New York; the Western District
of Pennsylvania; and the Western District of Washington.
Plaintiffs in five actions oppose centralization, several of which
alternatively suggest the Northern District of California, the
District of Massachusetts, and the Eastern District of Missouri as
potential transferee districts.  The Hartford defendants also
oppose centralization and, in the alternative, suggest the Southern
District of New York as the transferee district for this
litigation.  Additionally, the Panel received two briefs by amici
curiae, one in support of and one in opposition to centralization.

After considering the arguments of counsel, Judge Caldwell
concludes that centralization of the Hartford actions will not
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the
just and efficient conduct of this litigation.  Centralization of
these actions presents a close question.  The insurance policies at
issue in the Hartford actions appear to use standard forms and will
involve the interpretation of common policy language, such as the
phrase "direct physical loss or physical damage to property." To
the extent discovery is necessary of Hartford regarding the
drafting and interpretation of its policies, such discovery will be
common to all actions.  Thus, these actions present common legal
and factual questions that could, in other circumstances, support
centralization.

Common factual questions, however, are not the sole prerequisite
for centralization under Section 1407.  Centralization also must
promote the just and efficient conduct of the actions.  This
litigation demands efficiency.  As counsel repeatedly emphasized in
their papers and during oral argument, time is of the essence in
this litigation.  Many plaintiffs are on the brink of bankruptcy as
a result of business lost due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the
government closure orders.  The most pressing question for the
Panel, therefore, is whether centralization presents the most
efficient means of advancing these actions towards resolution.

Efficiency here is best obtained outside the MDL context.  If these
actions were centralized, the transferee court would have to
establish a pretrial structure to manage numerous plaintiffs, many
of which are pursuing distinct theories of liability.  The court
also would have to identify common policies with identical or
sufficiently similar policy language and interpret those policies
under applicable state laws.  The Hartford actions are pending in
36 different districts in 24 states and the District of Columbia.
It will take a not insignificant amount of time to organize this
litigation and resolve the central policy interpretation questions.
In the meantime, dispositive motions addressing these policy
interpretation questions are pending in 37 of the 143 actions, at
least 10 of which are fully briefed.  Rather than have one judge
attempt to organize and resolve the core policy interpretation
issues, it strikes the Panel that allowing the various transferor
courts to decide these questions will result in quicker and more
efficient resolution of this litigation.

Furthermore, should plaintiffs' claims survive dispositive rulings
on the policy interpretation questions, discovery appears
relatively straightforward.  While some of this discovery may well
be common (particularly any discovery directed to Hartford
regarding the drafting and interpretation of its policy language),
much of it will be plaintiff- and property-specific.  In these
circumstances, it is more likely the actions will reach an
expeditious resolution if they remain in the transferor courts.
The Panel impress upon the courts overseeing these actions the
importance of advancing these actions towards resolution as quickly
as possible.

Accordingly, centralization of the actions is not warranted.  To
the extent necessary, alternatives to centralization are available
to minimize any duplication in pretrial proceedings, including
informal cooperation and coordination among the parties and courts.
The Panel also notes that some similar actions are pending in the
same district before multiple judges, and it may be appropriate for
the courts or the parties to seek to relate those before one
judge.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 2, 2020 Order is available
at https://is.gd/UtQLQf


MDL 2964: 21 COVID-19 Insurance Suits Transferred to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: SOCIETY INSURANCE COMPANY COVID-19 BUSINESS
INTERRUPTION PROTECTION INSURANCE LITIGATION, MDL No. 2964, Judge
Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation has entered an order transferring 21 actions pending
outside the Northern District of Illinois to the Northern District
of Illinois and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to
the Honorable Edmond E. Chang for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings with the actions pending there.

At its July 2020 hearing session, the Panel considered two motions
seeking centralization of an industry-wide litigation involving
insurance claims for coverage of business interruption losses
caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the related government orders
suspending, or severely curtailing, operations of non-essential
businesses.  The Panel denied the motions, concluding that the
differences among the many insurers would overwhelm any common
factual questions and hinder the transferee court's ability to
efficiently manage the litigation.  In the briefing on those
motions, several parties proposed that insurer-specific MDLs be
created.  The Panel concluded it needed "a better understanding of
the factual commonalities and differences among these actions, as
well as the efficiencies that may or may not be gained through
centralization, before creating an insurer-specific MDL." So the
Panel ordered the Panel Clerk to issue orders directing the parties
to certain actions involving a common insurer or group of insurers
to show cause why those actions should not be centralized.

One of those orders encompassed the 21 actions, which involve
claims against Society Insurance Company (Society).  Since the
Panel issued this show cause order, the parties have notified the
Panel of thirteen related actions filed in seven districts.
Plaintiffs in ten of the 34 actions support the creation of a
Society MDL in the Northern District of Illinois.  Plaintiffs in
two actions support centralization in the Eastern District of
Wisconsin, and one of those plaintiffs (in the Rising Dough action)
alternatively support a Northern District of Illinois transferee
district.  Plaintiffs in two Northern District of Illinois actions
(Big Onion and Billy Goat) and the Middle District of Tennessee Peg
Leg Porker action oppose centralization.  If an MDL is created over
their objections, the Billy Goat and Peg Leg Porker plaintiffs
request exclusion from it.  Defendant Society opposes
centralization.  Additionally, the Panel received two briefs by
amici curiae, one in support of and one in opposition to
centralization.

After considering the arguments of counsel, Judge Caldwell
concludes that centralization of the Society actions listed on
Schedule A  will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.
Society is a regional carrier operating in six Midwestern states --
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Tennessee and Wisconsin.
Policyholders have brought individual and putative nationwide and
statewide class actions against Society.  These actions share
common factual allegations that Society wrongfully denied policy
holders' claims for business interruption protection insurance.
Plaintiffs contend that Society preemptively decided to deny their
claims, which are brought under various property insurance policies
that, depending on the provisions plaintiff has purchased, provide:
(1) business income coverage, (2) civil authority coverage, (3)
extra expense coverage, (4) contamination coverage, and (5) sue and
labor coverage.

On March 16, 2020, Society CEO Rick Parks circulated a memorandum
to Society's "agency partners, " acknowledging that states had
"taken steps to limit operations of certain businesses, " and
concluding that Society's policies likely would not provide
coverage for losses for a "governmental imposed shutdown due to
COVID-19 (coronavirus)." The insurance policies at issue in the
Society actions appear to use standard forms drafted by the
Insurance Services Office (ISO) and will involve the interpretation
of common policy language.  The actions therefore will require an
assessment of whether COVID-19 caused any direct physical loss of
or to property, and whether any of Society's policy exclusions
apply to preclude plaintiffs' claims.  To the extent discovery is
necessary of Society regarding the drafting and interpretation of
it policies, that discovery will be common to all actions.  Thus,
these actions present common factual and legal questions that
support centralization.

In addition to requiring common factual questions, Section 1407
also requires that centralization promote the just and efficient
conduct of the actions.  This litigation demands efficiency.  As
counsel repeatedly emphasized in their papers and during oral
argument, time is of the essence in this litigation.  Many
plaintiffs are on the brink of bankruptcy as a result of business
lost due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the government closure
orders.  The most pressing question before The Panel, then, is
whether centralization presents the most efficient means of
advancing these actions towards resolution.  Unlike the other
business interruption insurance dockets arising from MDL No. 2942
in which the Panel has denied centralization, Judge Caldwell finds
that centralization presents the most efficient means of advancing
these actions toward resolution.  Here, there are before the Panel
34 total actions pending in six nearby states, the majority in one
district.  This suggests to the Panel that this litigation presents
a manageable controversy that can best be streamlined by proceeding
before a single judge.

Society argues that centralization is not appropriate because the
actions likely will involve primarily legal questions.  It is
possible plaintiffs' claims can be decided on motions to dismiss
without need for discovery into, for example, the drafting of the
policies at issue or epidemiological modeling of the spread of
COVID-19.  But centralization may be warranted even where common
questions of law are prominent, as long as common factual issues
are present.  In such cases, "[t]he Panel must determine the extent
of the common factual issues and the likelihood that centralized
pretrial proceedings will create important efficiencies, avoid
inconsistent rulings, and result in the overall fairer adjudication
of the litigation for the benefit of all involved parties." Here,
significant factual questions exist among the actions, and
centralization will create substantial efficiencies for the parties
and the courts.

Opponents of centralization also argue that, should plaintiffs'
claims survive dispositive rulings on policy interpretation
questions, discovery will be plaintiff- and property-specific.
There likely will be, by necessity, some unique aspects of each
case.  Were this litigation larger in geographic scope and if it
involved more state laws (such as in some of the other show cause
dockets before us), this might be a more persuasive argument
because the transferee judge would be tasked with managing a much
more complicated litigation.  What sets this litigation apart is
the defined geographical scope of these actions, which implicates
only six state insurance laws.  Judge Caldwell notes the transferee
judge can employ any number of pretrial techniques -- including
establishing state-specific tracks and selecting certain
already-briefed motions in individual cases as bellwether motions
-- to manage any differences that the Society actions present.

Certain parties also assert that informal coordination among the
parties and courts is preferable to formal centralization.  The
Judge does not view alternatives to centralization to be an
adequate substitute for an MDL here.  There are nearly three dozen
cases brought by diverse counsel before more than twenty judges,
which makes coordination difficult.  The parties also seem to
disagree about how to accomplish such coordination; in fact, one
effort to streamline the litigation -- intra-district reassignment
to a single judge in the Northern District of Illinois cases -- was
opposed by Society and some plaintiffs.

Judge Caldwell is persuaded that the Northern District of Illinois
is an appropriate transferee district.  The district is the obvious
center of gravity of this litigation against Society, with 22 of
the total 34 pending cases filed there.  Chicago lies at the heart
of Society's regional business and represents an accessible forum
with the capacity to efficiently manage these cases.  Also, it is
conveniently located near Society's Milwaukee, Wisconsin
headquarters.  Judge Caldwell is confident that Judge Chang, who
has not yet had the opportunity to preside over an MDL, will steer
this litigation on a prudent and expeditious course.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 2, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/fMrB7q


MDL 2965: Show Cause Order Vacated for 14 COVID-19 Insurance Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: TRAVELERS COVID-19 BUSINESS INTERRUPTION
PROTECTION INSURANCE LITIGATION, MDL No. 2965, Judge Karen K.
Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has
vacated the order to show cause regarding 14 actions.

At its July 2020 hearing session, the Panel considered two motions
seeking centralization of an industry-wide litigation involving
insurance claims for coverage for business interruption losses
caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the related government orders
suspending, or severely curtailing, operations of non-essential
businesses.  The Panel denied the motions, concluding that the
differences among the many insurers would overwhelm any common
factual questions and hinder the transferee court's ability to
efficiently manage the litigation.

In the briefing on those motions, several parties proposed that
insurer-specific MDLs be created.  The Panel concluded that it
needed "a better understanding of the factual commonalities and
differences among these actions, as well as the efficiencies that
may or may not be gained through centralization, before creating an
insurer-specific MDL." Therefore, the Panel ordered the Panel Clerk
to issue orders directing the parties to certain actions involving
a common insurer or group of insurers to show cause why those
actions should not be centralized.

One of those orders encompassed the 14 actions, which are all
brought against one or more Travelers defendants.  Since the Panel
issued this show cause order, the parties have notified the Panel
of 30 related actions.  Plaintiffs in 10 of the 44 actions support
the creation of a Travelers MDL.  They variously suggest three
potential transferee districts: the Western District of Washington;
the Southern District of New York; and the Northern District of
California.  Plaintiffs in three cases oppose centralization, one
of which alternatively suggests centralization in the Eastern
District of Missouri.  The Travelers defendants oppose
centralization.  Additionally, the Panel received two briefs by
amici curiae, one in support of and one in opposition to
centralization.

After considering the arguments of counsel, Judge Caldwell
concludes that centralization of the Travelers actions will not
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the
just and efficient conduct of this litigation.  Centralization of
these actions presents a close question.  The insurance policies at
issue in the Travelers actions appear to use standard forms drafted
by the Insurance Services Office (ISO), and will involve
interpretation of common policy language, such as the phrase
"direct physical loss or physical damage to property." Further, the
policies have a similar purported virus exclusion.  To the extent
discovery is necessary of Travelers regarding the drafting and
interpretation of its policies, such discovery will be common to
all actions.  Thus, these actions present common legal and factual
questions that could, in other circumstances, support
centralization.

Common factual questions, however, are not the sole prerequisite
for centralization under Section 1407.  Centralization also must
promote the just and efficient conduct of the actions.  This
litigation demands efficiency.  As counsel repeatedly emphasized in
their papers and during oral argument, time is of the essence in
this litigation.  Many plaintiffs are on the brink of bankruptcy as
a result of business lost due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the
government closure orders.  The most pressing question before the
Panel, then, is whether centralization presents the most efficient
means of advancing these actions towards resolution.

Judge Caldwell says efficiency is best obtained outside of an MDL.
If these actions were centralized, the transferee court would have
to establish a pretrial structure to manage numerous plaintiffs,
many of which are pursuing distinct theories of liability.  The
court also would need to identify common policies with identical or
sufficiently similar policy language and interpret those policies
under applicable state laws.  The Travelers actions are pending in
22 districts in 15 states and the District of Columbia.  It will
take a not insignificant amount of time to organize this litigation
and resolve the central policy interpretation questions.  In the
meantime, dispositive motions addressing these policy
interpretation questions are pending in 35 of the 44 actions, at
least 11 of which are fully briefed.  Rather than have one judge
attempt to organize and resolve the core policy interpretation
issues, it strikes the Panel that allowing the various transferor
courts to decide these questions will result in quicker and more
efficient resolution of this litigation.

Furthermore, should plaintiffs' claims survive dispositive rulings
on the policy interpretation questions, discovery appears
relatively straightforward.  While some of this discovery may well
be common (particularly any discovery directed to Travelers
regarding the drafting and interpretation of its policy language),
much of the discovery will be plaintiff- and property-specific.  In
these circumstances, it is more likely the actions will reach an
expeditious resolution if they remain in the transferor courts. The
Panel impresses upon the courts overseeing these actions the
importance of advancing these actions towards resolution as quickly
as possible.

Accordingly, centralization of the actions is not warranted.  To
the extent necessary, alternatives to centralization are available
to minimize any duplication in pretrial proceedings, including
informal cooperation and coordination among the parties and courts.
The Panel also notes that some similar actions are pending in the
same district before multiple judges, and it may be appropriate for
the courts or the parties to seek to relate those before one judge.


A full-text copy of the Court's October 2, 2020 Order is available
at https://is.gd/aa6IRi


MERCK & CO: Appeals Class Certification of Direct Purchasers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted defendants' motion for
permission to appeal the district court's order in granting in part
the direct purchasers' motion for class certification and certify a
class of 35 direct purchasers.

As previously disclosed, Merck, MSD, Schering Corporation and MSP
Singapore Company LLC are defendants in a putative class action and
opt-out lawsuits filed in 2018 on behalf of direct and indirect
purchasers of Zetia alleging violations of federal and state
antitrust laws, as well as other state statutory and common law
causes of action.

The cases have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in a federal
multidistrict litigation before Judge Rebecca Beach Smith in the
Eastern District of Virginia.

In December 2018, the court denied the Merck Defendants' motions to
dismiss or stay the direct purchaser putative class actions pending
bilateral arbitration.

In August 2019, the district court adopted in full the report and
recommendation of the magistrate judge with respect to the Merck
Defendants' motions to dismiss on non-arbitration issues, thereby
granting in part and denying in part Merck Defendants' motions to
dismiss.

In addition, in June 2019, the representatives of the putative
direct purchaser class filed an amended complaint, and in August
2019, retailer opt-out plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

The Merck Defendants moved to dismiss the new allegations in both
complaints. In October 2019, the magistrate judge issued a report
and recommendation recommending that the district judge grant the
motions in their entirety.

In December 2019, the district court adopted this report and
recommendation in part. The district court granted the Merck
Defendants' motion to dismiss to the extent the motion sought
dismissal of claims for overcharges paid by entities that purchased
generic ezetimibe from Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (Par
Pharmaceutical) and dismissed any claims for such overcharges.

In November 2019, the direct purchaser plaintiffs and the indirect
purchaser plaintiffs filed motions for class certification.

On June 18, 2020, the magistrate judge issued a report and
recommendation recommending that the district judge grant in part
the direct purchasers' motion for class certification and certify a
class of 35 direct purchasers.

On August 21, 2020, the district court adopted the report and
recommendation in full, and on November 2, 2020, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted defendants' motion for
permission to appeal the district court's order.

Also, on August 14, 2020, the magistrate judge recommended that the
court grant the motion for class certification filed by the
putative indirect purchaser class.

The Merck Defendants objected to this report and recommendation and
are awaiting a decision from the district court.

Merck & Co., Inc. provides healthcare solutions worldwide. It
operates through four segments: Pharmaceutical, Animal Health,
Healthcare Services, and Alliances. Merck & Co., Inc. was founded
in 1891 and is headquartered in Kenilworth, New Jersey.

MIDDLEBURY COLLEGE: Student's Class Action Seeks Tuition Refund
---------------------------------------------------------------
Liz Strzepa, writing for NBC5 News, reports that as students,
faculty and staff continue the fall semester at Middlebury College,
the institution is facing a class action lawsuit.

It was filed late in September by Middlebury College student Henry
Mooers on behalf of himself and others in his situation.

The 18-page lawsuit accuses the college of not adequately
reimbursing students for tuition paid for in-person learning in the
spring of 2020, a semester which was largely spent learning
remotely due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The lawsuit claims Mooers was billed $27,895 for tuition last
semester, a mandatory $213 "Spring Student Activity Fee" and $4,809
for room and board.

Mooers and his attorneys argued students have paid tuition for a
"first-rate education and on-campus, in person educational
experience" and were provided "a materially deficient and
insufficient alternative."

The lawsuit also cites a Change.org petition, which was started by
a graduate student. It highlights the college's $1.15 billion
endowment as a financial source available to reimburse students.

Middlebury College released the following statement to NBC5 News
regarding the lawsuit.

As we continue to live through the COVID-19 pandemic, Middlebury
remains focused on delivering the high-quality academic programs
and services that our students and their families expect while also
supporting the well-being of our students, faculty, and staff. We
are deeply committed to enriching in-person, virtual, and hybrid
instruction so that students receive the benefits accruing from a
rigorous academic experience complemented by a compelling community
experience. The costs of providing that high-quality educational
experience have increased, rather than diminished, in light of the
pandemic. Middlebury also is need-blind and meets the full
demonstrated financial need of all admitted students.

Last spring, faculty worked creatively and quickly to ensure the
continuity of education for our students. Our ability to provide
this continuity is dependent on our existing revenue sources, which
include both tuition and a larger-than-usual draw on our endowment
to help offset these new costs. We also have worked hard to reduce
and limit new costs as much as possible. These measures have
allowed us to deliver on our promise of a meaningful and rewarding
education for our students while also continuing to pay the
salaries of our dedicated faculty and staff.

NBC5 News reached out to Mooers who declined to comment. Mooers'
lawyers did not return NBC5 News' interview request. [GN]


NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Riverside employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed a class action complaint alleging that
National Distribution Centers, LLC failed to provide accurate wages
and legally required breaks. The National Distribution Centers, LLC
class action lawsuit, Case No. RIC2003144, is currently pending in
the Riverside Superior Court of the State of California.

As a result of their rigorous work schedules, PLAINTIFF and other
CALIFORNIA CLASS Members are periodically denied their proper rest
periods by DEFENDANT and DEFENDANT's managers. Allegedly, PLAINTIFF
and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were from time to time unable to
take off-duty meal breaks and were not fully relieved of duty for
meal periods. They were also from time to time allegedly required
to work in excess of four (4) hours without being provided ten (10)
minute rest periods.

Additionally, DEFENDANT intentionally and knowingly failed to
reimburse and indemnify PLAINTIFF and the other CALIFORNIA CLASS
Members for required business expenses incurred by the PLAINTIFF
and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members. Cal. Lab. Code Sec. 2802
expressly states that "an employer shall indemnify his or her
employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the
employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her
duties . . ."

If you would like to know more about the National Distribution
Centers, LLC lawsuit, please contact Attorney Nicholas J. De Blouw
today by calling (800) 568-8020.

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


NATIONAL HOCKEY: Sued Over Conspiracy to Exploit Teenage Players
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Cribb, writing for The Star, reports that a proposed $825
million class-action claim alleges a conspiracy among the world's
top professional and amateur hockey leagues to exploit
dream-chasing teenage players with one-sided contracts containing
abusive restrictions on their young careers.

The claim, filed by the former junior hockey player Kobe Mohr
seeking to represent potentially thousands of others over the past
10 years, takes aim at hockey's power establishment: the National
Hockey League (NHL); the American Hockey League (AHL); the Ontario
Hockey League (OHL), Quebec Major Junior Hockey League (QMJHL) and
Western Hockey League (WHL), all under the umbrella of the Canadian
Hockey League (CHL); and the East Coast Hockey League (ECHL). [GN]



NATIONAL VISION: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit vs. FirstSight Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
National Vision Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that
FirstSight's motion to dismiss the class action suit before the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California is pending.

The company's subsidiary, FirstSight Vision Services, Inc., is a
defendant in a purported class action in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California that alleges that
FirstSight participated in arrangements that caused the illegal
delivery of eye examinations and that FirstSight thereby violated,
among other laws, the corporate practice of optometry and the
unfair competition and false advertising laws of California. The
lawsuit was filed in 2013 and FirstSight was added as a defendant
in 2016.

In March 2017, the court granted the motion to dismiss previously
filed by FirstSight and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

The plaintiffs filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit in April 2017. In July 2018, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated in part, and reversed in
part, the district court's dismissal and remanded for further
proceedings.

In October 2018, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
with the district court, and, in November 2018, FirstSight filed a
motion to dismiss.

On March 23, 2020, the district court granted FirstSight's motion
to dismiss the second amended complaint.

On April 24, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint.
FirstSight filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint on
May 8, 2020.

National Vision said, "We believe that the claims alleged are
without merit and intend to continue to defend the litigation
vigorously."

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

National Vision Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates
as an optical retailer primarily in the United States. The company
operates in two segments, Owned & Host and Legacy. National Vision
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Duluth,
Georgia.

NETFLIX: Municipalities File Streaming Revenue Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that "A couple of
months ago, when I saw the names of the plaintiffs' firms that
signed a class action complaint by Texas municipalities that claim
they're owed 5% of the revenue that Netflix and Hulu receive from
streaming video to their residents, I had a feeling this case had
implications beyond the Texarkana federal courthouse where it was
filed. The class action plaintiffs' firms Nix Patterson and DiCello
Levitt Gutzler have nationwide footprints. The Texas case, I
suspected, was the start of a broader attempt to squeeze fees from
Netflix and Hulu."

"Sure enough, two additional suits followed the Aug. 11 Texas
complaint: an Aug. 21 class action filed in Cleveland federal court
on behalf of Ohio municipalities and a Sept. 2 complaint in Reno
for Nevada cities and towns." [GN]


NETWORK CAPITAL: Trim Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Network Capital
Funding Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Lucine Trim,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Network Capital Funding Corporation, a Nevada corporation; Doe 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 8:20-cv-02251 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 30,
2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Network Capital Funding Corporation provides home loan services.
The Company offers fixed rate mortgages, home equity, government
loans, and adjustable mortgage services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John R Habashy, Esq.
          LEXICON LAW PC
          633 West Fifth Street 28th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 233-5900
          Facsimile: (888) 373-2107
          Email: john@lexiconlaw.com


NIKOLA CORPORATION: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminded
investors of the deadline in the Nikola Corporation securities
class action lawsuit:

Nikola Corporation (NKLA, NKLAW) f/k/a VectoIQ Acquisition Corp.
(VTIQ, VTIQW, VTIQU)
Class Period: 3/3/2020 - 10/6/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 16, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-nikola-corporation-securities-litigation

If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
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]

NINTENDO OF AMERICA: Faces A.C. Suit Over Faulty Game Controllers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A.C., a minor by and through his guardian, MARIA CARBAJAL,
Plaintiff v. NINTENDO OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-01694-TSZ (W.D. Wash., Nov. 17, 2020) seeks to redress the
Defendant's violations of state consumer fraud statutes and unjust
enrichment due to its defective Nintendo Switch game systems,
including the original Nintendo Switch, the Switch V2, the Nintendo
Switch Lite, as well as the standalone Joy-Con controllers.

The complaint contends that the Defendant's JoyCon joystick
controllers that are used to operate the Switch contain a defect
that results in characters or gameplay moving on the screen without
user command or manual operation of the joystick. Based on analysis
conducted by the Plaintiff's counsel and their technical expert to
date, it appears that a principal cause of the drift defect is
extensive wear on the pad surface on the interior of the Joy-Con.

Notwithstanding its knowledge of the defect, the Defendant has
allegedly failed to disclose this material information to
consumers, and routinely refuses to repair the joysticks without
charge when the drift defect manifests.

As a result of the Defendant's unfair, deceptive, and/or fraudulent
business practices, owners of Switches and Joy-Con controllers,
including the Plaintiff, have suffered an ascertainable loss,
injury in fact, and otherwise have been harmed by Nintendo's
conduct, the suit says.

Nintendo of America, Inc., is a consumer electronics and video game
company. It develops, produces, and markets videogame software and
hardware, including the video game console Nintendo Switch and
Nintendo Switch Lite.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
          Jason T. Dennett, Esq.
          Kaleigh N.B. Powell, Esq.
          TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
          1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 682-5600
          Facsimile: (206) 682-2992
          E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
                  jdennett@tousley.com
                  kpowell@tousley.com

               - and -

          Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
          Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq.
          Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
          Alex M. Kashurba, Esq.
          CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER &
            DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
          361 W. Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: (610) 642-8500  
          E-mail: bfj@chimicles.com
                  seh@chimicles.com
                  awf@chimicles.com
                  amk@chimicles.com

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

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

OneSpan Inc. (OSPN) Securities Class Action:

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
misrepresented and concealed that: (i) OneSpan had inadequate
disclosure controls and procedures over financial reporting; (ii)
as a result, OneSpan overstated its revenue relating to certain
contracts with customers involving software licenses in its
financial statements for Q1 2018 - Q1 2020; and (iii) OneSpan
downplayed the negative impacts of errors in its financial
statements.

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

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

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

On Aug. 14, 2020, the company issued a quarterly report revealing
that it (1) overstated its current contract assets for the fiscal
year-ended Dec. 31, 2019 by about 34%, and (2) understated net
losses for the three and six months ended June 30, 2019.

Significantly, prior to the alleged disclosures that caused OSPN
shares to drop, T. Kendall Hunt, OneSpan's founder, former CEO and
former Executive Chairman sold appx. $56 million of his own OneSpan
shares at artificially inflated prices. On Sept. 14, 2020, OneSpan
announced that (i) Hunt had tendered his resignation; and (ii) that
the Company had changed its stock trading policies to prohibit
Directors and immediate family members from selling their shares
while serving on the Board.

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

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

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
OneSpan should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein
at 844-916-0895 or email OSPN@hbsslaw.com.

                                # # #

                       About Hagens Berman

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

ONESPAN INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminded
purchasers of the securities of OneSpan Inc. (NASDAQ: OSPN) between
May 9, 2018 and August 11, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of
the important October 19, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in the
securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
OneSpan investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the OneSpan class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1937.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) OneSpan had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures
and internal control over financial reporting; (2) as a result,
OneSpan overstated its revenue relating to certain contracts with
customers involving software licenses in its financial statements
spread out over the quarters from the first quarter of 2018 to the
first quarter of 2020; (3) as a result, it was foreseeably likely
that OneSpan would eventually have to delay one or more scheduled
earnings releases, conference calls, and/or financial filings with
the SEC; (4) OneSpan downplayed the negative impacts of errors in
its financial statements; (5) all the foregoing, once revealed, was
foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on
OneSpan’s financial results and reputation; and (6) as a result,
OneSpan’s public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market,
the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October
19, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1937.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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]

PALMER & COMPANY: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Palmer & Company. The
case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Palmer & Company, Case No.
1:20-cv-10032 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2020).

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

Palmer & Co offers food products. The Company manufactures candy
and other confectionery products, as well as provides contract
manufacturing and private label solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com


PATENAUDE & FELIX: Reeves Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANA REEVES, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, v. PATENAUDE & FELIX,
A.P.C., Case No. 5:20-cv-11034-JEL-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order:

1. certifying a settlement class consisting of:

   "all persons (a) to whom Patenaude & Felix, A.P.C. mailed an
   initial debt collection communication to a Michigan address
   not known to be returned as undeliverable, (b) in connection
   with the collection of a consumer debt, (c) between May 23,
   2019 and April 27, 2020, (d) which included a due date for a
   minimum payment amount that was within 30 days of the date of
   the initial debt collection communication." The Defendant
   represents that there are approximately 550 class members,
   including the Plaintiff; and

2. granting preliminary approval of her class action settlement
with Patenaude & Felix, A.P.C.

The Settlement provides that:

     The Class members who elect to participate in the
     settlement will receive a pro-rata share of the $6,500
     settlement fund. And given that claims rates in these types
     of consumer protection cases tend to be between
     approximately 5 percent and 20 percent, each participating
     class member is likely to receive between $59 and $232. To
     the extent any settlement checks go uncashed after the
     settlement administrator takes all reasonable steps to
     forward checks to any forwarding addresses, such funds will
     be redistributed to the Legal Services of South Central
     Michigan -- the cy pres recipient selected by the parties.
     No settlement monies will revert to the Defendant.

The class action balks at the Defendant's conduct of sending debt
collection letters to consumers that demand payment in a time
period within the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act's (FDCPA)
validation window -- something the statute forbids.

Patenaude & Felix is a law practice company based out of 9619
Chesapeake Drive. Suite 300, San Diego, California.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class
action settlement dated Nov. 17, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pOt6Ul at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L. Davidson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
          Boca Raton, FL 33487
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          E-mail: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Ronald S. Weiss, Esq.
          LEMON LAW
          7035 Orchard Lake Road, Suite 600
          West Bloomfield, MI 48322
          Telephone: 248-737-8000
          Facsimile: 248-737-8003
          E-mail: Ron@RonWeissAttorney.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brian Melendez, Esq.
          BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
          Suite 2800, 225 South Sixth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-4662s

PEABODY ENERGY: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminded
investors of the deadline in the Peabody Energy Corp. securities
class action lawsuit:

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

If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
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: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Peabody Energy
Corporation shareholders.  Investors have until the deadline listed
below to file a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz to discuss their legal
rights in this class action at 310-914-5007 or by email to
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com.

Peabody Energy Corporation (NYSE: BTU)
Class Period: April 3, 2017 - October 28, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 27, 2020

Shareholders with $250,000 losses or more are encouraged to contact
the firm

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) Peabody had failed to implement adequate safety controls
at the North Goonyella mine to prevent the risk of a spontaneous
combustion event; (2) Peabody failed to follow its own safety
procedures; (3) as a result, the North Goonyella mine was at a
heightened risk of shutdown; (4) Peabody's low-cost plan to restart
operations at the North Goonyella mine posed unreasonable safety
and environmental risks; (5) the Queensland Mines Inspectorate
("QMI"), the Australian body responsible for ensuring acceptable
health and safety standards, would likely mandate a safer,
cost-prohibitive approach; (6) as a result, there would be major
delays in reopening the North Goonyella mine and restarting coal
production; and (7) that, as a result, of the foregoing,
Defendants' statements about the Peabody's business, operations,
and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

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 the class action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law
Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los
Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com.   If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
[GN]

PERRIGO CO: Class Action Notice of Pendency Issued in Roofers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 26, 2020, that a New Jersey court
has approved the issuance of a notice of the pendency of the class
action in the consolidated securities class action suit entitled,
Roofers' Pension Fund v. Papa, et al.

On May 18, 2016, a shareholder filed a securities case against the
company and its former CEO, Joseph Papa, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey (Roofers' Pension Fund v. Papa, et
al.).

The plaintiff purported to represent a class of shareholders for
the period from April 21, 2015 through May 11, 2016, inclusive. The
original complaint alleged violations of Securities Exchange Act
sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b‑5) and 14(e) against both defendants
and 20(a) control person liability against Mr. Papa.

In general, the allegations concerned the actions taken by us and
the former executive to defend against the unsolicited takeover bid
by Mylan in the period from April 21, 2015 through November 13,
2015. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendants provided
inadequate disclosure concerning alleged integration problems
related to the Omega acquisition in the period from April 21, 2015
through May 11, 2016.

On July 19, 2016, a different shareholder filed a securities class
action against us and our former CEO, Joseph Papa, also in the
District of New Jersey (Wilson v. Papa, et al.).

The plaintiff purported to represent a class of persons who sold
put options on our shares between April 21, 2015 and May 11, 2016.
In general, the allegations and the claims were the same as those
made in the original complaint filed in the Roofers' Pension Fund
case described above. On December 8, 2016, the court consolidated
the Roofers' Pension Fund case and the Wilson case under the
Roofers' Pension Fund case number.

In February 2017, the court selected the lead plaintiffs for the
consolidated case and the lead counsel to the putative class. In
March 2017, the court entered a scheduling order.

On June 21, 2017, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint that superseded the original complaints in the
Roofers’ Pension Fund case and the Wilson case.

In the amended complaint, the lead plaintiffs seek to represent
three classes of shareholders: (i) shareholders who purchased
shares during the period from April 21, 2015 through May 3, 2017 on
the U.S. exchanges; (ii) shareholders who purchased shares during
the same period on the Tel Aviv exchange; and (iii) shareholders
who owned shares on November 12, 2015 and held such stock through
at least 8:00 a.m. on November 13, 2015 (the final day of the Mylan
tender offer) regardless of whether the shareholders tendered their
shares.

The amended complaint names as defendants us and 11 current or
former directors and officers of Perrigo (Mses. Judy Brown, Laurie
Brlas, Jacqualyn Fouse, Ellen Hoffing, and Messrs. Joe Papa, Marc
Coucke, Gary Cohen, Michael Jandernoa, Gerald Kunkle, Herman
Morris, and Donal O'Connor).

The amended complaint alleges violations of Securities Exchange Act
sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b‑5) and 14(e) against all defendants
and 20(a) control person liability against the 11 individuals.

In general, the allegations concern the actions taken by us and the
former executives to defend against the unsolicited takeover bid by
Mylan in the period from April 21, 2015 through November 13, 2015
and the allegedly inadequate disclosure throughout the entire class
period related to purported integration problems related to the
Omega acquisition, alleges incorrect reporting of organic growth at
the Company and at Omega, alleges price fixing activities with
respect to six generic prescription pharmaceuticals, and alleges
improper accounting for the Tysabri(R) royalty stream. The amended
complaint does not include an estimate of damages.

During 2017, the defendants filed motions to dismiss, which the
plaintiffs opposed. On July 27, 2018, the court issued an opinion
and order granting the defendants' motions to dismiss in part and
denying the motions to dismiss in part.

The court dismissed without prejudice defendants Laurie Brlas,
Jacqualyn Fouse, Ellen Hoffing, Gary Cohen, Michael Jandernoa,
Gerald Kunkle, Herman Morris, Donal O'Connor, and Marc Coucke.

The court also dismissed without prejudice claims arising from the
Tysabri(R) accounting issue described above and claims alleging
incorrect disclosure of organic growth described above.

The defendants who were not dismissed are Perrigo Company plc, Joe
Papa, and Judy Brown. The claims (described above) that were not
dismissed relate to the integration issues regarding the Omega
acquisition, the defense against the Mylan tender offer, and the
alleged price fixing activities with respect to six generic
prescription pharmaceuticals.

The defendants who remain in the case (the Company, Mr. Papa, and
Ms. Brown) have filed answers denying liability, and the discovery
stage of litigation has begun. Discovery in the class action is
currently scheduled to end in January 2021.

The company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

On November 14, 2019, the court granted the lead plaintiffs' motion
and certified three classes for the case: (i) all those who
purchased shares between April 21, 2015 through May 2, 2017
inclusive on a U.S. exchange and were damaged thereby; (ii) all
those who purchased shares between April 21, 2015 through May 2,
2017 inclusive on the Tel Aviv exchange and were damaged thereby;
and (iii) all those who owned shares as of November 12, 2015 and
held such stock through at least 8:00 a.m. on November 13, 2015
(whether or not a person tendered shares in response to the Mylan
tender offer) (the "tender offer class").

Defendants filed a petition for leave to appeal in the Third
Circuit challenging the certification of the tender offer class. On
April 30, 2020, the Third Circuit denied leave to appeal.

The District Court has approved the issuance of a notice of the
pendency of the class action, and the notice has been sent to
shareholders who are eligible to participate in the classes.

Perrigo said, "Unless otherwise noted, each of the lawsuits
discussed in the following sections is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey and has been assigned to the
same judges hearing the Roofers' Pension Fund case. The allegations
in the complaints relate to events during certain portions of the
2015 through 2017 calendar years, including the period of the Mylan
tender offer. All but one of these lawsuits allege violations of
federal securities laws, but none are class actions. One lawsuit
(Highfields) alleges only state law claims. Discovery in all these
cases, except Highfields, is underway and currently scheduled to
end in early September 2021. We intend to defend all these lawsuits
vigorously."

Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and
supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant
formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical
products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare
Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription
Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887
and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.

PERRIGO CO: Overarching Conspiracy Related Suits Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 26, 2020, that the company
continues to defend putative class action suits related to
overarching conspiracy.

The same three putative classes, including (a) direct purchasers,
(b) end payors, and (c) indirect resellers, have filed two sets of
class action complaints alleging that Perrigo and other
manufacturers (and some individuals) entered into an "overarching
conspiracy" that involved allocating customers, rigging bids and
raising, maintaining, and fixing prices for various products.

Each class brings claims for violations of Sections 1 and 3 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act as well as several state antitrust and
consumer protection statutes.

Filed in June 2018, and later amended in December 2018 (with
respect to direct purchasers) and April 2019 (with respect to end
payors and indirect resellers), the first set of "overarching
conspiracy" class actions include allegations against Perrigo and
approximately 27 other manufacturers involving 135 drugs with
allegations dating back to March 2011.

The allegations against Perrigo concern only two formulations
(cream and ointment) of one of the products at issue, Nystatin. The
court denied motions to dismiss the first set of "overarching
conspiracy" class actions, and they are proceeding in discovery.

None of these cases are included in the group of cases on a more
expedited schedule pursuant to the court's July 14, 2020 order.

In December 2019, both the end payor and indirect reseller class
plaintiffs filed a second set of "overarching conspiracy" class
actions against Perrigo, dozens of other manufacturers of generic
prescription pharmaceuticals, and certain individuals dating back
to July 2009 (end payors) or January 2010 (indirect resellers).

The direct purchaser plaintiffs filed their second round
overarching conspiracy complaint in February 2020 with claims
dating back to July 2009. On March 11, 2020, the indirect reseller
plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their second round December 2019
complaint, and that motion was granted. On September 4, 2020, the
end payor plaintiffs amended their second round complaint. On
October 21, 2020, the direct purchaser plaintiffs amended their
second round complaint.

This second set of overarching complaints allege conspiracies
relating to the sale of various products that are not at issue in
the earlier-filed overarching conspiracy class actions, the
majority of which Perrigo neither makes nor sells.

The amended indirect reseller complaint alleges that Perrigo
conspired in connection with its sales of Betamethasone
Dipropionate lotion, Imiquimod cream, Desonide cream and ointment,
and Hydrocortisone Valerate cream. The amended end payor complaint
alleges that Perrigo conspired in connection with its sale of the
following drugs: Adapalene, Ammonium Lactate, Betamethasone
Dipropionate, Bromocriptine Mesylate, Calcipotriene Betamethasone
Dipropionate, Ciclopirox, Clindamycin Phosphate, Erythromycin,
Fenofibrate, Fluocinonide, Fluticasone Propionate, Halobetasol
Proprionate, Hydrocortisone Acetate, Hydrocortisone Valerate,
Imiquimod, Methazolamide, Mometasone Furoate, Permethrin,
Prochlorperazine Maleate, Pormethazine HCL, Tacrolimus, and
Triamcinolone Acetonide.

The amended direct purchaser complaint alleges that Perrigo
conspired in connection with its sale of the following drugs:
Adapalene, Ammonium Lactate, Betamethasone Dipropionate,
Bromocriptine Mesylate, Ciclopirox, Clindamycin Phosphate,
Fenofibrate, Fluocinonide, Halobetasol Proprionate, Hydrocortisone
Valerate, Methazolamide, Permethrin, Prochlorperazine Maleate,
Promethazine HCL, Tacrolimus, and Triamcinolone Acetonide.

Perrigo has not yet responded to the second set of overarching
conspiracy complaints, and responses are currently or will be
stayed.

Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and
supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant
formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical
products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare
Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription
Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887
and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.

PERRIGO CO: Suits Over Alleged Price-Fixing Underway in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 26, 2020, that the company is
defending itself against a class action related to the alleged
overarching conspiracy to allocate customers and/or fix, raise or
stabilize prices of dozens of products, most of which the company
neither makes nor sells suit initiated by an end payor, in Ontario,
Canada.

In June 2020, an end payor filed a class action in Ontario, Canada
against Perrigo and 29 other manufacturers alleging an overarching
conspiracy to allocate customers and/or fix, raise or stabilize
prices of dozens of products, most of which Perrigo neither makes
nor sells.

The product conspiracies allegedly involving Perrigo focus on the
same products as those involved in other MDL complaints naming
Perrigo: Clobetasol, Desonide, Econazole, and Nystatin.

Perrigo has not yet responded to the complaint.

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

Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and
supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant
formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical
products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare
Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription
Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887
and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.

PINTEREST INC: Faces Hessong Suit Over 17% Decline in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL HESSONG, individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. PINTEREST, INC.; BEN SILBERMANN; and TODD
MORGENFELD, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-08243 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 23,
2020) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class who
purchased or otherwise acquired common shares of Pinterest stock
between May 16, 2019 and November 1, 2019, both dates inclusive,
seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violation of
the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class period, the
Defendants repeatedly assured the market that Pinterest was
successfully expanding its domestic user base and that there
existed a significant addressable market of U.S. users that served
as a catalyst for its online advertising revenue. Unbeknownst to
investors, however, the domestic market was quickly becoming
saturated, leaving little room for future expansion or growth. This
negative trend, which would ultimately impact Pinterest's current
and future financial results, was known to the Defendants
throughout the Class Period, yet undisclosed to the investing
public.

Throughout the Class period, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse
facts about the Company's business, operations, and financial
health. Specifically, the Defendants made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose to investors that: (i) the
Company's addressable market in the U.S. was reaching its maximum
capacity; (ii) which significantly decelerated Pinterest's future
ability to monetize on U.S. average revenue per user; (iii)
Pinterest was at an increased risk of losing advertising revenue;
(iv) and as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times or lacked a reasonable
basis and omitted material facts.

On October 31, 2019, Pinterest announced disappointing preliminary
financial results for the third quarter 2019, having missed revenue
estimates. Additionally, Pinterest reported net revenue $279.7
versus the consensus projection of $282 million, indicating strong
deceleration in the growth of its domestic user base. The Company
also gave full year 2019 guidance, which it only marginally
increased, indicating further deceleration in future quarters.

On this news, the price of Pinterest common shares sharply declined
by 17%, to close at $20.86, on November 1, 2019, on unusually high
trading volume.

Pinterest, Inc. operates and maintains social networking site. The
Company provides online venue for personal photos, ideas, oddities,
decorations, places to visit, recipes, and other items. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Whitney E. Street, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 968-1852
          Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
          E-mail: whitney@blockleviton.com

               - and -

          Andrea Farah, Esq.
          Christian Levis, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          E-mail: afarah@lowey.com
                  clevis@lowey.com


QIHOO 360: Court Dismisses Altimeo Securities Suit With Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALTIMEO ASSET MANAGEMENT and ODS CAPITAL LLC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. QIHOO 360 TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD., HONGYI ZHOU, XIANGDONG
QI, and ERIC X. CHEN, Defendants, Case No. 19 Civ. 10067 (PAE)
(S.D. N.Y.), Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York granted the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint ("FAC").

In the putative class action under the federal securities laws,
Lead Plaintiffs Altimeo and ODS claim that internet company Qihoo,
its Co-Founder and CEO Zhou, Co-Founder and President Qi, and
Director and Special Committee Chair Chen, devised and executed a
scheme to depress the price of Qihoo American depository shares
("ADS") and stock ("Qihoo Securities") in order to avoid paying a
fair price to Qihoo Securityholders during a transaction to take
the company private in 2016 ("Merger").

Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that at the time the Merger was
announced, the Defendants already planned to relist Qihoo on a
Chinese stock exchange but deliberately withheld the information
from Qihoo Securityholders.  Based on that allegation, the
Plaintiffs allege several false and misleading statements made by
Qihoo in connection with the Merger between Dec. 18, 2015, the day
the Merger was announced via press release, and July 15, 2016, the
effective date of the Merger ("Class Period").

The Plaintiffs seek to bring the suit on behalf of all owners and
former owners of Qihoo Securities who sold shares, and were damaged
thereby, during the Class Period, and all owners and former owners
who owned shares as of the effective date of the Merger and have
tendered those shares for the Merger consideration.  They allege
violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and the corresponding rule of the Securities
and Exchange Commission, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.

Pending now is Qihoo's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' FAC for
failure to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) and 9(b).

The FAC relies on two key sources to support its repeated claim
that the Buyer Group had undisclosed plans to relist Qihoo on a
Chinese stock exchange at the time it marketed the Merger to Qihoo
Securityholders as a pure take-private: (1) statements made by a
confidential witness within Qihoo's Public Relations department
("CW1"); and (2) newspaper articles that ostensibly reveal that the
plan to relist preceded the Merger and had been secretly marketed
to Buyer Group investors.

Judge Engelmeyer accordingly considers whether the FAC's factual
attributions to a confidential witness and/or to newspaper articles
adequately plead the existence, pre-Merger, of a specific and
definite plan for Qihoo to relist in China.  He first assesses the
legal standards under the PSLRA governing such sources.  He then
measures the FAC's allegations against these standards.

The Judge first assesses the adequacy of the FAC's factual
allegations attributed to CW1 and then those attributed to news
sources.   He holds that considered separately or together, neither
source supplies sufficiently particularized allegations to satisfy
the PLSRA.  

The FAC's allegations relating to Qihoo's intent to relist
post-Merger do no more than recapitulate an interview with CW1
(which the complaint implies but does not clearly state was
conducted by the Plaintiff's counsel).  It does not allege any
corroborative facts or any independent investigation by counsel
substantiating CW1's factual allegations.  The news articles cited
by the FAC do not fill that void.  None describe with sufficient
particularity the existence of an actual concrete relisting plan at
the time of the Merger.  The remainder of the articles cited by the
FAC contain factual allegations that are only indirectly relevant
to the Section 10b claim.   Finally, the FAC's attempt to minimize
the absence of corroborative details in the media reports on which
it relies reveals its inadequacy.

For the foregoing reasons, the FAC fails to plead adequately its
necessary factual allegation: that the Defendants, as of the
Merger, had in place a concrete plan to relist Qihoo.  The FAC's
repeated declarations that defendants had arranged such a plan, as
opposed to envisioning a possible future relisting, are ultimately
an ipse dixit. Because the FAC's claims of material
misrepresentations and omissions all turn on this factual premise,
it fails to adequately allege this element of the Section 10(b)
claim.  The Judge therefore dismissed the Plaintiffs' Section 10(b)
claim, with prejudice.

Because the Plaintiffs have failed to adequately allege their
Section 10(b) claim, their claims under Sections 20(a) and 20A fail
as a matter of law.  Both require a predicate violation of the
Exchange Act, which the FAC does not adequately plead.  These
claims, too, are therefore dismissed with prejudice.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Engelmeyer dismissed the
Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint with prejudice.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 14, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5j4ejh2 from
Leagle.com.


RESIDEO TECH: Hearing on Bid to Nix Securities Suit Set for Dec. 1
------------------------------------------------------------------
Resideo Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 26, 2020, that a hearing on the
motion to dismiss the securities class action suit entitled, In re
Resideo Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, 19-cv-02863, is
currently scheduled for December 1, 2020.

The Company, the Company's former CEO Michael Nefkens, the
Company's former CFO Joseph Ragan, and the Company's former CIO
Niccolo de Masi are named defendants of a class action securities
suit in the District court for the District of Minnesota styled In
re Resideo Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, 19-cv-02863.

The Securities Litigation is a class action securities suit with
the class defined as all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired common stock of Resideo during the class period
of October 29, 2018 to November 6, 2019. The complaint asserts
claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, broadly alleging, among other things, that
the defendants (or some of them) made false and misleading
statements regarding, among other things, Resideo's business,
performance, the efficiency of its supply chain, operational and
administrative issues resulting from the spin-off from Honeywell,
certain business initiatives, and financial guidance in 2019. The
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on July 10,
2020.

The company expects the motion to dismiss to be fully briefed in
November 2020. A hearing on the motion to dismiss is currently
scheduled for December 1, 2020.  

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the allegations in
the Securities Litigation, but there can be no assurance that the
defense will be successful.

Resideo Technologies, Inc. is a leading global provider of critical
comfort, residential thermal solutions and security solutions
primarily in residential environments. The Company was incorporated
in Delaware on April 24, 2018, but was separated from Honeywell
International Inc. on October 29, 2018, becoming an independent
publicly traded company as a result of a pro rata distribution of
the company's common stock to shareholders of Honeywell. The
company is based in Austin, Texas.

RICHEMONT NORTH AMERICA: Cota Files ADA Suit in S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Richemont North
America, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Julissa Cota,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Richemont North America, Inc. doing business as: Cartier, a
Delaware corporation; Does 1 to 10, inclusive; Case No.
3:20-cv-02339-MMA-LL (S.D. Cal., Nov. 30, 2020).

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

Richemont North America Inc manufactures luxury goods. The Company
provides wholesale distribution of jewelry, precious stones and
metals, costume jewelry, watches, clocks, and silverware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com


SHARP ELECTRONICS: January 7 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
The following is being released by Greg Coleman Law, Whitfield
Bryson LLP, and Tycko & Zavareei LLP about the lawsuit Hamm v.
Sharp Electronics Corporation, Case No. 5:19-cv-00488-JSM-PRL, in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida.

Sharp Electronics Corporation ("Sharp") has reached a Settlement to
resolve a class action lawsuit that alleges certain Sharp-branded
Microwave Drawer Ovens ("Class Microwaves") contained an issue that
caused arcing through the waveguide, which could cause the Class
Microwave to malfunction (an "Arcing Event"). Sharp denies these
allegations.

Consumers may be included in the class if they purchased or
received a new Class Microwave, or they were the first person to
own a residential real property with a new Class Microwave,
installed between January 1, 2009 and August 5, 2020.

Eligible class members may be able to get benefits such as a
Limited Extended 5-year Warranty; full replacement; up to $250 cash
payment or $500 voucher; and/or reimbursements for certain
out-of-pocket payments if their Class Microwave experienced an
Arcing Event or if their Class Microwave experiences an Arcing
Event in the future.

To get benefits, eligible class members must file a claim and
include any required documentation. Claim Forms are available at
the website, www.SharpMicrowaveLitigation.com, or by calling
1-800-242-5127. Individuals may file a claim online or download or
obtain a copy of the Claim Form and send it in via e-mail or
regular mail. Individuals whose Limited Extended Warranty expires
before January 7, 2021 and who have experienced an Arcing Event
must submit a Claim Form by May 7, 2021. Individuals whose Limited
Extended Warranty has not expired as of January 7, 2021 and who
have experienced an Arcing Event or experience an Arcing Event in
the future must submit a Claim Form within two years of the date of
the Arcing Event.

Those affected should visit the website
www.SharpMicrowaveLitigation.com or call 1-800-242-5127 to learn
more about this Settlement and how it could affect their rights.

Important Information and Dates:

Eligible class members must object to the Settlement by November
17, 2020.

Eligible class members must exclude themselves from the Settlement
by November 17, 2020.

Eligible class members whose Class Microwave already experienced an
Arcing Event or whose Class Microwave experiences an Arcing

Event in the future, must submit a Claim Form in accordance with
the dates set forth above.

The Court will hold a hearing on January 7, 2021 to consider
whether to approve the Settlement, a request for $3 million for
attorneys' costs and fees, and a service payment of $1,500 to each
Class Representative ($10,500 total). The attorneys' fees and
service payments to the Class Representatives will not reduce the
amount of benefits available to Class Members. You and your own
lawyer can appear and speak at the hearing, but you do not have
to.

For more information:

Visit: www.SharpMicrowaveLitigation.com
Call: 1-800-242-5127 [GN]


SHELBY COUNTY, TN: County Jail Covid-19 Risk Class Action Amended
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Macaraeg and Micaela A Watts, writing for Memphis Commercial
Appeal, report that on behalf of hundreds of "medically vulnerable"
men awaiting trial at the Shelby County jail in Downtown Memphis, a
consortium of civil rights attorneys filed an amended complaint in
federal court on Sept. 15.

Building on a class-action law suit that initially requested the
release of around 300 detainees who are over 65 and/or have certain
chronic conditions, the complaint alleges Shelby County has not
remedied jail conditions rife with the risk of infection -- as
ordered by Federal Court Judge Sheryl Lipman in early August.

"Defendants have utterly failed to remediate the unconstitutional
conditions at the jail," the amended complaint, filed by the
American Civil Liberties Union and other lawyers, states. "If
anything, conditions in the Jail have worsened."

Practices that continue to perpetuate COVID-19 exposure risk,
according to the complaint, include "wholly ineffective" quarantine
practices; non-testing of new arrestees; and the failure to
"seriously pursue" social distancing in sleeping quarters and
during meals, pill calls, and while detainees use the phone.

Capt. Anthony Buckner, spokesperson for the Shelby County Sheriff's
Office, said he could not comment on Sept. 15, because the
litigation is pending, regarding whether practices have been
implemented at the jail to mitigate COVID-19 exposure risk since
Lipman's ruling.

In early August, Buckner said, "Our focus from Day 1 has been
trying to protect our staff and detainees and we'll just continue
listening to our public health officials, locally, state and
federal. And we'll make adjustments as we are able to do so as time
goes on."

Joseph J. Bial, lead counsel for the law firm Paul, Weiss, said
despite that sentiment, "The sheriff has not adequately fixed these
problems. This complaint seeks to make him do so."

Bial's New York-based law firm joined the American Civil Liberties
Union; Memphis advocacy group Just City; and local attorneys Steve
Mulroy and Brice Moffatt Timmons in filing the suit in May.

Their first complaint requested Lipman order the release of
detainees deemed medically vulnerable to COVID-19 from the Shelby
County men's jail Downtown, commonly known by its address, 201
Poplar.

Will the county set affordable bond, offer ankle monitoring for
those at risk?

Quarantine and social distancing issues could quickly be remedied
by the county, Lipman wrote in an Aug. 7 ruling that denied the
release of medically vulnerable detainees -- en masse.

On a case-by-case basis, Lipman suggested two other avenues --
affordable bond and alternatives such as ankle monitoring -- that
could be used to avoid the unnecessary detention of medically
vulnerable people in the jail during the pandemic.

Progressive multiple sclerosis, treated with an immunosuppresant;
heart disease; diabetes; hypertension; asthma; chronic liver
disease; and irregular heartbeat are among chronic conditions
attributed to six plaintiffs, individually named in the second
complaint, who are locked up while awaiting trial.

Another man, Ronald Rhyne, told Commercial Appeal columunist Tonyaa
Weathersbee about his difficulties at the jail, as a detainee with
a heart condition and high blood pressure.

"One time, when they took us to court, we were like 30-, 40-deep in
the tank," said Rhyne."They're bringing people in from the outside
that they aren't quarantining . . . some are coming right off the
streets . . . I had to wear the same paper mask for two months," he
said.

Rhyne's aunt Linda Kee said her attempt to provide him a mask was
denied.

"He made some mistakes, but that doesn't mean he should be
condemned to death," she said.

There remains no process in place for medical status to inform bond
or alternatives to detention, the amended complaint states.

It was filed alongside another document, seeking to expand the
"medically vulnerable" definition, in accordance with a July update
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, regarding
conditions correlated to increased risk of severe COVID-19 illness.


Candice Grose, Shelby County public information officer, did not
reply to two requests for comment regarding any efforts by the
Pre-trial Services Division to coordinate alternatives to
detention, based on COVID-19 medical vulnerability, for anyone held
at the jail at 201 Poplar.

Regarding bond determinations, Judge Lee Coffee, administrative
judge for Shelby County Criminal Court, was not available on Sept.
15 for comment, a court staffer said.

Lipman, the federal judge, deemed the county's lack of inclusion of
medical conditions in bond determinations, a "persistent failure"
and issue of particular concern.

"Reasons offered for continued detention focus on repeat offenses
in the past, not safety or flight risks in the present," Lipman
wrote.

Taking medical status into account is simply the right thing to do,
said Josh Spickler, executive director of Just City.

"No one should be at risk of contracting a deadly virus simply
because they don't have money," he said.

Coronavirus cases at 201 Poplar

Nearly 240 detainees have contracted coronavirus case at the jail,
according to the most recent figures released by the Shelby County
Sheriff's Office on Sept. 11. As of that date, SCSO and Tennessee
Department of Correction data also show:

   -- Eight detainees are currently isolated
   -- Of the 166 total sheriff's employees, across three divisions,
who have tested positive, a fatality is among the 118 cases in the
division of employees who work at the jail
   -- The current jail population is 1,977 people
   -- That figure includes an estimated 300 medically vulnerable
people, per an independent inspector's report filed June 30
   -- The vast majority of people in the jail — 82% — had yet
to be convicted of their charges, according to a July 31 Tennessee
Dept. of Correction report

Remedies sought in the amended complaint include:

   -- Ongoing inspections of the jail
   -- Reduction of the jail population, through setting bond and/or
offering alternatives to detention based on medical status
  -- Creation of system that requires consideration of release for
each medically vulnerable detainee based on current flight risk
rather than past offenses
   -- Implementation of a new testing strategy in which all
detainees are tested upon intake and periodically from there on
   -- Availability of cleaning supplies
   -- Free soap and masks distributed to detainees weekly
   -- Reconfiguration of all spaces to allow for adequate social
distancing [GN]


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

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

STAAR Surgical Company (STAA) Securities Class Action:

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

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

Then, on Aug. 11, 2020, research firm J Capital published a
scathing report calling STAAR's China success story into serious
question. More specifically, J Capital accused the company of
overstating its sales in China by at least one-third (or $21.6
mln), "meaning all of the company's $14 mln in 2019 profit is
fake." The report - based on over 75 interviews with former
employees, site visits to China and Switzerland, and extensive
review of public documents - concludes STAAR reports fake sales
revenues by overstating sales and then marking up actual marketing
costs to hide "phantom" revenue. J Capital also found STAAR's
largest China client bought only about half the lenses STAAR
reported.

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

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

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

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding STAAR
should consider their options to help in the investigation or take
advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program,
whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards
totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the
SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or
email STAA@hbsslaw.com.

                                 # # #

                         About Hagens Berman

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

STAAR SURGICAL: Vincent Wong Reminds of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that class actions have
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders of Staar Surgical
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.

Staar Surgical Company (NASDAQ:STAA)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/staar-surgical-company-loss-submission-form?prid=10237&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020
Class Period: February 26, 2020 - August 10, 2020

Allegations against STAA include that: the Company was overstating
and/or mischaracterizing: (1) its sales and growth in China; (2)
its marketing spend; (3) its research and development expenses; and
that as a result of the foregoing, (4) Defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.

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

STATE COLLECTION: McGee Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed State Collection Service,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Joshua McGee, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. State Collection
Service, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:20-cv-01770 (E.D. Wis.,
Nov. 30, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

State Collection Service, Inc. provides account recovery services.
The Company offers services to healthcare, financial, utilities,
commercial and retail, and government sectors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


TASTY BAKING: Bertino Labor Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANTHONY F. BERTINO JR., on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TASTY BAKING COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03752, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on November 17,
2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-05823-JDW to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the New
Jersey Wage Payment Law. Specifically, the Defendant has made
various deductions from the pay owed to the Plaintiff and other
distributors for the transportation and distribution services they
perform for the Defendant in their assigned territories. Many of
the deductions are itemized on weekly "settlement sheets" and
include without limitation, for example, hand held computer
charges, administrative fees, and insurance payments.

Tasty Baking Company produces and sells baked goods. The Company
manufactures single portion cakes, pies, donuts, snack bars,
pretzels, and brownies. Tasty Baking serves customers throughout
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          Twining Office Center, Suite 211
          715 Twining Road
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491
          Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
          E-mail: asantillo@winebrakelaw.com

               - and -

          Simon Bahne Paris
          SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C.
          120 Gibraltar Road Suite 218
          Horsham, PA 19044
          Telephone: (215) 575-3986
          E-mail: sparis@smbb.com   

               - and -

          Charles Joseph Kocher
          MCOMBER, MCOMBER AND LUBER
          39 E. Main Street
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Telephone: (856) 985-9800   

The Defendant is represented by:

          K. Clark Whitney, Esq.
          Joshua Adam Brand, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART PC
          1735 Market St Ste 3000
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 995-2800
          E-mail: clark.whitney@ogletreedeakins.com

TOYOTA MOTOR: Illegally Collects GAP Coverage Fees, Martin Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM MARTIN and LORI MITCHELL, each individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT
CORPORATION, a California Corporation and TOYOTA MOTOR INSURANCE
SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation, Case No.
2:20-cv-10518-JVS-MRW (C.D. Cal., Nov. 17, 2020) arises from the
unlawful practice of the Defendants to collect unearned fees for
Guaranteed Automobile Protection Waivers (GAP Waivers) after the
early payoff of a customer's retail installment sales contract.

The Plaintiffs and the Class financed the purchase of their cars by
entering into retail installment sales contracts with Toyota
authorized dealers. Under the agreements, the Plaintiffs and the
Class agreed to pay for the price of their cars in the future over
a fixed period of years, with interest, in monthly installment
payments.

A GAP Waiver is an addendum to the retail installment sales
contract which amends the terms of the contract and becomes a part
of the agreement. It is a debt cancellation agreement, which
provides that in the event a customer suffers a "total loss" of
their vehicle and the actual cash value of their vehicle is worth
less than the balance owed to the creditor, then the creditor will
agree to waive the difference. This difference is known as the
"GAP."

According to the complaint, Toyota knows the said unearned fees
have not and will never be earned but collects them anyway. Toyota
then refuses to refund this unearned money to its customers,
including the Plaintiff, even though Toyota is contractually and
legally obligated to do so as the creditor and assignee of the
finance agreement and GAP Waiver. As a result of the unlawful and
fraudulent practice, Toyota knowingly collects and keeps tens of
millions of dollars in unearned fees from its customers each year.

Toyota Motor Credit Corporation (TMCC) provides automotive finance
services. The Company offers dealer finance, term loans, and
revolving credit services to vehicles and industrial equipment
dealers. TMCC serves customers worldwide.

Toyota Motor Insurance Services, Inc. was founded in 1986. The
Company's line of business includes providing insurance agent and
broker services for a range of insurance types.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason M. Frank, Esq.
          Andrew D. Stolper, Esq.
          Scott H. Sims, Esq.
          FRANK SIMS & STOLPER LLP
          19800 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 855
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 201-2400
          Facsimile: (949) 201-2405

               - and -

          Franklin D. Azar, Esq.
          FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          14426 East Evans Avenue
          Aurora, CO 80014
          Telephone: (303) 757-3300
          Facsimile: (720) 213-5131

ULTRA PETROLEUM: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Ultra Petroleum Corp. You can
review a copy of the Complaint by visiting the link 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.

Ultra Petroleum Corp. (OTC PINK:UPLCQ)
Class Period: April 13, 2017 - August 8, 2019
Deadline: November 2, 2020
For more info: www.bgandg.com/uplcq

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading and/or failed to disclose
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 the Company's actual horizontal well prospects.
[GN]

VAXART INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit
against Vaxart, Inc. (NASDAQ: VXRT) and certain of its senior
executives and updates investors. The firm urges VXRT investors who
have suffered losses to submit their losses now to learn if they
qualify to recover their investment losses. This is a securities
fraud class action that has been filed against the company and
senior executives.

Class Period: June 25, 2020 - July 25, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Oct. 23, 2020
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/cases/vxrt
Contact An Attorney Now: VXRT@hbsslaw.com
         844-916-0895

Hagens Berman's VXRT Securities Class Action:

The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, and captioned Himmelberg v.
Vaxart, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-05949-VC, is brought on
behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired VXRT
securities during the Class Period – between June 25, 2020 and
July 25, 2020, inclusive. The case seeks to recover damages caused
by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.

Shareholder who purchased VXRT shares during the class period, had
until Oct. 23, 2020, to ask the Court to appoint them as Lead
Plaintiff for the class. Discuss your legal rights with Hagens
Berman.

Vaxart is a clinical-stage Company purportedly engaged in the
discovery and development of vaccines for a variety of diseases
that would be administered orally, rather than by injection.

The class action arises from Defendants' alleged fraudulent scheme
to profit from artificially inflating the Company's stock price by
announcing false and misleading information concerning Vaxart's
oral COVID-19 vaccine candidate.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that on June 26, 2020, Vaxart
issued a press release entitled, "Vaxart's COVID-19 Vaccine
Selected for the U.S. Government's Operation Warp Speed," falsely
claiming its vaccine had been selected to participate in a
non-human challenge study, organized and funded by OWS. This
announcement sent the price of Vaxart shares rocketing higher.

In furtherance of the scheme, Defendants amended controlling
shareholder Armistice's existing warrant agreements, allowing
Armistice to exercise all of its warrants immediately and sell 27.6
million Vaxart shares, reaping profits of approximately $200
million.   Defendants also issued millions of dollars in favorable
stock options to Vaxart's most senior executives.

The Complaint alleges that on July 25, 2020, details emerged
revealing Defendants' deception concerning their alleged pump and
dump scheme. In particular, on July 25, 2020, The New York Times
published an article entitled, "Corporate Insiders Pocket $1
Billion in Rush for Coronavirus Vaccine," covering suspiciously
timed stock bets that had generated significant profits for senior
executives and board members at companies developing vaccines and
treatments. Vaxart was featured prominently in the article, and it
clarified "Vaxart is not among the companies selected to receive
significant financial support from Warp Speed." In response to this
news, the price of Vaxart shares dropped sharply lower on July 27,
2020 from $12.29 to $11.16.

Most recently, on Oct. 14, 2020, Vaxart revealed it received a
Grand Jury subpoena in July 2020 in connection with the U.S.
Attorney's office investigation into Vaxart's disclosures of its
participation in Operation Warp Speed, options grants, warrant
transactions and other corporate and financing matters.

In addition, Vaxart revealed the SEC is investigating the same
matters.

This news sent the price of Vaxart shares crashing lower.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Vaxart misled
investors about OWS's potential funding support for the Company,"
said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the
investigation.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
Vaxart should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein
at 844-916-0895 or email VXRT@hbsslaw.com.

                      About Hagens Berman

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

VENATOR MATERIALS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Venator Materials PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the parties in the
consolidated suit entitled, In re Venator Materials PLC Securities
Litigation, are awaiting the court's decision on a motion to
dismiss the amended class action complaint.

On February 8, 2019 the company, certain of its executive officers,
Huntsman and certain banks who acted as underwriters in connection
with the company's initial public offering (IPO) and secondary
offering were named as defendants in a proposed class action civil
suit filed in the District Court for the State of Texas, Dallas
County, by an alleged purchaser of the company ordinary shares in
connection with its IPO on August 3, 2017 and its secondary
offering on November 30, 2017.

The plaintiff, Macomb County Employees' Retirement System, alleges
that inaccurate and misleading statements were made regarding the
impact to the company's operations, and prospects for restoration
thereof, resulting from the fire that occurred at the company's
Pori, Finland manufacturing facility, among other allegations.

Additional complaints making substantially the same allegations
were filed in the Dallas District Court by the Firemen's Retirement
System of St. Louis on March 4, 2019 and by Oscar Gonzalez on March
13, 2019, with the third case naming two of our directors as
additional defendants.

The cases filed in the Dallas District Court were consolidated into
a single action, In re Venator Materials PLC Securities
Litigation.

On May 8, 2019, the company filed a "special appearance" in the
Dallas District Court action contesting the court's jurisdiction
over the Company and a motion to transfer venue to Montgomery
County, Texas and on June 7, 2019 the company and certain
defendants filed motions to dismiss.

On July 9, 2019, a hearing was held on certain of these motions,
which were subsequently denied.

On January 21, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of
Texas reversed the Dallas District Court's order that denied the
special appearances of Venator and certain other defendants, and
rendered judgment dismissing the claims against Venator and certain
other defendants for lack of jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeals also remanded the case for the Dallas District
Court to enter an order transferring the claims against Huntsman to
the Montgomery County District Court.

On March 19, 2020, plaintiffs from the Dallas District Court case
filed suit in New York State Court (New York County) against
Venator and the other defendants dismissed from the Dallas District
Court case, making substantially the same allegations as were filed
in the Dallas District Court.

On July 31, 2020, Venator and the other defendants filed a motion
to dismiss all claims in the New York State Court case.

A decision on the motion to dismiss the claims has not been
published.

Venator Materials PLC manufactures and markets chemical products
worldwide. It operates through two segments, Titanium Dioxide and
Performance Additives. The company was founded in 2017 and is
headquartered in Stockton-On-Tees, the United Kingdom.

VILLA COLOMBO: Faces Class Suit Over Negligence, Substandard Care
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Zarzour, writing for YorkRegion.com, reports that some
mornings, Domenica Gusciglio struggles to get out of bed or even
speak about her grief, still devastated by the "horrifying"
treatment and sudden death of her mother in a Vaughan
long-term-care home.

Gusciglio is one of several plaintiffs now involved in a
$25-million class-action lawsuit against the facility, Villa
Colombo, alleging negligence and substandard care.

"I am so broken right now, you can't imagine. No one can possibly
understand what happens in these homes and the effects that it has
on loved ones," she said.

Gusciglio lost her mother, Anne Sforza, on March 29. It is
suspected that her death was a result of COVID-19.

Anna was 86 and had lived at the home on Highway 27 since January
2015.

She describes her relationship with her mom as close and loving,
but, despite frequent and regular visits to the home, she says she
received little to no communication from Villa Colombo about what
they were doing to keep their residents safe from COVID-19.

Anthony DiCaita, president and CEO of Villa Charities Inc. that
operates Villa Colomba homes in Vaughan and Toronto, declined to
speak about the allegations, which have not been proven in court.

"We have been served, the matter is now before the courts and, at
this time, we have no comment," he said.

On more than one occasion prior to the pandemic, Gusciglio said,
she arrived at the home to find her mother alone and crying in a
dark room.

During the pandemic, Gusciglio said she observed infection and
safety protocols not being followed and alleges negligence and
deficiencies in care led to her mother's demise.

Other residents suffered similar types of injury and damages while
under the care of the home, she said.

Sforza, who had dementia, exhibited a high fever and respiratory
symptoms a few days before her death, but, although a nurse told
her the virus was in the home, Gusciglio said management failed to
test her mother or any of the residents or staff for COVID-19.

In the case of her mother, she was given false information about an
alleged test and then later told that her mother was not tested,
she said.

Gusciglio was advised by an employee that management told their
staff to remove masks during this time. She also witnessed
preparations for a party in the party room despite there being a
lockdown.

As she fought to get better care for her mother, she said she felt
intimidated and threatened.

Her lawyer, Jillian Siskind, said several families involved in the
lawsuit described the lack of communication by the home about the
status of COVID cases in the home and also a lack of communication
in the care of their loved ones who lived there. There was a also a
lack of testing for COVID in the home, she said.

Jillian M. Siskind and Associates has partnered with national
personal injury firm Diamond and Diamond in the class-action
lawsuit.

It's not the first COVID-19-related class-action filing by Diamond
and Diamond against a privately-owned provider of senior care
services.

Earlier this year, the firm took action against Revera and Sienna
Senior Living.

What makes this one unique, according to Darryl Singer, the firm's
head of commercial and civil litigation, is Villa Colombo markets
itself as "the heart of the GTA's Italian community."

Located on 16 acres in Kleinburg, the Vaughan facility houses 160
seniors and describes itself as "cultural sensitive," founded on
the principles of giving back to those who laid the foundation for
a vibrant Italian-Canadian culture in the region.

Most families chose Villa Colombo, as opposed to one of the big
chains, because of that Italian connection, Singer said.

Singer says the ethnocultural aspect led many families to keep
silent. "There is a concern that going against Villa Colombo would
be viewed as going against the whole community."

There is also fear of retribution among those whose families remain
in the home, he said.

Gusciglio is the representative plaintiff for residents who died as
well as those who remain there still but were unnecessarily exposed
to COVID or contracted it and survived - a class that Singer
estimates to be in the hundreds.

As with the lawsuits against other large chains, the allegation is
not just that "COVID happened and they didn't react properly; they
were not prepared for any sort of outbreak at all," Singer said.

"It was a history of neglect, negligence and lack of preparedness
that allowed it to spread so rapidly. Yes, they may have been
caught off-guard, but they knew their clients are the most
vulnerable population.

"When your entire business model is based on serving this
particular niche -- elderly, sick, in need of round-the-clock care
-- you have to know that outbreaks will occur."

In their statement of claim, the plaintiffs allege Villa Colombo
failed to comply with public health guidelines regarding outbreak
planning, supply and access to PPE, resident isolation and testing,
staff testing and screening and appropriately restricting
visitors.

Vaughan has been one of the hardest hit communities by the virus
and this is the second nursing home in that municipality to face a
class-action lawsuit. Personal injury law firm Thomson Rogers
launched a $15-million class-action lawsuit on behalf of families
and residents of Woodbridge Vista Care Community in June.

Singer said long-term care lobbyists have tried to persuade the
province to pass legislation protecting them from liability in
class-action lawsuits, similar to that in the U.S.

But Singer argues the profitability of the long-term-care industry
is not in jeopardy.

"It isn't the nursing home that's on the hook for these lawsuits,"
she said. "There are very, very large insurance companies behind
them.

"The large public companies are making insane profits," he added,
referring to annual reports and public records of nursing home
operators revealing that, throughout the pandemic, they continued
to pay out massive dividends and bonuses -- at the same time as
they claimed publicly they did not have enough money for PPE or
increased staff. [GN]


VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA: Lawson Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against VisionWorks of
America, Inc. The case is styled as Anthony Lawson, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VisionWorks of
America, Inc., a Texas corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-01368 (W.D.
Tex., Nov. 30, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Visionworks of America, Inc. is an American company which operates
or manages 711 optical retail stores in 40 U.S. states and the
District of Columbia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Angelica Gentile, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
          Email: agentile@shamisgentile.com


WALMART STORES: Court Narrows Claims in Calif. Workers' Wage Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Dailey, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Walmart
Stores Inc. won a bid to dismiss claims that it miscalculated
pay-rates in a certified class action involving more than 200,000
employees in California, but must continue to litigate allegations
that it failed to comply with wage-statement rules.

The evidence shows that Walmart correctly calculated the employees'
regular and overtime pay-rates based on their receipt of certain
production-related bonuses in accordance with California law, Judge
Andre Birotte Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California said on Sept. 14. [GN]




WISCONSIN APPLE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Henges Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
HALI HENGES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. WISCONSIN APPLE LLC; and SEENU
KASTURI, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01749-WED (E.D. Wis., Nov. 23,
2020) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Henges was employed by the Defendants as staff.

Wisconsin Apple LLC is an Applebee's Grill and Bar franchisee
engaged in the restaurant business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          David M. Potteiger, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          15850 W. Bluemound Road, Suite 304
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Telephone: (262) 780-1953
          Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
          E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                  sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                  dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com


WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminded 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 April 29, 2020 through September
23, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors had 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. [GN]

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Had $844MM Claim Reserves at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation had US$844 million reserves for asbestos
claims, net of recoverables of US$396 million, as of September 30,
2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2020.

The Company states, "Allstate's reserves for asbestos claims were
US$844 million and US$810 million, net of recoverables of US$396
million and US$362 million, as of September 30, 2020 and December
31, 2019, respectively.  Reserves for environmental claims were
US$210 million and US$179 million, net of recoverables of US$43
million and US$40 million, as of September 30, 2020 and December
31, 2019, respectively.

"The Company establishes reserves for claims and claims expense on
reported and unreported claims of insured losses.  The Company's
reserving process takes into account known facts and
interpretations of circumstances and factors including the
Company's experience with similar cases, actual claims paid,
historical trends involving claim payment patterns and pending
levels of unpaid claims, loss management programs, product mix and
contractual terms, changes in law and regulation, judicial
decisions, and economic conditions."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/G6yViu


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Had $54.0MM A&E Reserves at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd. has net loss reserves of
US$54.0 million for asbestos and environmental matters for its
Run-off Lines at September 30, 2020, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020.

For the nine months ended September 30, 2020, the Company incurred
losses (net) of US$17.1 million and paid losses (net) of US$6.9
million for asbestos and environmental matters.

The Company states, "Losses and loss adjustment expenses for the
nine months ended September 30, 2020 were the result of unfavorable
loss reserve development on prior accident years in asbestos and
environmental and other run-off lines, partially offset by
favorable development in risk management workers compensation.
Losses and loss adjustment expenses for the nine months ended
September 30, 2019 were the result of net unfavorable loss reserve
development on prior accident years in other run-off lines,
partially offset by net favorable loss reserve development on prior
accident years in risk management."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/iwmb9U


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECO Had 201 Cases Pending at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------
CECO Environmental Corp. is still facing a total of 201
asbestos-related cases pending as of September 30, 2020, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2020.

The Company states, "Our subsidiary, Met-Pro Technologies LLC
("Met-Pro"), beginning in 2002, began to be named in
asbestos-related lawsuits filed against a large number of
industrial companies including, in particular, those in the pump
and fluid handling industries.  In management's opinion, the
complaints typically have been vague, general and speculative,
alleging that Met-Pro, along with the numerous other defendants,
sold unidentified asbestos-containing products and engaged in other
related actions which caused injuries (including death) and loss to
the plaintiffs.  Counsel has advised that more recent cases
typically allege more serious claims of mesothelioma.  The
Company's insurers have hired attorneys who, together with the
Company, are vigorously defending these cases.  Many cases have
been dismissed after the plaintiff fails to produce evidence of
exposure to Met-Pro's products.  In those cases, where evidence has
been produced, the Company's experience has been that the exposure
levels are low and the Company's position has been that its
products were not a cause of death, injury or loss.  The Company
has been dismissed from or settled a large number of these cases.
Cumulative settlement payments from 2002 through September 30, 2020
for cases involving asbestos-related claims were US$3.1 million, of
which, together with all legal fees other than corporate counsel
expenses, US$2.9 million has been paid by the Company's insurers.
The average cost per settled claim, excluding legal fees, was
approximately US$34,000.

"Based upon the most recent information available to the Company
regarding such claims, there were a total of 201 cases pending
against the Company as of September 30, 2020 (with Illinois, New
York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia having the largest number of
cases), as compared with 209 cases that were pending as of December
31, 2019.  During the nine-months ended September 30, 2020, 61 new
cases were filed against the Company, and the Company was dismissed
from 65 cases and settled four cases.  Most of the pending cases
have not advanced beyond the early stages of discovery, although a
number of cases are on schedules leading to or scheduled for trial.
The Company believes that its insurance coverage is adequate for
the cases currently pending against the Company and for the
foreseeable future, assuming a continuation of the current volume,
nature of cases and settlement amounts.  However, the Company has
no control over the number and nature of cases that are filed
against it, nor as to the financial health of its insurers or their
position as to coverage.  The Company also presently believes that
none of the pending cases will have a material adverse impact upon
the Company's results of operations, liquidity or financial
condition."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/PItXSG


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Accrues $34MM for Suits at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company had an accrual of US$34 million related to
asbestos matters at September 30, 2020, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020.

The Company states, "DuPont assigned its asbestos docket to
Chemours.  At September 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, there were
approximately 1,100 lawsuits pending against DuPont alleging
personal injury from exposure to asbestos.  These cases are pending
in state and federal court in numerous jurisdictions in the U.S.
and are individually set for trial.  A small number of cases are
pending outside of the U.S. Most of the actions were brought by
contractors who worked at sites between the 1950s and the 1990s.  A
small number of cases involve similar allegations by DuPont
employees or household members of contractors or DuPont employees.
Finally, certain lawsuits allege personal injury as a result of
exposure to DuPont products."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/3ofplX


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Ed Spent $17MM for Manhattan Incident
----------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc. has incurred operating costs of US$17
million as of September 30, 2020, for property damage, clean-up and
other response costs, related to the rupture of a steam main owned
by its subsidiary in Manhattan, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020.

The Company states, "In July 2018, the NYSPSC commenced an
investigation into the rupture of a CECONY steam main located on
Fifth Avenue and 21st Street in Manhattan.  Debris from the
incident included dirt and mud containing asbestos.  The response
to the incident required the closing of buildings and streets for
various periods.  The NYSPSC has commenced an investigation.  As of
September 30, 2020, with respect to the incident, the company
incurred operating costs of US$17 million for property damage,
clean-up and other response costs and invested US$9 million in
capital and retirement costs.  During the second quarter of 2020,
the company accrued a US$3 million liability related to this
matter."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/UNnEot


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Had 227 Claims at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, faces a total of 227 asserted claims
related to asbestos exposure as of September 30, 2020, according to
Duke Energy Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September
30, 2020.

The Company states, "Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous
claims for indemnification and medical cost reimbursement related
to asbestos exposure.  These claims relate to damages for bodily
injuries alleged to have arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos
in connection with construction and maintenance activities
conducted on its electric generation plants prior to 1985.  As of
September 30, 2020, there were 159 asserted claims for
non-malignant cases with cumulative relief sought of up to US$41
million, and 68 asserted claims for malignant cases with cumulative
relief sought of up to US$23 million.  Based on Duke Energy
Carolinas' experience, it is expected that the ultimate resolution
of most of these claims likely will be less than the amount
claimed."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/x6AXQt


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro Had $4.2MM Asbestos Coverage at September 30
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Enpro Industries, Inc. had approximately US$4.2 million of
insurance coverage for asbestos claims payments and certain expense
payments as of September 30, 2020, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020.

The Company states, "The historical business operations of certain
of our subsidiaries resulted in a substantial volume of asbestos
litigation in which plaintiffs alleged personal injury or death as
a result of exposure to asbestos fibers.  In 2010, certain of these
subsidiaries, including Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC ("GST"),
filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of
the United States Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the Western District of North Carolina (the "Bankruptcy Court").
An additional subsidiary filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition
with the Bankruptcy Court in 2017.  The filings were part of a
claims resolution process for an efficient and permanent resolution
of all pending and future asbestos claims through court approval of
a plan of reorganization to establish a facility to resolve and pay
these asbestos claims.

"These claims against GST and other subsidiaries were resolved
pursuant to a joint plan of reorganization (the "Joint Plan") filed
with the Bankruptcy Court which was consummated on July 29, 2017.
Under the Joint Plan, GST and EnPro Holdings retained their rights
to seek reimbursement under insurance policies for any amounts they
have paid in the past to resolve asbestos claims, including
contributions made to the asbestos claims resolution trust
established under the Joint Plan (the "Trust").  These policies
include a number of primary and excess general liability insurance
policies that were purchased by EnPro Holdings and were in effect
prior to January 1, 1976 (the "Pre-GST Coverage Block").  The
policies provide coverage for "occurrences" happening during the
policy periods and cover losses associated with product liability
claims against EnPro Holdings and certain of its subsidiaries.
Asbestos claims against GST are not covered under these policies
because GST was not a subsidiary of EnPro Holdings prior to 1976.
The Joint Plan provides that EnPro Holdings may retain the first
US$25 million of any settlements and judgments collected for
non-GST asbestos claims related to insurance policies in the
Pre-GST Coverage Block and EnPro Holdings and the Trust will share
equally in any settlements and judgments EnPro Holdings may collect
in excess of US$25 million.  To date, EnPro Holdings has collected
almost US$22 million in settlements for non-GST asbestos claims
related to the Pre-GST Coverage Block and anticipates further
collections once the Trust begins making claims payments on non-GST
Claims.

"As of September 30, 2020, approximately US$4.2 million of
available products hazard limits or insurance receivables existed
under primary and excess general liability insurance policies other
than the Pre-GST Coverage Block (the "GST Coverage Block") from
solvent carriers, which we believe is available to cover
contributions made to the Trust under the Joint Plan as the Trust
uses those contributions to pay GST asbestos claims covered by
policies in the GST Coverage Block.  There are specific agreements
in place with carriers regarding the remaining available coverage.
We believe that all of the US$4.2 million of insurance proceeds
will ultimately be collected, although there can be no assurance
that the insurance companies will make the payments as and when
due.  In the fourth quarter of 2020, we anticipate billing an
insurer in the GST Coverage Block at least US$0.7 million for GST
Claims paid by the Trust to date.

"We also believe that EnPro Holdings will bill, and could collect
over time, as much as US$10 million of insurance coverage for
non-GST asbestos claims to reimburse it for Trust payments to
non-GST Trust claimants.  After EnPro Holdings collects the first
approximately US$3 million of that coverage, remaining collections
for non-GST asbestos claims from the Pre-GST Coverage Block will be
shared equally with the Trust.

"GST has received US$8.8 million of insurance recoveries from
insolvent carriers since 2007, and may receive additional payments
from insolvent carriers in the future.  No anticipated insolvent
carrier collections are included in the US$4.2 million of
anticipated collections.  The insurance available to cover current
and future asbestos claims is from comprehensive general liability
policies that cover EnPro Holdings and certain of its other
subsidiaries in addition to GST for periods prior to 1985 and
therefore could be subject to potential competing claims of other
covered subsidiaries and their assignees."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/AlNTVw


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Unit Had $91MM Claims Reserves at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation and its subsidiary, Exelon Generation Company,
LLC, recorded US$91 million at September 30, 2020, for
asbestos-related personal injury claims, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020.

The Company states, "Generation maintains a reserve for claims
associated with asbestos-related personal injury actions in certain
facilities that are currently owned by Generation or were
previously owned by ComEd and PECO.  The estimated liabilities are
recorded on an undiscounted basis and exclude the estimated legal
costs associated with handling these matters, which could be
material.

"At September 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, Exelon and Generation
had recorded estimated liabilities of approximately US$91 million
and US$83 million, respectively, in total for asbestos-related
bodily injury claims.  As of September 30, 2020, approximately
US$27 million of this amount related to 274 open claims presented
to Generation, while the remaining US$64 million is for estimated
future asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise
through 2055, based on actuarial assumptions and analyses, which
are updated on an annual basis.  On a quarterly basis, Generation
monitors actual experience against the number of forecasted claims
to be received and expected claim payments and evaluates whether
adjustments to the estimated liabilities are necessary."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/4aY9Od


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Faces 8,346 Active Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation has 8,346 active asbestos-related claims at
September 30, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020.

The Company also disclosed that in the three months ended September
30, 2020, there were 635 new claims and 398 resolved. There were
also 9 additional claims which represents the net change in claims
as a result of the reclassification of active cases as inactive and
inactive cases as active during the period.

The Company states, "We are a defendant in a substantial number of
lawsuits that seek to recover damages for personal injury allegedly
caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured
and/or distributed by our heritage companies in the past.
Typically, these lawsuits have been brought against multiple
defendants in state and federal courts.  While the overall number
of asbestos-related claims in which we or our predecessors have
been named has generally declined in recent years, there can be no
assurance that this trend will continue, or that the average cost
per claim to us will not further increase.  Asbestos-containing
materials incorporated into any such products were encapsulated and
used as internal components of process equipment, and we do not
believe that any significant emission of asbestos fibers occurred
during the use of this equipment.

"Our practice is to vigorously contest and resolve these claims,
and we have been successful in resolving a majority of claims with
little or no payment, other than legal fees.

"During the nine months ended September 30, 2020, the Company paid
(net of insurance and/or indemnity) approximately US$12.1 million
to defend, resolve or otherwise dispose of outstanding claims,
including legal and other related expenses.

"Historically, a high percentage of resolved claims have been
covered by applicable insurance or indemnities from other
companies, and we believe that a substantial majority of existing
claims should continue to be covered by insurance or indemnities,
in whole or in part.

"We believe that our reserve for asbestos claims and the receivable
for recoveries from insurance carriers that we have recorded for
these claims reflect reasonable and probable estimates of these
amounts.  Our estimate of our ultimate exposure for asbestos
claims, however, is subject to significant uncertainties, including
the timing and number and types of new claims, unfavorable court
rulings, judgments or settlement terms and ultimate costs to
settle.  Additionally, including the continued viability of
carriers, may also impact the amount of probable insurance
recoveries.  We believe that these uncertainties could have a
material adverse impact on our business, financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows, though we currently believe
the likelihood is remote.

"Additionally, we have claims pending against certain insurers
that, if resolved more favorably than reflected in the recorded
receivables, would result in discrete gains in the applicable
quarter."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/QE3Zgp


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Had 17,160 PI Suits at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Harsco Corporation is still facing approximately 17,160 pending
asbestos personal injury actions at September 30, 2020, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2020.

Harsco states, "The Company is named as one of many defendants
(approximately 90 or more in most cases) in legal actions in the
U.S. alleging personal injury from exposure to airborne asbestos
over the past several decades.  In their suits, the plaintiffs have
named as defendants, among others, many manufacturers, distributors
and installers of numerous types of equipment or products that
allegedly contained asbestos.

"The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit.
The Company has never been a producer, manufacturer or processor
of asbestos fibers.  Any asbestos-containing part of a Company
product used in the past was purchased from a supplier and the
asbestos encapsulated in other materials such that airborne
exposure, if it occurred, was not harmful and is not associated
with the types of injuries alleged in the pending actions.

"At September 30, 2020 there were approximately 17,160 pending
asbestos personal injury actions filed against the Company.  Of
those actions, approximately 16,596 were filed in the New York
Supreme Court (New York County), approximately 119 were filed in
other New York State Supreme Court Counties and approximately 445
were filed in courts located in other states.

"The complaints in most of those actions generally follow a form
that contains a standard damages demand of US$20 million or US$25
million, regardless of the individual plaintiff's alleged medical
condition, and without identifying any specific Company product.

"At September 30, 2020 approximately 16,550 of the actions filed in
New York Supreme Court (New York County) were on the
Deferred/Inactive Docket created by the court in December 2002 for
all pending and future asbestos actions filed by persons who cannot
demonstrate that they have a malignant condition or discernible
physical impairment.  The remaining approximately 46 cases in New
York County are pending on the Active or In Extremis Docket created
for plaintiffs who can demonstrate a malignant condition or
physical impairment.

"The Company has liability insurance coverage under various primary
and excess policies that the Company believes will be available, if
necessary, to substantially cover any liability that might
ultimately be incurred in the asbestos actions.  The costs and
expenses of the asbestos actions are being paid by the Company's
insurers.

"In view of the persistence of asbestos litigation in the U.S., the
Company expects to continue to receive additional claims in the
future.  The Company intends to continue its practice of vigorously
defending these claims and cases.  At September 30, 2020 the
Company has obtained dismissal in approximately 28,300 cases by
stipulation or summary judgment prior to trial.

"It is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of
asbestos-related actions in the U.S. due to the unpredictable
nature of this litigation, and no loss provision has been recorded
in the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements
because a loss contingency is not deemed probable or estimable.
Despite this uncertainty, and although results of operations and
cash flows for a given period could be adversely affected by
asbestos-related actions, the Company does not expect that any
costs that are reasonably possible to be incurred by the Company in
connection with asbestos litigation would have a material adverse
effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations
or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/rLQ2WA


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll Rand Had $113.4MM Reserve at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll Rand Inc. had total litigation reserve of US$113.4
million as of September 30, 2020, with regards to potential
liability arising from the Company's asbestos-related litigation,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2020.

Ingersoll Rand states, "The Company believes that the pending and
future asbestos and silica-related lawsuits are not likely to, in
the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on its consolidated
financial position, results of operations or liquidity.  "Accrued
liabilities" and "Other liabilities" of the Condensed Consolidated
Balance Sheets include a total litigation reserve of US$113.4
million and US$118.1 million as of September 30, 2020 and December
31, 2019, respectively, with regards to potential liability arising
from the Company's asbestos-related litigation.  Asbestos related
defense costs are excluded from the asbestos claims liability and
are recorded separately as services are incurred.  In the event of
unexpected future developments, it is possible that the ultimate
resolution of these matters may be material to the Company's
consolidated financial position, results of operation or
liquidity.

"The Company has entered into a series of agreements with certain
of its or its predecessors' legacy insurers and certain potential
indemnitors to secure insurance coverage and/or reimbursement for
the costs associated with the asbestos and silica-related lawsuits
filed against the Company.  The Company has an insurance recovery
receivable for probable asbestos related recoveries of
approximately US$122.4 million as of September 30, 2020 and
December 31, 2019, respectively, which was included in "Other
assets" in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.  The amounts
recorded by the Company for asbestos-related liabilities and
insurance recoveries are based on currently available information
and assumptions that the Company believes are reasonable based on
an evaluation of relevant factors.  The actual liabilities or
insurance recoveries could be higher or lower than those recorded
if actual results vary significantly from the assumptions."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/ofxHK8


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Had 11,800 PI Cases at September 25
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc has approximately 11,800 asbestos-related personal
injury cases pending as of September 25, 2020, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 25, 2020.

The Company states, "Beginning with lawsuits brought in July 1976,
the Company is named as a defendant in personal injury lawsuits
based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials.  A
majority of the cases involve product liability claims based
principally on allegations of past distribution of products
containing asbestos.  A limited number of the cases allege premises
liability based on claims that individuals were exposed to asbestos
while on the Company's property.  Each case typically names dozens
of corporate defendants in addition to the Company.  The complaints
generally seek monetary damages for personal injury or bodily
injury resulting from alleged exposure to products containing
asbestos.  The Company's involvement in asbestos cases has been
limited because it did not mine or produce asbestos.  Furthermore,
in the Company's experience, a large percentage of these claims
have never been substantiated and have been dismissed by the
courts.  The Company has not suffered an adverse verdict in a trial
court proceeding related to asbestos claims and intends to continue
to defend these lawsuits.  When appropriate, the Company settles
claims; however, amounts paid to settle and defend all asbestos
claims have been immaterial.  As of September 25, 2020, there were
approximately 11,800 asbestos-related cases pending against the
Company.

"The Company estimates pending asbestos claims, claims that were
incurred but not reported and related insurance recoveries, which
are recorded on a gross basis in the unaudited condensed
consolidated balance sheets.  The Company's estimate of its
liability for pending and future claims is based on claims
experience over the past five years and covers claims either
currently filed or expected to be filed over the next seven years.
The Company believes that it has adequate amounts recorded related
to these matters.  While it is not possible at this time to
determine with certainty the ultimate outcome of these
asbestos-related proceedings, the Company believes, given the
information currently available, that the ultimate resolution of
all known and anticipated future claims, after taking into account
amounts already accrued, along with recoveries from insurance, will
not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/20R5o5


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Defends 119 Cases at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. is a co-defendant in approximately 119
cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 221 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2020.

The Company states, "These asbestos cases generally relate to
production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege
various theories of liability, including negligence, gross
negligence and strict liability, and seek compensatory and, in some
cases, punitive damages.
"In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants.  In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages
sought.  To the extent that any specific amount of damages is
sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants.

"There are four asbestos cases, involving 20 plaintiffs, that plead
specified damages against named defendants.  In each of the four
cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages
based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of action.  In
two cases, the plaintiff has alleged three counts at US$3.0 million
compensatory and punitive damages each; one count at US$3.0 million
compensatory and US$1.0 million punitive damages; one count at
US$1.0 million.  In the third case, the plaintiff has alleged
compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of US$20.0
million, for three separate causes of action, and US$5.0 million
compensatory damages for the fifth cause of action.  In the fourth
case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory and punitive damages,
each in the amount of US$10.0 million, for ten separate causes of
action.

"Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-containing
product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries.  We intend
to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe we will
continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases.
However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the
unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation.  Despite this
uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows
for a particular period could be adversely affected by
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management
believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
liquidity or results of operations.  Among the factors management
considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical
success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits on the
bases mentioned above; (b) many cases have been improperly filed
against one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs
have been unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our
products or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been
unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable
injury or compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they
have incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos;
and (e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants
and, in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to
individual defendants.  Additionally, we do not believe that the
amounts claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful
indicators of our potential exposure because the amounts claimed
typically bear no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's injury,
if any.

"Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to date
and, based upon available information, our management does not
expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity or
financial position."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/bGKHga


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Faces 30 Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
A unit of Steel Partners Holdings L.P. is still facing
approximately 30 pending asbestos claims as of September 30, 2020,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2020.

The Company states, "A subsidiary of BNS Holdings Liquidating Trust
("BNS Sub") has been named as a defendant in multiple alleged
asbestos-related toxic-tort claims filed over a period beginning in
1994 through September 30, 2020.  In many cases these claims
involved more than 100 defendants.  There remained approximately 30
pending asbestos claims as of September 30, 2020.

"BNS Sub believes it has significant defenses to any liability for
toxic-tort claims on the merits.  None of these toxic-tort claims
has gone to trial and, therefore, there can be no assurance that
these defenses will prevail.  BNS Sub has insurance policies
covering asbestos-related claims for years beginning 1974 through
1988.  BNS Sub annually receives retroactive billings or credits
from its insurance carriers for any increase or decrease in claims
accruals as claims are filed, settled or dismissed, or as estimates
of the ultimate settlement costs for the then-existing claims are
revised.  As of both September 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, BNS
Sub has accrued US$1,349 relating to the open and active claims
against BNS Sub.  This accrual includes the amount of unpaid
retroactive billings submitted to the Company by the insurance
carriers and also the Company's best estimate of the likely costs
for BNS Sub to settle these claims outside the amounts funded by
insurance.

"There can be no assurance that the number of future claims and the
related costs of defense, settlements or judgments will be
consistent with the experience to-date of existing claims and that
BNS Sub will not need to significantly increase its estimated
liability for the costs to settle these claims to an amount that
could have a material effect on the consolidated financial
statements."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/HNgvAd


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Had 211 PI Lawsuits at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Transocean Ltd. is still facing approximately 211
asbestos-related lawsuits with a corresponding number of plaintiffs
as of September 30, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020.

The Company states, "One of our subsidiaries has been named as a
defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits arising
out of the subsidiary's manufacture and sale of heat exchangers,
and involvement in the construction and refurbishment of major
industrial complexes alleging bodily injury or personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos.

"As of September 30, 2020, the subsidiary was a defendant in
approximately 211 lawsuits with a corresponding number of
plaintiffs.  For many of these lawsuits, we have not been provided
sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine whether all
or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the subsidiary, the
basis of any such claims, or the nature of their alleged injuries.
The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold in 1989.

"In September 2018, the subsidiary and certain insurers agreed to a
settlement of outstanding disputes that leaves the subsidiary with
funding, including cash, annuities and coverage in place
settlement, that we believe will be sufficient to respond to both
the current lawsuits as well as future lawsuits of a similar
nature.  While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the
outcome of these matters, we do not expect the ultimate liability,
if any, resulting from these claims to have a material adverse
effect on our condensed consolidated statement of financial
position, results of operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/aWr2GN


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Had $72.4MM Libby Costs at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. had total estimated liability of US$72.4 million
at September 30, 2020, for response costs related to a vermiculite
mine in Libby, Montana, as well as at vermiculite processing sites
outside of Libby, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020.

The Company states, "Grace purchased a vermiculite mine in Libby,
Montana, in 1963 and operated it until 1990.  Vermiculite
concentrate from the Libby mine was used in the manufacture of
attic insulation and other products.  Some of the vermiculite ore
contained naturally occurring asbestos.

"Grace is engaged with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(the "EPA") and other federal, state, and local governmental
agencies in a remedial investigation and feasibility study
("RI/FS") of the Libby mine and the surrounding area, known as
Operable Unit 3 ("OU3").  The RI/FS will study the specific areas
within OU3 requiring remediation and will identify possible
remedial action alternatives.  Possible remedial actions within OU3
are wide-ranging, from institutional controls such as land use
restrictions, to more active measures involving soil removal,
containment projects, or other protective measures.

"As part of the RI/FS process, Grace contracted an engineering and
consulting firm to develop a range of possible remedial
alternatives and associated cost estimates for OU3.  Based on this
work, Grace recorded a pre-tax charge of US$70.0 million in the
2018 third quarter for the estimated costs of remediation of OU3.
Grace believes that this amount should provide for a protective
remedy meeting the statutory requirements of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.

"The estimated costs of remediation are preliminary and consist of
several components, each of which may vary significantly as the
remedial alternatives are further developed.  It is reasonably
possible that the ultimate costs of remediation could range between
US$30 million and US$170 million.  Grace is working closely with
the EPA, and the ultimate remedy will be determined by the EPA
after the RI/FS is finalized.  Such remedy will be set forth in a
Record of Decision ("ROD") that is currently expected to be issued
by the EPA in 2023.  Costs associated with the more active remedial
alternatives would be expected to be incurred over a decade or
more.  Grace will reevaluate its estimated liability as remedial
alternatives evolve based on further work by the engineering and
consulting firm and discussions with the EPA as the RI/FS process
moves toward a ROD.  Technical memoranda expected prior to the
issuance of the ROD may provide insight into the likely remedial
alternatives ultimately selected, allowing Grace to update its cost
of remediation estimate.  Depending on the remedial alternatives
that the EPA selects in the ROD, the total cost of remediating OU3
may exceed Grace's current estimate by material amounts.

"Grace has cooperated with the EPA in investigating and remediating
a number of formerly owned or operated sites that processed Libby
vermiculite into finished products.  Grace has recorded a liability
for remaining expected response costs, including costs for EPA
oversight and potential future site remediation, where a review has
indicated that liability is probable and the cost is estimable.
The EPA may commence additional investigations in the future at
other sites that processed Libby vermiculite.  Liability for
unaccrued additional investigation and remediation costs is
probable but not yet estimable, and could be material.

"Grace's estimated liability for response costs that are currently
estimable for OU3 and vermiculite processing sites outside of Libby
at September 30, 2020, and December 31, 2019, totaled US$72.4
million and US$76.0 million, respectively.  It is possible that
Grace's ultimate liability for these vermiculite-related matters
will exceed current estimates by material amounts."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Q5JKeS



                            *********

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 ***