---

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

              Thursday, December 10, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 247

                            Headlines

ALASKA COMMUNICATIONS: Court Won't Reconsider Ruling in Peterson
ALIBABA GROUP: Frank R. Cruz Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
ALIBABA GROUP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Jan. 12 Deadline
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Court Dismisses Ortiz ERISA Suit with Prejudice
AVADIM HEALTH: Sanchez Files Fraud Suit in S.D. New York

BAYERISCHE MOTOREN: Rosen Law Reminds of December 28 Deadline
BCBSM INC: Asks Court to Deny Bid for Class Certification
BIOGEN INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Jan. 12 Deadline
BIOGEN INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Jan. 12 Deadline
BIOGEN INC: Schall Law Announces Reminds of Jan. 12 Deadline

BIOMARIN PHARMA: Portnoy Law Reminds of Class Action
CABOT OIL: Robbins Geller Announces Class Action Filing
CABOT OIL: Robbins Geller Announces Class Action Filing
CAMDEN COUNTY: Agrees to $250,000 Convenience Fee Suit Settlement
CELSION CORPORATION: Rosen Law Reminds of December 29 Deadline

CONSECO LIFE: Awaits Final Approval of $27M Burnett Suit Settlement
DR. ERROL GAUM: MacGillivary Law Prepares for Potential Class  Suit
EVOLUS INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds of December 15 Deadline
FEDEX GROUND: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Bachanov Suit
FERRELLGAS INC: Price Suit Settlement Gets Final Court Approval

FIRST AMERICAN: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of Dec. 24 Deadline
FLUIDIGM CORPORATION: Zhang Investor Reminds of Class Action
GENERALI GLOBAL: Cooper Suit removed to N.D. California
GOHEALTH INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Class Action
GOHEALTH INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of November 20 Deadline

GOLAR LNG: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Class Action
GOLAR LNG: Portnoy Law Reminds of November 23 Deadline
GOPRO INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Probes Securities Law Violations
HANNA ANDERSSON: Inks Deal to Settle CCPA Breach Suit
HOOSIER PAPA: Faces Civil Right Suit Filed by Kyles

HOWARD L. NATIONS APC: Gaudet, et al. Seek to Certify Class
HP INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Jan. 4 Deadline
HP INC: Portnoy Law Announces Securities Class Action
INNATE PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Dec. 22 Deadline
INTERCEPT PHARMA: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of January 4 Deadline

INTERCEPT PHARMA: Vincent Wong Reminds of January 4 Deadline
INTERFACE INC: Bragar Eagel Remind of Jan. 11 Deadline
INTERFACE INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Jan. 11 Deadline
INTERFACE INC: Gainey McKenna Announces Securities Class Action
INTERFACE INC: Gainey McKenna Remind of Jan. 11 Deadline

INTERFACE INC: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Jan. 11 Deadline
JOYY INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of Jan. 19 Deadline
JOYY INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of January 19 Deadline
JPMORGAN CHASE: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of December 23 Deadline
JUST ENERGY: NY Federal Judge Pulls Plug on Class Action

K12 INC: Kehoe Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
K12 INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Jan. 19 Deadline
K12 INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Jan. 19 Deadline
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Kirby McInerney Reminds of December 21 Deadline
MARRIOTT INT'L.: Court Narrows Claims in 1st Amended Helman Suit

MDL 2841: Monat Loses Bid to Dismiss Class Claims
MERCEDES- BENZ UK: 1,000 Owners Sue Over Dieselgate in Class Action
NANO-X IMAGING: Bronstein, Gewirtz Reminds of Class Action
NANO-X IMAGING: Zhang Investor Reminds of Nov. 16 Deadline
NEXTCURE INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Nov. 20 Deadline

ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action
PEABODY ENERGY: Portnoy Law Reminds of Class Action
PROGRESSIVE COUNTY: Williams' Bid for Class Certification Denied
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Dec. 29 Deadline
REATA PHARMA: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Class Action

REATA PHARMA: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of December 14 Deadline
RECKITT BENCKISER: California Court Narrows Prescott Suit Claims
ROYAL SEA CRUISES: Court Awards $48,622 Counsel Fee to McCurley
SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: $75,000 Young Suit Settlement Gets Final Nod
SMITH MEDICAL: Pressman Inc. Seeks Final Approval of Settlement

STADION MONEY: Davis Seeks to Certify 2 Classes in ERISA Suit
TACTILE SYSTEMS: Klein Law Reminds of Class Action
THEODORE ROWE: Stout's Bid to Proceed in Forma Pauperis Denied
TURQUOISE HILL: Zhang Investor Reminds of Dec. 14 Deadline
VALEANT PHARMA: Settlement Deal Gets Quebec Superior Court Approval

VALERO MARKETING: Proposed Bautista Class Action Settlement Reached
WELLS FARGO: Court Refuses to Transfer Healy Suit to W.D. Virginia
WELLS FARGO: Pomerantz Law Reminds of December 29 Deadline
WESTJET: Fed. Court Pushes Flight Refund Suit to Provincial Courts
WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Class Action

ZOSANO PHARMA: Klein Law Reminds of December 28 Deadline

                            *********

ALASKA COMMUNICATIONS: Court Won't Reconsider Ruling in Peterson
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Timothy M. Burgess denied the Defendants' motion for
reconsideration in the lawsuit styled LAURA LEE PETERSON,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
ALASKA COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS GROUP, INC. AND ALASKA COMMUNICATIONS
SYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC., d/b/a ALASKA COMMUNICATIONS, Case No.
3:12-cv-00090-TMB-MMS (D. Alaska).

The Defendants asked the Court to reconsider its Order Denying
Defendants' Motion for Clarification. At the request of the Court,
the Plaintiffs filed an Opposition.

The class action lawsuit arises out of alleged violations by the
Defendants of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Alaska Wage and
Hour Act ("AWHA"). Former ACS employee Laura Lee Peterson filed a
wage claim with the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce
Development ("Alaska DOL") in 2011. The Alaska DOL determined that
Peterson was not exempt from the overtime provisions of the AWHA
and was, therefore, entitled to overtime benefits; the Department
declined to comment, however, as to whether Peterson was exempt as
a matter of federal law under the FLSA.

In 2012, Peterson filed the present suit against the Defendants. In
their Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants,
as the Plaintiffs' employer, systematically denied the sales,
service assurance, and marketing employees basic overtime pay
mandated by FLSA and AWHA. The Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants misclassified these employees as exempt from the
benefits of both federal and state overtime laws and forced, and
continue to force, these employees to complete false time sheets
indicating that they do not work overtime hours. The Court
conditionally certified the collective action under the FLSA on
Dec. 17, 2014. On Aug. 28, 2018, the Court granted the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Certification of a Rule 23 Class Action under AWHA.

On Sept. 18, 2020, in advance of the September 30 deadline for
Parties to file final discovery witnesses lists ("FDW Lists"), the
Defendants filed a Motion for Clarification. They moved for orders
on separate issues -- clarification and compelling testimony -- and
the Court granted expedited consideration of the Motion for
Clarification only. The Defendants sought clarification as to the
FDW List requirement in the Scheduling Order and to compel the
Plaintiffs to provide a list identifying those lay witnesses that
the party reasonably believes will testify at trial.

The Defendants were concerned that the Plaintiffs planned to
disclose an overbroad list, not limited to "reasonably known trial
witnesses" or the representative witnesses. They contended that the
Plaintiffs' approach to list any individual they "may wish to call
to testify at trial" would be unduly prejudicial, discourage
efficient litigation management, and potentially delay trial.

The Plaintiffs opposed the Motion for Clarification arguing that
the Defendants' Motion for Clarification was a thinly veiled
attempt to conduct more depositions of absent class members and
collective members and to force Plaintiffs to divulge their final
trial strategy. They asserted that they would comply with the
Federal and Local Civil Rules and name only individuals they
reasonably believed that they may wish to call at trial.

The Court denied the Defendants' Motion for Clarification after
concluding that neither Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 nor
Local Civil Rule 16.1 define the scope of a final discovery witness
list. It further stated that the Plaintiffs represent that they
intend to comply with the local requirements of a good faith effort
at identifying those lay witnesses that the party reasonably
believes will testify at trial and without the final list in hand,
Defendants can only speculate as to who Plaintiffs will identify.
Thus, the Court concluded, ruling on whether the Plaintiffs'
anticipated witness list will comply with the Federal and Local
Civil Rules is premature.

On Sept. 30, 2020, both Parties filed their FDW Lists. The
Plaintiffs' List included 74 class members and 34 non-class
members, who are current and former ACS employees, and the
Plaintiffs reserved the right to call any witnesses identified by
the Defendants in their FDW List or trial witness lists. The
Defendants' List included 43 potential witnesses -- among them
class members, current and former ACS managers, other ACS
personnel, and Department of Labor and Workforce Development
personnel -- and the Defendants similarly reserved the right to
call any individuals about whom the Defendants become are during
the course of further discovery and any individual identified in
the Plaintiffs' FDW List. The Defendants then filed the present
Motion for Reconsideration under Alaska Local Rule 7.3(h)(1)(B),26
and the Plaintiffs' filed their Opposition.

The Defendants request that the Plaintiffs be ordered to narrow
their FDW List to those witnesses the class counsel truly expects
to call at trial and thereby enable them to assess its remaining
merits discovery needs in time to have addressed them by the
November 13 discovery deadline. At the Court's direction, the
Plaintiffs filed a response to the Defendants' Motion in which the
Plaintiffs argue their FDW List comports with the requirements of
Local Rule 16.1(c), the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the
guidance provided in the 26(f) Report.

The Court notes that the purportedly new material fact not
previously available and, thus, warranting reconsideration by the
Court is the FDW List submitted by the Plaintiff. Admittedly, the
Plaintiffs' FDW List is quite long and likely overly inclusive.
However, given the nature of the class action suit, and given that
the Court has not decided whether representative sampling may be
used in this case to determine damages and that individual class
member testimony may be appropriate to establish each individual's
damages, the Plaintiffs' FDW List does not clearly violate the
Local and Civil Rules. It is not improper to designate all class
members who may reasonably testify. Moreover, an underinclusive
list at this stage could prove more prejudicial to the Defendants
in the long run, Judge Burgess opines.

Accordingly, the Motion for Reconsideration is denied. The Court
states that the Defendants have not shown that there is any error
of fact or law in the Court's decision.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 3, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y6fuexup from Leagle.com.


ALIBABA GROUP: Frank R. Cruz Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York captioned Ciccarello v. Alibaba Group
Holding Limited, et al., (Case No. 1:20-cv-09568) onbehalf of
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Alibaba
Group Holding Limited ("Alibaba" or the "Company") (NYSE:
securities between October 21, 2020 and November 3, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act").

Alibaba is an online and mobile commerce company. Alibaba owns a
33% equity interest in Ant Small and Micro Financial Services Group
Co., Ltd. ("Ant Group"), a financial technology company that is
best known for operating Alipay, one of the largest mobile and
online payments platforms.

On July 20, 2020, Ant Group announced that it had begun the process
of a concurrent initial public offering ("IPO") on the Shanghai and
Hong Kong stock exchanges.

On October 26, 2020, Ant Group priced its IPO and was set to raise
$34.5 billion, making it the largest public offering in history.

On November 2, 2020, Financial Times reported that Chinese
regulators had met with Ant Group's controller Jack Ma, executive
chairman Eric Jing, Chief Executive Officer Simon Hu. The article
stated that, though regulators did not provide details, "the
Chinese word used to describe the interview – yuetan –
generally indicates a dressing down by authorities." The article
also included a statement from Ant Group that it will "implement
the meeting opinions in depth."

On November 3, 2020, the IPO was suspended because Ant Group "may
not meet listing qualifications or disclosure requirements due to
material matters" related to the meeting with regulators the
previous day and "the recent changes in the Fintech regulatory
environment."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $25.27, or 8%, to
close at $285.57 per share on November 3, 2020, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Ant Group did not meet listing qualifications
or disclosure requirements for certain material matters; (2) that
certain impending changes in the Fintech regulatory environment
would impact Ant Group's business; (3) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Ant Group's IPO was reasonably likely to be suspended;
and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased Alibaba securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this
notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a
member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you
may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the Class. If you purchased Mesoblast securities,
have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or
have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact 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]

ALIBABA GROUP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Jan. 12 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Alibaba Group Holding
Limited. 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.

BABA Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/alibaba-group-holding-limited-loss-submission-form?prid=11104&wire=1

Alibaba Group Holding Limited (NYSE:BABA)

BABA Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased October 21, 2020
- November 3, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 12, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/alibaba-group-holding-limited-loss-submission-form?prid=11104&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Alibaba
Group Holding Limited made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Ant Small and Micro
Financial Services Group Co., Ltd. ("Ant Group"), a financial
technology company in which Alibaba owns a 33% equity interest, did
not meet listing qualifications or disclosure requirements for
certain material matters; (2) certain impending changes in the
Fintech regulatory environment would impact Ant Group's business;
(3) as a result of the foregoing, Ant Group's initial public
offering was reasonably likely to be suspended; and (4) as a result
of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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

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

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Court Dismisses Ortiz ERISA Suit with Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SALVADORA ORTIZ AND THOMAS SCOTT, ON BEHALF OF
THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 4:16-CV-151-A
(N.D. Tex.), Judge John McBride of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, granted the
motions for summary judgment filed by Defendants American Airlines
and The American Airlines Pension Asset Administration Committee,
and by American Airlines Federal Credit Union.

The action was initiated on Feb. 10, 2016, by Ortiz and Scott, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, by the filing
of a "Class Action Complaint (ERISA)" naming as Defendants
American, Committee, and Credit Union.

The Plaintiffs alleged that in filing the action, they were acting
as representatives of a 401(k)3 retirement plan for employees of
participating AMR Corporation subsidiaries as authorized by
Sections 502(a)(2) and (3) of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended, ("ERISA").  Each Defendant was
alleged to be a fiduciary as to the Plan and its participants, and
each allegedly violated fiduciary duties owed to the Plan and its
participants.  Each named Plaintiff was a participant in the Plan,
and has owned, directly or indirectly, an interest in the Plan's
investment option that is referred to in the complaint as the
American Airlines Credit Union Demand Deposit Fund ("AA Credit
Union Fund").

In addition to asserting actions on behalf of the Plan, the
Plaintiffs alleged class action facts on behalf of all participants
and beneficiaries of the Plan who invested directly or indirectly
in the AA Credit Union Fund at any time from Feb. 12, 2010, through
the date of the judgment in this action (excluding certain
categories of persons).

The Defendants violated their fiduciary duties by having the AA
Credit Union Fund as the only Plan investment option that would
qualify as an income-producing, low-risk, liquid fund.  The AA
Credit Union Fund produced extremely poor investment returns.  The
return on the AA Credit Union Fund was at all material times less
than a poorly managed checking account.  At the same time that the
AA Credit Union Fund was providing the Plan participants who
invested in it the meager returns, checking accounts offered by
Credit Union to its depositors paid better returns than those
earned by the Plan participants who elected to invest in the AA
Credit Union Fund.   Had the Defendants properly performed their
fiduciary obligations to the Plan and its participants, the
income-producing, low-risk, liquid fund option would have been, or
included, an option known as a stable value fund.

At all relevant times, Credit Union held $1 billion in Plan assets
in the AA Credit Union Fund, which is a demand deposit account, for
which it had a fiduciary obligation to pay a reasonable rate of
interest.  Rather than to pay a reasonable rate of interest to the
Plan participants who elected to invest in the AA Credit Union
Fund, Credit Union used the $1 billion in Plan assets it held as
investments by Plan participants to provide loans to members of
Credit Union and to make other investments for which it earned
substantial income, which, in turn, permitted Credit Union to offer
substantially higher interest rates on similar demand deposit
accounts to customers other than the Plan participants who invested
in the AA Credit Union Fund.  Credit Union should have paid to
plaintiffs in the proposed class at least the same rate of interest
it was offering to its other customers, asserts the complaint.

Consequently, Credit Union is liable under 28 U.S.C. 1109(a) to
make good to the Plan any losses to the Plan resulting from Credit
Union's breach of fiduciary duty in failing to pay to the Plan
participants a reasonable rate of return on investments they made
in the AA Credit Union Fund option. American and Committee share
with Credit Union, as co-fiduciaries, liability under 29 U.S.C.
Section 1105 (a) for those losses by reason of having participated
in Credit Union's breach of fiduciary duty, knowing that Credit
Union's conduct was such a breach, by failing to take reasonable
efforts under the circumstances to remedy the breach and by reason
of ERISA Section 406(a), which prohibits transactions between the
Plan and a party-in-interest.

The Plaintiffs alleged three causes of action.  First, in Count I,
they alleged that American and Committee violated their fiduciary
duties of loyalty and prudence by failing to remove the AA Credit
Union Fund option from the Plan, as the Plan's income producing,
low risk, liquid fund.  Second, in Count II, they asserted that the
Credit Union breached its duty of loyalty by dealing with Plan
assets for its own account.  And, third, in Count III, they
asserted that American and Committee engaged in a transaction
prohibited by ERISA by allowing Plan assets to be invested in AA
Credit Union Fund's demand deposit account.

In May 2016, American and Committee filed a motion to dismiss.
Credit Union filed a motion to dismiss in May 2016 for failure to
state a claim. On Nov. 6, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed their
consolidated opposition to the motions to dismiss.  Summed up, they
vigorously maintained that they had alleged facts that plausibly
stated causes of action against each of the defendants.  

By order issued Nov. 27, 2017, the Court denied both of the motions
to dismiss, noting that it is satisfied that the Plaintiffs have
met their pleading burden and that the arguments the Defendants
make go to the merits of the claims and would more properly be
presented by motions for summary judgment.

On July 1, 2020, the Court issued an order denying the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification, and expressed the conclusion that
it is satisfied that the Plaintiffs filed the action on behalf of
the retirement plan in question pursuant to the authority of 29
U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(2) & (3) and that there is no need for them
to proceed as representatives of a class.

In their joint motion for summary judgment, American and Committee
based their request for summary judgment on several grounds,
including that (i) the Plaintiffs lack article iii standing to
bring their imprudence claim because they have failed to establish
that they suffered an injury in fact; (ii) their challenge to the
initial selection of the Credit Union option is time-barred; and
(iii) undisputed facts preclude the Plaintiffs from establishing
that the credit union option was an unreasonable retirement
investment vehicle, and thus that the fiduciaries improperly
retained it.

Credit Union filed its motion for summary judgment on July 3, 2020.
It urges as grounds for its motion each of the following: (i) it
is entitled to summary judgment on Count II because the Plaintiffs
lack Article III standing to bring they have failed to establish
that they suffered an injury in fact; (ii) it is entitled to
summary judgment on Count II because it is not a fiduciary for the
purposes alleged in the complaint; (iii) it is entitled to summary
judgment on Count II because it did not use Plan assets for its own
interest or its own accounts in violation of 29 U.S.C. Section
1106(b)(1); and (iv) it is entitled to summary judgment on Count II
because its above-average dividends show its returns were
reasonable.

The Plaintiffs' amended opposition to the joint motion of American
and Committee was filed July 21, 2020.  Basically, they responded
by arguing that, at the least, the summary judgment presents issues
of fact to be decided by the jury as to each of the factors upon
which the Defendants relied in support of their motions.  The
Plaintiffs added that the limitations ground of the motion of
American and Committee is unfounded because of the ongoing duty of
a fiduciary to exercise proper care relative to investment options
and that American and Committee relied on the wrong standard
concerning co-fiduciary liability.

Judge McBride finds that, the Plaintiffs' complaint, as he
understands it, is that during the six years preceding the filing
of the action, American and Committee persisted in what the
Plaintiffs have characterized as breaches of their fiduciary duties
by continuing to have as an investment option the AA Credit Union
Fund option and/or by failing to add to the investment options as
an income-producing low-risk, liquid fund option a more financially
productive option such as a stable value fund.  He concludes that
the Plaintiffs are correct in claiming that American and Committee
have had such an ongoing and continuing fiduciary obligation, and
that the time-bar ground is without merit.

The Plaintiffs claim that the Credit Union breached its fiduciary
duties by using Plan assets for its own benefit and failing to pay
a reasonable rate of interest on the AA Credit Union Fund.  Despite
the Credit Union's arguments to the contrary, the Judge is
satisfied that the Plaintiffs have established standing in that
regard.  The Plaintiffs invested in the AA Credit Union Fund; they
contend that they should have received a higher rate of interest
and that they have been damaged by receiving a lower rate; and, if
they prevail, their injuries will be redressed.

Judge McBride then finds that the Plaintiffs do not contend that
the Credit Union is or became a named fiduciary.  They have not
shown that it is a functional fiduciary.  Further, they have not
shown that the Credit Union owed them a duty to pay them more than
the AA Credit Union Fund rate.  There is no evidence that Credit
Union manipulated the rate of return on the AA Credit Union Fund to
benefit itself at the expense of the Plaintiffs or the Plan.
Finally, their argument that the Credit Union dealt in Plan assets
for its own interest exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of the
nature of depositary agreements and duties of a financial
institution. The Plaintiffs have not shown that the Credit Union's
investing of amounts deposited was improper or a violation of any
duty owed to them or the Plan.

Inasmuch as Credit Union was not a plan fiduciary for purposes of
the Plaintiffs' claims, the provision simply does not apply.
Further, the statute does not support vicarious liability, and the
Plaintiffs have not come forward with evidence to show that
American and Committee knew that Credit Union's conduct constituted
a fiduciary breach in any event.

Finally, in Count III of their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege
that American and Committee engaged in a prohibited transaction
under ERISA Section 406(a).  They made no response to the ground of
the summary judgment motion urging that they could not establish
the claim.  Apparently, they intend to abandon it.  The Plaintiffs
have not shown that the interest earned on the AA Credit Union Fund
was not reasonable when compared to similar demand deposit
accounts.

Based on the foregoing, Judge McBride granted the Defendants'
motions for summary judgment.  The Plaintiffs take nothing on their
claims against the Defendants.  Their claims are dismissed with
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 5, 2020 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y489e8en from Leagle.com.

AVADIM HEALTH: Sanchez Files Fraud Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Avadim Health, Inc.
The case is styled as Luz Sanchez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Avadim Health, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-10272 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 6, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Avadim Health, Inc. -- https://avadimhealth.com/ -- operates as a
health and wellness company. The Company sells topical products to
improve immune health, neuromuscular health and skin barrier
health.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          505 Northern Boulevard, Suite 311
          Great Neck, NY 11024
          Phone: (516) 303-0552
          Fax: (516) 234-7800
          Email: Spencer@spencersheehan.com


BAYERISCHE MOTOREN: Rosen Law Reminds of December 28 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (OTC:
BMWYY, BAMXF) between November 3, 2015 and September 24, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important December 28, 2020
lead plaintiff deadline in the first filed securities class action
commenced by the firm. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for BMW
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the BMW class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1749.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) BMW kept a "bank" of retail vehicle sales that it used to
meet internal monthly sales targets regardless of when the sales
actually occurred; (2) BMW artificially manipulated sales figures
by having dealers register cars as sold when the cars were still in
inventory; (3) as a result, BMW's key operating metrics were
inaccurate and misleading; and (4) as a result, defendants'
statements about BMW's business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis
at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market,
the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December
28, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1749.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]



BCBSM INC: Asks Court to Deny Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.P. and M.K.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BCBSM, Inc., d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota, Case
No. 0:18-cv-03472-MJD-DTS (D. Minn.), the Defendant asks the Court
for an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

The Defendant said, "The Plaintiffs cannot establish multiple
elements necessary for class certification. Proof of their own
claims will not prove the claims of other class members. They are
not adequate or typical representatives. And they satisfy none of
the [Fed.R.Civ.P.] 23(b) subsections."

According to the Defendant, the Plaintiffs contend the case is
simply about the meaning of 17 words in their Summary Plan
Description (SPD): "Payments made in error or overpayments may be
recovered by the Claims Administrator as provided by law." Relying
on that simplistic view, the Plaintiffs gloss over the complexities
that preclude class certification. Most notably, those 17 SPD words
alone do not control the outcome. The SPD does not create legal
rights, the Defendants argued. If the SPD conflicts with the plan,
then the plan controls. And an SPD must be construed in light of
other plan documents. Because class members have varying plan
documents, even if they have the same SPD language, the Plaintiffs
cannot answer the key question with common evidence, the Defendant
said.

The Plaintiffs propose a class consisting of:

   "persons "who are covered under any ERISA-governed health
   benefit plan insured and/or administered by Blue Cross
   against whom Blue Cross offset covered charges," based on
   particular SPD language."

In this case, discovery recently revealed that the charges against
which Blue Cross applied offsets were not covered charges because
the provider was not properly licensed to provide those services to
J.P., M.K., or L.P.

Bolton & Menk self-insures a health benefit plan that it offers to
its employees, and hired Blue Cross to administer the plan.

The Plaintiff J.P. is an employee of Bolton & Menk covered under
the plan as the subscriber or contract holder. J.P.'s wife, M.K.,
and his daughter, L.P., are also covered under the plan.

A copy of the Blue Cross's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification dated Nov. 23, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2L3oZ6Z at no extra charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joel A. Mintzer, Esq.
          Doreen A. Mohs, Esq.
          BCBSM, INC.
          3535 Blue Cross Road
          Eagan, MN 55122
          Telephone: (651) 662-6383
          E-mail: joel.mintzer@bluecrossmn.com
                  doreen.mohs@bluecrossmn.com

               - and -

          David M. Wilk, Esq.
          LARSON KING, LLP
          2800 Wells Fargo Place
          30 East Seventh Street
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 312-6500
          E-mail: dwilk@larsonking.com

BIOGEN INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Jan. 12 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
securities of Biogen Inc. ("Biogen" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
BIIB) from October 22, 2019 through November 6, 2020 (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the larger dataset did not provide necessary data
regarding aducanumab's effectiveness; (2) the EMERGE study did not
and would not provide necessary data regarding aducanumab's
effectiveness; (3) the PRIME study did not and would not provide
necessary data regarding aducanumab's effectiveness; (4) the data
provided by the Company to the FDA's Peripheral and Central Nervous
System Drug Advisory Committee did not support finding efficacy of
aducanumab; and (5) 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.

On November 6, 2020, Reuters published an article entitled "U.S.
FDA panel votes cannot ignore unsuccessful trial data on Biogen
Alzheimer's drug" which provided information regarding the FDA
panel's votes.

On this news, Biogen's stock price fell $92.64 per share, or 28%,
to close at $236.26 per share on November 9, 2020, the next trading
day, damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 12, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Biogen securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/biogeninc-biib-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-332/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

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

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


BIOGEN INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Jan. 12 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Biogen Inc. (NASDAQ: BIIB), between October 22, 2019
and November 6, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Biogen investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the Biogen class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1981.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) the larger dataset did not provide necessary data
regarding aducanumab's effectiveness; (2) the EMERGE study did not
and would not provide necessary data regarding aducanumab's
effectiveness; (3) the PRIME study did not and would not provide
necessary data regarding aducanumab's effectiveness; (4) the data
provided by the Company to the FDA's Peripheral and Central Nervous
System Drugs Advisory Committee did not support finding efficacy of
aducanumab; and (5) 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.
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 January
12, 2021. 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-1981.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]

BIOGEN INC: Schall Law Announces Reminds of Jan. 12 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Biogen Inc.
("Biogen" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: BIIB) for violations of
Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between October
22, 2019 and November 6, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before January 12, 2021.

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. Biogen's larger dataset failed to provide
necessary information on aducanumab's effectiveness. The Company's
EMERGE study also failed to include necessary data on its
effectiveness. This failure extended to the Company's PRIME study
of aducanumab. The Company's submission to the FDA Peripheral and
Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee did not support the
efficacy of the drug. 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 Biogen,
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]

BIOMARIN PHARMA: Portnoy Law Reminds of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of BioMarin Pharmaceutical, Inc. (NYSE:
BMRN) investors that acquired shares between February 28, 2020 and
August 18, 2020. Investors had until November 24, 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.

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

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
24, 2020.

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]


CABOT OIL: Robbins Geller Announces Class Action Filing
-------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
(https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-cabot-oil-gas-corporation-class-action-lawsuit.html)
announced that it filed a class action on behalf of an
institutional investor seeking to represent purchasers of Cabot Oil
& Gas Corporation (NYSE:COG) common stock during the period between
October 23, 2015 and June 12, 2020 (the "Class Period"). This
action was filed in the Middle District of Pennsylvania and is
captioned Delaware County Employees Retirement System v. Cabot Oil
& Gas Corporation, No. 20-cv-1815. This notice is made pursuant to
the Court's November 12, 2020 Memorandum requiring publication of a
new notice. ECF No. 16.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Cabot Oil stock during the Class Period to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Cabot Oil class action
lawsuit. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members
in directing the Cabot Oil class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff
can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Cabot Oil class
action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential
future recovery of the Cabot Oil class action lawsuit is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as
lead plaintiff in the Cabot Oil class action lawsuit, you must move
the Court no later than 60 days from November 13, 2020. If you wish
to discuss the Cabot Oil class action lawsuit or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller, at
800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com.
You can view a copy of the complaint as filed at
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-cabot-oil-gas-corporation-class-action-lawsuit.html.

The Cabot Oil class action lawsuit charges Cabot Oil and certain of
its officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Cabot Oil is an independent oil and gas company that explores
for, exploits, develops, produces, and markets oil and gas
properties in the United States, with a primary focus on the
Marcellus Shale in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) Cabot Oil had inadequate environmental controls and
procedures and/or failed to properly mitigate known issues related
to those controls and procedures; (ii) Cabot Oil failed to fix
faulty gas wells that were polluting Pennsylvania's water supplies
through stray gas migration; and (iii) Cabot Oil continually
downplayed its potential civil and/or criminal liabilities with
respect to environmental matters. These issues were foreseeably
likely to subject Cabot Oil to increased governmental scrutiny and
enforcement, as well as increased reputational and financial harm,
and would also materially impact Cabot Oil's financial results.
Defendants' false statements and omissions caused Cabot Oil stock
to trade at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class
Period.

On July 26, 2019, Cabot Oil filed its quarterly report on Form 10-Q
with the SEC for the quarter ended June 30, 2019. The Form 10-Q
disclosed that the Company had received two proposed Consent Order
and Agreements related to two Notices of Violation it had received
from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection two
years earlier (in June and November 2017) for failure to prevent
the migration of gas into fresh groundwater sources in the area
surrounding Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania. As a result of this
news, the price of Cabot Oil stock declined 12%.

Then, on June 15, 2020, following a grand jury investigation, the
Pennsylvania Attorney General's office charged Cabot Oil with 15
criminal counts due to its failure to fix the faulty gas wells that
had polluted Pennsylvania's water supplies through stray gas
migration. In announcing the charges, Pennsylvania's Attorney
General, Josh Shapiro, emphasized that defendants '"put their
bottom line ahead of the health and safety of our neighbors'" and
that '"Cabot knows what they've done.'" On this news, the price of
Cabot Oil stock declined more than 3%.

The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.

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

CABOT OIL: Robbins Geller Announces Class Action Filing
-------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
(https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-cabot-oil-gas-corporation-class-action-lawsuit.html)
announced that it filed a class action on behalf of an
institutional investor seeking to represent purchasers of Cabot Oil
& Gas Corporation (NYSE:COG) common stock during the period between
October 23, 2015 and June 12, 2020 (the "Class Period"). This
action was filed in the Middle District of Pennsylvania and is
captioned Delaware County Employees Retirement System v. Cabot Oil
& Gas Corporation, No. 20-cv-1815. This notice is made pursuant to
the Court's November 12, 2020 Memorandum requiring publication of a
new notice. ECF No. 16.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Cabot Oil stock during the Class Period to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Cabot Oil class action
lawsuit. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members
in directing the Cabot Oil class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff
can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Cabot Oil class
action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential
future recovery of the Cabot Oil class action lawsuit is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as
lead plaintiff in the Cabot Oil class action lawsuit, you must move
the Court no later than 60 days from November 13, 2020. If you wish
to discuss the Cabot Oil class action lawsuit or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller, at
800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com.
You can view a copy of the complaint as filed at
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-cabot-oil-gas-corporation-class-action-lawsuit.html.

The Cabot Oil class action lawsuit charges Cabot Oil and certain of
its officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Cabot Oil is an independent oil and gas company that explores
for, exploits, develops, produces, and markets oil and gas
properties in the United States, with a primary focus on the
Marcellus Shale in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) Cabot Oil had inadequate environmental controls and
procedures and/or failed to properly mitigate known issues related
to those controls and procedures; (ii) Cabot Oil failed to fix
faulty gas wells that were polluting Pennsylvania's water supplies
through stray gas migration; and (iii) Cabot Oil continually
downplayed its potential civil and/or criminal liabilities with
respect to environmental matters. These issues were foreseeably
likely to subject Cabot Oil to increased governmental scrutiny and
enforcement, as well as increased reputational and financial harm,
and would also materially impact Cabot Oil's financial results.
Defendants' false statements and omissions caused Cabot Oil stock
to trade at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class
Period.

On July 26, 2019, Cabot Oil filed its quarterly report on Form 10-Q
with the SEC for the quarter ended June 30, 2019. The Form 10-Q
disclosed that the Company had received two proposed Consent Order
and Agreements related to two Notices of Violation it had received
from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection two
years earlier (in June and November 2017) for failure to prevent
the migration of gas into fresh groundwater sources in the area
surrounding Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania. As a result of this
news, the price of Cabot Oil stock declined 12%.

Then, on June 15, 2020, following a grand jury investigation, the
Pennsylvania Attorney General's office charged Cabot Oil with 15
criminal counts due to its failure to fix the faulty gas wells that
had polluted Pennsylvania's water supplies through stray gas
migration. In announcing the charges, Pennsylvania's Attorney
General, Josh Shapiro, emphasized that defendants '"put their
bottom line ahead of the health and safety of our neighbors'" and
that '"Cabot knows what they've done.'" On this news, the price of
Cabot Oil stock declined more than 3%.

The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.

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

CAMDEN COUNTY: Agrees to $250,000 Convenience Fee Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courier Post Online reports that Camden County has agreed to pay
$250,000 to end a dispute over a $2 charge.

A class-action lawsuit had demanded refunds for people and
businesses who paid a "convenience fee" imposed by the County
Clerk's Office for more than 2 1/2 years.

The lawsuit argued the fee, which generated about $214,000 for the
clerk's office, was illegal.

The county's decision to settle the suit will only provide partial
refunds to customers, however.

About $83,000 of the payment will go to a Marlton law firm that
brought the suit against Camden County. The firm -- DeNittis
Osefchen Prince, P.C. -- has filed similar actions against eight
other counties across New Jersey.

Camden County freeholders have ratified a $250,000 settlement of a
lawsuit over $2 fees formerly charged by the County Clerk's
Office.

"It's an extremely fair result," asserted attorney Joseph Osefchen,
who said Camden County had charged the contested fee "for a long
time" - from Aug. 15, 2016, to April 1, 2019.

Camden County freeholders ratified the settlement at their Nov. 12
meeting.

"The county, like several other counties, was under the belief that
the use of the fee was statutory," Dan Keashen, a spokesman for
Camden County, said.

"That said, based on the decision by the court we will be refunding
the charge to users," he said.

Camden County suspended its fee two months after a state appeals
court ruled a similar charge in Essex County was illegal.

The court's decision said the fee, which was charged for electronic
filings of real estate transactions, had never been authorized by
the state Legislature.

The settlement includes no admission of liability by Camden
County.

The agreement, drafted by both parties, describes the payments as
"a negotiated compromise that defendants have agreed to solely to
resolve this litigation along with its associated costs and
uncertainties."

Most of the class members are businesses that handle real estate
transactions for buyers and sellers, such as title companies and
law firms, said Osefchen.

A Moorestown woman, Brieanne Pearson, is to receive $5,000 as the
lead plaintiff in the suit against Camden County.

Pearson is to receive $3,000 for serving a similar role in the suit
against Cape May County. A settlement in that case calls for a
payment of $63,000, according to a court filing.

Settlements also have been agreed to in suits against Atlantic,
Ocean and Passaic counties, court records show.

Overall, agreements call for the five counties to spend about
$700,000 to settle cases filed over fees totaling some $550,000,
court records show.

Of that amount, about $234,000 will go to the Marlton law firm and
up to $82,000 will be provided for administrative fees.

Incentive awards to lead plaintiffs would total $15,000.

Class-action suits over the convenience fees are pending against
four other counties — Essex, Mercer, Middlesex and Monmouth.
[GN]


CELSION CORPORATION: Rosen Law Reminds of December 29 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Celsion Corporation (NASDAQ: CLSN)
between November 2, 2015 and July 10, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important December 29, 2020 lead plaintiff
deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for Celsion investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the Celsion class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1978.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) defendants had significantly overstated the efficacy of
ThermoDox; (2) the foregoing significantly diminished the approval
and commercialization prospects for ThermoDox; and (3) as a result,
defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market,
the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December
29, 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-1978.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]

CONSECO LIFE: Awaits Final Approval of $27M Burnett Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing of the Class Action Settlement Agreement and
Release in the case captioned WILLIAM JEFFREY BURNETT, JOE H. CAMP,
Plaintiffs, v. CONSECO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY n/k/a Wilco Life Ins.
Co, CNO FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., CDOC INC, CNO SERVICES LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00200-JPH-DML (S.D. Ind.), was to take
place last Dec. 3, 2020 at 1:30 p.m., in Room 246, United States
Courthouse, 46 East Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Plaintiffs Jeffrey Burnett and Camp -- former holders of
"LifeTrend" life insurance policies -- allege that the Defendants
breached their Policies by announcing and implementing changes in
the calculation of Policy premiums and expense charges that caused
thousands of policyholders to surrender their Policies.

On Oct. 5, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed their original complaint in
the Central District of California against Defendants Conseco Life
and CNO Services, LLC.  They allege that Conseco Life announced
that individual LifeTrend policyholders could no longer maintain
their Policies without paying substantial new premiums and charges
as part of a "shock lapse" strategy designed to induce
policyholders to give up their Policies.

In November 2012, the Judicial panel on Multidistrict Litigation
conditionally transferred the case to the Northern District of
California.  The LifeTrend MDL encompassed several lawsuits brought
by several different plaintiffs.  One of the cases, Brady v.
Conseco Life Insurance Co., No. 08-cv-5746 (N.D. Cal.), was filed
on behalf of almost all LifeTrend policyholders -- including
policyholders who had retained their policies as well as
policyholders who had surrendered their policies.

In December 2011, the MDL Court held that former policyholders no
longer could be included in the Brady Rule 23(b)(2) class because
former policyholders had no standing to seek declaratory or
injunctive relief, and because the damages they sought were not
incidental to injunctive relief.  Former policyholders were
thereafter removed from the Brady class.

In November 2013, the MDL Court approved the Brady settlement and
certified two settlement classes -- a Rule 23(b)(1) and (2) class
of "In Force Policyholders" and a Rule 23(b)(3) class of "Lapsed
Policyholders.  The Brady Lapsed Policyholders class included
approximately 190 former policyholders whose Policies had
"lapsed."

In April 2015, the MDL Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6).  It also dismissed the Burnett Plaintiffs' claims against
the CNO Defendants because those claims derived from the Burnett
Plaintiffs' claims against Conseco Life.

In May 2017, the Ninth Circuit reversed the MDL Court's dismissal
of the complaint and remanded the case to the MDL Court.  In
September 2017, the Northern District of California remanded the
case back to the Central District of California.  In January 2018,
the case was transferred to the district.  In April 2018, the
Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.  In September
2019, the Plaintiffs moved for class certification, and
subsequently, on March 20, 2020, the Court granted Conseco Life's
request to withdraw its motion to dismiss and the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

On April 10, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement.  The proposed class Plaintiffs
are Burnett and Camp.  The proposed class includes all Persons who
owned a LifeTrend 3 Policy or LifeTrend 4 Policy that was
surrendered or lapsed on or after Oct. 1, 2008 and before June 30,
2013.  However, the Class does not include LifeTrend 3 Policies or
LifeTrend 4 Policies included in the class action settlement in a
separate lawsuit known as Brady v. Conseco Life Insurance Company,
Inc., et al., No. 3:08-CV-5746 (N.D. Cal).

The Plaintiffs have submitted to the Court a 53-page Proposed
Settlement Agreement that would resolve their claims against
Conseco Life.  The Plaintiffs seek preliminary approval of a
proposed settlement agreement and release with only Conseco Life,
preliminary designation of the Plaintiffs as the class
representatives, preliminary appointment of the class counsel,
preliminary appointment of a settlement administrator, and notice
directed to all the class members who would be bound by the
Proposed Settlement Agreement.

Conseco Life has filed its joinder in support of settlement
approval.  No party has opposed the motion.

Under the Agreement, the CNO Defendants are not parties to or
beneficiaries of the agreement, and nothing in the agreement will
impair any rights of the Plaintiffs to prosecute Claims in the
Action or otherwise against the CNO Financial Group, Inc. and CNO
Services LLC.

Conseco Life will pay $27 million in cash to settle the claims of
the Class.  No Class member will receive less than $500.  The
amount distributed to the Class will be reduced by the proportional
pro rata share of the Settlement Fund attributable to any Opt-Outs.
No portion of the Settlement Fund will revert to Conseco Life.
Notices will be mailed to the Class members within 30 days after
the Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary class
approval.  Conseco Life reserves the right to withdraw from the
Proposed Settlement Agreement if the number of Class Policies
requested to be excluded from the Class by opt-out is more than
150.  

The class members may opt-out of the Class by serving written
requests for exclusion up to 28 days before the Fairness Hearing.
They may object to the Proposed Settlement Agreement by filing and
serving written objections up to 28 days before the Fairness
Hearing.

The Settlement Administrator will distribute the Net Settlement
Fund in two distributions.  Any portion of the Net Settlement Fund
that remains unclaimed after the Second Distribution, as well as
any funds that are not distributed to Opt-Outs in satisfaction of
individual settlements or judgments, will be used to fund a cy pres
award to the National Consumer Law Center, or alternatively to
another recipient designated by the Court.

Once the settlement becomes final and Conseco Life funds the
Settlement Fund, the Plaintiffs and the Class members will release
any and all claims against Conseco Life (and certain related
individuals and entities) based on the LifeTrend Policies.

No attorneys' fees, expenses, or Class representative awards will
be distributed out of the Settlement Fund without the Court's
approval, and the total expenses to be withdrawn from the
Settlement Fund will not exceed $1.25 million.  The Plaintiffs may
seek a reasonable portion of the settlement fund to be set aside
for litigation costs, attorneys' fees, and Class representative
incentive awards.

Judge James Patrick Hanlon of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Preliminary Approval, and the Defendants' motion for joinder, in an
order entered on July 22, 2020, a full-text copy of which is
available at https://is.gd/0a5cEk from Leagle.com.  

He preliminarily appointed Donlin Recano & Company, Inc. to serve
as the Settlement Administrator.  Donlin Recano was responsible for
disseminating Class Notice and for undertaking all Settlement
Administrator duties contemplated by the Proposed Settlement
Agreement prior to the Court's grant or denial of final approval of
the Proposed Settlement Agreement.

The Judge preliminarily certified the proposed Class, designated
Plaintiffs William Jeffrey Burnett and Joe H. Camp as the
Settlement Class Representatives, and appointed the following
attorneys as Class Counsel: Stephen A. Weisbrod, Shelli L. Calland,
Derek Sugimura, Tamra B. Ferguson, Saul Cohen, Kathleen DeLaney.

The Proposed Settlement Agreement was preliminarily approved as
sufficiently fair and reasonable to warrant sending notice to the
Class preliminarily certified for settlement purposes.  The
Plaintiffs and Donlin Recano were also directed to give notice to
the class as set forth in the Proposed Settlement Agreement.  The
Plaintiffs will file proof by affidavit of the distribution of the
Class Notice at or before the Fairness Hearing.

Any attorneys hired by individual members of the Class for the
purpose of objecting to the Proposed Settlement Agreement will file
with the Clerk of the Court and serve on the Class Counsel and
Conseco Life's counsel a notice of appearance prior to the Fairness
Hearing.

Class members who object to the settlement and who wish to exclude
themselves were ordered to follow the procedure as outlined in the
Proposed Settlement Agreement.  The Class Counsel and Conseco
Life's counsel were to promptly furnish each other with copies of
any and all objections and requests for exclusion that come into
their possession.

Discovery as to Conseco Life, Wilton Re, and their current
employees is limited except within the parameters of the Proposed
Settlement Agreement Section 8.13 as needed in connection with the
prosecution of Claims in the action against the CNO Defendants and
after first seeking any requested information from the CNO
Defendants.

The Judge adopted the following settlement procedure:

      a. Mailing of Class Notice - 30 days after entry of the Order


      b. Motion for Final Approval - 60 days after entry of the
Order

      c. Deadline for requests for exclusion from the class - 28
days before the Fairness Hearing

      d. Deadline for objections - 28 days before the Fairness
Hearing

      e. Reply in Support of Motion for Final Approval - 7 days
before the Fairness Hearing

      f. Fairness Hearing - Dec. 3, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 246,
United States Courthouse, 46 East Ohio Street, Indianapolis,
Indiana.

On Aug. 17, 2020, Judge Hanlon denied Defendants CNO Financial
Group and CNO Services, LLC's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DR. ERROL GAUM: MacGillivary Law Prepares for Potential Class  Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Quon & Elizabeth McSheffrey at Global News reports that a
Halifax law firm is preparing to potentially file a class-action
lawsuit against a prominent Halifax-area dentist whose licence was
suspended after several allegations of misconduct.

MacGillivary Law is accepting stories from former or current
patients of Dr. Errol Gaum, a dentist at the Granville Dental
clinic in Bedford, N.S.

"We're here to listen to what people have to say and we're here to
help assess any potential claims that they may have," said Angeli
Swinamer, a partner at the firm, in an interview.

More than 150 people have expressed interest in being part of the
potential lawsuit to date, she added.

The news comes the same day as a number of Gaum's former patients
held a protest in Bedford, outside his most recent place of
employment.

"I thought I was going crazy because at the time, no one was
listening to me," said Mary MacDonald, who was treated by Gaum for
13 years, and attended the rally.

MacDonald alleged Gaum did not wait for freezing to kick in before
beginning an operation on her gums and told her if she kept crying,
the freezing "wouldn't work" and he would have to start over.

She said she would consider joining a class action lawsuit "not for
the money," but to ensure no one else suffers similar treatment.
[GN]


EVOLUS INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds of December 15 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of those who acquired
Evolus, Inc. ("Evolus" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EOLS) securities
during the period February 1, 2019 through July 6, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Investors have until December 15, 2020 to
apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

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

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the real source of botulinum toxin bacterial
strain as well as the manufacturing processes used to develop
Jeuveau(TM) originated with and were misappropriated from Medytox;
(2) sufficient evidentiary support existed for the allegations that
Evolus misappropriated certain trade secrets relating to the
botulin toxin strain and the manufacturing processes for the
development of Jeuveau(TM); (3) as a result, Evolus faced a real
threat of regulatory and/or court action, prohibiting the import,
marketing, and sale of Jeuveau(TM); (4) which in turn seriously
threatened Evolus' ability to commercialize Jeuveau(TM) in the
United States and generate revenue; and (5) any revenues generated
from the sale of Jeuveau(TM) were based on Evolus' unlawful
activities, including the misappropriation of trade secrets and
secret manufacturing processes belonging to Allergan and Medytox.

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

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

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

FEDEX GROUND: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Bachanov Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William J. Martinez grants the Defendant's motion
for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled ANDREW BACHANOV, on
behalf of himself and all similarly situated v. FEDEX GROUND
PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 20-cv-0601-WJM-SKC (D. Colo.).

Mr. Bachanov was employed as a delivery driver by an independent
business entity with which FedEx Ground contracted for delivery
services from November 2016 to November 2018. While working for
FedEx Ground, he never traveled outside of Colorado. On Jan. 31,
2020, he filed the Class Action Complaint in the District Court of
Denver County, Colorado.

Based on allegations that FedEx Ground failed to pay its drivers
overtime wages required by Colorado law, Mr. Bachanov alleges two
claims: (1) violation of the Colorado Wage Claim Act ("CWCA"); and
(2) violation of the Colorado Minimum Wage Act ("CMWA"). He
preliminarily defines the class as follows:

     All current or former local FedEx drivers who were not
     compensated lawfully for all overtime hours worked in
     Colorado within the applicable statute of limitations.

On March 3, 2020, FedEx Ground removed the case based on diversity
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.

Effective as of March 16, 2020, a new, revised Colorado Department
of Labor and Employment's ("CDLE") order known as the Colorado
Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order 36 ("COMPS Order 36")
replaced Wage Order 35 and all prior Wage Orders. COMPS Order 36
differs from the prior Wage Orders by adding language adopting the
position that the interstate driver exemption only applies to
drivers whose individual delivery routes physically cross state
lines.

The defining question in the case is whether Mr. Bachanov is an
interstate driver within the meaning of the Wage Order even though
he only drove for FedEx Ground within Colorado.

As an initial matter, FedEx Ground underscores that Wage Orders
32-34 apply here because they were effective during Mr. Bachanov's
employment with FedEx Ground, not COMPS Order 36 (which post-dated
Bachanov's employment with FedEx Ground). Thus, FedEx Ground
argues, as an interstate driver, he was exempt from the overtime
provisions of Wage Orders 32-34.

In the Motion, FedEx Ground argues that the interpretation of the
Wage Order's interstate driver exemption rendered in Deherrera v.
Decker Truck Line, Inc., a published Tenth Circuit opinion,
controls the outcome here. FedEx Ground relies on principles of
stare decisis, which provide that when a panel of the Tenth Circuit
has rendered a decision interpreting state law, that interpretation
is binding on district courts in the circuit, and on subsequent
panels of this Court, unless an intervening decision of the state's
highest court has resolved the issue.

FedEx Ground anticipates Mr. Bachanov's argument that he is an
intrastate driver and not covered by the Wage Order's exemption for
interstate drivers, and that COMPS Order 36 applies to him.
However, FedEx Ground argues that COMPS Order 36 cannot apply to
his case because his employment predated the effective date of that
order. Moreover, because the Tenth Circuit found in Deherrera v.
Decker Truck Line, Inc. that the meaning of "interstate" as used in
the Wage Orders is unambiguous and consistent with the ordinary use
of the term in the FLSA and other regulations and statutes, the
Court must follow that interpretation regardless of what the CDLE
now says.

In response, Mr. Bachanov argues the Court should follow Brunson v.
Colo. Cab Co., LLC (Colo. App. Feb. 8, 2018) and finds that, as an
intrastate driver, the interstate driver exemption in the Wage
Order does not apply to him. He characterizes the Tenth Circuit's
opinion in Deherrera as an incorrect "Erie guess." He asserts that
the Wage Orders in effect at the time he worked for FedEx Ground
required that he be paid overtime wages.

Despite Mr. Bachanov's reliance on Brunson and characterization of
Deherrera as an "Erie guess," the Court agrees with FedEx Ground
that Deherrera constitutes binding authority in the case. Given
that Deherrera directly addressed the language in the Wage Orders
that were effective during Mr. Bachanov's employment with FedEx
Ground, the Court must follow the circuit panel's published
decision. Importantly, for the purposes of the Motion, the parties
do not dispute that he solely drove within Colorado during his
employment; however, under Deherrera, that distinction does not
change the application of the exemption to Bachanov. Applying
Deherrera, the Court finds that Bachanov, as a driver who did not
cross state lines but nevertheless transported goods in interstate
commerce, is an interstate driver subject to the Wage Order's
exemption.

Mr. Bachanov makes two related arguments regarding COMPS Order 36.
First, he argues that COMPS Order 36 merely clarifies the
exemption. Second, he argues that even if the exemption changed,
the change is retroactive. The Court finds both positions
unavailing.

The Court finds that COMPS Order 36 changed, rather than clarified,
the Wage Order exemption. Deherrera determined that the Wage Order
exemption was modeled after the MCA exemption, meaning that even
drivers like Mr. Bachanov, who solely drive intrastate, are exempt
interstate drivers under the Wage Order. Despite statements by the
CDLE that its intent was to "clarify" the exemption, those
statements simply do not alter the fact that under Deherrera, the
applicable Wage Orders exempted Mr. Bachanov from overtime pay, but
under COMPS Order 36, he might be entitled to those overtime
wages.

In the Court's view COMPS Order 36 materially changed the relevant
legal relationship between the parties by creating a new obligation
on FedEx Ground to pay overtime wages to a class of employees
previously not entitled to such compensation under the CDLE Wage
Orders in effect during the putative class period. Further, the
Court finds that the amended exemption in COMPS Order 36 cannot be
applied retroactively.

As the Court finds that COMPS Order 36 cannot be applied
retroactively, it also concludes that Mr. Bachanov was an exempt
interstate driver under the pre-amended exemption. Accordingly, the
Court says FedEx Ground is entitled to summary judgment on
Bachanov's CMWA claim.

In the action, Mr. Bachanov's CWCA claim is premised on FedEx
Ground's failure to pay overtime as required by the Wage Order.
Because he is not entitled to overtime under the CMWA, FedEx Ground
is also entitled to summary judgment on his CWCA claim.

Accordingly, the Court orders as follows:

   1. Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.'s Motion for
      Summary Judgment is granted;

   2. Plaintiff Andrew Bachanov's claims are dismissed with
      prejudice;

   3. Judgment shall enter in favor of the Defendant, and the
      Defendant shall have its costs, if any, upon compliance
      with D.C. Colo. LCivR 54.1; and

   4. The clerk shall terminate the action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 3, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y26zaoxs from Leagle.com.


FERRELLGAS INC: Price Suit Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John A. Houston granted the Plaintiffs' motion for final
approval of class action settlement, attorney's fees, litigation
costs, and enhancement payments, in the case JOSHUA PRICE and
ROBERT BOCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. FERRELLGAS, INC., a Delaware Corporation;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18cv1502-JAH
(MSB) (S.D. Cal.).

Judge Houston finds that the terms of the Settlement to be fair,
reasonable and adequate under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, including the amount of the settlement fund; the
amount of distributions to the class members; the procedure for
giving notice to the class members; the procedure for objecting to
or opting out of the Settlement; and the maximum amounts allocated
to an enhancement payment, costs and attorney's fees.

The Court certified for settlement purposes the Settlement Class
described in the Settlement, comprised of all persons who worked as
a service technician and/or bobtail delivery driver for Defendant
in California at any time between May 2, 2014 and Sept. 15, 2019.

The Defendant will make a payment into the settlement fund, in
accordance with the procedures set forth in the Settlement, of the
amount needed to fund all amounts payable under the Settlement.  

Judge Houston, in his order dated June 24, 2020 Order, a full-text
copy of which is available at https://is.gd/SVJArT from Leagle.com,
ordered the payment from the settlement fund of (i) settlement
administration fees to Atticus Administration in the amount of
$7,000; (ii) a payment to the Labor Workforce Development Agency in
the amount of $4,500; (iii) $76,875 to the Plaintiffs for
reasonable attorney's fees; and (iv) $13,917.05 to the Plaintiffs
for reasonable litigation costs, all in accordance with the
Settlement.

The Judge awarded Plaintiff Price the amount of $6,000 and
Plaintiff Bock the amount of $4,000 as a class representative
enhancement payment, to be paid from the settlement fund in
accordance with the Settlement.

Finally, the Court directed the Order to be entered as a final
judgment dismissing the action with prejudice.

FIRST AMERICAN: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of Dec. 24 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP reminds
investors of the upcoming deadline to move for appointment as lead
plaintiff in the class action litigation that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of First American Financial Corporation ("First
American" or the "Company") (NYSE: FAF) between February 17, 2017
and October 22, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you purchased or otherwise acquired First American securities
during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as
lead plaintiff by no later than December 24, 2020. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members
in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the
actions will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or
other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.

Background on the First American Securities Class Litigation

First American, headquartered in Santa Ana, California, provides
financial services through its title insurance and services segment
and its specialty insurance segment. The action alleges that,
during the Class Period, defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that (1) the
Company failed to implement security standards to protect its
customers' confidential personal and other information, and (2) the
Company faced an increased risk of cybersecurity failures as a
result of its automation and efficiency initiatives.

On May 24, 2019, the data security news website,
[url="]www.KrebsOnSecurity.com[/url], reported a massive leak of
"hundreds of millions of [customer] documents" by First American.
First American's website exposed approximately 885 million files,
"including bank account numbers and statements, mortgage and tax
records, Social Security numbers, wire transaction receipts, and
drivers license images." On this news, the price of First American
stock fell $3.46 per share, or over 6%, from its closing price of
$55.26 on May 24, 2019, to close at $51.80 on May 28, 2019, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

On October 22, 2020, following the close of the market, First
American filed its third quarter of 2020 Form 10-Q with the SEC,
revealing that the Company had received a Wells Notice from the SEC
enforcement staff regarding the security breach. According to the
notice, "[t]he SEC enforcement staff is questioning the adequacy of
disclosures the Company made at the time of the incident and the
adequacy of its disclosure controls…[and] has made a preliminary
determination to recommend a filing of an enforcement action by the
SEC against the Company." On this news, the price of First American
stock fell $4.83 per share, or more than 9%, from its closing price
of $51.58 on October 21, 2020, to close at $46.75 per share on
October 22, 2020, on extremely heavy trading volume. [GN]

FLUIDIGM CORPORATION: Zhang Investor Reminds of Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who bought shares of Fluidigm Corporation (NASDAQ:
FLDM) between February 7, 2019 and November 5, 2019, inclusive.

To join the class action, go to
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=fluidigm-corporation&id=2433
or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.

http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=fluidigm-corporation&id=2433

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
before the NOVEMBER 20, 2020 DEADLINE.   A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose,
among other things:  Fluidigm was experiencing longer sales cycles;
as a result, Fluidigm's revenue was reasonably likely to decline
and Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

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

Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]

GENERALI GLOBAL: Cooper Suit removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Martha Cooper, Daniel Cooper, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. GENERALI GLOBAL
ASSISTANCE, INC. (a.k.a. CSA Travel Services) and GENERALI U.S.
BRANCH (a.k.a. Generali Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A. - U.S.
Branch), Case No. CGC-20-587185, was removed from the Superior
Court, County of San Francisco, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on Dec. 3, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-08569 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.

Generali Global Assistance, Inc. --
https://us.generaliglobalassistance.com/ -- provides insurance
services offering travel insurance, identity theft protection,
beneficiary companion, travel assistance and risk management
services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Bronwyn Fitzgerald Pollock, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          350 S. Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 229-5194
          Fax: (213) 625-0248
          Email: bpollock@mayerbrown.com


GOHEALTH INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action that has been filed on behalf
of investors that purchased or acquired GoHealth Inc. ("GoHealth"
or the "Company") (NASDAQ:GOCO) Class A common stock pursuant
and/or traceable to the registration statement issued in connection
with GoHealth's July 2020 initial public offering (the "IPO"). The
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois alleges violations of the Securities Act of
1933.

If you purchased GoHealth Class A common stock, and/or would like
to discuss your legal rights and options please visit GOCO
Shareholder Lawsuit or contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. toll free at
(877) 779-1414 or Seidman@bernlieb.com.

The registration statement for the IPO was negligently prepared
and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact,
omitted material facts necessary to make the statements contained
therein not misleading, and failed to make necessary disclosures
required under the rules and regulations governing its preparation.
Specifically the registration statement failed to disclose that at
the time of the IPO: (i) the Medicare insurance industry was
undergoing a period of elevated churn, which had begun in the first
half of 2020; (ii) GoHealth suffered from a higher risk of customer
churn as a result of its unique business model and limited carrier
base; (iii) GoHealth suffered from degradations in customer
persistency and retention as a result of elevated industry churn,
vulnerabilities that arose from the Company's concentrated carrier
business model, and GoHealth's efforts to expand into new
geographies, develop new carrier partnerships and worsening product
mix; (iv) GoHealth had entered into materially less favorable
revenue sharing arrangements with its external sales agents; and
(v) these adverse financial and operational trends were internally
projected by GoHealth to continue and worsen following the IPO.

Shortly after the IPO, the price of GoHealth Class A common stock
suffered significant price declines and by September 15, 2020,
GoHealth Class A common stock closed at just $12.35 per share -
over 40% below the $21 per share price investors paid for the stock
in the IPO less than two months previously.

Those wishing to serve as lead plaintiff had until November 20,
2020, to move the court for appointment. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to
take no action, you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased GoHealth Class A Common Stock, and/or would like
to discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/gohealthinc-goco-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-310/apply/
or contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
Seidman@bernlieb.com.

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

GOHEALTH INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of November 20 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of
GoHealth, Inc. 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 Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal
rights in these class actions at 888-638-4847 or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

GoHealth, Inc. (NASDAQ: GOCO)
IPO: July 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 20, 2020

The complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that at the time of
the IPO: (1) the Medicare insurance industry was undergoing a
period of elevated churn, which had begun in the first half of
2020; (2) GoHealth suffered from a higher risk of customer churn
due to its unique business model and limited carrier base; (3)
GoHealth suffered from degradations in customer persistency and
retention as a result of elevated industry churn, vulnerabilities
that arose from the Company's concentrated carrier business model,
and its efforts to expand into new geographies, develop new carrier
partnerships and worsening product mix; (4) GoHealth had entered
into materially less favorable revenue sharing arrangements with
its external sales agents; and (5) these adverse financial and
operational trends were internally projected by GoHealth to
continue and worsen following the IPO.

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 Howard G. Smith, Esquire,
of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847,
toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com. [GN]

GOLAR LNG: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that class action
lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of Golar LNG
Limited. 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 Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal
rights in these class actions at 888-638-4847 or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.


Golar LNG Limited (NASDAQ: GLNG)
Class Period: April 30, 2020 – September 24, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 24, 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: (1) that certain
employees, including Hygo's Chief Executive Officer, had bribed
third parties, thereby violating anti-bribery policies; (2) that,
as a result, the Company was likely to face regulatory scrutiny and
possible penalties; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing
reputational harm, Hygo's valuation ahead of its IPO would be
significantly impaired; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

To be a member of these 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 Howard G. Smith, Esquire,
of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847,
toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.  [GN]

GOLAR LNG: Portnoy Law Reminds of November 23 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Golar LNG Limited (NASDAQ: GLNG)
investors that acquired shares between April 30, 2020 and August
10, 2020. Investors have until November 23, 2020 to seek an active
role in this litigation.

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

It is alleged in this complaint that throughout the Class Period,
Golar made materially misleading and false statements in regard to
their business, operations and prospects. Specifically, Golar
failed to disclose and/or misrepresented to investors: (1) that
certain employees, including Golar's CEO, had bribed third parties,
violating anti-bribery policies; (2) that, as a result, it was
likely that Golar would face regulatory scrutiny and possible
penalties; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing reputational
harm, Golar's valuation ahead of its IPO would be impaired
significantly; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Golar's
positive statements about the their business, operations, and
prospects were lacked a reasonable basis. and/or materially
misleading.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
23, 2020.

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]


GOPRO INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Probes Securities Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
("GoPro" or the "Company") GoPro, Inc. (NYSE: GPRO).   Such
investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980.

The investigation concerns whether GoPro and certain of its
officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other
unlawful business practices.

On November 18, 2020, GoPro issued a press release "announc[ing]
that it proposes to offer $100.0 million aggregate principal amount
of convertible senior notes due 2025 (the ‘notes'), subject to
market conditions and other factors . . . in a private placement to
qualified institutional buyers pursuant to Rule 144A under the
Securities Act of 1933."  GoPro stated that the proceeds of the
offering will be used for general corporate purposes and to cover
the cost of certain capped call transactions which the Company
would enter in connection with the notes pricing.

On this news, GoPro's stock price fell sharply during intraday
trading on November 19, 2020.

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


HANNA ANDERSSON: Inks Deal to Settle CCPA Breach Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Sara Merken at Reuters reports that Hanna Andersson LLC and
Salesforce.com Inc have reached a proposed agreement with
plaintiffs to resolve class claims related to a 2019 data breach,
according to a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement.

The litigation, composed of two consolidated cases against the
children's apparel retailer and cloud technology services provider,
was one of the early cases alleging a violation of the California
Consumer Privacy Act, which took effect Jan. 1. Hanna has agreed to
pay $400,000 and take corrective measures to resolve the claims,
according to the unopposed motion filed in San Francisco federal
court.

To read the full story on Westlaw Today, click here: bit.ly/3kJEfSw

[GN]


HOOSIER PAPA: Faces Civil Right Suit Filed by Kyles
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hoosier Papa LLC. The
case is styled as Preston Kyles, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Hoosier Papa LLC dba Papa John's
Pizza, an Indiana limited liability company, Papa John's
International, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-07146
(N.D. Ill. Dec. 3, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

Papa John's -- http://www.papajohns.com/-- is an American pizza
restaurant chain. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tom Kayes, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS R. KAYES, LLC
          2045 W Grand Ave., Ste. B, PMB 62448
          Chicago, IL 60612
          Phone: (708) 722-2241
          Email: tom@kayes.law


HOWARD L. NATIONS APC: Gaudet, et al. Seek to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH A. GAUDET, ET AL.,
Individually and on Behalf of a Class of All Other Similarly
Situated Persons v. HOWARD L. NATIONS, APC, ET AL., Case No.
2:19-cv-10356-WBV-JVM (E.D. La.), the Plaintiff Deborah A. Gaudet,
Timothy Butler, Dian B. Campbell, Kristine Collins, Regina
Falgoust, Abraham Gamberella, Adam J. Hebert, Fred Ledet, Stanwood
Moore, Jr., and James Scales, III, ask the Court to enter an
order:

   1. certifying a proposed class of:

      "all BP Class members, represented by the Defendants'
      joint venture in the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Class
      Action Settlement Program, who lost the opportunity to
      participate in the BP Settlement Program for their
      subsistence losses because the Defendants failed to timely
      file a complete BP Subsistence Claim on the client's
      behalf";

      Specifically excluded from the class are:

      a) claimants who filed Subsistence Claims one hundred and
         180 days after executing a DHECC release for any other
         claim in the BP Settlement Program,

      b) claimants who previously executed a GCCF Release, and

      c) all claimants who had their BP Subsistence Claims
         evaluated on the merits and denied by DHECC for any
         reason other than for failing to provide required
         documentation.

   2. appointing themselves as Class representatives; and

   3. appointing their counsel as Class counsel.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify only the Class' breach of contract
claims and legal malpractice claims. The Plaintiffs expressly
decline to certify any fraud claim.

The Plaintiff Class members suffered damages by the Defendants'
common course of conduct and all sustained the same lost
opportunity to participate in the BP Settlement Program for
subsistence losses. The Defendants handled their entire joint
venture as a mass production lacking any individualized attention
to particular clients.  The Defendants' common disregard for
Plaintiffs, and their claims, ensured common questions of law and
fact predominate, permeate, and pervade every aspect of this
litigation. Accordingly, Class members will rely on class-wide
proof to make the prima facie showing for their claims against the
Defendants, the Plaintiffs contend.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Nov.
23, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/37p1axH at no extra charge.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class Members, are:

          Jerald P. Block, Esq.
          Richard C. Breaux, Esq.
          Kendall J. Krielow, Esq.
          Sarah M. Lambert, Esq.
          Matthew P. Hymel, Esq.
          BLOCK LAW FIRM, APLC
          422 East First Street
          Post Office Box 108
          Thibodaux, LA 70302
          Telephone: (985) 446-0418
          Facsimile: (985) 446-0422


HP INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Jan. 4 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of HP Inc. shareholders. 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.

HPQ Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/hp-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11104&wire=1

HP Inc. (NYSE:HPQ)

HPQ Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased November 6, 2015
- June 21, 2016
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 4, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/hp-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11104&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, HP Inc.
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (a) HP's channel inventory management and sales
practices resulted in the sale of supplies to customers that did
not need or want the product in order to artificially increase
revenues and profits; (b) HP's channel inventory management and
sales practices resulted in the sale of supplies to customers
outside of designated regions at unsustainable discounts in order
to artificially increase revenues and profits; (c) HP's channel
inventory management and sales practices resulted in the sale of
supplies at steep discounts to customers to encourage those
customers to sell the supplies further down the supply channel, out
of HP's inventory management metrics; and (d) as a result of
(a)-(c) above, defendants' statements about HP's business condition
and prospects were materially false and misleading when made.

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

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


HP INC: Portnoy Law Announces Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of HP, Inc. ("HP" or "the Company") (NYSE:
HPQ) investors that acquired securities between November 6, 2015
and June 21, 2016.  

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.

According to the Complaint, the HP made misleading and false
statements to the market. HP's performance was artificially
inflated by its sales practices by selling supplies to customers
that did not need or want them. Supplies were sold by HP outside of
designated regions at massive discounts designed to boost profits.
HP's public statements were false and materially misleading, based
on these facts. Investors suffered damages when the truth about HP
was made clear to the market .

Please visit the Portnoy Law Firm 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]

INNATE PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Dec. 22 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Innate Pharma S.A. (NASDAQ: IPHA)
between March 10, 2020 and September 8, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important December 22, 2020 lead plaintiff
deadline in the securities class action first filed by the firm.
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Innate investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Innate class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1763.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) Innate touted the results of its various Phase 2 trials
as being within expectations; (2) Innate continued to reassure
investors that it was eligible for the $100 million payment upon
first dosing of Phase 3 trials; (3) Innate failed to timely
disclose its 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 Innate's business, operations,
and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December
22, 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-1763.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]



INTERCEPT PHARMA: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of January 4 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of Intercept Pharmaceuticals shareholders.
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.

ICPT Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/intercept-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11104&wire=1

Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:ICPT)

ICPT Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased September 28,
2019 - October 7, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 4, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/intercept-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11104&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
Defendants downplayed the true scope and severity of safety
concerns associated with the use of Ocaliva (obeticholic acid
("OCA")), Intercept's lead product candidate, in treating primary
biliary cholangitis; (ii) the foregoing increased the likelihood of
a U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") investigation into
Ocaliva's development, thereby jeopardizing Ocaliva's continued
marketability and the sustainability of its sales; (iii) any
purported benefits associated with OCA's efficacy in treating
nonalcoholic steatohepatitis ("NASH") were outweighed by the risks
of its use; (iv) as a result, the FDA was unlikely to approve the
Company's New Drug Application for OCA in treating patients with
liver fibrosis due to NASH; and (v) as a result of all the
foregoing, the Company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

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

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


INTERCEPT PHARMA: Vincent Wong Reminds of January 4 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announces that a class action has
commenced on behalf of Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 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.

Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:ICPT)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/intercept-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11107&wire=1.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 4, 2021
Class Period: September 28, 2019 - October 7, 2020

Allegations against ICPT include that: (i) Defendants downplayed
the true scope and severity of safety concerns associated with the
use of Ocaliva (obeticholic acid ("OCA")), Intercept's lead product
candidate, in treating primary biliary cholangitis; (ii) the
foregoing increased the likelihood of a U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") investigation into Ocaliva's development,
thereby jeopardizing Ocaliva's continued marketability and the
sustainability of its sales; (iii) any purported benefits
associated with OCA's efficacy in treating nonalcoholic
steatohepatitis ("NASH") were outweighed by the risks of its use;
(iv) as a result, the FDA was unlikely to approve the Company's New
Drug Application for OCA in treating patients with liver fibrosis
due to NASH; and (v) as a result of all the foregoing, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

To learn more, contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.

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


INTERFACE INC: Bragar Eagel Remind of Jan. 11 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York on behalf of investors that purchased Interface, Inc.
(NASDAQ: TILE) securities between March 2, 2018 and September 28,
2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until January 11, 2021 to
apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

On April 24, 2019, Defendants filed a current report on Form 8-K
with the SEC, disclosing, inter alia, that Interface "received a
letter in November 2017 from the [SEC] requesting that the Company
voluntarily provide information and documents in connection with an
investigation into the Company's historical quarterly [EPS]
calculations and rounding practices during the period 2014-2017";
that "[t]he Company subsequently received subpoenas from the SEC in
February 2018, July 2018 and April 2019 requesting additional
documents and information"; and that "[i]n the fourth quarter of
2018, the Company conducted at the SEC's request an internal
investigation into these and other related issues for seven
quarters in 2015, 2016 and 2017."

On this news, Interface's stock price fell $1.43 per share, or
8.37%, to close at $15.66 per share on April 25, 2019.

Then, on September 28, 2020, the SEC announced the conclusion of
its investigation into Interface's historical quarterly EPS
calculations and rounding practices. Interface agreed to pay a $5
million fine to resolve the matter and was ordered to cease and
desist from violating the federal securities laws. In the SEC's
enforcement order issued that same day, the SEC also disclosed how,
inter alia, "Interface employees caused Interface to produce
documents in response to Commission investigative requests that
were suggestive of contemporaneous support for journal entries
that, in truth, did not exist at the time the entries were
recorded," and had modified certain documents after the SEC's
investigation began.

On this news, Interface's stock price fell $0.20 per share, or
3.13%, over the following two trading sessions to close at $6.18
per share on September 29, 2020.

The complaint, filed on November 12, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Interface
had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and internal
control over financial reporting; (ii) consequently, Interface,
inter alia, reported artificially inflated income and earnings per
share ("EPS") in 2015 and 2016; (iii) Interface and certain of its
employees were under investigation by the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") with respect to the foregoing issues since at
least as early as November 2017, had impeded the SEC's
investigation, and downplayed the true scope of the Company's
wrongdoing and liability with respect to the SEC investigation; and
(iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

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

                      About Bragar Eagel

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

INTERFACE INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Jan. 11 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Interface, Inc. ("Interface" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: TILE) securities between March 2, 2018 and
September 28, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Interface
investors have until January 11, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff
motion.

On April 24, 2019, Interface revealed that in November 2017, it had
received a request for information and documents from the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") "in connection with an
investigation into the Company's historical quarterly earnings per
share ["EPS"] calculations and rounding practices during the period
2014-2017." The Company further disclosed that it had "received
subpoenas from the SEC in February 2018, July 2018 and April 2019
requesting additional documents and information" and that Interface
had conducted an internal investigation into these issues, at the
SEC's request.

On this news, Interface's stock price fell $1.43 per share, or
8.37%, to close at $15.66 per share on April 25, 2019, thereby
injuring investors.

On September 28, 2020, the SEC issued an enforcement order
following its investigation into Interface's historical quarterly
EPS calculations and rounding practices. The Company agreed to pay
a $5 million fine to resolve the matter and was ordered to cease
and desist from violating the federal securities laws. The SEC also
disclosed that "Interface employees caused Interface to produce
documents in response to Commission investigative requests that
were suggestive of contemporaneous support for journal entries
that, in truth, did not exist at the time the entries were
recorded," and that they had altered certain documents after the
SEC's investigation initiated.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.20 per share, or
3.13%, over the following two trading sessions to close at $6.18
per share on September 29, 2020, thereby injuring investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) Interface had inadequate disclosure controls and
procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (2)
consequently, Interface, inter alia, reported artificially inflated
income and EPS in 2015 and 2016; (3) Interface and certain of its
employees were under investigation by the SEC with respect to the
foregoing issues since at least as early as November 2017, had
impeded the SEC's investigation, and downplayed the true scope of
the Company's wrongdoing and liability with respect to the SEC
investigation; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you purchased Interface securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than January 11, 2020 to ask the Court
to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class. If you purchased Interface securities, have information or
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact 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]

INTERFACE INC: Gainey McKenna Announces Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Interface, Inc. ("Interface" or the "Company") (
TILE) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the
securities of Interface between March 2, 2018 and September 28,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Interface investors under the federal securities laws.

The Complaint alleges Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Interface had
inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and internal control
over financial reporting; (ii) consequently, Interface reported
artificially inflated income and earnings per share ("EPS") in 2015
and 2016; (iii) Interface and certain of its employees were under
investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")
with respect to the foregoing issues since at least as early as
November 2017, had impeded the SEC's investigation, and downplayed
the true scope of the Company's wrongdoing and liability with
respect to the SEC investigation; and (iv) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On April 24, 2019, Defendants filed a current report on Form 8-K
with the SEC, disclosing that Interface "received a letter in
November 2017 from the [SEC] requesting that the Company
voluntarily provide information and documents in connection with an
investigation into the Company's historical quarterly [EPS]
calculations and rounding practices during the period 2014-2017";
that "[t]he Company subsequently received subpoenas from the SEC in
February 2018, July 2018 and April 2019 requesting additional
documents and information"; and that "[i]n the fourth quarter of
2018, the Company conducted at the SEC's request an internal
investigation into these and other related issues for seven
quarters in 2015, 2016 and 2017." On this news, Interface's stock
price fell $1.43 per share, or 8.37%, to close at $15.66 per share
on April 25, 2019.

Then, on September 28, 2020, the SEC announced the conclusion of
its investigation into Interface's historical quarterly EPS
calculations and rounding practices. Interface agreed to pay a $5
million fine to resolve the matter and was ordered to cease and
desist from violating the federal securities laws. In the SEC's
enforcement order issued that same day, the SEC also disclosed how,
inter alia, "Interface employees caused Interface to produce
documents in response to Commission investigative requests that
were suggestive of contemporaneous support for journal entries
that, in truth, did not exist at the time the entries were
recorded," and had modified certain documents after the SEC's
investigation began. On this news, Interface's stock price fell
$0.20 per share, or 3.13%, over the following two trading sessions
to close at $6.18 per share on September 29, 2020

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Interface
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the
January 11, 2021 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members
in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com. [GN]

INTERFACE INC: Gainey McKenna Remind of Jan. 11 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Interface, Inc. ("Interface" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: TILE) in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on behalf of those who purchased or acquired
the securities of Interface between March 2, 2018 and September 28,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Interface investors under the federal securities laws.

The Complaint alleges Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Interface had
inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and internal control
over financial reporting; (ii) consequently, Interface reported
artificially inflated income and earnings per share ("EPS") in 2015
and 2016; (iii) Interface and certain of its employees were under
investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")
with respect to the foregoing issues since at least as early as
November 2017, had impeded the SEC's investigation, and downplayed
the true scope of the Company's wrongdoing and liability with
respect to the SEC investigation; and (iv) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On April 24, 2019, Defendants filed a current report on Form 8-K
with the SEC, disclosing that Interface "received a letter in
November 2017 from the [SEC] requesting that the Company
voluntarily provide information and documents in connection with an
investigation into the Company's historical quarterly [EPS]
calculations and rounding practices during the period 2014-2017";
that "[t]he Company subsequently received subpoenas from the SEC in
February 2018, July 2018 and April 2019 requesting additional
documents and information"; and that "[i]n the fourth quarter of
2018, the Company conducted at the SEC's request an internal
investigation into these and other related issues for seven
quarters in 2015, 2016 and 2017." On this news, Interface's stock
price fell $1.43 per share, or 8.37%, to close at $15.66 per share
on April 25, 2019.

Then, on September 28, 2020, the SEC announced the conclusion of
its investigation into Interface's historical quarterly EPS
calculations and rounding practices. Interface agreed to pay a $5
million fine to resolve the matter and was ordered to cease and
desist from violating the federal securities laws. In the SEC's
enforcement order issued that same day, the SEC also disclosed how,
inter alia, "Interface employees caused Interface to produce
documents in response to Commission investigative requests that
were suggestive of contemporaneous support for journal entries
that, in truth, did not exist at the time the entries were
recorded," and had modified certain documents after the SEC's
investigation began. On this news, Interface's stock price fell
$0.20 per share, or 3.13%, over the following two trading sessions
to close at $6.18 per share on September 29, 2020

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Interface
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the
January 11, 2021 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members
in directing the litigation.  If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com. [GN]

INTERFACE INC: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Jan. 11 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Interface, Inc. ("Interface" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
TILE) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
and docketed under 20-cv-05518, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise
acquired Interface securities between March 2, 2018 and September
28, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to
recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and
certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Interface securities during
the Class Period, you have until January 11, 2021, to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Interface is a modular flooring company that designs, produces, and
sells modular carpet products primarily in the Americas, Europe,
and the Asia-Pacific. The Company was founded in 1973 and is
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.

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) Interface had inadequate
disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over
financial reporting; (ii) consequently, Interface, inter alia,
reported artificially inflated income and earnings per share
("EPS") in 2015 and 2016; (iii) Interface and certain of its
employees were under investigation by the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") with respect to the foregoing issues since at
least as early as November 2017, had impeded the SEC's
investigation, and downplayed the true scope of the Company's
wrongdoing and liability with respect to the SEC investigation; and
(iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On April 24, 2019, Defendants filed a current report on Form 8-K
with the SEC, disclosing, inter alia, that Interface "received a
letter in November 2017 from the [SEC] requesting that the Company
voluntarily provide information and documents in connection with an
investigation into the Company's historical quarterly [EPS]
calculations and rounding practices during the period 2014-2017";
that "[t]he Company subsequently received subpoenas from the SEC in
February 2018, July 2018 and April 2019 requesting additional
documents and information"; and that "[i]n the fourth quarter of
2018, the Company conducted at the SEC's request an internal
investigation into these and other related issues for seven
quarters in 2015, 2016 and 2017."

On this news, Interface's stock price fell $1.43 per share, or
8.37%, to close at $15.66 per share on April 25, 2019.

Then, on September 28, 2020, the SEC announced the conclusion of
its investigation into Interface's historical quarterly EPS
calculations and rounding practices. Interface agreed to pay a $5
million fine to resolve the matter and was ordered to cease and
desist from violating the federal securities laws. In the SEC's
enforcement order issued that same day, the SEC also disclosed how,
inter alia, "Interface employees caused Interface to produce
documents in response to Commission investigative requests that
were suggestive of contemporaneous support for journal entries
that, in truth, did not exist at the time the entries were
recorded," and had modified certain documents after the SEC's
investigation began.

On this news, Interface's stock price fell $0.20 per share, or
3.13%, over the following two trading sessions to close at $6.18
per share on September 29, 2020

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

JOYY INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of Jan. 19 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges JOYY Inc. (NASDAQ: YY) investors with losses in
excess of $250,000 to submit your losses now. A securities fraud
class action has been filed and certain investors may have valuable
claims.

Class Period: Apr. 28, 2016 - Nov. 18, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Jan. 19, 2021
Visit: hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/JOYY
Contact An Attorney Now: JOYY@hbsslaw.com
         844-916-0895

JOYY Inc. (YY) Securities Fraud Class Action:

The complaint alleges that Defendants misrepresented and concealed
that: (1) JOYY had dramatically overstated its revenues from live
streaming sources; (2) the majority of users at any given time were
bots; (3) the Company utilized these bots to effect a
round-tripping scheme that manufactured the false appearance of
revenues; (4) the Company overstated its cash reserves; and (5) the
Company's recent acquisition of Bigo was largely contrived to
benefit corporate insiders, including JOYY's co-founder, CEO, and
Chairman David Xueling Li, who set up Bigo.

Investors began to learn the truth, according to the complaint, on
Nov. 18, 2020 when research firm Muddy Waters Capital published a
scathing forensic report, "YY: You Can't Make This Stuff Up.
Well…Actually You Can."   Muddy Waters accused JOYY of (1) being
a multibillion-dollar fraud, (2) massively overstating reported
revenues by engaging in improper round-tripping transactions, and
(3) massively overstating Bigo-related revenues and Bigo's
valuation to secretly enrich Li when JOYY, in March 2019, paid over
$1.4 billion for the remaining 68.5% of Bigo that JOYY did not
already own.

This news sent the price of JOYY American Depositary Shares
crashing lower on Nov. 18, 2020.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving JOYY deceived
investors about the Company's true operations and financial
results," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the
investigation.

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

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding JOYY
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 JOYY@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]


JOYY INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of January 19 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of JOYY Inc. (NASDAQ: YY), between April 28, 2016 and
November 18, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for JOYY investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the JOYY class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1988.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) JOYY dramatically overstated its revenues from live
streaming sources; (2) the majority of users at any given time were
bots; (2) the Company utilized these bots to effect a roundtripping
scheme that manufactured the false appearance of revenues; (3) the
Company overstated its cash reserves; (4) the Company's acquisition
of Bigo was largely contrived to benefit corporate insiders; and
(5) 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.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January
19, 2021. 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-1988.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.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm.

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]

JPMORGAN CHASE: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of December 23 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against JPMorgan Chase & Co. ("JPMorgan" or the "Company") (NYSE:
JPM) and certain of its officers.   The class action, filed in
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
and docketed under 20-cv-05590, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise
acquired JPMorgan securities between February 23, 2016 and
September 23, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").  Plaintiff
seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased JPMorgan securities during
the class period, you have until December 23, 2020 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at 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.

JPMorgan purports to operate as a financial services company
worldwide.  The Company operates in four segments: Consumer &
Community Banking, Corporate & Investment Bank, Commercial Banking,
and Asset & Wealth Management.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants
knowingly and/or recklessly made false and/or misleading statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) 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; (ii) the Company had
insufficient controls and compliance protocols to enable it to
identify and stop the misconduct; (iii) the Company's earnings in
the physical commodity market were, at least in part, ill-gotten;
(iv) such conduct would result in enhanced regulatory scrutiny; (v)
the Company provided misleading information to Commodity Futures
Trading Commission investigators at early stages of the
investigation into the misconduct; (vi) resolution of the
governmental investigation into the Company would foreseeably
result in a significant fine; and (vii) 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.

On November 6, 2018, the Department of Justice ("DOJ") announced in
a press release that former JPMorgan precious metals trader John
Edmonds pleaded guilty to commodities fraud and spoofing
conspiracy.

On August 20, 2019, the DOJ announced that another JPMorgan
employee, Christian Trunz, pled guilty to spoofing charges, and had
done so with the knowledge and consent of his supervisors.

On September 23, 2020, Bloomberg reported that the Company was
nearing a settlement to resolve the spoofing charges.  According to
sources, the settlement was to be for a record of nearly $1
billion.

On this news, shares of JPMorgan stock fell $1.53 per share, or
approximately 2%, to close at $92.74 per share on September 23,
2020.

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


JUST ENERGY: NY Federal Judge Pulls Plug on Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Sebastien Malo at Reuters reports that a Buffalo, New York, federal
judge tossed a putative class action lawsuit against a U.S. unit of
Canadian electricity retailer Just Energy Group Inc, finding that
it had not broken its contract with New York customers by charging
"exorbitant rates" as the plaintiff claimed.

Senior U.S. District Judge William Skretny ruled that the contract
the plaintiff signed with Just Energy New York Corp in 2011 did not
support her claims that the rates she was charged should have been
comparable to those offered by competitors or should reflect
wholesale market prices. [GN]


K12 INC: Kehoe Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating potential securities claims
on behalf of investors of K12 Inc. ("K12" or the "Company") (NYSE:
LRN) to determine whether the Company engaged in securities fraud
or other unlawful business practices.

INVESTORS WHO PURCHASED, OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED, THE SECURITIES OF
K12 BETWEEN APRIL 27, 2020 AND SEPTEMBER 18, 2020, BOTH DATES
INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"), AND SUFFERED LOSSES GREATER THAN
$1000,000 ARE ENCOURAGED TO COMPLETE KEHOE LAW FIRM'S SECURITIES
CLASS ACTION QUESTIONNAIRE OR CONTACT MICHAEL YARNOFF, ESQ., (215)
792-6676, EXT. 804, MYARNOFF@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM,
SECURITIES@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM, TO DISCUSS THE SECURITIES
INVESTIGATION OR POTENTIAL LEGAL CLAIMS.

A class action lawsuit has been filed seeking to recover damages on
behalf of K12 investors who purchased, or otherwise acquired, the
securities of K12 during the Class Period and suffered losses.

According to the class action complaint, K12, allegedly, made false
and misleading statements to the public throughout the Class Period
and failed to disclose that (1) K12 lacked the technological
capabilities, infrastructure, and expertise to support the
increased demand for virtual and blended education necessitated by
the global pandemic; (2) K12 lacked adequate cyberattack protocols
and protections to prevent the disabling of its computer systems;
(3) K12 was unable to provide the necessary levels of
administrative support and training to teachers, students, and
parents; (4) and K12's officers lacked a reasonable basis for their
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

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

This press release may constitute attorney advertising. [GN]

K12 INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Jan. 19 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia on behalf of those who acquired K12 Inc.
("K12" or the "Company") (NYSE: LRN) securities during the period
from April 27, 2020 through September 18, 2020 (the "Class
Period"). Investors have until January 19, 2021 to apply to the
Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The Complaint alleges that K12 made false and misleading statements
to the public throughout the Class Period and failed to disclose
that: (1) K12 lacked the technological capabilities,
infrastructure, and expertise to support the increased demand for
virtual and blended education necessitated by the global pandemic;
(2) K12 lacked adequate cyberattack protocols and protections to
prevent the disabling of its computer systems; (3) K12 was unable
to provide the necessary levels of administrative support and
training to teachers, students, and parents; and (4) K12's officers
lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.

On August 26, 2020, reports emerged that K12's training for
teachers in Miami-Dade County Public Schools, one of the largest
school districts in the country, had been ineffective and
unacceptable. On this news, K12's shares declined by $4.40 (or
10.1%) to close at $39.17 on August 26, 2020.

When classes in Miami-Dade started on August 31, 2020, K12's
platform experienced major technical issues, disruptions, and a
series of cyberattacks. In response, the district's superintendent
revealed that the district had never executed its $15.3 million
contract with K12. On this news, the price of K12 shares declined
by $1.66 (or 4.5%) to close at $34.89 on September 3, 2020.

On September 10, 2020, the Miami-Dade County Public School's Board
voted to terminate their contract with K12. On this news, the price
of K12 common shares declined by $3.21 (or 11.5%) to close at
$30.55 on September 10, 2020.

If you acquired K12 securities, have information, or would like to
learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of
Kirby McInerney at 212-371-6600, by email at
investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to
discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters
without any cost to you.

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

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


K12 INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Jan. 19 Deadline
----------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of K12 Inc. (NYSE: LRN) between April 27, 2020 to
September 18, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for K12 investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the K12 class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1989.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

The Complaint alleges that K12 made false and misleading statements
to the public throughout the Class Period and failed to disclose
that: (1) K12 lacked the technological capabilities,
infrastructure, and expertise to support the increased demand for
virtual and blended education necessitated by the global pandemic;
(2) K12 lacked adequate cyberattack protocols and protections to
prevent the disabling of its computer systems; (3) K12 was unable
to provide the necessary levels of administrative support and
training to teachers, students, and parents; (4) and K12's officers
lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.

On August 26, 2020, reports emerged that K12's training for
teachers in Miami-Dade County Public Schools, one of the largest
school districts in the country, had been ineffective and
unacceptable. On this news, K12's shares fell by 7% over the course
of two trading days, to close at $37.70 on August 27, 2020.

When classes in Miami-Dade started on August 31, 2020, K12's
platform experienced major technical issues, disruptions, and a
series of cyberattacks. In response, the district's superintendent
revealed that the district had never executed its $15.3 million
contract with K12. On this news, the price of K12 shares fell by
10.5% over the course of two trading days, to close at $34.89 on
September 3, 2020.

Facing overwhelming complaints from parents and teachers about
K12's platform and curriculum, the Miami-Dade County Public Schools
Board voted to terminate their contract with K12. On this news, the
price of K12 common shares once again fell drastically, by 11.5%,
to close at $30.55 on September 10, 2020.

Other school districts also discovered K12's inability to deliver
on its promises. On September 17, 2020, following a loss of
confidence in K12's ability to provide educational solutions for
the district, the Beaufort County School Board also voted to
terminate its contract with K12. On this news, the price of K12's
shares fell 4.9%, to close at $27.21 on September 18, 2020.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January
19, 2021. 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-1989.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]

LAS VEGAS SANDS: Kirby McInerney Reminds of December 21 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Nevada on behalf of those who acquired Las Vegas Sands Corp.
("Las Vegas Sands" or the "Company") (NYSE: LVS) securities during
the period from February 27, 2016 through September 15, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until December 21,
2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Marina Bay Sands, a Las Vegas Sands resort in Singapore,
casino's control measures pertaining to fund transfers had
weaknesses; (2) the Marina Bay Sands' casino was consequently prone
to illicit fund transfers that implicated, among other issues, the
transfer of customer funds to unauthorized persons and potential
breaches in the Company's anti-money laundering procedures; (3) the
foregoing foreseeably increased the risk of litigation against the
Company, as well as investigation and increased oversight by
regulatory authorities; (4) Las Vegas Sands had inadequate
disclosure controls and procedures; (5) consequently, all the
foregoing issues were untimely disclosed; and (6) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

If you acquired Las Vegas Sands 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]

MARRIOTT INT'L.: Court Narrows Claims in 1st Amended Helman Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALAN HELMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MARRIOTT INTL.,
INC., et al., Defendants, Civil No. 2019-36 (D. V.I.), Magistrate
Judge Ruth Miller of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Virgin Islands Division, St. Thomas and St. John, granted in part
and denied in part both the (i) the Marriott Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, and (ii) RC Hotels
(Virgin Islands), Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First
Amended Complaint.

The Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of approximately 1,000
purchasers of fractional condominium interests at the Ritz-Carlton
Destination Club ("RCDC") on St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Their fractionals, a type of time-sharing property ownership, were
purchased between 2002 and 2009, and entitled them to three weeks
of exclusive access to the Ritz-Carlton Great Bay and other RCDC
locations worldwide.

The Defendants are entities and their affiliates and subsidiaries
that were engaged in various aspects of timeshare property
development, marketing and management, some under the RCDC
umbrella, and others associated with other, less expensive Marriott
products, such as the Marriott Vacation Club ("MVC").  The matter
arises from a merger of the two product lines, which the Plaintiffs
claim caused damage to the value of their holdings.

The seeds of the current dispute were planted over 40 years ago.
Beginning in the 1980s, Marriott International, Inc. ("MII")
established MORI to run the MVC timeshares.  In 1999, MORI
introduced the RCDC as a luxury alternative to the MVC timeshares.
Unlike traditional timeshares, the RCDC fractionals were separately
deeded property interests marketed as second homes available for
extended periods at premium prices.

The essence of the Plaintiffs' complaint is that the Defendants
surreptitiously merged two vacation ownership product lines -- the
luxury RCDC and the less-exclusive MVC, and that the Defendants did
not disclose their intent to merge the two property lines until
July 2012.  Further, they claim that the Defendants went ahead with
the merger despite concern from RCDC owners that the merger would
dilute the exclusivity and value of their fractionals.  Moreover,
they allege that although the Defendants promised that the merger
would not occur without the affirmative vote of a majority of
owners at each RCDC, when they realized they did not have the
necessary votes, they resorted to lying to the Plaintiffs and
hiding critical documents from the various RCDC boards.

Finally, with respect to the Ritz-Carlton Great Bay, the Plaintiffs
claim that the Defendants manufactured a financial crisis in order
to overcome opposition to the merger.  Under the Ritz-Carlton Great
Bay's governing documents, the Defendants were responsible for
foreclosing on fractionals with delinquent maintenance dues and
were required to pay any outstanding dues on the foreclosed units.
Thus, according to the Plaintiffs, when numerous Ritz-Carlton Great
Bay owners fell behind on their mortgages and their condominium
dues, the Defendants used the resulting financial situation as
leverage for the merger.  They contend they did not discover the
existence of the 2012 B&T Cook decision regarding the fiduciary
duties owed to them, or the 2013 Affiliation Agreement, until 2018.


The Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Class Action Complaint on
Nov. 8, 2019.  They assert the following counts in their complaint:
(1) Violations of Virgin Islands Criminally Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act; (2) Violations of Section  605(b); (3)
Violations of Section 605(c); (4) Conspiracy to Violate Section
605(d); (5) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (6) Constructive Fraud; (7)
Fraud by Concealment; (8) Aiding and Abetting Breach Tort; (9)
Breach of Contract/Implied Covenant Against RC Hotels VI and RC
Club St. Thomas; (10) Violation of Consumer Protection Law of 1973;
(11) Violation of Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices
Act; and (12) unjust enrichment/constructive trust.

The Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss on June 28,
2019, arguing that (1) the claims were barred by a release executed
in connection with the Settlement Agreement, (2) some of the claims
are time barred and (3) the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim
with respect to any cause of action asserted.  The Plaintiffs filed
an opposition and the Defendants replied.

In her Memorandum Opinion & Order dated Aug. 5, 2020, a full-text
copy of which is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2tl544f from
Leagle.com, Magistrate Judge Miller opines that the Plaintiffs have
stated a claim for breach of fiduciary duty.  First, because the
Plaintiffs allege that both the MII and MVW Defendants owed the
Plaintiffs a fiduciary duty as a result of the high degree of
control the Defendants exercised over the Plaintiffs' properties,
she finds that they have adequately alleged the existence of a
fiduciary duty.  Second, the Plaintiffs have identified various
ways in which the Defendants breached that duty.  Finally, the
Plaintiffs claim that the value of their fractionals has been
destroyed by the Defendants' actions, thereby satisfying the
remaining elements of their breach of fiduciary duty claim.

The Magistrate Judge grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' constructive fraud claim, as it is not recognized as a
viable cause of action in the Virgin Islands.

Next, under the Guardian Insurance Company v. Estate of
Knight-David standard, Magistrate Judge Miller opines that the
Plaintiffs state plausible claims for aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting fraudulent concealment.
First, they allege in conclusory fashion that the Defendants
knowingly aided and abetted in the breaches of fiduciary duty and
fraud by concealments committed by the other Defendants.  Regarding
fraudulent concealment, the Plaintiffs allege that neither the
Defendants nor the Association informed them of the B&T Cook
decision.  

The Plaintiffs have also articulated facts in support of each
element of a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing.  The Plaintiffs need not identify any specific
duty in any express provision of the Purchase Contracts that was
allegedly breached because, as they note, the duty -- if it exists
-- is implied.  Finally, that the express language of the governing
documents may state that the Program Manager has the right to
affiliate Ritz-Carlton Great Bay with other resorts, is not, in and
of itself, inconsistent with the Plaintiffs' claim that their
reasonable expectations were frustrated.

Magistrate Judge Miller further opines that the Plaintiffs have
alleged enough facts to plausibly invoke equitable tolling.  They
describe concealment or nondisclosure of information the Defendants
were obliged to provide that would have allowed the Plaintiffs to
discover their tort claims within the two-year limitations period;
and that despite exercising reasonable care and diligence, the
Plaintiffs could not have discovered these facts earlier.  

However, Magistrate Judge Miller cannot find that the gist of the
action doctrine bars the Plaintiffs' tort claims because the duties
breached are alleged to have arisen by virtue of contracts between
the Defendants and others who are not Plaintiffs in the case.
Thus, she denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss based on the
gist of the action doctrine.

She further finds that the Plaintiffs state a claim for conspiracy
under Virgin Islands Criminally Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("CICO").  First, the Plaintiffs introduce their
CICO claims with a summary of the enterprise.  Next, they describe
multiple acts of mail and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
Sections 1341, 1343, as well as violations of the Travel Act.
Thereafter, they aver that these acts were all part of the
Defendants' underlying scheme and harmed them.  Next, they identify
the predicate acts allegedly related to the Defendants' receipt of
the Plaintiffs' real property.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Marriott Defendants engaged in
deceptive practices in the management of the fractionals and in
their treatment of the Plaintiffs as property owners.  Even if the
Court assumes that fractionals qualify as consumer goods and that
the management of the fractionals qualifies as a service, none of
the practices described above are alleged to have occurred during
the sale, lease, rental or loan" of either.  Therefore, the
Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under the Virgin Islands
Consumer Protection Law ("CPL").
  
As for the Virgin Islands Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act ("CFDBPA"), Magistrate Judge Miller finds that the
Plaintiffs concede that their CFDBPA claim is untimely to the
extent it is based on the marketing, sale, and development of those
fractionals purchased between 2002 and 2009.  Therefore, the
Plaintiffs have not stated a viable CFDBPA claim.  However, the
Magistrate Judge concludes that the Plaintiffs may have stated a
plausible claim under the CFDBPA regarding the marketing but not
the management of the fractionals.  The Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants fraudulently promoted the fractionals as exclusive
properties, they arguably satisfied the pleading requirements of
the second and third elements of the statue regarding the
Defendants' marketing practices.

Magistrate Judge Miller then finds that the Plaintiffs have stated
plausible claims directly against MII.  In Count 1, where the
Plaintiffs assert violations of CICO, they allege that the
Defendants manipulated the fractional owners associations into
supporting the merger.  They also identify two MII executives they
claim were involved in perpetrating these CICO violations: Marriott
International's David Mann and Kevin Kimball participated in the
Oct. 2, 2013, Marriot International/Marriott Vacations Worldwide
Senior Executive Quarterly Meeting in Bethesda, Maryland, wherein
participants discussed the Re-engineering Plan update, furthering
the scheme.  Given these allegations, the claims against MII
survive the motion to dismiss.

Finally, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' claims are
barred by the 2013 Settlement Agreement between RC Hotels VI and
the Association.  Magistrate Judge Miller concludes that the relief
the Defendants seek is outside the bounds of a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion.  Further, the Plaintiffs argue the case is factually
distinguishable from the claims released in the Settlement
Agreement, because the case concerns the Marriott Defendants'
scheme to achieve the MVC-RCDC merger at Great Bay, it is distinct
from the Foreclosure Complaints and Dismissed Claims that were the
subject of the 2013 Settlement Agreement.  Thus, whether the
Settlement Agreement ultimately bars some or all the claims here is
simply not an issue the Court can resolve in the current motion at
this stage, rules Magistrate Judge Miller.

Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Miller granted in part and denied in
part the the Marriott Defendants' and RC Hotels (Virgin Islands),
Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss.  The Plaintiffs' constructive fraud claim
(Count VI), aiding and abetting claim, to the extent it is based on
constructive fraud (Count VIII), CPL claim (Count X); and CFDBPA
claim (Count XI) are dismissed.

MDL 2841: Monat Loses Bid to Dismiss Class Claims
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, IN RE: MONAT HAIR CARE PRODUCTS
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case
No. 1:18-md-02841 (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Darrin P. Gayles
entered an order denying without prejudice the Defendants' motion
to eliminate class allegations.

The Court finds that the motion is premature. The Court has already
found the Plaintiffs' class allegations to be sufficiently pled.
The Defendants may raise their arguments as to the merits of the
Plaintiffs' class allegations upon Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, the Court says.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 25, 2020, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC]

MERCEDES- BENZ UK: 1,000 Owners Sue Over Dieselgate in Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig McDonald at Sunday Post reports that more than 1,000 Mercedes
owners have launched claims for compensation in Scotland since a
dieselgate scandal emerged.

Lawyers now believe the case will become Scotland's biggest-ever
class action.

Transport authorities in Germany found the luxury marque installed
a cheating software in engines that limited emissions readings
during testing. It follows similar cases involving Volkswagen
(VW).

As a result of the latest ­development, Mercedes owners may be
eligible to claim for compensation if their car or van has a diesel
engine and was manufactured between 2008 and 2018.

Solicitor Advocate Patrick McGuire, of Thompsons Solicitors, said:
"In just three months, we have had 1,000 cases involving Mercedes,
which is half the number we accumulated against VW in five years.
The response has been staggering. The VW case was set to be the
largest class action in Scottish legal history but this one looks
certain to exceed it.

"It's astonishing how many ­people have come forward. It could be
that the feeling of being let down by this brand, which owners held
in such high regard, is intense and therefore likely to cause
people affected by this scandal to take the brand to task. We are
at the information-gathering stage at the moment and we will take
it from here."

"The reason we are seeing so many may be the number of ­models
affected. Clients I have spoken to feel this brand ought to have
been better."

Sources have suggested that, because of the impact on value and the
fix required, compensation could run to half the vehicle's value in
each case.

About 90,000 motorists who bought or leased affected VW, Audi, Seat
and Skoda diesel vehicles took legal action for ­compensation
after the scandal emerged five years ago. Scottish cases against
VW, currently in their early stages, are the first class action
raised here under new group proceedings rules.

In April last year German ­prosecutors charged former VW chief
executive Martin Winterkorn with fraud in connection with the
scandal. VW has already paid out billions in compensation in other
countries across the world, including nearly $9.8 billion (£7.5bn)
in the US, where claims about the scandal first emerged.

A spokesman for Mercedes-Benz UK said: "We believe the claims
brought forward by the UK law firms are without merit and will
vigorously defend against them or any group action. We believe the
emission control software functionalities in question are
justifiable from a technical and legal standpoint."

It is understood Mercedes parent company Daimler has filed
objections against the German Federal Motor Transport Authority's
recall orders regarding the emissions and these proceedings are
ongoing. [GN]


NANO-X IMAGING: Bronstein, Gewirtz Reminds of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Nano-X Imaging Ltd. ("Nano-X"
or "the Company") (NASDAQ: NNOX) and certain of its officers, on
behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Nano-X
securities between August 21, 2020 and September 15, 2020, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged
to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/nnox.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/nnox 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 in Nano-X
you have until November 16, 2020 to request that the Court appoint
you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes. [GN]

NANO-X IMAGING: Zhang Investor Reminds of Nov. 16 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who bought shares of Nano-X Imaging Ltd. (NASDAQ:
NNOX) between August 21, 2020 and September 15, 2020, inclusive. If
you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you had until the NOVEMBER 16,
2020 DEADLINE to move the Court for appointment.

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

http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=nano-x-imaging-ltd&id=2426

A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose,
among other things:  Nano-X's commercial agreements and its
customers were fabricated; Nano-X's statements regarding its
"novel" Nanox System were misleading as the Company never provided
data comparing its images with images from competitors' machines;
and as a result, defendants' public statements were materially
false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true
details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

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

NEXTCURE INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Nov. 20 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of
NextCure, Inc. 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 Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal
rights in these class actions at 888-638-4847 or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

NextCure, Inc. (NASDAQ: NXTC)
Class Period: November 5, 2019 - July 14, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 20, 2020

Shareholders with $100,000 losses or more are encouraged to contact
the firm

The complaint filed 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) NextCure possessed NC318 data that showed a
lack of efficacy and objective responses; (2) as a result, NC318
was not, in fact, effective in treating most tumor types; (3) as a
result, the NC318 application was proving to be limited (if even
useful at all); (4) as a result of the foregoing, there was a
significant realizable risk that NC318 would not be nearly as
popular as then-existing blockbuster drugs, such as Keytruda.   

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 Howard G. Smith, Esquire,
of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847,
toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com. [GN]

ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Odonate Therapeutics, Inc. ("Odonate") (NASDAQ: ODT)
between December 7, 2017 and April 21, 2020. You are hereby
notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced
in the the United States District Court for the Southern District
of California. To get more information go to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/odonate-therapeutics-inc-information-request-form?prid=10921&wire=5

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

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (i) the Company's orally administered
chemotherapy agent, tesetaxel, was not as safe or well-tolerated as
the Company had led investors to believe; (ii) consequently,
tesetaxel's commercial viability as a cancer treatment was
overstated; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you suffered a loss in Odonate you had until November 16, 2020
to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

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

PEABODY ENERGY: Portnoy Law Reminds of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Peabody Energy Corporation (NYSE: BTU)
investors that acquired shares between April 3, 2017 and October
28, 2019. Investors had until November 24, 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.

According to the Complaint, Peabody made misleading and/or false
statements to the market. At its North Goonyella mine, Peabody
failed to follow appropriate safety controls, placing it at a
heightened risk of being shut down. Peabody followed a low-cost
plan to restart operations that did not address environmental and
safety concerns. The Queensland Mines Inspectorate was likely to
mandate a more costly, safer approach. Based on this difference,
Peabody suffered further delays in reopening the mine. Peabody's
public statements were materially misleading and false throughout
the class period, based on these facts. Investors suffered damages
when the market learned the truth about Peabody.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
24, 2020.

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]


PROGRESSIVE COUNTY: Williams' Bid for Class Certification Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit titled Blaise Williams, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Progressive
County Mutual Insurance Company, Progressive Corporation,
Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, and Mitchell International,
Inc., Case No. 17-cv-02282-AJB-BGS (S.D. Cal.), Judge Anthony J.
Battaglia of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an order:

   (1) denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification;
       and

   (2) denying Defendant Mitchell International, Inc.'s motion
       for leave to amend its answer to the Plaintiff's first
       amended complaint.

The Action is a business tort and insurance action. The Plaintiff,
a Texas resident, brings this lawsuit against Defendant Mitchell
International, Inc. ("Mitchell"), arguing Mitchell is an unlicensed
insurance agent/adjuster. The Plaintiff also challenges Mitchell's
use of its Work Center Total Loss ("WCTL") software to adjust the
"actual cash value" ("ACV") of "total loss" vehicles, arguing this
system results in insureds obtaining an ACV less than the actual
value of their cars.

On September 6, 2016, the Plaintiff purchased a 2016 GMC Yukon for
$48,050.  The Plaintiff obtained insurance on the Yukon through
Progressive County Mutual ("Progressive").  The insurance policy
was a Progressive Texas Auto Policy. On Aug. 26, 2017, the
Plaintiff's 2016 GMC Yukon was significantly damaged as a result of
Hurricane Harvey.  The Plaintiff filed an insurance claim with
Progressive, and Progressive deemed the car a "total loss."

Progressive used the WCTL software system licensed from Mitchell to
determine the ACV of "total loss" vehicles, including the
Plaintiff's Yukon. Initially, Progressive told Plaintiff that based
on Mitchell's WCTL valuation system, the ACV of the Yukon at the
time of the loss was $38,109.27. Progressive subsequently made an
offer to settle the claim for $40,341.34.  The Plaintiff disputed
and negotiated the ACV of the Yukon. Progressive made a final offer
to settle the Plaintiff's claim in the amount of $42,112.17, based
on Mitchell's valuation of $39,775.92.  According to Plaintiff's
own research on the market value, age, and condition of the Yukon,
the Plaintiff alleges the ACV of the car at the time of the flood
was actually $44,025.

At bottom, the Plaintiff alleges the WTCL system used to determine
the ACV of his vehicle was "fundamentally flawed," and Mitchell and
Progressive were manipulating the system to decrease the ACV of the
vehicles.  Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges the WCTL system
intentionally undervalues a total loss vehicle's worth and "thereby
cheats Plaintiff and Class Members out of the full amount owed
under the Texas Policy."  The Plaintiff alleges Mitchell violated
the Texas Insurance Code by serving as an unlicensed agent.  To the
extent Mitchell is held to not be an agent of Progressive's, the
Plaintiff alternatively alleges Mitchell conspired with Progressive
to artificially reduce the ACV of vehicles declared total losses,
and tortiously interfere with Progressive's contract with its
insureds.

On Nov. 8, 2017, the Plaintiff filed suit against Mitchell and
Progressive. The Plaintiff amended his Complaint ("FAC") on Feb.
16, 2018. The FAC asserted the following claims: breach of
contract, tortious interference with contract, violations of the
Texas Insurance Code, breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, and civil conspiracy. Both Mitchell and
Progressive filed motions to dismiss. After full briefing of the
motions to dismiss, the Court dismissed the claims against
Progressive for lack of personal jurisdiction. Those claims have
been refiled in Texas state court. As to Mitchell, the Court found
that Plaintiff had stated a claim against Mitchell for tortious
contractual interference, violations of the Texas Insurance Code,
and civil conspiracy. On Jan. 13, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a
motion for class certification, and on May 26, 2020, Mitchell filed
its motion for leave to amend.

The Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring Mitchell to disclose in
WCTL reports that there are alternative methods to the WCTL system,
such as other guidebooks, for valuing total loss vehicles. As an
initial matter, Mitchell challenges the Plaintiff's Article III
standing to bring an injunctive relief class. To establish Article
III standing, the Plaintiff must establish that he: "(1) suffered
an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged
conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by
a favorable judicial decision."  In addition to these three
requirements, for injunctive relief, which is a prospective remedy,
the threat of injury must be "actual and imminent, not conjectural
or hypothetical."

Mitchell does not dispute the second or third prongs required for
standing. Instead, Mitchell disputes the injury-in-fact prong, and
the requirement of a threat of future injury necessary for
injunctive relief. Mitchell argues standing for an injunction does
not exist because the Plaintiff was never injured by Mitchell's
alleged lack of disclosures in the first instance. Particularly,
Mitchell states there is a disconnect between the injunctive relief
sought (mandating disclosures of alternative valuation methods),
and the Plaintiff's injury (decreased ACV) because the Plaintiff
knew from the start that there were other resources to guide the
valuation of his Yukon. Mitchell further argues there is no
standing to seek injunctive relief because there is no threat of
future harm.

Judge Battaglia notes that the Plaintiff has alleged an
injury-in-fact. As stated by the Plaintiff, the WCTL system
allegedly incorporates mechanisms that artificially suppress the
ACV of vehicles, causing Plaintiff to receive an ACV lower than he
should have received. Thus, there is an injury the Plaintiff can
point to. The Plaintiff has additionally demonstrated a threat of
future harm sufficient to confer standing for injunctive relief.
Accordingly, Judge Battaglia opines, the Plaintiff has sufficient
standing to bring an injunctive relief class.

Mitchell also argues that the Texas Insurance Code ("TIC" or "the
Code") does not provide for the relief the Plaintiff seeks because
the TIC does not allow Williams to act as a "private attorney
general," seeking remedies for wrongs that he himself did not
suffer. The Court, however, states that at least for standing
purposes, the Plaintiff has alleged damages in receiving a lower
ACV than he was entitled to. Thus, there is no barrier prohibiting
injunctive relief.

Having determined that Plaintiff has standing, the Court will next
turn to whether the Plaintiff has met the elements under Rule 23(a)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure necessary to certify a
class. The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following class pursuant
to Rules 23(a) and (b)(2): "All insureds under Progressive's Texas
Auto Policy (i) whose vehicles were declared total losses by
Progressive and (ii) whose claims were valued utilizing Mitchell's
WCTL system."

While the Plaintiff has satisfied numerosity and commonality, the
Plaintiff cannot demonstrate typicality under Rule 23(a)(3), Judge
Battaglia says.

Mitchell pushes back, arguing the Plaintiff's claims are not
typical because the "course of conduct involved differs from a vast
majority of the proposed class's claim." Mitchell points out that
94% of Progressive's total loss claims settle after the first phone
call from Progressive with the proposed settlement value from the
first WCTL valuation report. By contrast, the Plaintiff's total
loss claim took at least sixteen calls with Progressive
representatives and three reports run to negotiate a higher
settlement value.

While the Court does not doubt that the Plaintiff has prosecuted
the Action vigorously, there are concerns as to whether the
Plaintiff may be an adequate representative due to his atypical
situation, Judge Battaglia states, citing Kandel v. Brother Int'l
Corp., 264 F.R.D. 630, 634 (C.D. Cal. 2010). As such, the Court
finds that the Plaintiff is an inadequate class representative.

In sum, the Plaintiff fails on the Rule 23(a) typicality and
adequacy elements necessary for class certification, the Court
concludes.

Mitchell seeks leave to amend its answer to add a counterclaim
under Texas Insurance Code Sections 541.153 and 541.253, both of
which award attorneys' fees and costs for the filing of actions
under the TIC which are groundless and brought in bad faith or
brought for the purpose of harassment.

In opposition, the Plaintiff argues Mitchell has known that
Plaintiff asserts TIC claims against it for more than two and a
half years, but Mitchell's motion fails to explain why it just now
seeks to amend its pleadings to include its counterclaim." The
Plaintiff maintains that despite Mitchell's contention that
additional discovery is not needed, the deadline for fact discovery
has passed, and Plaintiff has not had an opportunity to defend
against the proposed claim. Lastly, the Plaintiff argues in
opposition that the addition of Mitchell's proposed claims is
futile because Mitchell has not pled facts tending to show the
Plaintiff's TIC claims are groundless, asserted in bad faith, or
harassing.

The Court agrees with the Plaintiff and will deny Mitchell's
request for leave to add a counterclaim. Mitchell does not
adequately explain why it only now discovered this claim, and why
it could not have asserted this claim two years ago. Indeed,
Mitchell knew about the Plaintiff's TIC claim from the inception of
this suit because it was included in the Plaintiff's Complaint in
November 2017. Therefore, to either reopen discovery, or allow the
addition of the claim without discovery as Mitchell advocates,
would prejudice the Plaintiff as his claims have been pending for
two years without allegations of bad faith, Judge Battaglia
opines.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 3, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y5w6fs4u from Leagle.com.


RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Dec. 29 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Arizona against Raytheon
Technologies Corporation f/k/a Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTX, RTN)
("Raytheon") on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired
Raytheon securities between February 10, 2016 and October 27, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

Important Deadline: Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Raytheon securities during the Class Period may, no later than
December 29, 2020, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff
representative of the class. For additional information or to learn
how to participate in this litigation please click
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/raytheon-technologies-corporation?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=raytheon.

According to the complaint, Raytheon is an aerospace and defense
company providing advanced systems and services for commercial,
military, and government customers worldwide. On April 3, 2020,
United Technologies Corporation and Raytheon Company completed a
merger and changed "Raytheon Company" to "Raytheon Technologies
Corporation."

The Class Period commences on February 10, 2016, when Raytheon
Company published its annual report on a Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2015, which stated in relevant part, "we
maintain a system of internal control over financial reporting to
provide reasonable assurance that assets are safeguarded and that
transactions are properly executed and recorded. The system
includes policies and procedures, internal audits and our officers'
reviews."

Concerns regarding Raytheon's financial accounting and internal
controls over financial reporting were revealed after market hours
on October 27, 2020, when Raytheon filed its quarterly report on a
Form 10-Q with the SEC for the quarter ended September 30, 2020.
The Form 10-Q reported that "[o]n October 8, 2020, [Raytheon]
received a criminal subpoena from the [U.S. Department of Justice
("DOJ")] seeking information and documents in connection with an
investigation relating to financial accounting, internal controls
over financial reporting, and cost reporting regarding Raytheon
Company's Missiles & Defense business since 2009."

Following this news, the price of Raytheon shares fell $4.19 per
share, or 7%, to close at $52.34 per share on October 28, 2020.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Raytheon had inadequate disclosure controls and
procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (2)
Raytheon had faulty financial accounting; (3) as a result, Raytheon
misreported its costs regarding Raytheon Company's Missiles &
Defense business since 2009; (4) as a result of the foregoing,
Raytheon was at risk of increased scrutiny from the government; (5)
as a result of the foregoing, Raytheon would face a criminal
investigation by the DOJ; and (6) as a result, the defendants'
public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all
relevant times.

If you wish to discuss this securities fraud class action lawsuit
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests with respect to this litigation, please contact Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell,
Esq.) at (844) 877-9500 (toll free) or (610) 667–7706, or via
e-mail at info@ktmc.com.

Raytheon investors may, no later than December 29, 2020, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.  A lead plaintiff is
a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class.  Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state and
federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and
federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force
behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of
dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from
the United States and around the world.  The firm represents
investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who
report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the
recovery of government dollars).  The complaint in this action was
not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check. [GN]

REATA PHARMA: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminded investors of the lead plaintiff deadline in a
securities class action that has been filed on behalf of investors
that purchased or acquired the securities of Reata Pharmaceuticals
Inc. ("Reata" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:RETA) between October 15,
2019 and August 7, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose: (i) the MOXIe Part 2 study results were insufficient to
support a single study marketing approval of omaveloxolone for the
treatment of FA in the U.S. without additional evidence; (ii) as a
result, it was foreseeable that the FDA would not accept marketing
approval of omaveloxolone for the treatment of FA in the U.S. based
on the MOXIe Part 2 study results; and (iii) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On August 10, 2020, during pre-market hours, Reata issued a press
release announcing its second quarter 2020 financial results,
wherein it disclosed that the FDA is "not convinced that the MOXIe
part 2 results" of the Company's study assessing omaveleoxolone for
the treatment of FA "will support a single study approval without
additional evidence that lends persuasiveness to the results," and
that, "in preliminary comments for [a] meeting, the FDA stated that
[Defendants] will need to conduct a second pivotal trial that
confirms the mFARS results of the MOXIe part 2 study with a similar
magnitude of effect."

On this news, Reata's stock price fell $51.79 per share, or 33.16%
to close at $104.41 per share on August 10, 2020.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 14, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Reata securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/reatapharmaceuticalsinc-reta-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-326/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

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

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

REATA PHARMA: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of December 14 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the lead plaintiff deadline in a
securities class action that has been filed on behalf of investors
that purchased or acquired the securities of Reata Pharmaceuticals
Inc. ("Reata" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:RETA) between October 15,
2019, and August 7, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose: (i) the MOXIe Part 2 study results were insufficient to
support a single study marketing approval of omaveloxolone for the
treatment of FA in the U.S. without additional evidence; (ii) as a
result, it was foreseeable that the FDA would not accept marketing
approval of omaveloxolone for the treatment of FA in the U.S. based
on the MOXIe Part 2 study results; and (iii) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On August 10, 2020, during pre-market hours, Reata issued a press
release announcing its second-quarter 2020 financial results,
wherein it disclosed that the FDA is "not convinced that the MOXIe
part 2 results" of the Company's study assessing omaveloxolone for
the treatment of FA "will support a single study approval without
additional evidence that lends persuasiveness to the results," and
that, "in preliminary comments for [a] meeting, the FDA stated that
[Defendants] will need to conduct a second pivotal trial that
confirms the mFARS results of the MOXIe part 2 study with a similar
magnitude of effect."

On this news, Reata's stock price fell $51.79 per share, or 33.16%,
to close at $104.41 per share on August 10, 2020.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 14, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Reata securities and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options, please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/reatapharmaceuticalsinc-reta-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-326/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll-free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

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

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


RECKITT BENCKISER: California Court Narrows Prescott Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned STEVEN PRESCOTT v. RECKITT BENCKISER LLC,
Case No. 20-cv-02101-BLF (N.D. Cal.), District Judge Beth Labson
Freeman issued an order granting in part and denying in part the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's first amended
complaint, without leave to amend.

Plaintiff Steven Prescott brings the putative class action against
Defendant Reckitt Benckiser LLC ("RB") on behalf of California
residents who purchased "Woolite Laundry Detergent," which is
defined to include both Woolite Darks laundry detergent and Woolite
Gentle Cycle laundry detergent. Mr. Prescott claims that RB
fraudulently represents in its advertising and labeling that
Woolite Laundry Detergent "brings the color back" to clothing,
"revives color," and possesses "Color Renew," when in fact the
detergent does not revive color in clothing.

Mr. Prescott asserts three state law claims on behalf of himself
and a putative class of California residents: (1) violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); (2) violation of
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); and (3)
Quasi-Contract Claim for Restitution. He seeks numerous forms of
relief, including damages, restitution, disgorgement, and
injunctive relief.

RB moved to dismiss these claims for lack of constitutional
standing under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

Although not entirely clear from the briefing, Judge Freeman notes
that it appears that RB's challenge to Prescott's request for
injunctive relief is brought under Rule 12(b)(1), and that the
remainder of RB's challenges are brought under Rule 12(b)(6). Mr.
Prescott has withdrawn his request for injunctive relief. The
Court, therefore, evaluates RB's motion under the Rule 12(b)(6)
standard only.

RB advances five grounds for dismissal of the FAC. First, RB
asserts that the claims of the FAC fail because no reasonable
consumer would be misled into believing that Woolite Laundry
Detergent adds color back into clothing after multiple washes.
Second, RB contends that the claims of the FAC do not satisfy
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), because Prescott alleges
neither the content of the advertising he viewed nor facts showing
the falsity of the labeling. Third, RB argues that without
sufficiently specific allegations of fraudulent representations,
Prescott has alleged nothing more than a lack of substantiation
claim, which is not actionable by private plaintiffs under
California law. Fourth, RB challenges Prescott's standing to seek
injunctive relief. Fifth, RB contends that Prescott is not entitled
to the remedy of non-restitutionary disgorgement of profits.

Judge Freeman states that Mr. Prescott's opposition makes clear
that there are no real disputes with respect to RB's third, fourth,
and fifth grounds for dismissal. As to the third ground, asserting
that there is no private right of action for lack of
substantiation, Mr. Prescott clarifies that he is not asserting a
claim for lack of substantiation. As to the fourth ground,
challenging his request for injunctive relief, Mr. Prescott has
withdrawn his request for injunctive relief. As to the fifth
ground, challenging his request for non-restitutionary disgorgement
of profits, he indicates that he is seeking disgorgement of profits
solely in connection with his quasi-contract claim for
restitution.

Thus, it does not appear that he seeks non-restitutionary
disgorgement of profits, Judge Freeman says. Accordingly, RB's
motion to dismiss is granted without leave to amend as to any
claims for lack of substantiation, injunctive relief, or
non-restitutionary disgorgement of profits.

The Court notes that Mr. Prescott construes RB's Rule 9(b)
challenge as relating only to the claims under the UCL (Claim 1)
and CLRA (Claim 2). In the reply, RB clarifies that it seeks
dismissal of the entire FAC under Rule 9(b), including the
Quasi-Contract Claim for Restitution (Claim 3). RB cites authority
from the district holding in In re Arris Cable Modem Consumer
Litig., No. 17-CV-01834-LHK (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2018), that where a
quasi-contract claim is based on the same allegedly misleading
advertising giving rise to UCL and CLRA claims, the quasi-contract
claim "also sounds in fraud and is subject to Rule 9(b)'s
heightened pleading requirements." The Court, therefore, considers
the Rule 9(b) challenge with respect to all three claims in the
FAC.

The Court agrees with RB that Mr. Prescott may not rely on the
contents of television and YouTube commercials that he did not
view. While he alleges that he "saw television advertisements for
Woolite Laundry Detergent" prior to his purchases, he does not
allege the content of any such advertisements. The Court,
therefore, has not considered his allegations regarding RB's
television and YouTube commercials in evaluating Prescott's UCL and
CLRA claims.

The Court agrees with RB that Mr. Prescott has not alleged any
misrepresentations made in television or YouTube commercials with
adequate specificity. While he alleges that he viewed television
advertisements for Woolite Laundry Detergent prior to his
purchases, he does not allege the content of any such
advertisements. However, the Court finds that Prescott has
satisfied Rule 9(b) with respect to his claims based on the
detergent's labeling.

The FAC clearly depicts the front and back labels of Woolite
Laundry Detergent Mr. Prescott alleges what aspects of the labeling
he claims are misleading, specifically the COLOR RENEW logos on the
front and back labels, and the statement that the detergent
"revives color" on the back label. RB contends that his allegations
are insufficient, because the graphic on the back label explaining
how Color Renew works unambiguously eliminates any deception.

After reviewing the FAC as a whole, including its depictions of the
front and back labels of Woolite Laundry Detergent, the Court
concludes that Mr. Prescott has satisfied Rule 9(b) by adequately
identifying the circumstances constituting the alleged fraud so
that RB can respond to the claims. Hence, RB's motion to dismiss
under Rule 9(b) is denied.

Accordingly, Judge Freeman rules that:

   (1) The motion to dismiss is granted in part without leave to
       amend as to any claims for lack of substantiation,
       injunctive relief, or non-restitutionary disgorgement of
       profits, and otherwise is denied;

   (2) The Defendant shall file an answer on or before Jan. 8,
       2021; and

   (3) The Order terminates ECF 26.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 3, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y3f5fe6u from Leagle.com.


ROYAL SEA CRUISES: Court Awards $48,622 Counsel Fee to McCurley
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Cynthia Bashant issued an order granting in part the
Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions in the lawsuit captioned JOHN
McCURLEY and DAN DEFOREST, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ROYAL SEA CRUISES, INC., Case No.
17-cv-00986-BAS-AGS (S.D. Cal.).

On July 31, 2020, the Court granted in part the Plaintiffs' Motion
to Strike Witness Declarations, for Restraining Order, for Monetary
Sanctions and for Disqualification of Counsel ("Motion for
Sanctions I"). In the Order, the Court expressed grave concern
about the Defendant's conduct in contacting class members without
notifying them that a class action existed, that they were
potentially a member of that class, and that they could be
represented by class counsel. It held that defense counsel violated
an ethical rule when they encouraged their client to contact an
individual the lawyer knew to be represented by counsel, regarding
the subject of the representation, without counsel's consent.  The
Court found the communications with class members were misleading
and coercive, and, thus, it granted the Plaintiffs' request for
monetary sanctions.

At the time the Plaintiffs filed the Motion for Sanctions I on
March 4, 2020, they stated they had incurred $18,037.50 in
attorneys' fees and $2,323.72 in costs in bringing the motion and
conducting sanctions discovery. However, since they claimed they
had incurred additional costs in replying and appearing in Court
after the initial Motion was filed, the Court allowed them to
supplement their request for Monetary Sanctions. This Motion for
Sanctions ensued ("Motion for Sanctions II").

The Plaintiffs now request $73,509.50 in attorneys' fees and
$3,764.01 in costs. They also request an additional $9,450 for
preparation of a Reply to the Motions for Sanctions II. Curiously,
the statements they submit supporting their requests for attorneys'
fees now detail $37,165 in attorneys' fees allegedly incurred
before the Motion was filed on March 4, 2020, well over the initial
request for $18,037.50.

District Judge Cynthia Bashant issued an order granting in part the
Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions in the lawsuit captioned JOHN
McCURLEY and DAN DEFOREST, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ROYAL SEA CRUISES, INC., Case No.
17-cv-00986-BAS-AGS (S.D. Cal.).

On July 31, 2020, the Court granted in part the Plaintiffs' Motion
to Strike Witness Declarations, for Restraining Order, for Monetary
Sanctions and for Disqualification of Counsel ("Motion for
Sanctions I"). In the Order, the Court expressed grave concern
about the Defendant's conduct in contacting class members without
notifying them that a class action existed, that they were
potentially a member of that class, and that they could be
represented by class counsel. It held that defense counsel violated
an ethical rule when they encouraged their client to contact an
individual the lawyer knew to be represented by counsel, regarding
the subject of the representation, without counsel's consent.  The
Court found the communications with class members were misleading
and coercive, and, thus, it granted the Plaintiffs' request for
monetary sanctions.

At the time the Plaintiffs filed the Motion for Sanctions I on
March 4, 2020, they stated they had incurred $18,037.50 in
attorneys' fees and $2,323.72 in costs in bringing the motion and
conducting sanctions discovery. However, since they claimed they
had incurred additional costs in replying and appearing in Court
after the initial Motion was filed, the Court allowed them to
supplement their request for Monetary Sanctions. The Motion for
Sanctions ensued ("Motion for Sanctions II").

The Plaintiffs now request $73,509.50 in attorneys' fees and
$3,764.01 in costs. They also request an additional $9,450 for
preparation of a Reply to the Motions for Sanctions II. Curiously,
the statements they submit supporting their requests for attorneys'
fees now detail $37,165 in attorneys' fees allegedly incurred
before the Motion was filed on March 4, 2020, well over the initial
request for $18,037.50.

Ultimately, although the Court finds monetary sanctions are
warranted.  However, it finds the Plaintiffs' request to be
excessive and awards a total of $48,622.22, consisting of
$46,298.50 in attorneys' fees and $2,323.72 in costs.

As to the attorneys' fees, the Court finds that the appropriate
lodestar for the preparation of reply brief to Motion for Sanctions
I is $7,685 and $4,842.50 is the amount reasonable for the
preparation and appearance at half hour court hearing. It concludes
that the appropriate lodestar is as follows: (i) $18,037.50 for the
attorneys' fees leading up to Motion for Sanctions I, (ii) $7,685
for drafting Reply brief, (iii) $4,842.50 for the preparation for
and appearance at Court hearing, (iv) $6,283.50 for the preparation
of fee petition and Motion for Sanctions II, and (v) $9,450 for the
preparation of Reply to Motion for Sanctions II.

As to the costs, in addition to the original amount of $2,323.72,
the Plaintiffs request $1,212.50 for expert expense, $207.79 for
transportation expenses and $20 for airplane WiFi for a total of
$3,764.01. First, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs fail to
explain what the transportation expense of $207.79 encompasses.
Second, they fail to detail why the WiFi on the airplane was
necessary for the Motion for Sanctions or the deposition. Lastly,
it is still unclear as to what these experts did to investigate the
issues raised in the Motion for Sanctions or how the expert
analysis had anything to do with the sanctions request.  No expert
witness testimony accompanied any of the requests for sanctions.
Hence, the Court declines to award the requested costs for expert
witness.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 3, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yyfxwc7l from Leagle.com.


SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: $75,000 Young Suit Settlement Gets Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled MARIO E. YOUNG, JR.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
SAFELITE FULFILLMENT, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:19-CV-01027-JLR (W.D. Wash.), Judge James L.
Robart of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington granted final approval to the parties' settlement as set
forth in the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement of Class Action
Claims.

On June 3, 2019, the Plaintiff commenced the Action on behalf of
himself and all others allegedly similarly situated with respect to
the claims asserted by filing in King County Superior Court.  On
July 2, 2019, the Action was removed to the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington.

For settlement purposes only, the Court certifies the Class, as
defined in the Court's June 18, 2020 Order Granting Conditional
Certification of Settlement Class and Preliminary Approval of
Settlement as follows:

     All individuals who (1) resided in Washington State,
     (2) were employed by Defendant as mobile technicians and/or
     technicians (or any similar position), (3) and who were
     paid, in whole or in part, on Defendant's Performance Pay
     Play (PPP) and who, in fact, earned PPP incentive pay during
     at least one pay period, (4) and who worked at least one
     shift of at least 4 hours in length at any time from June 3,
     2016 to April 21, 2017 (collectively, Class Members or the
     Class).

Accordingly, the Court finally and unconditionally approves the
Settlement Agreement pursuant to Rule 23(e)(1) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, and specifically:

   a. approves the $75,000 Gross Settlement Amount;

   b. approves the distribution of the Payout Fund to
      Participating Class Members in the manner specified in and
      subject to the terms of the Settlement Agreement;

   c. approves the Class Representative Service Award of $7,000
      to the Class Representative;

   d. approves Class Counsel's requested fees award of $22,500,
      which is thirty percent (30%) of the Gross Settlement
      Amount, and is to be paid from the Gross Settlement Amount;

   e. approves Class Counsel's request for reimbursement of
      litigation expenses of $7,000 to be paid from the Gross
      Settlement Amount;

   f. approves payment to Rust Consulting, Inc., the Settlement
      Administrator, of Administration Costs in the amount of
      $7,440 to be paid by Defendant above the Gross Settlement
      Amount; and

   g. approves and orders that in all other particulars the
      Settlement Agreement be carried out by the Parties and the
      Settlement Administrator subject to the terms thereof.

The Court also orders that, following the Effective Date as defined
in the Settlement Agreement, the Parties and the Settlement
Administrator shall carry out the following implementation schedule
for further actions and proceedings: Within 10 calendar days of
Effective Date Deadline for Defendant to fund the settlement
Deadline for Settlement Administrator to mail the Individual
Settlement Payments to eligible Participating Class Members; pay
the appropriate taxes to the appropriate Within 21 calendar days of
the Effective Date taxing authorities; make payment of Court
approved attorneys' fees and costs to appropriate counsel; and make
payment of the Class Representative Payment Uncashed checks shall
be sent by the Settlement Administrator to the Washington 90 days
after issuance of Settlement checks State Department of Revenue
Unclaimed Property Fund with the associated name of the Class
Member

The Action is dismissed with prejudice; provided, however, that
without affecting the finality of the Order, the Court retains
exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the case for purposes of
supervising, implementing, interpreting and enforcing this Order
and the Settlement Agreement, as may become necessary, until all of
the terms of the Settlement Agreement have been fully carried out.

Upon the Settlement Effective Date, Plaintiff and all Class Members
who have not timely and properly excluded themselves from the
Settlement Agreement shall be and hereby are enjoined from filing,
initiating or continuing to prosecute any actions, claims,
complaints, or proceedings with respect to the Released Claims.

In another order, Judge Robart grants the motion for attorneys'
fees, costs, and incentive awards to the Plaintiffs.

The Court finds and determines that reasonable attorneys' fees
should be awarded to India Lin Bodien, Attorney at Law and
Ackermann & Tilajef, P.C., counsel for Plaintiff Mario E. Young,
Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
of 30% of the Gross Settlement Sum of $75,000.00. Specifically, the
Court awards and grants final approval of the sum of $22,500.00
from the Gross Settlement Sum as attorneys' fees.

The Court finds and determines that $7,000 in costs is awarded to
India Lin Bodien, Attorney at Law and Ackermann & Tilajef, P.C.
The Court finds and determines that an incentive award in the total
amount of $7,000 is awarded to the Representative Plaintiff, Mario
E. Young, Jr.

A full-text copy of the Court's Final Approval dated Dec. 3, 2020,
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6ensjuw from Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of the Court's Fee Order dated Dec. 3, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y27da3ab from Leagle.com.


SMITH MEDICAL: Pressman Inc. Seeks Final Approval of Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Steven Arkin, v. Smith
Medical Partners, LLC and H. D. Smith, LLC, Case No.
8:19-cv-01723-CEH-AEP (M.D. Fla.), Plaintiff Pressman, Inc. asks
the Court to enter an Order finally approving the parties'
Settlement Agreement and dismissing this consolidated action with
prejudice.

On August 4, 2020, after consideration of the Settlement Agreement
and proposed class notice plan, the Court entered an order
preliminarily approving the Settlement and ordering notice to the
class.

The key terms of the Agreement are:

   a. Certification of a Settlement Class

      The Court preliminarily certified a "Settlement Class"
      defined as:

      "all persons who were sent, by or on behalf of H. D.
      Smith, LLC or Medical Partners, LLC, one or more
      advertisements by facsimile from September 26, 2013
      through January 25, 2019."

      The Settlement Class excludes: Smith, any parent,
      subsidiary, affiliate or controlled person of Smith, as
      well as the members, managers, officers, directors,
      agents, servants or employees of Smith, the immediate
      family members of such persons, and this Court.

   b. The Class Representative and Class Counsel

      Pursuant to the parties' agreement, the Court
      preliminarily appointed Plaintiff as the Class
      Representative and Plaintiff's attorneys (Phillip A.
      Bock/Bock Hatch & Oppenheim, LLC) as Class Counsel.

   c. The Settlement Fund

      The Defendants have agreed to pay $4,500,000 (the
      "Settlement Fund") to pay approved class member claims, an
      incentive payment to Plaintiff for serving as the Class
      Representative, attorney's fees and reasonable out-of-
      pocket expenses to Class Counsel, and the costs of
      administering the settlement, as approved by the Court.
      Because the Settlement Fund is non-reversionary, all money
      will be distributed and none will revert to the
      Defendants.

   d. Class Notice

      The parties notified the Settlement Class about the
      settlement by sending the notice and claim form by both
      U.S. mail and facsimile. The notice included instructions
      about opting out, objecting, or submitting a claim form to
      the Settlement Administrator by fax, mail, or through a
      settlement website.

The Plaintiff's class action complaint alleges that the Defendants
Smith Medical Partners, LLC and H. D. Smith, LLC sent unsolicited
advertisements by facsimile to the Plaintiff and others in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The action
seeks statutory damages.

The Arkin suit is being consolidated with the case captioned as:

   "William D. Sawyer, M.D., Pressman, Inc., et al. v. Smith
   Medical Partners, LLC and H. D. Smith, LLC, Case No. 8:19-cv-
   02410-CEH (M.D. Fla.)"

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of class action
settlement dated Nov. 23, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com
at https://bit.ly/37pJdiF at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          Robert M. Hatch, Esq.
          Jonathan B. Piper, Esq.
          BOCK HATCH & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. La Salle Street, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500


STADION MONEY: Davis Seeks to Certify 2 Classes in ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kimberly Davis and Vanessa
Romano, individually and as representatives of a class of similarly
situated persons, v. Stadion Money Management, LLC, Case No.
8:19-cv-00556-JFB-CRZ (D. Neb.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:

   1. certifying these classes:

      a. Legacy Class:

         "all participants and beneficiaries whose accounts were
         enrolled in the Stadion Legacy managed account service
         within a United of Omaha-administered, Employee
         Retirement Income Security Act o (ERISA)-governed
         retirement plan (other than a defined benefit plan) for
         any period of time after January 25, 2013"; and

      b. StoryLine Class:

         "all participants and beneficiaries whose accounts were
         enrolled in the Stadion StoryLine managed account
         service within a United of Omaha-administered ERISA-
         governed retirement plan (other than a defined benefit
         plan)";

   2. appointing themselves as the class representatives for the
      classes; and

   3. appointing their counsel Nichols Kaster, PLLP as class
      counsel.

Stadion Money operates as an investment management firm. The
company provides investment advisory and portfolio management
services.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Nov.
23, 2020, is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3fWQFpp at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brock J. Specht, Esq.
          Kai Richter, Esq.
          Paul Lukas, Esq.
          Brandon T. McDonough, Esq.
          Grace I. Chanin, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4700 IDS Center, 80 S 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
          E-mail: krichter@nka.com
                  lukas@nka.com
                  bspecht@nka.com
                  bmcdonough@nka.com
                  gchanin@nka.com


TACTILE SYSTEMS: Klein Law Reminds of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of Tactile Systems Technology, Inc. shareholders
There is no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a
loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that
the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Tactile Systems Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ:TCMD)
Class Period: May 7, 2018 - June 8, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 30, 2020

According to the complaint, Tactile Systems Technology, Inc.
allegedly made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) while Tactile publicly touted a $4
plus billion or $5 plus billion market opportunity, in truth, the
total addressable market for Tactile's pneumatic compression
devices was materially smaller; (2) to induce sales growth and
share gains, Tactile and/or its employees were engaged in illicit
and illegal sales and marketing activities in violation of
applicable federal and state rules and public payer regulations;
(3) the foregoing illicit and illegal sales and marketing
activities increased the risk of a Medicare audit of Tactile's
claims and criminal and civil liability; (4) Tactile's revenues
were in part the product of unlawful conduct and thus
unsustainable; and that as a result of the foregoing, (5)
Defendants' public statements, including Tactile's year-over-year
revenue growth, the purported growth drivers, and the effectiveness
of Tactile's internal controls over financial reporting were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Learn about your recoverable losses in TCMD:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/tactile-systems-technology-inc-loss-submission-form?id=11108&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]



THEODORE ROWE: Stout's Bid to Proceed in Forma Pauperis Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney issued an order and findings
and recommendations in the lawsuit entitled DOUGLAS J. STOUT, et
al. v. THEODORE CURTIS ROWE, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01674-CKD P
(E.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs are two state prisoners proceeding pro se in the
civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
Plaintiff Stout has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
However, Plaintiff Rowe has not filed any such motion.

In light of the fact that the civil rights action was filed as a
purported class action by both inmates, the Court denies the
pending motion to proceed in forma pauperis as incomplete.

By order filed Aug. 31, 2020, the Plaintiffs' complaint was
dismissed and 30 days leave to file an amended complaint was
granted. Following an extension of time, the Plaintiffs have not
filed an amended complaint in the time period provided.

Accordingly, Judge Delaney recommended that:

   1. Plaintiff Stout's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is
      denied as incomplete; and

   2. The Clerk of Court shall randomly assign the matter to a
      district court judge.

Judge Delaney also recommended that the action be dismissed without
prejudice.

The findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States
District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of
28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1). Within 14 days after being served with
these findings and recommendations, the Plaintiff may file written
objections with the Court. The document should be captioned
"Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations."
The Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the
specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's
order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 3, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yxbe5wz8 from Leagle.com.


TURQUOISE HILL: Zhang Investor Reminds of Dec. 14 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who bought shares of Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd.
(NYSE: TRQ) between July 17, 2018 and July 31, 2019, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

To join the class action, go to
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=turquoise-hill-resources-ltd&id=2474
or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.

http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=turquoise-hill-resources-ltd&id=2474

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
before the December 14, 2020 DEADLINE.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
the following about its Oyu Tolgoi copper-gold mine in Mongolia:
the stability issues were much more severe than represented and
called into question the design of the mine, the projected cost and
timing of production; the publicly disclosed estimates of the cost,
date of completion and dates for production from the underground
mine were not achievable; the "challenging ground conditions" were
much more severe than defendants represented, and in fact made it
impossible for Turquoise Hill and Rio Tinto to achieve those
estimates; the development capital required for the underground
development of Oyu Tolgoi would cost substantially more than a
billion dollars over what Turquoise Hill and Rio Tinto had
represented; Turquoise Hill would require additional financing
and/or equity to complete the project; the progress of underground
development and of Oyu Tolgoi was not proceeding as planned; and
the "key risks" had not been "well understood and managed" but had
placed the project schedule and cost into severe jeopardy. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

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

Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]

VALEANT PHARMA: Settlement Deal Gets Quebec Superior Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Faguy & Co. Inc., Siskinds LLP, Siskinds
Desmeules, Koskie Minsky LLP, Strosberg Sasso Sutts LLP, Rochon
Genova LLP, Morganti & Co. P.C. and Investigation Counsel P.C.
announce that on November 16, 2020, the Superior Court of Quebec
approved a settlement agreement ("Settlement") between the
Plaintiffs and Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. (now
Bausch Health Companies Inc.) ("Valeant") on behalf of all of the
remaining Defendants in Court File No. 500-06-000783-163
("Action"). The Settlement has been approved without any admission
of liability on the part of the Defendants.

The Settlement provides, among other things, for payment by Valeant
of CAD$94 million in settlement of the claims asserted, or which
could have been asserted in the Action, plus an additional CAD$3
million in respect of administration expenses and litigation
disbursements, all for the benefit of class members.

Details of the approval of the Settlement including the process for
Class Members to make a claim by February 15, 2021 are available by
consulting the links below. The deadline by which Class Members
must file claims is February 15, 2021.

The judgment of the Superior Court of Quebec and other information
in both English and French are available on class counsel's website
at http://faguyco.com/portfolio/valeant-class-actionas well as on
the Registre des actions collectives at
www.ValeantSecuritiesSettlement.ca. [GN]



VALERO MARKETING: Proposed Bautista Class Action Settlement Reached
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed class action settlement has been reached with Valero
Marketing and Supply Company ("Valero") in a case claiming that
Valero engaged in deceptive and unfair conduct in violation of
California law by failing to ensure that customers are notified
that debit card purchases of gasoline are charged a higher "credit"
price, rather than an available lower "cash" price.  The lawsuit is
known as Bautista v. Valero Marketing and Supply Company, Case No.
3:15-cv-05557-RS.  Valero denies these allegations and there has
been no finding of liability against Valero.  Valero has agreed to
the Settlement to avoid the uncertainties and expenses associated
with continuing the case.  

WHO IS IN THE SETTLEMENT CLASS?

You need to decide whether you are affected by this Settlement. The
Court-certified Settlement Class is defined as "All persons who,
between December 3, 2011 and the date of preliminary approval,
purchased gasoline using a debit card at a Valero-branded station
in California that advertised a 'cash' price and 'credit' price on
Relevant Valero-Branded Signage but the Relevant Valero-Branded
Signage did not affirmatively disclose how gasoline purchased with
a debit card was priced, and were charged more money per gallon
than the advertised 'cash' price."

WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?

Valero has agreed to implement certain modifications to signage
available for use by Valero-branded stations in California and its
signage policies to further inform consumers how their debit cards
will be charged at Valero-branded stations.  For details on the
modifications Valero has agreed to, visit
www.GasolineSignageSettlement.com or call 1-888-905-0604.

YOUR RIGHTS AND OPTIONS

Do Nothing:  By doing nothing, you are staying in the Settlement
Class, and you will automatically receive the benefits of the
Settlement in the form of signage and policy modifications.  But
you will lose the ability to file or continue your own lawsuit for
monetary damages or other relief against Valero based on the claims
that are a part of this Settlement.

Ask To Be Excluded:  If you exclude yourself from the Settlement
Class you still receive the benefit of the Settlement in the form
of signage and policy modifications.  However, you may then be able
to sue, or continue to sue, Valero regarding the advertising of
"cash" and "credit" prices and failure to disclose a "debit" price,
to the extent such claims are not time-barred.  To ask to be
excluded, you must send an "Exclusion Request" by mail stating that
you want to be excluded.  You must mail your Exclusion Request
postmarked by February 18, 2021.  For more information on how to
exclude yourself visit www.GasolineSignageSettlement.com.  

Object to the Settlement:  If you do not exclude yourself from the
Settlement Class, you can object to the Settlement, Class Counsel's
request for attorneys' fees and expenses, and for a service award
and reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses for the Settlement
Class Representative. Objections must be filed or postmarked on or
before the February 18, 2021.  For more information on how to
object visit www.GasolineSignageSettlement.com.

Should I Hire An Attorney?  You do not need to hire your own
attorney because Court-appointed Class Counsel is working on your
behalf.  If you retain an individual attorney, you will need to pay
for that attorney.

Final Approval Hearing:  The Court will hold the Final Approval
Hearing on March 11, 2021 at 1:30 p.m.  You can go to this hearing,
but you do not have to.  The Court will hear any objections,
determine if the Settlement is fair, and consider Settlement Class
Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and expenses, and for a
service award and reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses for the
Settlement Class Representative.

HOW DO I GET MORE INFORMATION?

This Notice is only a summary.  For more information, including the
Settlement Agreement and other legal documents, visit
www.GasolineSignageSettlement.com or contact the administrator at
1-888-905-0604.

SOURCE United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. [GN]


WELLS FARGO: Court Refuses to Transfer Healy Suit to W.D. Virginia
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled PATRICK HEALY, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. and DOES 1
through 5, Case No. 20-cv-01838-H-AHG (S.D. Cal.), District Judge
Marilyn L. Huff denies the Defendant's motion to transfer the
action to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Virginia.

On Aug. 11, 2020, Plaintiff Healy filed a class action complaint
against the Defendants in the Superior Court of California, County
of San Diego, alleging various claims related to the Defendants'
mortgage servicing operations. On Sept. 18, 2020, Defendant Wells
Fargo removed the case to federal court.

On Nov. 2, 2020, the Defendant filed a motion to transfer the
action to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Virginia.

The Plaintiff owns a home located in San Marcos, California.
According to him, the home is encumbered by a lien securing
repayment of a home mortgage loan issued by and/or serviced by
Defendant. He contends that the Defendant placed his home mortgage
account into a forbearance program, which was designed to protect
homeowners with COVID-19 related financial hardships, and
subsequently reported to credit agencies that no payments had been
made at all on his account for months.

The Plaintiff, however, claims that he never consented to be placed
in a loan forbearance program and had been making each monthly
payment in full and on time every single month.  He further asserts
that he suffered financial consequences as a result of the
Defendant's actions.  He alleges that he was unable to refinance
his home mortgage loan because the alleged false reports made by
the Defendant impacted his creditworthiness.

Consequently, the Plaintiff filed a California class action
complaint against the Defendant on Aug. 11, 2020, bringing a single
cause of action under the California Consumer Credit Reporting Act
on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated.

The Plaintiff's California law claim does not "arise out of" the
Defendant's contacts relating to the Western District of Virginia,
Judge Huff notes.  The Judge states that nowhere in the complaint
does the Plaintiff allege that the Defendant engaged in conduct
relating to, or had contacts with, the Western District of Virginia
that gave rise to his claims or the claims of the putative class
members he seeks to represent.

According to the Order, it follows that had the Defendant never
operated or acted in the Western District of Virginia, the
Plaintiff's alleged California claims would have arisen
nonetheless. Accordingly, had the Plaintiff originally brought this
lawsuit in the Western District of Virginia, the Defendant could
have successfully moved to dismiss the action for lack of personal
jurisdiction and, consequently, improper venue.

The Western District of Virginia is, thus, not a district in which
the case "might have been brought," according to the Order. This
precludes the Court from transferring the case to that district,
even if it were to determine that transfer served the interests of
justice pursuant to the first-to-file rule and Section 1404's
convenience factors. Accordingly, the Court need not address the
first-to-file rule arguments raised by the Defendant at this
juncture, Judge Huff says.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 3, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yyyx3jn9 from Leagle.com.


WELLS FARGO: Pomerantz Law Reminds of December 29 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Wells Fargo & Company ("Wells Fargo" or the "Company")
(NYSE: WFC) and certain of its officers.   The class action, filed
in United States District Court for the Northern District of
California and docketed under 20-cv-07997, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired Wells Fargo securities between October 13, 2017
and October 13, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").  Plaintiff
seeks to pursue remedies against Wells Fargo and certain of the
Company's current and former senior executives under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Wells Fargo securities
during the Class Period, you have until December 29, 2020, to ask
the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy
of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To
discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free,
Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares
purchased.

Wells Fargo is a global financial services company headquartered in
San Francisco, California.  The Company provides banking,
investment and mortgage products and services, as well as other
consumer and commercial financial services.  It is one of the
largest banks in the world as measured by both market
capitalization and total assets.

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) Wells Fargo had systematically
failed to follow appropriate underwriting standards and due
diligence guidelines in issuing billions of dollars' worth of
commercial loans, including by inflating the net income and future
expected cash flows of its commercial clients to justify issuing
excessive loan amounts; (ii) a materially higher proportion of
Wells Fargo's commercial loan customers were of poor credit quality
and/or at a substantially higher risk of default than disclosed to
investors; (iii) Wells Fargo had failed to timely write down
commercial loans, collateralized loan obligations ("CLOs") and
commercial mortgage backed securities ("CMBS") on its books that
had suffered impairments; (iv) Wells Fargo had materially
understated the reserves needed for expected credit losses in its
commercial portfolios; (v) Wells Fargo had systematically
misrepresented the credit quality and likelihood of default of the
loans it packaged and securitized into CLOs and CMBS, including by
artificially inflating the net income and expected cash flows of
its commercial clients in loan and securitization documentation;
(vi) the CLO and CMBS-related loans issued and investment
securities held by Wells Fargo were of lower credit quality and
worth far less than represented to investors; (vii) as a result of
(i)-(vi) above, Wells Fargo's Class Period statements regarding the
credit quality of its commercial loans, its underwriting and due
diligence practices, and the value of its CLO and CMBS books were
materially false and misleading; and (viii) as a result of all the
foregoing, Wells Fargo was exposed to severe undisclosed risks of
financial, reputational and legal harm, in particular in the event
of significant and sustained stress in the commercial credit
markets.

On April 14, 2020, Wells Fargo issued a press release providing its
results for the first quarter of 2020.  The release revealed a
stunning deterioration in the Company's credit portfolio,
particularly with respect to its commercial loans.

On this news, Wells Fargo's stock price fell 14% over the following
three trading sessions, closing at $26.89 per share on April 16,
2020.

Then, on May 5, 2020, Wells Fargo filed its quarterly report for
the first quarter with the SEC, which stated that the fair value of
the Company's CLO investments held-for-sale had fallen to $26.9
billion by the quarter's end, a 9% decline from the end of the
quarter and year ended December 31, 2019 ("FY19"), and that Wells
Fargo had suffered $1.7 billion in unrealized losses on its CLO
investments during the quarter.

On this news, Wells Fargo's stock price fell another 6% over two
trading days to close at $25.61 per share on May 6, 2020.

Then, on June 10, 2020, Wells Fargo's Chief Financial Officer John
Shrewsberry ("Shrewsberry") presented at the Morgan Stanley Virtual
US Financials Conference.  During the conference, Shrewsberry
revealed that Wells Fargo's second quarter reserve build would be
even "bigger than the first quarter" as a result of continued
deterioration in the Company's credit portfolio.

On this news, Wells Fargo's stock price fell 18% over two trading
days to close at $26.79 per share on June 11, 2020.

On July 14, 2020, Wells Fargo issued a release providing its
results for the second quarter of 2020.  The release stated that
Wells Fargo had suffered a $2.4 billion loss during the quarter, or
($0.66) per share, largely as a result of deterioration in its
commercial credit portfolio.

On this news, Wells Fargo's stock price fell another 5% to close at
$24.25 per share on July 14, 2020.

Finally, on October 14, 2020, Wells Fargo issued a release
providing its results for the third quarter of 2020.  The release
stated that Wells Fargo had recognized another provision expense of
$769 million and that non-accrual loans had increased $2.5 billion,
or 45%, to $8 billion during the quarter.

On this news, Wells Fargo's stock price fell another 6% to close at
$23.25 per share on October 14, 2020.

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

WESTJET: Fed. Court Pushes Flight Refund Suit to Provincial Courts
------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Curran at simpleflying.com reports that a Canadian class
action against WestJet Airlines, Swoop, Sunwing Airlines, Air
Canada, and Air Transat hit a setback. The Federal Court's Justice
Michael Manson struck out the class action, saying Canada's Federal
Court had no jurisdiction to hear it.

Janet Donaldson, a British Columbia resident, was leading a class
action in the Federal Court. WestJet had canceled Ms Donaldson's
April flight between Vancouver and New York. Ms Donaldson wanted to
receive a refund of her prepaid form of payment but instead was
offered a future credit against travel.

Canada's airlines have come under fire this year over their
reluctance to refund tickets on canceled flights. That's is slowly
turning around as airlines start responding to customer complaints
about the matter.

The disgruntled passenger took a common-law argument to a statutory
court. The class-action relied on common-law contracts of carriage
[tariffs] rules as the source of the airlines' obligations towards
Ms Donaldson and others along for the ride in her class action.

More specifically, Ms. Donaldson's lawyers argued that under the
doctrine of frustration of contract, there is an entitlement to a
refund to their original forms of payment. Alternatively, her
lawyers argued that according to the express or implied terms of
the tariffs, the complainants have a consumer right to a refund for
unused air tickets when the airlines cannot provide services within
a reasonable time.

That seems fair enough. As out of pocket passengers everywhere have
argued this year, if an airline fails to provide a flight, they
should provide a refund. But cash-strapped airlines want to hold
onto the funds, usually offering credits or vouchers for future
travel instead.

Canada's Federal Court had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint
Responding to Ms. Donaldson's complaint, the airlines argued the
Federal Court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter. The crux of
the issue is that Canada's Federal Court is a statutory court. It
can only exercise jurisdiction under a federal statutory grant of
power. The airlines argued the case was simply a breach of contract
claim between private parties. In the end, Justice Mason agreed and
ruled in favor of the airlines:

"In this case, the Plaintiff is asking this Court to extend its
jurisdiction beyond that which has been granted by law. This Court
has jurisdiction to adjudicate air carriage disputes under the
Montreal Convention, but this proceeding is outside the
convention's scope.

"This case is not based on or recognized by any statute, regulation
or applicable federal common law principle, it is plain and obvious
that this Court has no jurisdiction, and the Statement of Claim
ought to be struck without leave to amend."

A technical win, but a win nonetheless for Canada's airlines

The decision means disputes about airline refunds will need to be
heard in Canada's provincial courts. Several class actions against
Canada's airlines are quietly simmering away right now, most still
in the provincial courts. Justice Mason's decision will help keep
them there.

Airlines will welcome the ruling. Ms Donaldson's lawsuit did not
impress Swoop, Sunwing Airlines, Air Canada, and Air Transat. Her
(canceled) flight booking and the original dispute was with
WestJet. Canada's airlines have consistently said they've been
under extreme financial pressure this year. They argued spending
millions paying out refunds would further imperil them. They've
argued credit vouchers for future travel were a win-win solution
for both the airlines and passengers.

Justice Mason didn't have much to say about that, even if it was
the dispute's origin. This was a jurisdictional issue. It's a
technicality, but in 2020, Canada's airlines will take any win they
can get. [GN]

WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Wrap
Technologies, Inc. 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 Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal
rights in these class actions at 888-638-4847 or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

Wrap Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: WRTC)
Class Period: April 29, 2020 - September 23, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 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: (1) that there were
limited instances in which the Company's BolaWrap could possibly be
used because it requires a minimum of 10 feet between the officer
and the suspect; (2) that, as a result, the BolaWrap was reasonably
unlikely to be effective in most circumstances; (3) that the LAPD
sought extensions of the pilot program because they needed a larger
sample size to assess the effectiveness of the BolaWrap; (4) that
the LAPD had not found the BolaWrap to be useful or effective
during its pilot program; (5) that, as a result, the Company had
not received positive feedback from the LAPD about the BolaWrap and
therefore it was unlikely that the Company would secure a sizeable
contract with the LAPD; and (6) 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.

To be a member of these 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 Howard G. Smith, Esquire,
of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847,
toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com. [GN]

ZOSANO PHARMA: Klein Law Reminds of December 28 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Zosano Pharma Corporation. 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.

Zosano Pharma Corporation (NASDAQ:ZSAN)
Class Period: February 13, 2017 - September 30, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 28, 2020

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Zosano
Pharma Corporation made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's
clinical results reflected differences in zolmitriptan exposures
observed between subjects receiving different lots; (2)
pharmocokinetic studies submitted in connection with the Company's
New Drug Application included patients exhibiting unexpected high
plasma concentrations of zolmitriptan; (3) as a result of the
foregoing differences among patient results, the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration was reasonably likely to require further studies to
support regulatory approval of the Company's lead product
candidate, Qtrypta; (4) as a result, regulatory approval of Qtrypta
was reasonably likely to be delayed; and (5) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

Learn about your recoverable losses in ZSAN:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/zosano-pharma-corporation-loss-submission-form?id=11108&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]


                            *********

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 ***