/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201217.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, December 17, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 252

                            Headlines

ABIOMED INC: Local 705 Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters Suit Ongoing
ADTRAN INC: Bid to Dismiss Burbridge Putative Class Suit Pending
AIKEN ELECTRIC: Customers Set to Get Settlement Payouts
ALBANY COUNTY, NY: Dolberry Files Suit in N.D. New York
ALCOA USA: Simpkins Sues Over Healthcare Coverage Halt for Retirees

ALIERA COMPANIES: Albina Files Suit in E.D. Kentucky
ALLAKOS INC: Kim's Securities Class Action Underway
ALTERYX INC: Faces Three Putative Class Suits in California
AMAG PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Zamfirova Suit Pending
AMAZON.COM INC: Wiretaps Drivers' Facebook Groups, Jackson Says

AMBER AVALON: Collado Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Line Cooks
AMCOR PLC: Consolidated Dixon-Stein Suit Underway
AMERICAN MERCHANDISING: Rollman Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
AMNEAL PHARMA: Bid to Nix Cambridge Retirement System's Suit Denied
AMNEAL PHARMA: Continues to Defend Eaton Putative Class Suit

AMNEAL PHARMA: Dismissal of Pension Fund Suit Under Appeal
AMNEAL PHARMA: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Suit Ongoing
AMNEAL PHARMA: Metformin Marketing & Sales Practices Suit Ongoing
AMPEX BRANDS: Terrell Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
ANGI HOMESERVICES: Class Suit vs. HomeAdvisor Ongoing

ANTHEM: To Pay $39.5 Million Over 2014 Data Breach
APOLLO GLOBAL: Bid to Remand Fongers Class Suit Still Pending
APOLLO GLOBAL: Securities Suit Over PlayAGS Disclosures Underway
AQUI EN BELLA: Moreno Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
ASHFORD HOSPITALITY: Employment Class Suit vs Subsidiary Ongoing

ASHFORD HOSPITALITY: Membrives Class Action Underway
ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Appeal on Huang Suit Dismissal Pending
ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Class Certification Bid in Glumetza(R) Suit OK'd
ASTEC INDUSTRIES: Bid to Dismiss Retirement System Suit Pending
AUBURN COMMUNITY: Underpays Hospital Staff, Pizzoleo Suit Alleges

AUSTRALIA: Robo-Debt Victims Want Ministers to Face Inquiry
AUSTRALIA: Settles Robodebt Victims' Class Action for $1.2 Billion
AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: No Appeal Made in Hackel Securities Suit
AVIS BUDGET: Alexander Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Sales Agents
BARINGS BDC: Appeal in Triangle Capital Securities Suit Pending

BBVA USA: Improperly Charges Overdraft Fees, Eisenberg Suit Says
BLOOM ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Roberts Class Suit Remains Pending
BLOOM ENERGY: Consolidated Lincolnshire Police Fund Suit Stayed
BLOOM ENERGY: Sanchez Class Suit in Santa Clara County Underway
BLUE DIAMOND: Cosgrove Appeals Judgment in Fraud Suit to 2nd Cir.

BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Wins Dismissal of 3rd Amended Ignacuinos Suit
BOEING CO: Burke Appeals Order in ERISA Suit to Seventh Circuit
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Jevons Sues Over 7.89% Drop in Share Price
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Bid to Dismiss Newton Putative Class Suit Pending
BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Patti TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida

CALIFORNIA: Harvest Rock Files Application for Writ of Injunction
CANADA: Sixties Scoop Survivors Launches Healing Foundation
CARENET INFOMEDIA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gabel Suit Claims
CARPENTER CO: Sanchez Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
CHICAGO TITLE: Court Narrows Claims in Ovation Finance Suit

CHINA XD: Schmitt Claims Stockholders' Breach of Fiduciary Duties
CLECO CORPORATE: Class Action Over 2016 Merger Ongoing
CN MOTOR: Faces Shak Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. State Court
COMPASS RECOVERY: Woodall Files FDCPA Suit in D. Massachusetts
COMSCORE INC: Privacy Suit Settlement Still Subject to Court OK

CONDUENT INC: ERS Puerto Rico Elec. Power Authority Suit Ongoing
CONTRACT TRANSPORT: Burlaka Files Certiorari Petition in FLSA Suit
COVIA HOLDINGS: Faces Plagens Suit Over Decline of Share Price
CRODA INC: Faces Class Action Over Altas Point Plant Emission
CVS HEALTH: Continues to Defend LTC Business Unit-Related Suits

CVS HEALTH: Direct Purchaser EpiPen Litigation Ongoing
CVS HEALTH: Direct Purchaser Insulin Pricing Litigation Underway
CVS HEALTH: EpiPen ERISA Litigation Junked
CVS HEALTH: Radcliffe and Flaim Class Suits Underway
DESJARDINS FINANCIAL: Langlois Lawyers Discuss Ruling in Asselin

DIRECT ENERGY: Faces Lindenbaum Suit Over Telemarketing Calls
DIRECTV: 9th Cir. Judge Bennett Tries to Reverse Ruling in Revitch
DOMINION ENERGY: Employment-Related Action vs. SCANA Ongoing
DOMINION ENERGY: Issues $322MM Shares to Satisfy Obligation
DOMINION ENERGY: RICO-Linked Class Suit Dismissed

DOMINION ENERGY: SCANA Appeal on Securities Class Suit Pending
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Flores Employment Class Suit Removed to D. Nevada
DXC TECHNOLOGY: Appeal on Class Action's Dismissal Pending
DXC TECHNOLOGY: California Securities Class Suits Underway
EAGLE BANCORP: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Nix New York Class Suit

EIDOS THERAPEUTICS: Andrews & Springer Probes for Potential Breach
EL PASO CTY., CO: Weikert Balks at Lack of COVID-19 Safety Measures
ELANCO ANIMAL: Hunter Securities Class Action Ongoing
ELANCO ANIMAL: Safron Capital Corporation Class Suit Underway
ELEVATE CREDIT: Facing Class Suit Related to TFI Operations

ERNST & YOUNG: Wirecard Investors File Suit Over Negligence
ESSENTIAL UTILITIES: Discovery Ongoing in Suit Over Water Advisory
EVERQUOTE INC: Runyon TCPA Putative Class Suit Dismissed
EVERQUOTE INC: Scavo TCPA Putative Class Suit Tossed
EVOLENT HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Plymouth Retirement Suit Pending

EXELA TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Shen Putative Class Suit
FACEBOOK INC: Sherman Sues Over Social Media Market Monopoly
FALAFEL INC: Faces Sandoval Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. State Court
FAMOUS DAVE'S: Court Certifies Classes in Graham Labor Suit
FAMOUS TRANSPORTS: Walters Suit Moved to Northern District of Ohio

FARMLAND PARTNERS: Discovery in Turner Insurance Suit Still Stayed
FINE CRAFTSMAN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alvarez Suit Alleges
FIVE POINT: Bayview Hunters Point Litigation Underway
FLUIDIGM CORPORATION: Facing Putative Class Suit in California
FORD MOTOR: F-150 Transmission Class Action Tossed

FREIGHTCENTER INC: Swarthout Sue Over Sales Staff's Unpaid Overtime
FULTON FINANCIAL: Tentative Agreement Reached in Kress Suit
FUN & FIT: Hickmon Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Home Health Aides
GENERAL MILLS: Loses Bid to Seal Expert Declaration in Hilsley Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Adams Appeals Judgment in RICO Suit to 9th Cir.

GENERAL MOTORS: Altobelli Sues Over Defective Lithium-Ion Batteries
GENERAL MOTORS: Rankin Sues Over Defective Automobile Batteries
GEO GROUP: Class Suits Over Voluntary Work Program on Standby
GEO GROUP: Lead Plaintiff and Counsel Appointed in Hartel Suit
GLOBALROSE.COM LLC: Monegro Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York

GOGO INC: Motion to Dismiss Pierrelouis Putative Class Suit Pending
GREENWAY HEALTH: Charges Customers for EHR Release, Valley Says
HARRIS WATER: Loses FLSA Class Decertification Bid in Pino Suit
HC2 HOLDINGS: Agents Distributes Settlement Funds in DBMG Suit
HC2 HOLDINGS: Fair Value Investments Putative Class Suit Underway

HC2 HOLDINGS: Tera Class Action Concluded
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Wins Partial Summary Judgment in Sorrano Suit
HECLA MINING: Continues to Defend New York Class Actions
HOSOPO CORP: Settlement Proposed in TCPA Class Action
IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Bid to Dismiss Newman Class Suit Pending

INOVIO PHARMA: McDermid Class Action Ongoing
INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Plaintiff's Bid for Class Status Due Feb. 2021
INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Chauhan Suit
INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Liu Appeals S.D.N.Y. Ruling to 2nd Cir.
INTERFACE INC: Frank Cruz Alerts of Jan. 21 Plaintiff Bid Deadline

INTERNATIONAL MONEY: Paid $2.9MM to Settle Sawyer Class Suit
J2 GLOBAL: Affiliates Moved to Decertify Class in DN Suit
J2 GLOBAL: Garcia's Putative Securities Class Suit Underway
JONES LANG: Class Cert. Bid in WDES Suit Denied Without Prejudice
JP MORGAN: Banks Can Pay 0% Interest on Escrow Acct, 9th Cir. Says

K12 INC: Faces Baig Suit Over Drop in Share Price
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Putative Class Suit
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Valdes Sues Over 28.34% Decline in Share Price
LOGMEIN INC: Shareholder Class Action Against Firm Dismissed
MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending

MARS IT CORP: Mendez Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
MASSACHUSETTS: Thousands Back Lawsuit Against Flu Vaccine Mandate
MATCH GROUP: Candelore Suit Stayed Pending Appeal in Kim Suit
MATCH GROUP: Crutchfield Securities Class Suit Underway
MDL 2311: Court Awards Counsel Fees & Incentives in Antitrust Suit

MDL 2389: $35MM Facebook IPO Securities Suit Deal Approval Upheld
METLIFE INC: Bid to Approve Notice of Proposed Settlement Pending
METLIFE INC: MLIC Still Defends Julian & McKinney Class Action
METLIFE INC: Parchmann Class Action Ongoing in New York
MICHAELS ORGANIZATION: AMC Loses Bid to Dismiss Amended Lenz Suit

MILLENDO THERAPEUTICS: Mediation Ongoing in Freedman Suit
MYLAN NV: April 2021 Summary Judgment Trial in EpiPen(R) Suit
MYLAN NV: Bid to Nix EpiPen(R) Direct Purchasers' Suit Pending
MYLAN NV: Class Suit Over Valsartan Recalls Ongoing in New Jersey
MYLAN NV: EpiPen(R) Direct Purchasers' Suit in Kansas Underway

MYLAN NV: Israeli Securities Suit Still Stayed
NANTHEALTH INC: Deora Settlement Granted Final Approval
NANTHEALTH INC: Status Conference in Class Suit Set for Feb. 4
NATURMED INC: Henson Bid for Add'l Time to Serve Defendants Tossed
NCL CORP: Class Suit Over Misleading COVID-19 Statements Ongoing

NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Still Defends Securities Suits in California
NESTLE USA: Slack-fill Class Suit Now Pending in Cal. Super. Ct.
NEW VISION PIZZA: Darcy Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Overtime
NORTONLIFELOCK INC: Court Approves Avila Case Settlement
NORTONLIFELOCK INC: Trial in California Class Suit Set for June 14

NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Faces Amended Suit Over False COVID-19 Statements
NPAS SOLUTIONS: 11th Cir Eliminates Incentive Awards in TCPA Suit
OHIO: Attys. Asks Supreme Court to Hear Ogle Class Action
PARKER UNIVERSITY: Klein Suit Pending in N.D. Calif.
PEABODY ENERGY: OKC Firefighters Pension & Retirement Suit Ongoing

PERRIGO: Pension Funds Get Class Action Status Over Tax Liability
PINNACLE FINANCIAL: Suit vs. Bank Unit Voluntarily Dismissed
PLUM BOROUGH: Associated Builders Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
PLYMOUTH COUNTY: Justice Dept. Prevails in Detainees' Class Action
PLYMOUTH CTY, MA: Renewed Request for Discovery in Baez Denied

POLAR CORP: Court Narrows Claims in Amended McNulty Class Suit
POLARITYTE INC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Litigation Still Pending
PRECIGEN INC: Rosen Law Announces Securities Class Action
PRECIGEN INC: Stock Purchasers Putative Class Suits Underway
PROGENITY INC: Bid to Consolidate Soe and Brickman Suit Pending

PROSHARES TRUST II: Appeal from Dismissed Securities Suit Pending
PROSHARES TRUST II: Named as Defendant in Di Scala Suit
REATA PHARMACEUTICALS: Patel Securities Class Suit Underway
RECRO PHARMA: Seeks to Nix Amended Complaint Over IV Meloxicam
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Loses Schwebel Suit Dismissal Bid Under FDCPA

RINGCENTRAL INC: Reuben Class Suit over Privacy Violations Underway
RINGCENTRAL: Hurley Suit on Hold Pending Settlement Approval
RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Plaintiffs' Bid to Amend Complaint Pending
SCIENTIFIC SPECIALTIES: Paner Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SHEPHERD'S CARE: Faces $8.1MM Suit on Handling of Covid Outbreak

SOCIAL SECURITY: SSA to Release Files on Doan & Nguyen in Thai Suit
STERLING JEWELERS: Sup. Court Declines to Hear Class-Action Appeal
SUGAR MEMORIES: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SWATCH GROUP: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind Users, Brooks Says
TD ASSET: Loses Bid to Block Class Action Certification

TD ASSET: Suit for Commissions to Discount Brokers Certified
THINK FINANCE: Two Venture Capitalists Pay $50 Million
TIVITY HEALTH: Lead Plaintiff Appointed in Strougo Suit
TIVITY HEALTH: Trial in Weiner Class Suit Currently Set for May 18
TL CANNON: Dees Seeks to Recover Restaurant Servers' Unpaid Wages

TOYOTA MOTOR: Alaniz Consumer Class Suit Transferred to E.D. Texas
UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Affirms in Part Injunction Ruling in Roman
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Appeal in Teamsters Local 456 Suit Pending
US ECOLOGY: Settlement Reached in Sullivan PAGA Claims
VERTEX GLOBAL: Franklin Files Suit in S.D. New York

VIEWRAY INC: Bid to Dismiss PCRA Class Suit Pending
WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Trim Files Suit in S.D. California
WALMART INC: Powell Labor Class Suit Removed to S.D. California
WILLIAMS & FUDGE: $68,000 Yadgarova Suit Settlement Gets Final OK
[*] Class Action Law Changes May Upend Antitrust Litigation

[*] Exposure to Stock Drop Class Actions Amounts to $13BB in 3Q

                            *********

ABIOMED INC: Local 705 Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Abiomed, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated securities class action suit
headed by Local 705 International Brotherhood of Teamsters Pension
Fund.

On or about August 6, 2019, the Company received a securities class
action complaint filed on behalf of a single shareholder in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of himself and persons or entities that purchased or
acquired the Company's securities between January 31, 2019 through
July 31, 2019.

On October 7, 2019, a similar purported class action complaint was
filed by a different shareholder on behalf of himself and persons
or entities that purchased or acquired the Company's securities
between November 1, 2018 and July 31, 2019.  

Also, on October 7, 2019, four shareholders filed applications to
be appointed lead plaintiff and for their counsel to be appointed
lead counsel for the class. Two of those shareholders also filed
motions to consolidate the two cases and two of the shareholders
have withdrawn their applications to be lead plaintiff.

The complaints allege that the Company violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act, in connection with
allegedly misleading disclosures made by the Company regarding its
financial condition and results of operations. The Company has
reviewed and not yet responded to the complaints.

The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and
plans to defend itself vigorously.

On June 28, 2020, the Court issued an order consolidating the two
cases and appointed Local 705 International Brotherhood of
Teamsters Pension Fund as the lead plaintiff and the Labaton
Sucharow firm as lead counsel.  

On September 17, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint in which they proposed a new class period of May 3, 2018
to July 31, 2019.

As prescribed by a scheduling order, the Company may file a motion
to dismiss on or before November 16, 2020.

The Company intends to do so but does not expect a decision on that
motion until at least the second quarter of calendar year 2021.   


Abiomed, Inc. is a provider of mechanical circulatory support
devices and offers a continuum of care in heart recovery to heart
failure patients. The Company develops, manufactures and markets
proprietary products that are designed to enable the heart to rest,
heal and recover by improving blood flow and/or performing the
pumping function of the heart. The Company's products are used in
the cardiac catheterization lab, or cath lab, by interventional
cardiologists and in the heart surgery suite by heart surgeons for
patients who are in need of hemodynamic support prophylactically or
emergently before, during or after angioplasty or heart surgery
procedures. The company is based on Danvers, Massachusetts.

ADTRAN INC: Bid to Dismiss Burbridge Putative Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
ADTRAN, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss filed
in the purported stockholder class action lawsuit, captioned
Burbridge v. ADTRAN, Inc. et al., Docket No. 19-cv-09619, is
pending.

On October 17, 2019, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit,
captioned Burbridge v. ADTRAN, Inc. et al., Docket No. 19-cv-09619,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company, two of its current
executive officers and one of its former executive officers.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws and
seeks unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of purported
purchasers of ADTRAN securities between February 28, 2019 and
October 9, 2019.

The lawsuit claims that the defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding, and/or failed to disclose material
adverse facts about, the Company's business, operations and
prospects, specifically relating to the Company's internal control
over financial reporting, excess and obsolete inventory reserves,
financial results and demand from certain customers.

The lawsuit was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama on January 7, 2020, and co-lead
plaintiffs have been appointed to represent the putative class. The
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 30, 2020.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
June 17, 2020. The plaintiffs filed an opposition brief to the
defendants' motion to dismiss on July 17, 2020. The defendants
filed a reply to the plaintiffs' brief on August 17, 2020. The
motion to dismiss remains under review by the Court.

ADTRAN said, "We deny the allegations in the complaint, as amended,
and intend to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. At this time,
we are unable to predict the outcome of or estimate the possible
loss or range of loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit."

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

ADTRAN, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, markets, and services
a variety of high-speed digital transmission products. The
Company's products are used by telephone companies and corporate
end-users to implement advanced digital data services over existing
telephone networks. ADTRAN also offers a line of multiplexers which
provides modular flexibility. The company is based in Huntsville,
Alabama.

AIKEN ELECTRIC: Customers Set to Get Settlement Payouts
-------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Cabbagestalk, writing for WJBF, reports that Aiken Electric
Cooperative customer who received power between January 1, 2007,
and January 31, 2020, may receive an unexpected bill credit or
check in late November or December.

The bill credits (for amounts less than $25) and checks (for
amounts $25 or greater) are the results of the settlement of a
class-action lawsuit involving the failed nuclear construction
project at V.C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station in Fairfield
County.

The funds are being paid by Santee Cooper, which owned the project
along with SCE&G (now Dominion Energy).

Aiken Electric Cooperative did not own the project. However,
because Aiken Electric buys some of the power they deliver to
members from Santee Cooper, some members may be due bill credits or
payments.

Aiken Electric Cooperative did not calculate the payments. They
resulted from a court-approved process after a settlement agreement
was reached between the parties in the class-action lawsuit.

If you have any questions regarding the administration of the
Settlement, you may contact the Settlement Administrator. Please
include your name and your return address on all correspondence.

Cook v. SCPSA, Class Action Administrator, P.O. Box 3127, Portland,
OR 97208-3127
1-833-947-0894 (Toll-Free) info@SanteeCooperClassAction.com

Aiken Electric, a Touchstone Energy cooperative, is a
not-for-profit, member-owned utility that strives to provide
reliable, competitively priced energy and other services desired by
its members. The co-op serves more than 48,000 customers in a
nine-county area. [GN]


ALBANY COUNTY, NY: Dolberry Files Suit in N.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Craig D. Apple, et
al. The case is styled as Andre Dolberry, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated v. Craig D. Apple, Mailroom Staff, Case
No. 9:20-cv-01535-DNH-TWD (N.D.N.Y., Dec. 11, 2020).

The case alleges civil rights violations.

Sheriff Craig Apple began his law enforcement career in 1989 as a
corrections officer for the Albany Sheriff's Department in New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at Albany County
Correctional Facility in New York, appears pro se.

ALCOA USA: Simpkins Sues Over Healthcare Coverage Halt for Retirees
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT W. SIMPKINS and LYNNETTE J. KAISER; UNITED STEEL, PAPER AND
FORESTRY, RUBBER, MANUFACTURING, ENERGY, ALLIED INDUSTRIAL AND
SERVICE WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION AFL-CIO/CLC; and ALUMINUM
TRADES COUNCIL OF WENATCHEE, WASHINGTON AFL-CIO, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALCOA USA
CORP.; RETIREES GROUP BENEFIT PLAN FOR CERTAIN HOURLY EMPLOYEES OF
ALCOA USA CORP.; MEDICARE EXCHANGE HEALTHCARE REIMBURSEMENT PLAN
FOR CERTAIN MEDICARE ELIGIBLE RETIREES OF ALCOA; and ALCOA MEDICARE
PART B REIMBURSEMENT PLAN FOR CERTAIN MEDICARE ELIGIBLE RETIREES OF
ALCOA USA, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00278-RLY-MPB (S.D. Ind.,
Dec. 10, 2020) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.

According to the complaint, the Unions and Alcoa negotiated a
series of collectively bargained agreements which establish the
Alcoa's obligation to provide retiree healthcare coverage to
Medicare-eligible Class Members and preclude the Company from
unilaterally terminating this coverage. For decades, the parties
have understood that Alcoa was not free to unilaterally reduce or
eliminate this coverage, and have acted consistently with this
understanding. The parties' decades-long understanding about the
duration of retiree healthcare benefits was consistent with the
customs, practices, and usages in the aluminum industry.

Retirees earned the right to Company-provided retiree healthcare
coverage for themselves and their eligible dependents through
decades of employment. Class Members rely on their right to receive
Company-provided retiree healthcare coverage for their healthcare
needs. Despite the collectively bargained contract provisions, as
well as other promises to provide continuing coverage to Class
Members, Alcoa has announced that, effective January 1, 2021, it
will unilaterally terminate the retiree healthcare coverage it has
provided to Medicare-eligible Class Members for decades.

For Retirees and spouses but not for disabled adult children, Alcoa
will replace the comprehensive medical and prescription drug
benefits it contracted to provide with limited funds conveyed
through a "Health Reimbursement Arrangement" or "HRA". Disabled
adult children who have long received healthcare coverage from
Alcoa will not receive even an HRA contribution.

Alcoa Corporation manufactures metal products. The Company produces
and sells bauxite, alumina, and aluminum products. Alcoa serves
aluminum industry worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey A. Macey, Esq.
          Barry A. Macey, Esq.
          MACEY SWANSON LLP
          445 N. Pennsylvania Street, Suite 401
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 637-2345
          Facsimile: (317) 637-2369
          E-mail: jmacey@maceylaw.com
                  bmacey@maceylaw.com

               - and -

          Pamina Ewing, Esq.
          Joel R. Hurt, Esq.
          Ruairi McDonnell, Es.
          FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE
          & KRAVEC, LLC
          429 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1300
          Pittsburgh, PAa 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-8400
          Facsimile: (412) 281-1007
          E-mail: pewing@fdpklaw.com
                  jhurt@fdpklaw.com
                  rmcdonnell@fdpklaw.com

               - and -

          David R. Jury, Esq.
          60 Boulevard of the Allies, Room 807
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 562-2549
          Facsimile: (412) 562-2574
          E-mail: djury@usw.org


ALIERA COMPANIES: Albina Files Suit in E.D. Kentucky
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Aliera Companies,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Hanna Albina, Austin Willard, on
behalf of others similarly situated v. The Aliera Companies, Inc.,
Trinity Healthshare, Inc., Oneshare Health, LLC doing business as:
Unity Healthshare, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-00496-JMH (E.D. Ky., Dec.
11, 2020).

The case arises from contract-related issues.

Aliera Companies -- https://www.alieracompanies.com/ -- is focused
on providing options and services to a multitude of industries that
fit every need and budget. The company provides services to support
its subsidiaries which focus on the aspects of the health care
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Todd Varellas, Esq.
          James John Varellas, III, Esq.
          VARELLAS & VARELLAS
          249 W. Short Street, Suite 201
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Phone: (859) 252-4473
          Fax: (859) 252-4476
          Email: tvarellas@varellaslaw.com

               - and -

          Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
          Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq.
          SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONMORE HAAMBURGER PLLC
          3101 Western Avenue, Suite 350
          Seattle, WA 98121
          Phone: (206) 223-0303
          Fax: (206) 223-0246

               - and -

          George Farah, Esq.
          Rebecca P. Chang, Esq.
          William H. Anderson, Esq.
          HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
          81 Prospect Street
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 477-8090
          Fax: (844) 300-1952

               - and -

          Jerome Park Prather, Esq.
          William R. Garmer, Esq.
          GARMER & PRATHER, PLLC
          141 N. Broadway
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Phone: (859) 254-9352
          Fax: (859) 233-9769
          Email: jprather@garmerprather.com
                 bgarmer@garmerprather.com


ALLAKOS INC: Kim's Securities Class Action Underway
---------------------------------------------------
Allakos Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to
defend itself against a putative securities class action complaint
captioned Kim v. Allakos et al., No. 20-cv-01720 (N.D. Cal.).

On March 10, 2020, the putative securities class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company, its Chief Executive
Officer, Dr. Robert Alexander, and its Chief Financial Officer, Mr.
Leo Redmond.

The complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and seeks damages based on alleged material
misrepresentations and omissions concerning its Phase 2 clinical
trials of lirentelimab (AK002).

The proposed class period is August 5, 2019, through December 17,
2019, inclusive.

On August 28, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
adding as defendants Adam Tomasi, the Company's President and Chief
Operating Officer, and Henrik Rasmussen, the Company's Chief
Medical Officer.

Allakos said, "Given the early stage of this litigation matter, the
Company cannot reasonably estimate a potential future loss or a
range of potential future losses and has not recorded a contingent
liability accrual as of September 30, 2020."

Allakos Inc. is a clinical stage biotechnology company developing
lirentelimab (AK002), formerly known as antolimab, the company's
wholly-owned monoclonal antibody, for the treatment of various mast
cell and eosinophil related diseases. The company is based in
Redwood City, California.

ALTERYX INC: Faces Three Putative Class Suits in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alteryx, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company faces
three putative class action suits related to its alleged violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Three putative securities class action lawsuits have been filed
against the company and certain of its executive officers in U.S.
federal court relating to alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder:

(1) Smith v. Alteryx, Inc., Case No. 8:20-cv-01540 (CD Cal.), filed
on August 19, 2020; (2) Chau v. Alteryx, Inc., Case No.
8:20-cv-01886 (CD Cal.), filed on September 30, 2020; and (3)
Lalgudi v. Alteryx, Inc., Case No. 8:20-cv-01910 (CD Cal.), filed
on October 2, 2020.

Each of these cases asserts claims on behalf of persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the company's
securities between May 6, 2020 and August 6 or 7, 2020, inclusive,
and that such persons and entities were harmed as a result of
alleged false or misleading statements, or alleged material
omissions.

These proceedings all remain in the early stages.

Alteryx said, "We intend to vigorously defend against these claims.
Because of the early stages of these matters, we are unable to
estimate a reasonably possible range of loss, if any, that may
result from these matters."

Alteryx, Inc. operates a self-service data analytics software
platform that enables organizations to enhance business outcomes
and the productivity of their business analysts. Alteryx, Inc. was
founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.

AMAG PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Zamfirova Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss in the consolidated class action suit entitled, Zamfirova
et al. v. AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 20-00152-JMV-SCM, is
pending.

On November 1, 2019, the company was named as a defendant in a
class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Missouri, captioned Barnes v. AMAG
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-05088-RK (W.D. Mo.).

Subsequently, other plaintiffs represented by the same law firm
filed similar class action lawsuits in other jurisdictions, and the
lawsuits have been consolidated in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey, Zamfirova et al. v. AMAG
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 20-00152-JMV-SCM (April 2, 2020).

The plaintiffs in this action, on behalf of themselves and
purported state-wide classes of similarly situated consumers in
California, Kansas, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, and Wisconsin,
assert claims for violation of state consumer protection laws and
unjust enrichment based on allegations that the company and/or its
predecessor companies made misrepresentations and omissions
regarding the effectiveness of Makena in connection with the sale
and marketing of that product from 2011 through the present.

On June 8, 2020, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint. Plaintiffs responded with a brief in
opposition to the motion on July 6, 2020. The company's reply brief
was filed on July 20, 2020.

AMAG said, "We are currently unable to predict the outcome or
reasonably estimate the range of potential loss associated with
this matter, if any."

AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is an American pharmaceutical company
developing products that treat iron deficiency anemia in adult
patients. The company is based in Waltham, Massachusetts.

AMAZON.COM INC: Wiretaps Drivers' Facebook Groups, Jackson Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
DRICKEY JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-02365-BEN-BGS (S.D.
Cal., Dec. 4, 2020) arises from the Defendant's unlawful conduct
that violates the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the
California Invasion of Privacy Act.

The complaint asserts that the Defendant wiretaps the electronic
communications of Amazon Flex Drivers' closed Facebook groups. The
wiretaps are used by the Defendant to secretly observe and monitor
Flex Drivers' electronic communications and confidential postings
in their closed Facebook groups, through the use of monitoring
tools, automated software, and dedicated employees with backgrounds
in signals intelligence and communications intelligence.

Specifically, the Defendant allegedly monitored these closed groups
secretly and gathered information about planned strikes or
protests, unionizing efforts, pay, benefits, deliveries, warehouse
conditions, driving conditions, and whether workers had been
approached by researchers examining Amazon's workforce, the suit
days.

Amazon.com, Inc., is an American multinational technology company
based in Seattle, Washington, which focuses on e-commerce, cloud
computing, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  ndeckant@bursor.com

AMBER AVALON: Collado Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Line Cooks
-----------------------------------------------------------
ARIEL ANTONIO PIMENTEL COLLADO, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. THE AMBER AVALON CORP. d/b/a HOTEL CHANTELLE,
GOOD PAL CHANTELLE CORP. d/b/a HOTEL CHANTELLE, GOOD PAL RAVEL
CORP. d/b/a RAVEL HOTEL, RAVEL HOTEL LLC d/b/a RAVEL HOTEL, 163
HOPE STREET LLC f/d/b/a/ THE REGAL DINER AND COCKTAIL BAR, RAVI
PATEL, and SETH LEVINE, Case No. 1:20-cv-10410 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 10,
2020) arises from the unlawful labor practices of the Defendants in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to pay him and the
Class the minimum and overtime wages to which they were entitled,
failed to provide spread-of-hours pay for each day during which
they worked in excess of 10 hours, failed to pay on a weekly basis,
failed to provide wage notices, and failed to provide accurate wage
statements.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a line cook from
approximately May 10, 2013 until September 27, 2018.

The Amber Avalon Corp. is a New York corporation that, along with
Good Pal Chantelle Corp., owns, operates, and does business as
Hotel Chantelle.

Good Pal Ravel Corp. is a New York Corporation that, along with
Ravel Hotel LLC, owns, operates, and does business as Ravel Hotel.

163 Hope Street LLC is a New York Corporation that at all relevant
times owned, operated, and did business as The Regal Diner and
Cocktail Bar. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis Pechman, Esq.
          Galen C. Baynes, Esq.
          PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC  
          488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 583-9500
          E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
                  baynes@pechmanlaw.com

AMCOR PLC: Consolidated Dixon-Stein Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------
Amcor plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to
defend the consolidated Dixon, et al. v. Bemis Company, Inc. et al.
and Stein v. Bemis Company, Inc. et al. class suit.

Two lawsuits brought by purported holders of Bemis Company, Inc.
stock against Bemis and Bemis directors and officers are pending in
federal court in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, in which plaintiffs are seeking damages for alleged
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission rules and regulations.

Plaintiffs allege a failure to adequately disclose information in
the proxy statement issued in connection with the Amcor-Bemis
merger.

The cases are: Dixon, et al. v. Bemis Company, Inc. et al. and
Stein v. Bemis Company, Inc. et al., which were instituted on April
15, 2019 and April 17, 2019, respectively.

On March 10, 2020, the federal court in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York consolidated the two pending
cases into a single class action.

The Company intends to defend the claims made in the pending
actions. It is too early for the Company to provide any reliable
assessment of the likely quantum of any damages that may become
payable if its defense is unsuccessful in whole or in part.
Although it is not possible at present to establish a reliable
assessment of damages, there can be no assurance that any damages
that may be awarded will not be material to the results of
operations or financial condition of the Company.

Amcor plc is a holding company originally incorporated under the
name Arctic Jersey Limited as a limited company under the Laws of
the Bailiwick of Jersey in July 2018, in order to effect the
Company's combination with Bemis Company, Inc. On October 10, 2018,
Arctic Jersey Limited was renamed "Amcor plc" and became a public
limited company incorporated under the Laws of the Bailiwick of
Jersey.

AMERICAN MERCHANDISING: Rollman Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SHANE ROLLMAN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. AMERICAN MERCHANDISING
SPECIALISTS, INC., a North Carolina corporation doing business as
AMS Retail Solutions, AUTOMATED MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., a
Virginia corporation doing business as AMS Retail Solutions and
DOES I through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
34-2020-00283600-CU-OE-GDS, was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Sacramento to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California on November
25, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-02371-KJM-JDP to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code.

American Merchandising Specialists Inc. provides retail
merchandising and marketing services. The Company offers on-going
retail coverage, planogram compliance, new product launch
execution, update and maintenance of displays, installation of POP
and endcaps, store surveys and audits. American Merchandising
Specialists operates in the United States. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          John L. Barber, Esq.
          Efthalia S. Rofos, Esq.  
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1400
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 545-9200
          Facsimile: (714) 850-1030
          E-mail: John.Barber@lewisbrisbois.com
                  Thalia.Rofos@lewisbrisbois.com

               - and -

          Armine Antonyan, Esq.     
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 250-1800
          Facsimile: (213) 250-7900
          E-mail: Armine.Antonyan@lewisbrisbois.com

AMNEAL PHARMA: Bid to Nix Cambridge Retirement System's Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the court
entered an order denying the motion to dismiss the class action
suit entitled, Cambridge Retirement System v. Amneal
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. SOM-L-1701-19.

On December 18, 2019, Cambridge Retirement System filed a class
action complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Somerset
County, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated against
the Company and fourteen current or former officers alleging
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 (Cambridge Retirement System v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
et al., No. SOM-L-1701-19).

Plaintiff principally alleges that the amended registration
statement and prospectus issued on May 7, 2018 in connection with
the Amneal/Impax business combination was materially false and/or
misleading, insofar as it purportedly failed to disclose that
Amneal was an active participant in an alleged antitrust conspiracy
with several other pharmaceutical manufacturers to fix generic drug
prices, and that this secret collusion improperly bolstered
Amneal's financial results reflected in the registration statement.


Plaintiff seeks, among other things, certification of a class and
unspecified compensatory and/or recessionary damages. On March 31,
2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Oral
argument on the motion to dismiss was held telephonically on July
14, 2020 and, on July 15, 2020, the court entered an order denying
the motion.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the
claims asserted with respect to the litigation. However, any
adverse outcome could negatively affect the Company and could have
a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations,
cash flows and/or overall financial condition.  

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and
therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and
Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
based in Bridgewater, New Jersey.

AMNEAL PHARMA: Continues to Defend Eaton Putative Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a proposed class action suit entitled, Kathryn
Eaton v. Teva Canada Limited, et al., No. T-607-20.

On June 3, 2020, the Company and Impax were named in a proposed
class action complaint filed in the Federal Court of Canada in
Toronto, Ontario against numerous generic pharmaceutical
manufacturers on behalf of a putative class of individuals who have
purchased generic drugs in the private sector from 2012 to present
(Kathryn Eaton v. Teva Canada Limited, et al., No. T-607-20).

Plaintiff alleges a conspiracy in Canada among generic
pharmaceutical manufacturers to fix prices and allocate or divide
customers or markets for various products (including, with respect
to the Company, bethanechol chloride tablets, norethindrone acetate
tablets, ranitidine HCL tablets, and warfarin sodium tablets; and
with respect to Impax, digoxin and lidocaine-prilocaine) in
violation of Canada's Competition Act.

Plaintiff seeks, among other things, $2.75 billion in monetary
damages or compensation, pre- and post-judgment interest, and
costs.

Amneal said, "The Company believes it has substantial meritorious
defenses to the claims asserted with respect to the litigation.
However, any adverse outcome could negatively affect the Company
and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results
of operations, cash flows and/or overall financial condition."

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

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and
therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and
Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
based in Bridgewater, New Jersey.

AMNEAL PHARMA: Dismissal of Pension Fund Suit Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the appeal
taken by lead plaintiff New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel
Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund from the district
court's orders dismissing its securities class action is ongoing.

On April 17, 2017, lead plaintiff New York Hotel Trades Council &
Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund filed an
amended class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated against Impax and four current or former
Impax officers alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 (Fleming v.
Impax Laboratories Inc., et al., No. 4:16-cv-6557-HSG).

Plaintiff asserts claims regarding alleged misrepresentations about
three generic drugs. Its principal claim alleges that Impax
concealed that it colluded with competitor Lannett Corp. to fix the
price of generic drug digoxin, and that its digoxin profits stemmed
from this collusive pricing. Plaintiff also alleges that Impax
concealed from the market anticipated erosion in the price of
generic drug diclofenac and that Impax overstated the value of
budesonide, a generic drug that it acquired from Teva.

On June 1, 2017, Impax filed its motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On September 7, 2018, the Court granted Impax's motion,
dismissing plaintiff's claims without prejudice and with leave to
amend the complaint.

Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on October 26, 2018.
Impax filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on
December 6, 2018; plaintiffs' opposition thereto was filed on
January 17, 2019; and Impax's reply in support of its motion to
dismiss was filed on February 7, 2019.

A hearing before the Court on the motion to dismiss took place on
May 2, 2019. On August 12, 2019, the Court entered an order
granting Impax's motion, dismissing plaintiff's second amended
complaint with prejudice.  

On September 5, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from both
dismissal orders with the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.  

Plaintiff's opening brief was filed with the Ninth Circuit on
February 14, 2020, Impax's answering brief was filed on May 15,
2020, and plaintiff filed its reply brief on August 4, 2020. Oral
argument is scheduled for December 9, 2020.

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and
therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and
Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
based in Bridgewater, New Jersey.

AMNEAL PHARMA: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, In Re Generic
Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation

Beginning in March 2016, numerous complaints styled as antitrust
class actions on behalf of direct purchasers, indirect reseller
purchasers, (end-payors) and several separate individual complaints
on behalf of certain direct and indirect purchasers have been filed
against manufacturers of generic digoxin, lidocaine/prilocaine,
glyburide-metformin, and metronidazole, including Impax
Laboratories, Inc. (now Impax Laboratories, LLC).

The end-payor plaintiffs comprised Plaintiff International Union of
Operating Engineers Local 30Benefits Fund; Tulsa Firefighters
Health and Welfare Trust; NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund; Pipe Trade
Services MN; Edward Carpinelli; Fraternal Order of Police, Miami
Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund; Nina Diamond; UFCW Local 1500
Welfare Fund; Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare Fund; The City
of Providence, Rhode Island; Philadelphia Federation of Teachers
Health and Welfare Fund; United Food & Commercial Workers and
Employers Arizona Health and Welfare Trust; Ottis McCrary; Plumbers
& Pipefitters Local 33 Health and Welfare Fund; Plumbers &
Pipefitters Local 178 Health and Welfare Trust Fund; Unite Here
Health; Valerie Velardi; and Louisiana Health Service Indemnity
Company.

The direct purchaser plaintiffs comprised KPH Healthcare Services,
Inc. a/k/a Kinney Drugs, Inc.; Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc.;
César Castillo, Inc.; Ahold USA, Inc.; and FWK Holdings, L.L.C.
The opt-out plaintiffs comprised The Kroger Co.; Albertsons
Companies, LLC; H.E. Butt Grocery Company L.P.; Humana Inc.; and
United Healthcare Services, Inc.
32

On April 6, 2017, the JPML ordered the consolidation of all civil
actions involving allegations of antitrust conspiracies in the
generic pharmaceutical industry regarding 18 generic drugs in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, as In Re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust
Litigation (MDL No. 2724).

Consolidated class action complaints were filed on August 15, 2017
for each of the 18 drugs; Impax is named as a defendant in the 2
complaints respecting digoxin and lidocaine-prilocaine. Impax also
is a defendant in the class action complaint filed with the MDL
court on June 22, 2018 (as amended December 21, 2018) by certain
direct purchasers of glyburide-metformin and metronidazole.

Each of the various complaints alleges a conspiracy to fix,
maintain, stabilize, and/or raise prices, rig bids, and allocate
markets or customers for the particular drug products at issue.
Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages
and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution.

On October 16, 2018, the Court denied Impax and its co-defendants'
motion to dismiss the digoxin complaint. On February 15, 2019, the
Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to
dismiss various state antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust
enrichment claims brought by two classes of indirect purchasers in
the digoxin action.

The Court dismissed seven state law claims in the end-payor
plaintiffs' complaint and six state law claims in the indirect
reseller plaintiffs' complaint. Motions to dismiss the
glyburide-metformin and metronidazole complaint, as well as 2 of
the complaints filed by certain opt-out plaintiffs, were filed
February 21, 2019.

On March 11, 2019, the Court issued an order approving a
stipulation withdrawing the direct purchaser plaintiffs'
glyburide-metformin claims against Impax.

On May 10, 2019, the Company was named in a civil lawsuit filed by
the Attorneys General of 43 States and the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut against numerous generic pharmaceutical manufacturers,
as well as certain of their current or former sales and marketing
executives, regarding an alleged conspiracy to fix prices and
allocate or divide customers or markets for various products,
including, with respect to the Company, bethanechol chloride
tablets, norethindrone acetate tablets, and ranitidine HCL tablets,
in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection
laws.

Plaintiff States seek, among other things, unspecified monetary
damages (including treble damages and civil penalties), as well as
equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution.

On June 4, 2019, the JPML transferred the lawsuit to the E.D. Pa.
for coordination and consolidation with MDL No. 2724.  On November
1, 2019, the State Attorneys General filed an Amended Complaint in
their lawsuit, bringing claims on behalf of 9 additional states and
territories against several defendants; the relief sought and
allegations concerning the Company (including the products
allegedly at issue) are unchanged from the original complaint.

On July 31, 2019, the Company and Impax were served with a Praecipe
to Issue Writ of Summons and Writ of Summons filed in the
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas by 87 health insurance
companies and managed health care providers (America's 1st Choice
of South Carolina, Inc., et al. v. Actavis Elizabeth, LLC, et al.,
No. 190702094), naming as defendants in the putative action the
same generic pharmaceutical manufacturers and individuals named in
the above-referenced State Attorneys General lawsuit.

However, to date, no complaint has been filed or served in this
action. On December 12, 2019, the court entered an Order placing
the case in deferred status pending further developments in MDL No.
2724.

On October 11, 2019, opt-out plaintiff United Healthcare Services,
Inc. filed a second complaint, in the United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota (United Healthcare Services, Inc. v.
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al., No. 0:19-cv-2696),
following on and supplementing its original action, asserting
antitrust claims against the Company and other generic
pharmaceutical manufacturers arising from the facts alleged in the
above-referenced State Attorneys General lawsuit.

Plaintiff seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages
and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution.

On October 25, 2019, the lawsuit was transferred by the JPML to the
E.D. Pa. for coordination and consolidation with MDL No. 2724.

On October 18, 2019, opt-out plaintiff Humana, Inc. also filed a
second complaint, likewise following on supplementing its original
action to assert antitrust claims against the Company and other
generic pharmaceuticals manufacturers arising from the facts
alleged in the above-referenced State Attorneys General lawsuit,
and similarly seeking, among other things, unspecified monetary
damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and
restitution.  

The lawsuit was filed in the E.D. Pa. (Humana Inc. v. Actavis
Elizabeth, LLC, et al., No. 2:19-cv-4862), and likely will be
incorporated into MDL No. 2724 for coordinated pretrial
proceedings.

On November 14, 2019, the Company was named in a complaint filed in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County, on
behalf of 14 counties in the state of New York, who allege to be
both direct and end-payor purchasers of generic pharmaceutical
drugs (County of Nassau, et al., v. Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc., et
al., No. 616029/2019).

The complaint asserts antitrust claims against the Company and
other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers arising from the facts
alleged in the above-referenced State Attorneys General lawsuit.

Plaintiff Counties seek, among other things, unspecified monetary
damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and
restitution.

On December 17, 2019, defendants removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (No.
2:19-cv-7071) and, on January 3, 2020, the case was transferred by
the JPML to the E.D. Pa. for coordination and consolidation with
MDL No. 2724.

On December 11, 2019, the Company and Impax were named in a
complaint filed in E.D. Pa. by Health Care Service Corp., a
customer-owned health insurer opting out of the end-payor plaintiff
class (Health Care Service Corp. v. Actavis Elizabeth, LLC, et al.,
No. 2:19-cv-5819-CMR). Plaintiff alleges a conspiracy among generic
pharmaceutical manufacturers to fix prices and allocate or divide
customers or markets for various products (including, with respect
to the Company, bethanechol chloride tablets, norethindrone acetate
tablets, and ranitidine HCL tablets; and with respect to Impax,
digoxin, lidocaine-prilocaine, and metronidazole) in violation of
federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws.

Plaintiff seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages
and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution.

The lawsuit likely will be incorporated into MDL No. 2724 for
coordinated pretrial proceedings.

On December 16, 2019, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut against Impax and
against numerous generic pharmaceutical manufacturers on behalf of
assignees of claims from third-party health benefit plans, opting
out of the end-payor plaintiff class (MSP Recovery Claims, Series
LLC, et al. v. Actavis Elizabeth, LLC, et al., No.
3:19-cv-1972-SRU), and alleging a conspiracy to fix prices and
allocate or divide customers or markets for various products
(including, with respect to Impax, digoxin and
lidocaine-prilocaine) in violation of federal and state antitrust
and consumer protection laws.

Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages
and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution.

On January 10, 2020, the case was transferred by the JPML to the
E.D. Pa. for coordination and consolidation with MDL No. 2724.

On December 19, 2019, the end-payor plaintiffs filed a new
complaint, following on and supplementing their putative class
action lawsuit pending in MDL No. 2724. Plaintiffs' new complaint,
which names as defendants the Company, Amneal, Impax, and numerous
generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, alleges a conspiracy to fix
prices and allocate or divide customers or markets for various
products (including, with respect to the Company/Amneal,
bethanechol chloride tablets, norethindrone acetate tablets,
ranitidine HCL tablets, naproxen sodium tablets,
oxycodone/acetaminophen tablets, phenytoin sodium capsules, and
warfarin sodium tablets; and with respect to Impax, metronidazole,
amphetamine salts tablets, dextroamphetamine sulfate ER capsules,
cyproheptadine HCL tablets, methylphenidate tablets, and
pilocarpine HCL tablets) in violation of federal and state
antitrust and consumer protection laws.

On September 4, 2020, the end-payor plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint including additional allegations with respect to Impax
concerning calcipotriene and mometasone furoate.

Plaintiffs continue to seek, among other things, unspecified
monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and
restitution.

On December 20, 2019, the indirect-reseller plaintiffs filed a new
complaint naming the Company, following on and supplementing their
putative class action lawsuit pending in MDL No. 2724.

The new complaint is brought on behalf of both independent
pharmacies and hospitals, and asserts antitrust claims against the
Company and other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers (as well as
distributors of generic pharmaceuticals, including
AmerisourceBergen Corp., Cardinal Health Inc., and McKesson
Corporation) arising from the facts alleged in the above-referenced
State Attorneys General lawsuit.

Plaintiffs continue to seek, among other things, unspecified
monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and
restitution.

On March 11, 2020, the indirect-reseller plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint.

On December 27, 2019, the Company and Impax were named in a
complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California by Molina Healthcare, Inc., a
publicly-traded healthcare management organization opting out of
the end-payor plaintiff class (Molina Healthcare, Inc. v. Actavis
Elizabeth, LLC, et al., No. 3:19-cv-8438). Plaintiff alleges a
conspiracy among generic pharmaceutical manufacturers to fix prices
and allocate or divide customers or markets for various products
(including, with respect to the Company, bethanechol chloride
tablets, norethindrone acetate tablets, and ranitidine HCL tablets;
and with respect to Impax, digoxin, lidocaine-prilocaine, and
metronidazole) in violation of federal and state antitrust and
consumer protection laws.

Plaintiff seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages
and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution.

On February 5, 2020, the case was transferred by the JPML, to the
E.D. Pa. for coordination and consolidation with MDL No. 2724.

On February 7, 2020, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed a new
complaint, following on and supplementing their putative class
action lawsuit pending in MDL No. 2724.

Plaintiffs' new complaint, which names as defendants the Company,
Amneal, Impax, and numerous generic pharmaceutical manufacturers,
alleges a conspiracy to fix prices and allocate or divide customers
or markets for various products (including, with respect to the
Company/Amneal, bethanechol chloride tablets, ranitidine HCL
tablets, naproxen sodium tablets, oxycodone/acetaminophen tablets,
hydrocodone/acetaminophen tablets, phenytoin sodium capsules, and
warfarin sodium tablets; and with respect to Impax, amphetamine
salts tablets, dextroamphetamine sulfate ER capsules,
methylphenidate tablets, and pilocarpine HCL tablets) in violation
of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws.

On October 21, 2020, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint.

Plaintiffs continue to seek, among other things, unspecified
monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and
restitution.

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and
therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and
Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
based in Bridgewater, New Jersey.

AMNEAL PHARMA: Metformin Marketing & Sales Practices Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated putative class action suit
entitled, In Re Metformin Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation
(No. 2:20-cv-02324-MCA-MAH).

The Company, Amneal, and AvKARE, Inc. have been named as
defendants, along with numerous other manufacturers, retail
pharmacies, and wholesalers, in several putative class action
lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, filed on behalf of consumers who purchased
and third-party payors who paid or made reimbursements for
prescription generic metformin products manufactured by or for
defendants, alleging that defendants made and sold to putative
class members metformin products that were "adulterated" or
"contaminated" with N-Nitrosodimethylamine (or "NDMA")and thus
"worthless," and therefore that plaintiffs suffered economic losses
in connection with their purchases or reimbursements.

On June 3, 2020, the D.N.J. consolidated the lawsuits, as In Re
Metformin Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation (No.
2:20-cv-02324-MCA-MAH).

On July 6, 2020, plaintiffs filed a consolidated economic loss
class action complaint, in which they seek, in addition to class
certification, among other things, unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages, statutory penalties, and equitable relief.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated action on
October 8, 2020. Plaintiffs' opposition is due on November 23,
2020, and defendants' reply is due on December 21, 2020.

In October 2020, the Company and AvKARE, Inc. were named as
defendants, along with Walmart, in two additional medical
monitoring class action lawsuits pending in the D.N.J., filed on
behalf of individuals who consumed metformin that was allegedly
"contaminated" with NDMA and who allegedly suffered "cellular
damage, genetic harm, and/or are at an increased risk of developing
cancer as a result, but have not yet been diagnosed with cancer."

Plaintiffs, therefore, seek for defendants to fund medical
motoring, including, but not limited, to evaluations and
treatments.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the
claims asserted with respect to this matter. However, any adverse
outcome could negatively affect the Company and could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations,
cash flows and/or overall financial condition.

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and
therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and
Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
based in Bridgewater, New Jersey.

AMPEX BRANDS: Terrell Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
--------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTEN TERRELL & JAMES FOSTER, each individually and on behalf of
similarly situated persons v. AMPEX BRANDS PH OF DALLAS, INC. d/b/a
PIZZA HUT, Case No. 3:20-cv-03582-E (N.D. Tex., Dec. 7, 2020)
arises from the Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants uniformly failed to
reimburse them and the Class members at any reasonable
approximation of the cost of owning and operating its vehicles for
Defendant's benefit. They also bring this lawsuit as a collective
action under the FLSA to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime
hours.

Plaintiff Terrell was employed by the Defendant from approximately
September 2016 to February 2018 as a delivery driver at Defendant's
Pizza Hut store located in Texas.

Ampex Brands PH of Dallas, Inc. owns and operate numerous Pizza Hut
franchise stores in Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Meredith Black Mathews, Esq.
          J. Forester, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          400 N. St. Paul St. #700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 210-2100
          Facsimile: (214) 346-5909
          E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com
                  mmathews@foresterhaynie.com

               - and -

          Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
          E-mail: joeyl@bsjfirm.com

ANGI HOMESERVICES: Class Suit vs. HomeAdvisor Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
ANGI Homeservices Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that HomeAdvisor Inc.,
continues to defend a purported class action suit entitled, In re
HomeAdvisor, Inc. Litigation.

ANGI said, "This purported class action pending in Colorado is
described in detail on page 24 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. Airquip, Inc. et al.
v. HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al., No. l:16-cv-1849 and Costello et al.
v. HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al., No. 1:18-cv-1802, both filed in U.S.
District Court in Colorado and consolidated under the caption In re
HomeAdvisor, Inc. Litigation."

This lawsuit alleges that the company's HomeAdvisor business
engages in certain deceptive practices affecting the service
professionals who join its network, including charging them for
substandard customer leads or failing to disclose certain charges.


On September 29, 2020, the court issued an order granting in part
and denying in part the defendants' motions to dismiss and with the
exception of this development, there have been no material or
otherwise noteworthy developments in this case since the filing of
the company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.

The Company believes that the allegations in this lawsuit are
without merit and will continue to defend vigorously against them.

ANGI Homeservices Inc. operates a digital marketplace for home
services, connecting millions of homeowners with home service
professionals in North America and Europe. The company was formerly
known as Halo TopCo, Inc. and changed its name to ANGI Homeservices
Inc. in May 2017. ANGI Homeservices Inc. was incorporated in 2017
and is headquartered in Golden, Colorado. ANGI Homeservices Inc. is
a subsidiary of IAC/InterActiveCorp.

ANTHEM: To Pay $39.5 Million Over 2014 Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------
businessrecord.com reports that Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller
joined 43 other attorneys general in a $39.5 million settlement
with health benefits company Anthem over a 2014 data breach that
involved personal information of 78.8 million citizens, the
attorney general's office announced this week.

Iowa will receive $199,694 from the settlement. Anthem first
disclosed the data breach in February 2015, one year after the
company said cyber attackers had begun infiltrating Anthem's
systems in February 2014 using malware installed through a phishing
email. Attackers ultimately accessed names, dates of birth, Social
Security numbers, health care identification numbers, home
addresses, email addresses, phone numbers and employment
information for 172,727 Iowa residents.

Anthem has also entered a class action settlement that established
a $115 million settlement fund for affected consumers to pay for
credit monitoring and cash payments up to $50. [GN]

APOLLO GLOBAL: Bid to Remand Fongers Class Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion
to remand the putative class action initiated by Benjamin Fongers
from the Northern District of Illinois to the Illinois Circuit
Court, Cook County, remains pending.

On November 1, 2019, plaintiff Benjamin Fongers filed a putative
class action in Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County, against
CareerBuilder, LLC and AGM Inc.  

Plaintiff alleges that in March 2019, CareerBuilder changed its
compensation plan so that sales representatives such as Fongers
would (i) receive reduced commissions; and (ii) only be able to
receive commissions for accounts they originated that were not
reassigned to anyone else, a departure from the earlier plan.  

Plaintiff also claims that the plan applied retroactively to
deprive sales representatives of commissions to which they were
earlier entitled. Plaintiff alleges that AGM Inc. exercises
complete control over CareerBuilder and thus, CareerBuilder acts as
AGM Inc.'s agent.  

Based on these allegations, Plaintiff alleges claims against both
defendants for breach of written contract, breach of implied
contract, unjust enrichment, violation of the Illinois Sales
Representative Act, and violation of the Illinois Wage and Payment
Collection Act.

The defendants removed the action to the Northern District of
Illinois on December 5, 2019, and Plaintiff moved to remand on
January 6, 2020.

That motion was fully briefed on February 14, 2020. Defendants'
deadline to respond to the complaint is 21 days after the court
rules on the remand motion.

Apollo believes the claims in this action are without merit.
Because this action is in the early stages, no reasonable estimate
of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time.

Apollo Global Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment
manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and
sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and
individual investors. It manages client-focused portfolios. The
firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC.  Apollo
Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in
New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and
Europe.

APOLLO GLOBAL: Securities Suit Over PlayAGS Disclosures Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that AGM Inc.,
Apollo Investment Fund VIII, L.P., Apollo Gaming Holdings, L.P.,
and Apollo Gaming Voteco, LLC together with PlayAGS Inc. continues
to defend a putative class action suit currently pending before the
District of Nevada.

On August 4, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against
PlayAGS Inc., all of the members of PlayAGS's board of directors
(including three directors who are affiliated with Apollo), certain
underwriters of AGS (including Apollo Global Securities, LLC), as
well as AGM Inc., Apollo Investment Fund VIII, L.P., Apollo Gaming
Holdings, L.P., and Apollo Gaming Voteco, LLC.

The complaint asserts claims arising under the Securities Act of
1933 in connection with certain secondary offerings of PlayAGS
stock conducted in August 2018 and March 2019, alleging that the
registration statements issued in connection with those offerings
did not fully disclose certain business challenges facing PlayAGS.


Such claims are asserted against all defendants, including Apollo
Global Securities, LLC and the Apollo Defendants, as well as all
directors (including the directors affiliated with Apollo).

The complaint further asserts a control person claim under Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Apollo
Defendants and the director defendants (including the directors
affiliated with Apollo), alleging that the Apollo Defendants and
the director defendants were responsible for certain misstatements
and omissions by PlayAGS about its business during a putative class
period from May 3, 2018 through August 7, 2019.

Apollo believes the claims in this action are without merit.
Because this action is in the early stages, no reasonable estimate
of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time.

Apollo Global Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment
manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and
sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and
individual investors. It manages client-focused portfolios. The
firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC.  Apollo
Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in
New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and
Europe.

AQUI EN BELLA: Moreno Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DIONISIO MORENO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. AQUI EN BELLA PUEBLA, INC. (D/B/A AQUI EN BELLA
PUEBLA), DANIEL GILL, ARGIMIRO G. HERNANDEZ , GUADALUPE GIL and
VANESSA GIL, Case No. 1:20-cv-10406 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2020)
arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants failed to pay him and
the Class members applicable minimum hourly rate, failed to pay
proper overtime compensation, failed to provide accurate and
complete timesheets and payroll records, failed to provide accurate
wage statements and failed to reimburse the costs and expenses for
purchasing and maintaining equipment and required to perform his
job.

Plaintiff Moreno was employed by the Defendants at Aqui En Bella
Puebla restaurant from approximately 2013 until on or about
November 2, 2020 as a grill worker and a counter worker.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a Mexican restaurant,
located in New York under the name "Aqui En Bella Puebla." [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ASHFORD HOSPITALITY: Employment Class Suit vs Subsidiary Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that a company
subsidiary continues to defend an employment class action suit in
California.

A class action lawsuit has been filed against one of the Company's
hotel management companies alleging violations of certain
California employment laws, which class action affects nine hotels
owned by subsidiaries of the Company.

The court has entered an order granting class certification with
respect to: (1) a statewide class of non-exempt employees of the
company's manager who were allegedly deprived of rest breaks as a
result of the company's manager's previous policy requiring its
employees to stay on premises during rest breaks; and (2) a
derivative class of non-exempt former employees of the company's
manager who were not paid for allegedly missed breaks upon
separation from employment.

Notices to potential class members are being prepared. Upon
receipt, recipients of the notice will have 60 days to opt out of
the class.

Ashford said, "While we believe it is reasonably possible that we
may incur a loss associated with this litigation because the class
size has not yet been determined and there is uncertainty under
California law with respect to a significant legal issue, we do not
believe that any potential loss to the Company is reasonably
estimable at this time. As of September 30, 2020, no amounts have
been accrued."

Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is
an externally-advised REIT. While the company's portfolio currently
consists of upscale hotels and upper upscale full-service hotels,
the company's investment strategy is predominantly focused on
investing in upper upscale full-service hotels in the U.S. that
have a revenue per available room ("RevPAR") generally less than
two times the U.S. national average. The company is based in Dalas,
Texas.

ASHFORD HOSPITALITY: Membrives Class Action Underway
----------------------------------------------------
Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that Remington
Lodging & Hospitality, LLC, a company subsidiary, continues to
defend a class action suit initiated by Pedro Membrives.

On December 4, 2015, Pedro Membrives filed a class action lawsuit
against HHC TRS FP Portfolio LLC, Remington Lodging & Hospitality,
LLC, Remington Holdings LLC, Mark A. Sharkey, Archie Bennett, Jr.,
Monty J. Bennett, Christopher Peckham, and any other related
entities in the Supreme Court of New York, Nassau County,
Commercial Division.

On August 30, 2016, the complaint was amended to add Michele Spero
as a Plaintiff and Remington Long Island Employers, LLC as a
defendant.

The lawsuit is captioned Pedro Membrives and Michele Spero,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. HHC TRS
FP Portfolio LLC, Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC, Remington
Holdings LLC, Remington Long Island Employers, LLC, et al., Index
No. 607828/2015 (Sup. Ct. Nassau Cty).

The plaintiffs allege that the owner and management company of the
Hyatt Regency Long Island hotel violated New York law by improperly
retaining service charges rather than distributing them to
employees.

In 2017, the class was certified. On July 24, 2018, the trial court
granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability.
The defendants appealed the summary judgment to the New York State
Appellate Division, Second Department (the “Second
Department”), and the appeal is still pending.

By Order dated May 7, 2020, the Second Department referred the
matter for mandatory mediation. The parties participated in
mediation on June 22, 2020, however, they were not able to arrive
at mutually acceptable settlement terms. Notwithstanding the
pending appeal on the summary judgment issue,

the trial court continued the litigation with respect to the
plaintiffs' alleged damages.

The defendants intend to vigorously defend against the plaintiffs'
claims and the Company does not believe that an unfavorable outcome
is probable.

Ashford said, "If, however, the plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment on liability is upheld and the Company is unsuccessful in
any further appeals, the Company estimates that damages could range
between approximately $5.8 million and $11.9 million plus
attorneys' fees. As of September 30, 2020, no amounts have been
accrued."

Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is
an externally-advised REIT. While the company's portfolio currently
consists of upscale hotels and upper upscale full-service hotels,
the company's investment strategy is predominantly focused on
investing in upper upscale full-service hotels in the U.S. that
have a revenue per available room ("RevPAR") generally less than
two times the U.S. national average. The company is based in Dalas,
Texas.

ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Appeal on Huang Suit Dismissal Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Assertio Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the appeal on the
order of dismissal in Huang v. Depomed et al., No.
4:17-cv-4830-JST, N.D. Cal., is still pending.

On May 20, 2020, the company completed a Merger (the Zyla Merger)
with Zyla Life Sciences (Zyla) pursuant to the Agreement and Plan
of Merger dated March 16, 2020. Prior to the Zyla Merger, pursuant
to the Merger Agreement, the company completed a corporate
reorganization whereby Assertio Holdings, Inc. became the parent
company of wholly-owned Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. and is deemed
successor issuer to Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. under applicable
securities laws.

On August 23, 2017, the Company, two individuals who formerly
served as its chief executive officer and president, and its former
chief financial officer were named as defendants in a purported
federal securities law class action filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

The action (Huang v. Depomed et al., No. 4:17-cv-4830-JST, N.D.
Cal.) alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
relating to certain prior disclosures of the Company about its
business, compliance, and operational policies and practices
concerning the sales and marketing of its opioid products and
contends that the conduct supporting the alleged violations
affected the value of Company common stock and is seeking damages
and other relief.

In an amended complaint filed on February 6, 2018, the lead
plaintiff (referred to in its pleadings as the Depomed Investor
Group), which seeks to represent a class consisting of all
purchasers of Company common stock between July 29, 2015 and August
7, 2017, asserted the same claims arising out of the same and
similar disclosures against the Company and the same individuals as
were involved in the original complaint.

The Company and the individuals filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on April 9, 2018. On March 18, 2019, the District
Court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice, and the
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on May 2, 2019.

The second amended complaint asserted the same claims arising out
of the same and similar disclosures against the Company and the
same individuals as were involved in the original complaint. The
Company and the individuals filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint on June 17, 2019, and the District Court granted
that motion with prejudice on March 11, 2020.

On April 9, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Plaintiffs-appellants filed their opening brief on September 23,
2020, and defendants-appellees filed their response on October 23,
2020.

The Company believes that the action is without merit and intends
to contest it vigorously.

Assertio Holdings, Inc. a commercial pharmaceutical company
offering differentiated products to patients. The company's
commercial portfolio of branded products focuses on three areas:
neurology; hospital; and pain and inflammation. The company is
based in Lake Forest, Illinois.

ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Class Certification Bid in Glumetza(R) Suit OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Assertio Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that court granted class
certification in the direct purchaser action suit related to the
drug Glumetza(R).

On May 20, 2020, the company completed a Merger with Zyla Life
Sciences pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger (Merger
Agreement) dated March 16, 2020. Prior to the Zyla Merger, pursuant
to the Merger Agreement, the company completed a corporate
reorganization whereby Assertio Holdings, Inc. became the parent
company of wholly-owned Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. and is deemed
successor issuer to Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. under applicable
securities laws.

Antitrust class actions and related direct antitrust actions have
been filed in the Northern District of California against the
Company and several other defendants relating to the drug
Glumetza(R).

The named class representatives in the currently pending actions
include Meijer, Inc., Bi-Lo, LLC, Winn-Dixie Logistics, Inc., City
of Providence, and KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. These class
representatives seek to represent a putative class of direct
purchasers of Glumetza.

In addition, several retailers, including CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Rite
Aid Corporation, Walgreen Co., the Kroger Co., the Albertsons
Companies, Inc., H-E-B, L.P., and Hy-Vee, Inc., have filed
substantially similar direct antitrust claims based on alleged
assignments of claims from direct purchaser wholesalers.

On December 23, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all
claims in the actions. That motion was heard by the District Court
on February 20, 2020. On March 5, 2020 the District Court issued an
order denying the motion to dismiss.

However, based on the order on the motion, claims previously filed
by a putative class of end payor plaintiffs were voluntarily
dismissed. On July 30, 2020, Humana Inc. also filed a complaint
against the Company in the Northern District of California alleging
similar claims related to Glumetza(R).

These antitrust cases arise out of a Settlement and License
Agreement (the Settlement) that the Company, Santarus, Inc.
(Santarus) and Lupin Limited (Lupin) entered into in February 2012
that resolved patent infringement litigation filed by the Company
against Lupin regarding Lupin's Abbreviated New Drug Application
for generic 500 mg and 1000 mg tablets of Glumetza. The antitrust
plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Settlement violated
the antitrust laws because it allegedly included a "reverse
payment" that caused Lupin to delay its entry in the market with a
generic version of Glumetza.

The alleged "reverse payment" is an alleged commitment on the part
of the settling parties not to launch an authorized generic version
of Glumetza for a certain period.

The antitrust plaintiffs allege that the Company and its
co-defendants, which include Lupin as well as Bausch Health (the
alleged successor in interest to Santarus) are liable for damages
under the antitrust laws for overcharges that the antitrust
plaintiffs allege they paid when they purchased the branded version
of Glumetza® due to delayed generic entry. Plaintiffs seek treble
damages for alleged past harm, attorneys' fees and costs.

Fact discovery has closed, and the parties are currently conducting
expert discovery. The court granted class certification in the
direct purchaser action on August 15, 2020.

In the event that the case proceeds to trial, that trial is
expected to occur on or about October 2021.

The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in these matters.

Assertio Holdings, Inc. a commercial pharmaceutical company
offering differentiated products to patients. The company's
commercial portfolio of branded products focuses on three areas:
neurology; hospital; and pain and inflammation. The company is
based in Lake Forest, Illinois.

ASTEC INDUSTRIES: Bid to Dismiss Retirement System Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Astec Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company's
motion to dismiss the class action suit entitled, City of Taylor
General Employees Retirement System v. Astec Industries, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00024-PLR-CHS, is still pending.

The Company and certain of its former executive officers have been
named as defendants in a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
filed on February 1, 2019, as amended on August 26, 2019, in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.


The action is styled City of Taylor General Employees Retirement
System v. Astec Industries, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-00024-TRM-CHS.

The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and misleading
statements and that the individual defendants are control person
under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The complaint was filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased
shares of the Company's stock between July 26, 2016 and October 22,
2018 and seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported class.

The Company disputes these allegations and intends to defend this
lawsuit vigorously and filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on
October 25, 2019 which is pending.

The Company has accrued a $0.6 million liability as of September
30, 2020.

Astec Industries, Inc. designs, engineers, manufactures, and
markets equipment and components for the road building, aggregate
processing, geothermal, water, oil and gas, and wood processing
industries in the United States and internationally. The company
was founded in 1972 and is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

AUBURN COMMUNITY: Underpays Hospital Staff, Pizzoleo Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TOBIE PIZZOLEO and STACEY LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated who were employed by AUBURN
COMMUNITY HOSPITAL and/or any other entities affiliated with or
controlled by AUBURN COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, Plaintiffs v. AUBURN
COMMUNITY HOSPITAL and any related entities, Defendants, Case No.
5:20-cv-01529-TJM-ML (N.D.N.Y., December 10, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to compensate
the Plaintiffs and Class members the required minimum wages and
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek and failing to provide annual wage notices.

Auburn Community Hospital is an acute care hospital, with a
principal place of business at 17 Lansing Street, Auburn, New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         James Emmet Murphy, Esq.
         VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
         40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
         New York, NY 10004
         Telephone: (212) 943-9080
         Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
         E-mail: jmurphy@vandallp.com

                - and –

         Frank S. Gattuso, Esq.
         GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC
         The White House
         7030 E. Genesee Street
         Fayetteville, NY
         Telephone: (315) 314-8000
         Facsimile: (315) 446-7521
         E-mail: fgattuso@gclawoffice.com

AUSTRALIA: Robo-Debt Victims Want Ministers to Face Inquiry
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nick Bonyhady and David Estcourt, writing for Brisbane Times,
report that victims of the unlawful "robo-debt" scheme have
demanded ministers and top officials face a royal commission
grilling over what they knew of the scheme's failures after the
government settled a class action on the morning of a trial that
could have put it in the dock.

The federal government agreed on Nov. 16 to pay $112 million in
compensation, interest and legal costs to up to 430,000 people who
were affected by the scheme, which recouped alleged welfare
overpayments calculated through a flawed method.

The settlement of the class action launched by law firm Gordon
Legal also includes an agreement to drop $398 million in alleged
extra debts and a reiteration of its commitment to repay an
estimated $721 million taken in through the robo-debt program.

The settlement on the morning of Nov. 16 scheduled trial meant
senior government figures avoided having to give evidence, but it
has not deterred opposition parties and welfare groups pushing for
answers.

"If they think I'm giving up on a royal commission, they're
dreaming," said Labor's government services spokesman Bill Shorten,
who helped spark the class action.

"Now it is time for the Morrison government to fess up who knew
what when."

The government has not accepted any liability as part of the
settlement, which still has to be approved by the court. Government
Services Minister Stuart Robert said the income averaging technique
at the heart of the robo-debt scheme had been used under both Labor
and Liberal governments.

"The process of using ATO [Australian Taxation Office] average
income data has been a process that has been used for decades and
decades," Mr Robert said. "Indeed right back to the Hawke-Keating
governments this approach has been used as a part of collecting
debts."

Income-averaging had been used as a last resort under human
supervision, but then-treasurer Scott Morrison announced a massive
expansion and automation of the technique in a cost-saving measure
just before the 2016 election.

Ministers including now-acting Immigration Minister Alan Tudge and
Mr Robert have since overseen the program, which a court found was
"unlawful" last year.

The robo-debt scheme was scrapped in May, with the Commonwealth
announcing it would pay back $721 million to about 373,000 people.
The Nov. 16 settlement is worth about $1.2 billion, a record
amount.

Mr Morrison, who in June apologised for any "hurt or harm" people
suffered as a result of the government's scheme, stood by Mr Robert
and praised his work on dealing with the coronavirus.

Both the Greens and the Australian Unemployed Workers Union also
called for a royal commission into what Greens senator Rachel
Siewert branded an "abominable action" that "went after the most
vulnerable in our community to make savings".

Thomas Studans, an AUWU spokesman, said he wanted more information
from Gordon Legal, the firm running the class action, on why they
had chosen to settle the case.

"[Victims] are due a lot more, to be honest, and so far no one has
lost their job over this and it has been the subject of a
billion-dollar court case," Mr Studans said.

Under the settlement, people affected by the scheme will be repaid
money unlawfully recouped and then compensated an average of about
$280. Gordon Legal's costs will also come out of that amount at a
rate overseen by the court.

"We think the agreement we've reached speaks for itself," said
Andrew Grech, a partner at Gordon Legal. "It provides great clarity
and great certainty for group members, even those that don't
benefit from the settlement directly."

Former Administrative Appeals Tribunal Member Terry Carney, who was
one of the first people to find robo-debts unlawful in 2017, said
the compensation should have been higher in an ideal world but was
a "wonderful result" given the difficulty of suing the government.
[GN]


AUSTRALIA: Settles Robodebt Victims' Class Action for $1.2 Billion
------------------------------------------------------------------
Luke Henriques-Gomes, writing for The Guardian, reports that the
Australian government has agreed to a $1.2 billion settlement for a
class action brought on behalf of hundreds of thousands of robodebt
victims.

In a deal struck the day a federal court trial was set to begin,
400,000 people will share in $112 million in additional
compensation, the firm running the action, Gordon Legal, announced
on Nov. 16.

The settlement also includes commitments to repay $720 million in
debts and wipe a further $400 million in unlawful demands, which
the government had agreed to in a humiliating backdown in May.

The government did not admit to any liability or knowledge of the
scheme's unlawfulness as part of the settlement.

Andrew Grech, a partner at Gordon Legal, told Guardian Australia
the lead applicants had shown "enormous courage and
determination".

"When you think about the totality of what's been achieved since
the proceedings were commenced, that really amounts to more than
$1.2bn," he said.

Subject to the court's agreement, Grech said it was hoped the money
would be repaid by the end of next year. "We are really relieved
and pleased for our clients," he said.

Since 2016, community campaigners including the NotMyDebt group
have relentlessly resisted the program. Guardian Australia has
reported extensively on the flaws of the robodebt program, which
used annual pay data obtained from the tax office to accuse welfare
recipients of under-reporting their fortnightly income to
Centrelink.

Welfare recipients, including some who were homeless, had poor
mental health or lived with disabilities, complained of being
pursued by private debt collectors and having their tax returns
garnished as part of the scheme, which ran from July 2015 to
November 2019.

In March, four months after the government conceded a test case
brought by Victoria Legal Aid, Guardian Australia revealed that the
government was drawing up secret plans to repay victims of the
scheme.

Those plans were eventually announced in May, and the government
began repaying victims in July. About $690 million has now been
refunded.

Confidential government advice seen by the Guardian revealed the
decision to "proactively" announce the refunds in May was aimed at
stymying the class action, which argued that the commonwealth had
"unjustly enriched" itself.

Grech said a settlement distribution scheme would determine
compensation for victims based on how much was "unlawfully demanded
and paid to the commonwealth over the period".

"Their entitlement to the damages or compensation component is
determined proportionately to how much they paid," he said. "It's a
time-based assessment . . . of the time period to which they'd been
kept out of their money."

Guardian Australia has previously reported that interest owed by
the government on the debts has been estimated at about $90
million.

Grech told a press conference he was unable to say how much of the
compensation would be sucked up by legal fees. He said the court
would make a determination based on evidence provided by the firm.

Scott Morrison said his government has been focused on "making this
right".

Asked on Nov. 16 if he would apologise for the scheme, the prime
minister referred reporters to comments he made in parliament
earlier in the year in which he apologised for any "hurt or harm"
caused.

"I made remarks on that in the Parliament earlier this year," he
said. I can only refer you back to those where I did just that."

Morrison noted that the government had already paid back more than
$700 million of the $721 million it promised to repay in May.

"Remember these payments have been made at the same time that
working through government services and our agencies we've had to
enlist some 1.6 million Australians on to jobseeker.

"But for us to still follow through on the commitments we made here
to make this right, we have done exactly that and the settlement
announced on Nov. 16 is a further demonstration of that."

Morrison rejected suggestions the government services minister,
Stuart Robert, should lose his job over the scandal. Robert was not
involved in the creation of the program, which was established in
2015, but has been in charge during an initial legal challenge in
2019.

"I would say that the minister has been the one working together
with the attorney general [Christian Porter] having identified the
issue of . . . making it right," he said.

"This is the same minister who ensured that 1.6 million Australians
have been able to access vital income support, particularly here in
Melbourne at a time of great crisis and so to be able to deal with
both of these challenges at the same time, suggests to me that he's
been getting very much on top this issue."

Labor's government services spokesman, Bill Shorten, said it was
now "time for the Morrison government to fess up who knew what
when".

"Call me a bit sceptical, but the only reason why the Morrison
government surrendered is they had the hot breath of the court on
their throat," said Shorten, who was involved in establishing the
class action.

Shorten, as well as the Greens and grassroots campaigners, have
called for a royal commission into the scheme.

The Greens senator Rachel Siewert said: "Now the community needs to
know how this all happened. We need a royal commission because it's
very clear that the government is going to continue to keep trying
to hide what has happened."

The Not My Debt campaign, which has rallied against the scheme
since the scandal first erupted, commended the firm for reaching
the settlement but noted some victims may have "hoped for more from
the process".

It also said the settlement meant no government ministers or
officials would "be required to give evidence in court". "No one in
a position of power has lost their job over Robodebt -- no one has
been held accountable," the campaign said.

Services Australia, which ran the program, acknowledged the
settlement in a brief statement.

It noted that the settlement did not amount to an "admission of
liability by the Commonwealth, and does not reflect any acceptance
by the Commonwealth of the allegations that the Commonwealth, or
any of its officers, had any knowledge of unlawfulness associated
with the income compliance program".

As the trial date neared, Gordon Legal had increased the volume of
its claims against the government, accusing the commonwealth of
continuing the program despite knowing it was unlawful, and
singling out individual officials and ministers for their conduct.

In September the trial was delayed after the firm accused the
minister Alan Tudge of either knowing the scheme was unlawful or
being "recklessly indifferent".

It also claimed that the government had lost 76 robodebt decisions
at the administrative appeals tribunal, which it then had failed to
appeal, meaning the judgments were never made public.

Gordon Legal's claims were denied by the government, and Department
of Social Services officials later said at a Senate estimates
hearing that the tribunal had also upheld robodebt cases.

The class action settlement applies only to people who had their
debts calculated using the "income averaging" method. Those who
responded to a debt letter by providing payslips or bank statements
that were later used to substantiate their debt will not receive
refunds.

Gordon Legal had previously argued in court that those debts were
also "tainted".

"While I can understand their confusion and their disappointment,
it's never been this case that people who owe money to Centrelink
shouldn't repay it," Grech told Guardian Australia. [GN]


AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: No Appeal Made in Hackel Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the time for appeal
in David Hackel v. AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al, No.
1:19-cv-01722-AT, has expired in August 2020 without appeal.

On July 24, 2020, the District Court for the District of
Massachusetts dismissed a purported class action filed against the
Company in 2019. This purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain of its present and former officers,
Michael Bailey, Matthew Dallas, and Keith Ehrlich, in the Southern
District of New York for the District of New York, captioned David
Hackel v. AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al, No. 1:19-cv-01722-AT.


On April 12, 2019, the court granted the defendants' motion to
transfer the action to the District of Massachusetts (Case No.
1:19-cv-10783-JCB). On May 6, 2019, the court appointed Andrej
Hornak as lead plaintiff and approved Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel
and Andrews DeValerio LLP as liaison counsel.

On July 24, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint naming
Michael Needle as a defendant. The amended complaint purported to
be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's
common stock between May 4, 2017 through January 31, 2019.  

It generally alleged that the Company and its officers violated
Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by failing to disclose and/or
making allegedly false and/or misleading statements about the
estimated dates by which the Company would report the topline
results from the TIVO-3 trial, the preliminary overall survival
results from the TIVO-3 trial, the sufficiency of the overall
survival data from the TIVO-3 trial, the timing of the new drug
application (NDA) submission, and the risk of Food and Drug
Administration approval.

The complaint sought unspecified damages, interest, attorneys'
fees, and other costs. On September 27, 2019, the defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

On July 24, 2020, the District Court granted the Company's motion
to dismiss.

The time for appeal expired in August 2020 without appeal.

AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, develops
and commercializes a portfolio of targeted medicines for oncology
and other areas of unmet medical need. The company was formerly
known as GenPath Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and changed its name to AVEO
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in March 2005. AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was
incorporated in 2001 and is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

AVIS BUDGET: Alexander Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Sales Agents
--------------------------------------------------------------
KIBIBI ALEXANDER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AVIS BUDGET GROUP, INC.; and AVIS
RENT A CAR SYSTEM, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-10494
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 11, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Plaintiff Alexander was employed by the Defendant as sales agent.

Avis Budget Group, Inc. operates as a vehicle rental and mobility
solution service. The Company also participates in app-based,
carsharing operations. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William Brown, Esq.
          BROWN KWON & LAM LLP
          521 5th Avenue, Suite 1744
          New York, NY 10175
          Telephone: (718) 971-0326
          Facsimile: (718) 795-1642
          E-mail: wbrown@bkllawyers.com


BARINGS BDC: Appeal in Triangle Capital Securities Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barings BDC, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the appeal from a
ruling in the class action suit entitled, In re Triangle Capital
Corp. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 5:18-cv-00010-FL,
remains pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit.

The Company and certain of its former executive officers have been
named as defendants in two putative securities class action
lawsuits, each filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (and then transferred to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina)
on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
company's common stock between May 7, 2014 and November 1, 2017.

The first lawsuit was filed on November 21, 2017, and was captioned
Elias Dagher, et al., v. Triangle Capital Corporation, et al., Case
No. 5:18-cv-00015-FL.

The second lawsuit was filed on November 28, 2017, and was
captioned Gary W. Holden, et al., v. Triangle Capital Corporation,
et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-00010-FL.

The Dagher Action and the Holden Action were consolidated and are
currently captioned In re Triangle Capital Corp. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 5:18-cv-00010-FL.

On April 10, 2018, the plaintiff filed its First Consolidated
Amended Complaint. The complaint alleged certain violations of the
securities laws, including, among other things, that the defendants
made certain materially false and misleading statements and
omissions regarding the Company's business, operations and
prospects between May 7, 2014 and November 1, 2017.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and
costs, among other relief, but did not specify the amount of
damages being sought.

On May 25, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. On March 7, 2019, the court entered an order granting
the defendants' motion to dismiss.

On March 28, 2019, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to
file a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. On September 20,
2019, the court entered an order denying the plaintiff's motion for
leave to file a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint and
dismissing the action with prejudice.

On October 17, 2019, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal seeking
review of the court's September 20, 2019 order. The plaintiff filed
its opening brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit on January 6, 2020. The defendants filed their
response brief on February 28, 2020, and the plaintiff filed its
reply brief on March 27, 2020.

The appeal is currently pending before the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

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

Barings BDC, Inc. is a business development company specializing in
private equity and mezzanine investments. Triangle Capital
Corporation was incorporated on October 10, 2006 and is based in
Raleigh, North Carolina.

BBVA USA: Improperly Charges Overdraft Fees, Eisenberg Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JACK EISENBERG, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BBVA USA, and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, Case No.
3:20-cv-02368-L-AHG (S.D. Cal., Dec. 4, 2020) arises from the
Defendants' alleged violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act
and the California Unfair Competition Law.

The complaint contends that BBVA has violated and continues to
violate Federal Reserve Regulation E 12 C.F.R. Section 1005 since
its Regulation E opt-in disclosure agreement provides customers
including the Plaintiff with ambiguous and misleading language to
describe the circumstances in which BBVA will charge the customer
an overdraft fee. Specifically, the opt-in disclosure agreement
does not disclose that BBVA uses an internal artificial account
balance to determine if a debit card or ATM transaction will be
considered overdrawn, instead of the official and actual balance of
the account.

Because Regulation E does not permit banks to charge overdraft fees
without affirmative consent based on a proper and accurate
disclosure of its overdraft practices in its stand-alone opt-in
disclosure agreement, BBVA's assessment of all overdraft fees
against customers for one-time debit card and ATM transactions has
been and continues to be illegal. Further, BBVA's continued use of
an improper and nonconforming disclosure agreement to "opt-in" new
customers to its overdraft service is illegal under Regulation E,
the suit says.

BBVA USA is a bank headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. It has
been a subsidiary of the Spanish multinational Banco Bilbao Vizcaya
Argentaria since 2007 and operates chiefly in Alabama, Arizona,
California, Colorado, Florida, New Mexico and Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          David C. Wright, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
          3281 E. Guasti Road, Suite 100
          Ontario, CA 91761
          Telephone: (909) 557-1250
          Facsimile: (909) 557 1275
          E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
                  dcw@mccunewright.com

               - and -

          Emily J. Kirk, Esq.
          McCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
          231 N. Main Street, Suite 20
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 307-6116
          Facsimile: (618) 307-6161
          E-mail: ejk@mccunewright.com

BLOOM ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Roberts Class Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bloom Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company's
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the class action
suit initiated by Elissa Roberts remains pending.

In May 2019, Elissa Roberts filed a class action complaint in the
federal district court for the Northern District of California
against the company, certain members of its senior management team,
and certain of its directors alleging violations under Section 11
and 15 of the Securities Act for alleged misleading statements or
omissions in the company's Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed
with the SEC in connection with its initial public offering (IPO).


On September 3, 2019, James Hunt was appointed as lead plaintiff
and Levi & Korsinsky was appointed as plaintiff's counsel.

On November 4, 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding
the underwriters in our initial public offering, claims under
Sections 10b and 20a of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and extending the class period to September 16, 2019.

On April 21, 2020, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
adding claims under the Securities Act. The second amended
complaint also adds allegations pertaining to the restatement and,
as to claims under the Exchange Act, extends the class period
through February 12, 2020.

On July 1, 2020, the company filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint.

Bloom said, "We believe the complaint to be without merit and we
intend to defend this action vigorously. Because this action is in
the early stages, we are unable to predict the outcome of this
litigation at this time."

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

Bloom Energy Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells
solid-oxide fuel cell systems for on-site power generation. The
company was formerly known as Ion America Corp. and changed its
name to Bloom Energy Corporation in September 2006. Bloom Energy
Corporation was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in San Jose,
California.

BLOOM ENERGY: Consolidated Lincolnshire Police Fund Suit Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bloom Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the consolidated
Lincolnshire Police Pension Fund class action suit remains stayed.

In March 2019, the Lincolnshire Police Pension Fund filed a class
action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Santa Clara, against the company, certain members of its
senior management, certain of its directors and the underwriters in
its July 25, 2018 initial public offering ("IPO") alleging
violations under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended for alleged misleading statements or omissions in our
Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in connection with its IPO.

Two related class action cases were subsequently filed in the Santa
Clara County Superior Court against the same defendants containing
the same allegations; Rodriquez vs Bloom Energy et al. was filed on
April 22, 2019 and Evans vs Bloom Energy et al. was filed on May 7,
2019.

These cases have been consolidated. Plaintiffs' consolidated
amended complaint was filed with the court on September 12, 2019.
On October 4, 2019, defendants moved to stay the lawsuit pending
the federal district court action.

On December 7, 2019, the Superior Court issued an order staying the
action through resolution of the parallel federal litigation.

Bloom Energy said, "We believe the complaint to be without merit
and we intend to defend this action vigorously."

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

Bloom Energy Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells
solid-oxide fuel cell systems for on-site power generation. The
company was formerly known as Ion America Corp. and changed its
name to Bloom Energy Corporation in September 2006. Bloom Energy
Corporation was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in San Jose,
California.

BLOOM ENERGY: Sanchez Class Suit in Santa Clara County Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bloom Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Francisco
Sanchez.

In March 2020, Francisco Sanchez filed a class action complaint in
Santa Clara County Superior Court against the company alleging
certain wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code
and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders and that the company
engaged in unfair business practices under the California Business
and Professions Code, and in July 2020 he amended his complaint to
add claims under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys
General Act.

Bloom said, "We are still investigating the plaintiff's allegations
and intend to vigorously defend against the complaint, but any
range of potential loss is not currently estimable."

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

Bloom Energy Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells
solid-oxide fuel cell systems for on-site power generation. The
company was formerly known as Ion America Corp. and changed its
name to Bloom Energy Corporation in September 2006. Bloom Energy
Corporation was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in San Jose,
California.


BLUE DIAMOND: Cosgrove Appeals Judgment in Fraud Suit to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Ryan Cosgrove and Clive Rhoden filed an appeal from the
District Court's Decision and Order dated December 7, 2020, and
Judgment dated December 7, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled
RYAN COSGROVE and CLIVE RHODEN, Plaintiffs v. BLUE DIAMOND GROWERS,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-8993, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New York City).

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and other similarly
situated individuals, bring this action against Blue Diamond
Growers alleging that the labeling on Blue Diamond's Vanilla Almond
Milk was materially misleading because "it has less vanilla than
the label represents, contains non-vanilla flavors which provide
its vanilla taste and contains artificial flavors, not disclosed to
consumers on the front label as required by law and consumer
expectations." The Plaintiffs contend that the product is not
flavored by "authentic" vanilla, or the vanilla flavor extracted
from the tropical orchid of the genus Vanilla.

The Plaintiffs are seeking an appeal to review the District Court's
Order, granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss the amended
complaint of the Plaintiffs. The Clerk of Court is directed to
dismiss all pending motions and to close the case.

The appellate case is captioned as Cosgrove v. Blue Diamond
Growers, Case No. 20-4090, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, December 8, 2020. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Ryan Cosgrove, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated; and Clive Rhoden, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Road
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 260-7080
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com  

Defendant-Appellee Blue Diamond Growers is represented by:

          Colleen Gulliver, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 335-4737
          E-mail: colleen.carey@dlapiper.com  


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Wins Dismissal of 3rd Amended Ignacuinos Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CARL IGNACUINOS and PAMELA DAVIS, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-672 (SRU) (D. Conn.), Judge Stefan R. Underhill of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut granted Boehringer's
motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint in its entirety.

The purported class action seeks monetary and injunctive relief for
injuries caused by the alleged deceptive design, manufacturing, and
marketing of Boehringer's pharmaceutical drug, Combivent Respimat.
Combivent is a metered dose inhaler that is prescribed to alleviate
symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD").

Plaintiffs Ignacuinos and Davis allege that Boehringer falsely
represents that each Combivent inhaler contains 120 doses.
Ignacuinos, a Florida resident, is a long-time sufferer of COPD.
Over the course 20-tour inhalers, Ignacuinos's inhalers delivered
on average only 61 metered doses before each inhaler's dosage meter
reached "0" and automatically locked, notwithstanding Boehringer's
representations that each Product delivers 120 metered doses.  

As a result, Ignacuinos uses less than four puffs daily so that he
can preserve the lifespan of his Combivent inhaler for an entire
month, until he is prescribed another inhaler by his health care
provider after 30 days have lapsed.  Due to the Product's alleged
defects, Ignacuinos routinely experiences bodily injury in the form
of episodes with acute difficulty breathing because he does not
have enough medication to alleviate his COPD symptoms.  In
addition, he alleges that he is deprived of the benefit of the
bargain each time he pays for the Product.  

Davis, an Indiana resident, is a COPD patient who was first
prescribed and purchased Combivent in 2016 to treat her COPD
symptoms.  After using approximately 30 Combivent inhalers since
2016, Davis reports that each Product delivers only about 70 doses.
Because her medication runs low well in advance of the date of her
next available prescription, Davis takes less than the daily amount
of puffs recommended by Boehringer to extend the lifespan of her
inhaler.  Davis alleges that she has trouble breathing due to the
Product's defects, which causes mental and emotional distress.

The Plaintiffs note that other users of the Product have also
complained about a shortfall in dosage.  They further allege that
the shortfall in dosage is not due to variance or any natural
fluctuation in the manufacturing process.  Instead, the consistent
shortfall is based on the random sampling for each Product he
receives, demonstrating a common scheme to defraud users.

Based on those allegations, the Plaintiffs filed the Third Amended
Complaint on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated.  They seek to represent "all persons who purchased
Combivent Respimat in the United States within the applicable
limitations period, and/or such subclasses as the Court may deem
appropriate."  In the alternative, Ignacuinos seeks to represent a
Florida class of Combivent purchasers and Davis seeks to represent
an Indiana class of purchasers.

The Plaintiffs asserts the following claims against Boehringer: (A)
A product liability claim under the Connecticut Product Liability
Act ("CPLA"), based on (a) manufacturing defect, (b) failure to
warn, (c) design defect, (d) negligence, (e) negligent design, (f)
fraud, misrepresentation, and concealment, (g) negligent
misrepresentation, (h) breach of express warranties, and (i) breach
of implied warranties (Count I); (B) A statutory consumer
protection claim under the Connecticut Unfair Practices Act
("CUTPA") (Count II); (C) Florida common law claims for Strict
Liability—Manufacturing Defect (Count III) Strict
Liability—Failure to Warn (Count IV); Strict Liability—Design
Defect (Count V); Strict Liability—Fraudulent Misrepresentation
(Count VI); Negligent Design Defect (Count VII); Negligent
Misrepresentation (Count VIII); Breach of Express Warranties (Count
IX); and Breach of Implied Warranties (Count X); (D) Violations of
the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA)
(Count XI); Violations of the Indiana Product Liability Act
("IPLA"), based on (a) manufacturing defect, (b) failure to warn,
and (c) design defect, (Count XII); (E) A breach of express
warranties claim under Indiana law (Count XIII); (F) A breach of
implied warranties claim under Indiana law (Count XIV); (G)
Violations of the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act Ind. Code
Sections 24-5-0.5-1, et seq. (Count XV); (H) A constructive fraud
claim under Indiana law (Count XVI); and (I) A Common Law Fraud
claim under either Connecticut, Florida, or Indiana law (Count
XVII).

The Plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief in the form of: (1)
changes to the Product's labeling and 'Instructions for Use' to
reflect the fact that it does not live up to its unequivocal
promise that the Combivent Respimat inhaler will deliver 120
metered doses; (2) a change in the design of the Product so that it
actually delivers 120 metered doses; or (3) to the extent that the
Product's design is sound, but the manufacturing process is
compromised, improvements in the manufacturing process.

Boehringer moves to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint in its
entirety, primarily arguing that: (1) the Plaintiffs lack Article
III standing; and (2) the Plaintiffs' state law claims are
preempted by federal law.  On Sept. 2, 2020, Judge Underhill held
oral argument and took the motion under advisement.

Judge Underhill concludes that the Plaintiffs' self-reporting and
collection of online reviews are not "reports of adverse events"
within the meaning of "newly acquired information" because they are
not grounded in scientific research.  Although Ignacuinos and Davis
diligently recorded their daily doses of the Product for an
extended period, there is no suggestion that their own research was
subjected to peer-review or "well-grounded in scientific evidence"
as required by the FDA to alter a preapproved label.  The same is
true for their reliance on online consumer reviews from website
such as WebMD and Drugs.com.  

Even if their reporting and the cited online reviews did constitute
"reports of adverse events," the Plaintiffs do not provide any
additional scientific analysis to accompany those reports or
reviews.  Therefore, the Judge granted Boehringer's motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' manufacturing defect claims on preemption
grounds.

Based on the proposed changes in the Third Amended Complaint, Judge
Underhill holds that the Plaintiffs are correct that an addition to
a specification or changes in the methods or controls to provide
increased assurance that the drug substance or drug product will
have the characteristics of identity, strength, quality, purity, or
potency that it purports or is represented to possess are
"moderate" changes.  Their requests, however, involve changes to
the labeling on the Product (proposed change no. 1), changes to the
dosage amount (proposed change no. 2), or changes to the design or
manufacturing processes (proposed changes nos. 2 to 3), which all
require prior FDA approval.

Therefore, Judge Underhill granted Boehringer's motion to dismiss
the Plaintiffs' design defect claims as well as claims alleging
that the FDA approved label is inadequate, negligent, or
fraudulent.

For the reasons stated, Judge Underhill granted Boehringer's motion
to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint.  The Clerk will enter
judgment in favor of the Defendant and close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 23, 2020 Ruling is available
at https://tinyurl.com/y5cheobl from Leagle.com.

BOEING CO: Burke Appeals Order in ERISA Suit to Seventh Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Diane Burke, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Diane Burke and Blake Parra, as
participants in and on behalf of the Boeing Voluntary Investment
Plan, and on behalf of a class of all others who are similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. the Boeing Company, David A. Dohnalek, J.
Michael Luttig, the Employee Benefit Plans Committee, the Employee
Benefit Investment Committee, and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-02203, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
an action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA").

In this complaint, Plaintiffs seek relief for Defendants' breaches
of their ERISA fiduciary duties.

The Boeing Voluntary Investment Plan (the "Plan") are plans
designed to help Boeing's employees save for retirement. The Plans
are defined contribution retirement plans. The Plans included as an
investment option the VIP Stock Fund designed to invest in shares
of stock of Boeing, the Plans' sponsor and the employer of the
participants in the Plans. Plaintiffs invested in the VIP Stock
Fund through their accounts in the Plan during the Class Period.
However, for many years, Boeing's stock price has been artificially
inflated. The 737 model commercial jet has been Boeing's
bestselling aircraft for decades, and the recently developed Boeing
737 MAX series are the core of Boeing's growth plans.

According to the complaint, the Defendants knew that Boeing's stock
price was artificially inflated in value, and knew that many of the
Plans' participants, including Plaintiffs, allocated significant
portions of their retirement savings to Boeing stock and made
additional purchases of Boeing stock for their retirement savings
accounts in the Plans on an ongoing basis. However, the Defendants
failed to take any action to protect the Plans and their
participants. In particular, Defendants failed to disclose the
truth about the safety problems with the 737 MAX publicly, even as
it became inevitable that the public would learn about these safety
problems Defendants stayed quiet as the Plans' participants,
including Plaintiffs, continued to purchase and hold Boeing stock
at the inflated price in their retirement savings accounts, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are seeking an appeal to review the District Court's
Memorandum Opinion and Order, granting the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint without prejudice pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

The appellate case is captioned as Diane Burke, et al v. Boeing
Company, et al., Case No. 20-3389, in the US Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit, December 9, 2020.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Docketing Statement is due for Appellants Diane Burke,
Mohammad Farooq Mustafa, Miguel Ibarra and Alex Proestakis by
December 15, 2020;

    -- Transcript information sheet is due by December 23, 2020;

    -- Appellants' brief is due on or before January 19, 2021 for
Diane Burke, Mohammad Farooq Mustafa, Miguel Ibarra and Alex
Proestakis.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants DIANE BURKE, ALEX PROESTAKIS, MIGUEL IBARRA,
and MOHAMMAD FAROOQ MUSTAFA, as participants in and on behalf of
the Boeing Voluntary Investment Plan, and on behalf of a class of
all others who are similarly situated, are represented by:

          James A. Bloom, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          200 Powell Street
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          E-mail: jbloom@schneiderwallace.com

Defendants-Appellees BOEING COMPANY, DAVID A. DOHNALEK, ROBERT E.
VERBECK, BOEING EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS COMMITTEE, and BOEING
EMPLOYEE BENEFIT INVESTMENT COMMITTEE are represented by:

          Deborah Shannon Davidson, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          77 W. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601-5094
          Telephone: (312) 324-1159
          E-mail: deborah.davidson@morganlewis.com

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Jevons Sues Over 7.89% Drop in Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
ENRIQUE JEVONS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, MICHAEL F. MAHONEY and
DANIEL J. BRENNAN, Case No. 1:20-cv-05894 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 4, 2020)
seeks to recover damages under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
arising from the Defendants' issuance of false and misleading
statements resulting to the precipitous decline in the market value
of the Company's securities.

The federal securities class action is brought on behalf of the
Plaintiff and a class consisting of all persons and entities other
than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Boston
Scientific securities between April 24, 2019 and November 16, 2020,
both dates inclusive.

Boston Scientific develops, manufactures, and markets medical
devices for use in various interventional medical specialties
worldwide. The Company's products include, among others, the LOTUS
Edge Aortic Valve System, which is a Transcatheter Aortic Valve
Replacement product. Boston Scientific announced the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration's approval for the LOTUS Edge Aortic Valve
System in April 2019.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) the LOTUS Edge Aortic Valve System's product delivery
system was dysfunctional and threatened the continued viability of
the entire product line; (ii) as a result, the Company had
materially overstated the continued commercial viability and
profitability of the LOTUS Edge Aortic Valve System; and (iii) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On November 17, 2020, the Company announced a global recall of all
unused inventory of the LOTUS Edge Aortic Valve System, citing
"complexities associated with the product delivery system." Boston
Scientific further announced that "given the additional time and
investment required to develop and reintroduce an enhanced delivery
system, the company has chosen to retire the entire LOTUS product
platform immediately."

As a result, Boston Scientific's stock price fell $3.00 per share,
or 7.89%, to close at $35.03 per share on November 17, 2020, the
suit says.

The Plaintiff acquired Boston Scientific securities at artificially
inflated prices during the Class period and was damaged upon the
revelation of the alleged corrective disclosures. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com

               - and -

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

BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Bid to Dismiss Newton Putative Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
motion to dismiss filed in Richard A. Newton v. Brighthouse Life
Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Northern District of
Georgia, Atlanta Division, filed May 8, 2020), is pending.

Plaintiff has filed a purported class action lawsuit against
Brighthouse.

Plaintiff was the owner of a universal life insurance policy issued
by Travelers Insurance Company, a predecessor to Brighthouse Life
Insurance Company. Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of all
persons who own or owned life insurance policies issued where the
terms of the life insurance policy provide or provided, among other
things, a guarantee that the cost of insurance rates would not be
increased by more than a specified percentage in any contract year.


Plaintiff alleges, among other things, causes of action for breach
of contract, fraud, suppression and concealment, and violation of
the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages, including punitive damages,
interest and treble damages, attorneys' fees, and injunctive and
declaratory relief.

Brighthouse filed a motion to dismiss in June 2020 and intends to
vigorously defend this matter.

Brighthouse Life Insurance Company offers a range of individual
annuities and individual life insurance products.  It is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Brighthouse Holdings, LLC, which is a
direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Brighthouse Financial, Inc.

BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Patti TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled THOMAS PATTI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRINKER INTERNATIONAL,
INC., d/b/a CHILI’S BAR AND GRILL, Defendant, Case No. CACE
2020-017897-CA-02, was removed from the Florida Circuit Court of
the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Nov.
30, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 0:20-cv-62436-RAR to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Brinker International, Inc. is an American multinational
hospitality industry company that owns Chili's and Maggiano's
Little Italy restaurant chains. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Neil D. Kodsi, Esq.
          Leslie Lagomasino Baum, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3500
          2 South Biscayne Boulevard
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 577-7600
          E-mail: neil.kodsi@jacksonlewis.com
                  leslie.baum@jacksonlewis.com

CALIFORNIA: Harvest Rock Files Application for Writ of Injunction
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Harvest Rock Church, Inc., et al., filed with the
Supreme Court of United States an emergency application for writ of
injunction relief requested before November 29, 2020, in the matter
styled HARVEST ROCK CHURCH, INC., HARVEST INTERNATIONAL MINISTRY,
INC., itself and on behalf of its member Churches in California,
Applicants, v. GAVIN NEWSOM, in his official capacity as Governor
of the State of California, Respondent, Case No. 20A94.

The lawsuit alleges that Governor Newsom's Executive Orders and the
State's Public Health Orders regarding COVID-19 impose disparately
onerous prohibitions and numerical restrictions on religious
gatherings in churches, and even on in-home Bible studies, worship
meetings, and life groups. Moreover, the orders purport to dictate
the manner in which Plaintiffs may engage in acceptable religious
worship by prohibiting singing and chanting where indoor worship is
allowed, and by allowing provision and receipt of approved social
services by unlimited numbers in the same church buildings where
religious worship services are limited numerically or prohibited
altogether. The Governor has imposed these restrictions on
Plaintiffs while openly celebrating and encouraging mass gatherings
for protests.

The questions presented are:

(1) Whether the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment
prohibits the government from discriminating against houses of
worship by restricting the size of religious gatherings while
exempting or giving other preferential treatment to comparable
nonreligious gatherings occurring inside the same houses of worship
or to other comparable nonreligious gatherings occurring
externally.

(2) Whether this Court's decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197
U.S. 11 (1905), issued decades before the First Amendment was
incorporated against the States and 60 years before strict scrutiny
became the governing standard in First Amendment cases, dictates a
separate standard for determining First Amendment liberties in
times of declared crisis.

(3) Whether the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and
this Court's holding in Everson v. Bd. of Educ. of Ewing Twp., 330
U.S. 1, 15 (1947) that "[n]either a state nor the Federal
Government . . . can force or influence a person to go to or remain
away from church against his will" is violated when a State
prohibits or forbids upon criminal penalty houses of worship from
assembling regardless of the size of the house of worship or the
religious doctrine or practice.

Applicants Harvest Rock Church, Inc. and Harvest International
Ministry, Inc. (collectively "Churches"), hereby move for an
emergency writ of injunction before, November 29, 2020 against
Governor Newsom's Emergency Proclamation and subsequently issued
stay-at-home orders, including the currently operative "Blueprint
for a Safer Economy", which establishes a statewide framework of
four Tiers with sector-specific restrictions in each tier and
imposes an unconstitutionally discriminatory regime that relegates
Churches' fundamental right to religious exercise to constitutional
orphan status, pursuant to Sup. Ct. Rules 20, 22 and 23 and 28
U.S.C. Section 1651.

As a result of the Governor's COVID-19 restrictions on religious
worship, Harvest Rock Church has received letters from the Planning
and Community Development Department, Code Enforcement Division,
for the City of Pasadena and from the Pasadena Office of the City
Attorney/City Prosecutor, Criminal Division, threatening up to 1
year in prison, daily criminal charges and $1,000 fines against the
pastors, church, governing board, staff, and parishioners, which
includes a threat to close the church. Emergency relief is needed
now to prevent criminalizing constitutionally protected religious
exercise, the suit says. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Applicants HARVEST ROCK CHURCH, INC.; HARVEST
INTERNATIONAL MINISTRY, INC., itself and on behalf of its member
Churches in California are represented by:

          Mathew D. Staver, Esq.
          Horatio G. Mihet, Esq.
          Roger K. Gannam, Esq.
          Daniel J. Schmid, Esq.
          LIBERTY COUNSEL
          P.O. Box 540774
          Orlando, FL 32853
          Telephone: (407) 875-1776
          E-mail: court@LC.org
                  hmihet@LC.org
                  rgannam@LC.org
                  dschmid@LC.org

CANADA: Sixties Scoop Survivors Launches Healing Foundation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Casey Taylor, writing for NewMarketToday, reports that survivors of
the notorious Sixties Scoop have marked a milestone with the
ceremonial launch of the Sixties Scoop Healing Foundation.

An estimated 20,000 Indigenous children were torn from their homes
and placed in mainly non-Indigenous ones during the Sixties Scoop
that technically spans from the 1950s to 1980s.

The $50-million foundation is part of a class-action settlement
with the federal government created to offer aid and to advocate on
survivors' behalf.

"I don't like using the word 'survivor'," Sally Susan Mathias, one
of the lead plaintiffs in the class-action against Ottawa, said
during the ceremony. "But, that is truly what it is to live through
trauma and to be able to grow up and come through such hard days."

Maggie-Blue Waters, another of the lead-plaintiffs in the
class-action suit, was five years old when she was torn from her
family.

"Before we were scooped, my life was the way it was intended to
be," said Waters. "With my family, we had a humble Cree cultural
lifestyle, happy and content on the land by the lake."

"Then one day in 1962, our lives were systematically shattered."

Waters had been in the care of her grandparents while her parents
worked at the time she, her siblings, and her cousins were taken.

"I was the oldest one in the car that day," said Waters. "I was
five and I was frantic - scratching at the window of the moving car
and tormented by the terror in my family's faces as the car drove
away."

"Then I looked to see and hear my cousins and my siblings wailing
and wanting to go home."

Waters said she made a vow in that moment to bring her family back
home, though it would take 29 years for her to find her way back.
By that time, her grandparents and father had already died, her
mother is considered one of the missing and murdered.

"For myself, as a survivor of the Sixties Scoop, I believe our
Healing Foundation is designed to bring us back home," said Waters.
"Our collaboration of gifts, of skills and of talents can give to
us complete healing and restoration."

It's a sentiment shared by Mathias who said the foundation is built
by, run by, and has the understanding and expertise of survivors.

"I'm very relaxed in knowing that there are others who share the
same dream," said Mathias. "A waking, living dream that life can be
better. We can make it that way."

Mathias called the launch of the foundation a cause for
celebration.

"Not only for myself personally, but a celebration for people all
across Canada to be able to say 'look what we can do'." [GN]


CARENET INFOMEDIA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gabel Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
YVONNE GABEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CARENET - INFOMEDIA GROUP, INC. d/b/a
CARENET HEALTHCARE SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-01420
(W.D. Tex., Dec. 13, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Plaintiff Gabel was employed by the Defendant as telenurse.

Carenet – Infomedia Group, Inc. d/b/a Carenet Healthcare Services
providing outpatient care of a specialized nature with permanent
facilities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack Siegel, Esq.
          Siegel Law Group PLLC
          4925 Greenville, Suite 600
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 790-4454

               - and -

          Travis M. Hedgpeth, Esq.
          THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC
          3050 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 510
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (281) 572-0727
          Facsimile: (281) 572-0728
          E-mail: travis@hedgpethlaw.com

               - and -

          Charles R. Ash, Esq.
          Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
          Alana Karbal, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: crash@sommerspc.com
                  kstoops@sommerspc.com
                  akarbal@sommerspc.com


CARPENTER CO: Sanchez Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BLANCA SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated v. CARPENTER CO.
d/b/a E.R. CARPENTER COMPANY, INC. and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. RIC2004219, was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Riverside to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on December
10, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:20-cv-02550 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including unpaid overtime, unpaid meal periods, unpaid rest
periods, unpaid minimum wages, failure to timely pay final wages,
failure to furnish compliant wage statements, unreimbursed business
expenses, and unfair business practices.

Carpenter Co., doing business as E.R. Carpenter Company, Inc., is a
producer of comfort cushioning products, headquartered in Richmond,
Virginia. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
          
         
         Matthew C. Kane, Esq.
         Amy E. Beverlin, Esq.
         Kerri H. Sakaue, Esq.
         MCGUIREWOODS LLP
         1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501
         Telephone: (310) 315-8200
         Facsimile: (310) 315-8210
         E-mail: mkane@mcguirewoods.com
                 abeverlin@mcguirewoods.com
                 ksakaue@mcguirewoods.com

                 - and –

         Sylvia J. Kim, Esq.
         2 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1300
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Telephone: (415) 844-9944
         Facsimile: (415) 844-9922
         E-mail: skim@mcguirewoods.com

CHICAGO TITLE: Court Narrows Claims in Ovation Finance Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Larry Allan Burns of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California granted in part Chicago Title's motion to
dismiss the case captioned OVATION FINANCE HOLDINGS 2 LLC, et al.
Plaintiffs, v. CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY, et al. Defendants, Case No.
19cv2031-LAB (AHG) (S.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs were numerous investors in a lending enterprise
which the Complaint calls the ANI Loan Program.  The case is
related to 19cv1628, SEC v. Champion-Cain, and to 19cv2129, Allred
v. Chicago Title.  All three cases concern the same lending
enterprise.  Cris Torres and Gina Champion-Cain have pled guilty in
the criminal cases 20cr2114 and 20cr2115, respectively.

Defendant Chicago Title filed a motion to dismiss, or in the
alternative to stay the action.  It argues that the Plaintiffs have
failed to join necessary parties, that their RICO claims are barred
under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), and
that the Complaint does not state a claim against it.  The motion
is fully briefed.

The Plaintiffs also filed a motion seeking leave to add two new
claims, but that motion does not affect the motion to dismiss.  The
hearing date on that motion is November 23, so briefing on that
motion is not due soon.

Although the Court is deciding similar motions in Allred, the two
complaints are different, and the Court is treating each case
separately.  In particular, the Complaint in the case is much more
robust, and supported by substantial exhibits.  The motions to
dismiss are different as well.  For example, the Defendants in
Allred moved to dismiss fraud claims for failure to plead them with
particularity, but the motion to dismiss in the case does not raise
such an argument.  The fact that the Court has made a particular
ruling in a related case does not necessarily mean the same ruling
will be made in all cases.

As to dismissal for failure to join a necessary party, Judge Burns
finds that most of the Complaint's allegations describe Kim
Funding's financial and other business arrangements with Ovation
and Banc of California in facilitating their investment in the
lending platform, rather than their involvement with the scheme
more generally.  The Complaint does not treat either Kim Peterson
or Kim Funding as deeply and knowingly involved in any deception.

As to Kim Peterson and Kim Funding, Judge Burns finds Chicago Title
has not met its burden of showing they are necessary parties.
While Champion-Cain is a joint tortfeasor, it does not appear her
involvement in the action is necessary either.  It appears,
however, that ANI will be a necessary party if the receiver's
motion for authorization to proceed against Chicago Title is
granted.  As discussed at the hearing on the receiver's motion, the
Court was considering staying actions against Chicago Title, in
order to facilitate an orderly disposition of the receiver's
actions.  Bearing in mind that the case is still in the pleading
stage, and that the Court has yet to rule on the receiver's motion,
the Judge finds it unnecessary to stay the case at this time.

It is likely the Court will rule on the receiver's motion in case
19cv1628 well before ruling on the Plaintiffs' pending motion for
leave to amend.  Once that happens, the appropriateness of a stay
for failure to join ANI will be clearer.  Because the case is still
in the pleading stage and is likely to remain so for some time, a
stay is unnecessary at this time.

As to dismissal for failure to state a claim, Judge Burns holds
that because the Plaintiffs' two RICO claims are premised on
transactions that are actionable as securities fraud, the PSLRA
bars them.  Although the Plaintiffs are not necessarily estopped by
the Court's decisions in related cases, it bears mention that case
19cv1628 represents the SEC's efforts to bring securities fraud
claims against Champion-Cain and others in connection with these
same transactions.  Torres has pled guilty in case 20cr2114 to
conspiracy to commit securities fraud, and Champion-Cain has pled
guilty in case 20cr2115 to (among other things) securities fraud
and conspiracy to commit securities fraud.  To treat the Lending
Platform investments as something other than securities would be
anomalous.

Judge Burns also finds that while Banc of California and Ovation
may have been commercial lenders vis-à-vis Kim Funding, their
understanding was that the escrow accounts would be held in their
own names, and they would remain owners of the funds in the
accounts.  They are not suing on the notes, but for alleged
securities fraud by which their funds were drained.  Their claims
against Chicago Title arise from its involvement in the alleged
fraud.  While these two Plaintiffs may have been engaged in
commercial lending, the Complaint asks that for purposes of the
RICO claims they be treated as cheated investors.  Even if they
were to amend to distinguish their roles as suggested in the
opposition, however, it is clear that the overarching scheme as
alleged in the Complaint amounted to securities fraud.  Their RICO
claims would still be subject to the PSLRA bar.

Next, the Plaintiffs' opposition to the motion to dismiss makes
more robust allegations of a unity between CTC and CTIC.  While the
new allegations are not enough to show that their separate
existence should be disregarded, they could suggest CTC and CTIC
acted in concert, or that one was part of the other.  The Complaint
needs to make these allegations, however.  The Court or either the
Defendant should be able to read the Complaint and understand what
is being alleged against which the Defendant.  If the two are to be
treated as one, the Complaint must allege facts showing why, and
cannot merely conclude that they were each other's agents, alter
egos, joint venturers, or the like.

Finally, the Complaint relies on federal question jurisdiction,
based on the two RICO claims, and supplemental jurisdiction as to
the state law claimwith the dismissal of the two federal claims,
however, that jurisdictional basis disappears.  While the Court's
continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over state law
claims is discretionary under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(c), the
Supreme Court has made clear that when federal claims are dismissed
before trial, supplemental state law claims should ordinarily be
dismissed as well.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Burns granted in part the motion to
dismiss.  The Plaintiffs' two RICO claims are dismissed without
leave to amend.  Claims against Chicago Title are dismissed without
prejudice for failure to state a claim against it.

The Court held that Plaintiffs may amend their motion for leave to
amend, updating the proposed complaint to omit RICO claims and to
correct pleading defects the Order has identified.  The amended
motion should use the same briefing date and time.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 23, 2020 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yywp7f6z from Leagle.com.

CHINA XD: Schmitt Claims Stockholders' Breach of Fiduciary Duties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA SCHMITT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHINA XD PLASTICS COMPANY, LIMITED, FAITH
DAWN LIMITED, FAITH HORIZON, INC., XD ENGINEERING PLASTICS COMPANY
LIMITED, JIE HAN, TAYLOR ZHANG, LINYUAN ZHAI, HUIYI CHEN and
GUANBAO HUANG, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-06028 (E.D.N.Y.,
December 10, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of Sections 13(d) and (e), 14(a) and 20(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged issuance of materially
defective proxy materials and Schedule 13Ds and Schedule 13E-3s
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which resulted in
the approval of a cash out merger which delivered the totality of
the equity of China XD Plastics Company to controlling insiders
illegally. Further, the Plaintiff and Class members brought this
class action against Director Defendants for breach of their
fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith, due care and disclosure
by, inter alia, (i) agreeing to sell China XD without first taking
steps to ensure that the Plaintiff and Class members would obtain
adequate, fair and maximum consideration through a fair process
under the circumstances; and (ii) engineering the merger to benefit
China XD's founder Han and the Buyer Group without regard for China
XD's public stockholders. Accordingly, this action seeks, inter
alia, to enjoin the proposed closing of the merger and rescinding
the vote approving the merger.

China XD Plastics Company, Limited is a specialty chemical company
based in Heilongjiang, China.

Faith Dawn Limited is a limited liability company incorporated
under the Law of the Cayman Islands in Florence.

Faith Horizon, Inc. is a Nevada corporation and wholly owned
subsidiary of Faith Dawn Limited.

XD Engineering Plastics Company Limited is a plastics company
wholly owned by Jie Han, the founder of China XD Plastics Company,
Limited. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Olimpio Lee Squitieri, Esq.
         SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
         32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Telephone: (212) 421-6492
         Facsimile: (212) 421-6553

CLECO CORPORATE: Class Action Over 2016 Merger Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the lawsuit
related to Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC's merger agreement in 2016
remains pending.

In connection with the 2016 Merger, four actions were filed in the
Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish, Louisiana and
three actions were filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans
Parish, Louisiana.

The petitions in each action generally alleged, among other things,
that the members of Cleco Corporation's Board of Directors breached
their fiduciary duties by, among other things, conducting an
allegedly inadequate sale process, agreeing to the 2016 Merger at a
price that allegedly undervalued Cleco, and failing to disclose
material information about the 2016 Merger.

The petitions also alleged that Como 1, Cleco Corporation, Merger
Sub, and, in some cases, certain of the investors in Como 1 either
aided and abetted or entered into a civil conspiracy to advance
those supposed breaches of duty. The petitions sought various
remedies, including monetary damages, which includes attorneys'
fees and expenses.

The four actions filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for
Rapides Parish are captioned as follows:

   - Braunstein v. Cleco Corporation, No. 251,383B (filed October
27, 2014),

   - Moore v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No.
251,417C (filed October 30, 2014),

   - Trahan v. Williamson, No. 251,456C (filed November 5, 2014),
and

   - L'Herisson v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No.
251,515F (filed November 14, 2014).

In November 2014, the plaintiff in the Braunstein action moved for
a dismissal of the action without prejudice, and that motion was
granted in November 2014.

In December 2014, the Court consolidated the remaining three
actions and appointed interim co-lead counsel, and dismissed the
investors in Cleco Partners as defendants, per agreement of the
parties. Also, in December 2014, the plaintiffs in the consolidated
action filed a Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class
Action Petition for Damages and Preliminary and Permanent
Injunction.

The three actions filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans
Parish were captioned as follows:

   - Butler v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-10776 (filed November 7,
2014),
   
   - Creative Life Services, Inc. v. Cleco Corporation, No.
2014-11098 (filed November 19, 2014), and
   
   - Cashen v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11236 (filed November
21, 2014).

In December 2014, the directors and Cleco filed declinatory
exceptions in each action on the basis that each action was
improperly brought in Orleans Parish and should either be
transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish
or dismissed. Also, in December 2014, the plaintiffs in each action
jointly filed a motion to consolidate the three actions pending in
Orleans Parish and to appoint interim co-lead plaintiffs and
co-lead counsel.

In January 2015, the Court in the Creative Life Services case
sustained the defendants' declinatory exceptions and dismissed the
case so that it could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District
Court for Rapides Parish. In February 2015, the plaintiffs in
Butler and Cashen also consented to the dismissal of their cases
from Orleans Parish so they could be transferred to the Ninth
Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish. By operation of the
December 2014 order of the Ninth Judicial District Court for
Rapides Parish, the Butler, Cashen, and Creative Life Services
actions were consolidated into the actions pending in Rapides
Parish.

In February 2015, the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides
Parish held a hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction filed
by plaintiffs in the consolidated action seeking to enjoin the
shareholder vote for approval of the Merger Agreement. The District
Court heard and denied the plaintiffs' motion.

In June 2015, the plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated
Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action Petition. Cleco filed
exceptions seeking dismissal of the second amended petition in July
2015.

The Louisiana Public Service Commission (LPSC) voted to approve the
2016 Merger before the Court could consider the plaintiffs'
peremptory exceptions.

In March 2016 and May 2016, the plaintiffs filed their Third
Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative Petition for Damages and
Preliminary and Permanent Injunction and their Fourth Verified
Consolidated Amended Class Action Petition, respectively.

The fourth amended petition, which remains the operative petition
and was filed after the 2016 Merger closed, eliminated the request
for preliminary and permanent injunction and also named an
additional executive officer as a defendant.

The defendants filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the fourth
amended Petition. In September 2016, the District Court granted the
exceptions of no cause of action and no right of action and
dismissed all claims asserted by the former shareholders.

The plaintiffs appealed the District Court's ruling to the
Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal.

In December 2017, the Third Circuit Court of Appeal issued an order
reversing and remanding the case to the District Court for further
proceedings. In January 2018, Cleco filed a writ with the Louisiana
Supreme Court seeking review of the Third Circuit Court of Appeal's
decision. The writ was denied in March 2018 and the parties are
engaged in discovery in the District Court.

In November 2018, Cleco filed renewed exceptions of no cause of
action and res judicata, seeking to dismiss all claims. On December
21, 2018, the court dismissed Cleco Partners and Cleco Holdings as
defendants per the agreement of the parties, leaving as the only
remaining defendants certain former executive officers and
independent directors. The District Court denied the defendants'
exceptions on January 14, 2019.

A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for certification of a class
was scheduled for August 26, 2019; however, prior to the hearing,
the parties reached an agreement to certify a limited class. On
September 7, 2019, the District Court certified a class limited to
shareholders who voted against, abstained from voting, or did not
vote on the 2016 Merger.

Cleco believes that the allegations of the petitions in each action
are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses
to the claims set forth in each of the petitions.

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

Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC operates as a public utility holding
company primarily in Louisiana. The company, through its
subsidiary, operates as a regulated electric utility, which owns
nine generating units with a total capacity of 3,310 megawatts and
serves approximately 291,000 customers in Louisiana through its
retail business; and supplies wholesale power in Louisiana and
Mississippi. The company was formerly known as Cleco Corporation
and changed its name to Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC in April 2016.
Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC was founded in 1934 and is based in
Pineville, Louisiana.

CN MOTOR: Faces Shak Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
TODD SHAK, as an individual and on behalf of all other aggrieved
employees v. CN MOTOR COMPANY LLC, a California Corporation; and
DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 20STCV46721 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., Dec. 7, 2020) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor
practices in violations of the California Labor Code.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to pay minimum
wages for all hours worked to Plaintiff and other aggrieved
employees, failed to authorize and permit all legally required rest
periods, failed to pay all earned overtime compensation, failed to
provide all legally required meal periods, failed to pay all
vacation wages earned at the time of separation from employment,
failed to reimburse for all necessary business expenses, failed to
furnish with complete, accurate, itemized wage statements, failed
to timely pay all final wages, failed to pay all earned wages at
least twice during each calendar month, and failed to maintain
accurate records.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt sales
manager from approximately 2016 until on or about March 13, 2020.

CN Motor Company LLC owns and operates Santa Monica Ford, an
automotive retailer in Santa Monica, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Sean M. Blakely, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292-2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  sblakely@haineslawgroup.com

COMPASS RECOVERY: Woodall Files FDCPA Suit in D. Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against COMPASS RECOVERY
GROUP, LLC. The case is styled as Michael Woodall, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COMPASS RECOVERY
GROUP, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-12201-IT (D. Mass., Dec. 11, 2020).

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

Compass Recovery Group, LLC -- https://compassrecoverygroup.com/ --
provides a full-service receivables debt collection solution.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin V.K. Crick, Esq.
          ROGHTS PROTECTION LAW GROUP, PLLC
          100 Cambridge St., Suite 1400
          Boston, MA 02114
          Phone: (844) 574-4487
          Fax: (888) 622-3715
          Email: k.crick@rightsprotect.com


COMSCORE INC: Privacy Suit Settlement Still Subject to Court OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
comScore, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the Company and
Full Circle Studies, Inc.'s settlement with plaintiffs in the class
action litigation over alleged violation of the Children's Online
Privacy Protection Act remains subject to court approval.

On September 11, 2017, the Company and a wholly-owned subsidiary,
Full Circle Studies, Inc., received demand letters on behalf of
named plaintiffs and all others similarly situated alleging that
the Company and Full Circle collected personal information from
users under the age of 13 without verifiable parental consent in
violation of Massachusetts law and the federal Children's Online
Privacy Protection Act.

The letters alleged that the Company and Full Circle collected such
personal information by embedding advertising software development
kits ("SDKs") in applications created or developed by The Walt
Disney Company. The letters sought monetary damages, attorneys'
fees and damages under Massachusetts law.

On June 4, 2018, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints with the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California adding
the Company and Full Circle as defendants in a purported class
action (captioned Rushing, et al v. The Walt Disney Company, et
al., Case No. 3:17-cv-04419-JD) against Disney, Twitter and other
defendants, alleging violations of California's constitutional
right to privacy and intrusion upon seclusion law, New York's
deceptive trade practices statute, and Massachusetts' deceptive
trade practices and right to privacy statutes.

The complaints alleged damages in excess of $5.0 million, with any
award to be apportioned among the defendants.

On February 26, 2020, the Company and Full Circle reached an
agreement with the plaintiffs to settle the complaints in full,
with no admission of liability, in return for injunctive relief and
payment of the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, to be covered by the
Company's insurance.

The settlement received preliminary court approval on September 24,
2020; it remains subject to final court approval.

comScore, Inc. operates as an information and analytics company
that measures audiences, consumer behavior, and advertising across
media platforms worldwide. The company was founded in 1999 and is
headquartered in Reston, Virginia.

CONDUENT INC: ERS Puerto Rico Elec. Power Authority Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Conduent Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled,
Employees' Retirement System of the Puerto Rico Electric Power
Authority et al v. Conduent Inc. et al

On March 8, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit alleging
violations of certain federal securities laws in connection with
the company's statements and alleged omissions regarding its
financial guidance and business and operations was filed against
the company, its former Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief
Financial Officer in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

The complaint seeks certification of a class of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the company's securities from
February 21, 2018 through November 6, 2018, and also seeks
unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.

The company moved to dismiss the class action complaint in its
entirety. In June 2020, the court denied the motion to dismiss and
allowed the claims to proceed.

Conduent said, "We intend to defend the litigation vigorously. The
Company maintains insurance that may cover any costs arising out of
this litigation up to the insurance limits, and subject to meeting
certain deductibles and to other terms and conditions thereof. The
Company is not able to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of
this proceeding or reasonably provide an estimate or range of
estimate of the possible outcome or loss, if any, in excess of
currently recorded reserves."

Conduent Incorporated is a business process services company. The
Company provides business process services with expertise in
transaction-intensive processing, analytics and automation. The
company is based in Florham Park, New Jersey.

CONTRACT TRANSPORT: Burlaka Files Certiorari Petition in FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Leonid Burlaka, et al., filed with the Supreme Court of
United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter
styled Leonid Burlaka et al, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Contract Transport Services, LLC, Case No.
20-712.

Response is due on December 28, 2020.

Petitioners Leonid Burlaka, et al. petition for a writ of
certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the case titled LEONID BURLAKA,
et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. CONTRACT TRANSPORT SERVICES LLC,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 19-1703. Because the evidence
establishes that Plaintiffs were subject to performing spotting
duties that comprised one leg of a continuous interstate journey,
the district court's grant of summary judgment is AFFIRMED.

The question presented is: Are drivers subject to the jurisdiction
of the Secretary of Transportation, and therefore exempt under 29
U.S.C. Section 213(b)(1), because some of the products that they
moved between two points within a single state were eventually
moved out of the state, even though the shipper had not decided on
whether to sell the products to an interstate or intrastate
customer at the time of the intrastate transport?

Petitioners Leonid Burlaka, Timothy Keuken, Travis Frischmann, and
Roger Robinson are truck drivers who brought individual,
collective, and class action claims against Contract Transport
Services (CTS), their former employer, for failing to provide
overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),
which requires overtime pay for any employee who works more than
forty hours in a workweek. The entitlement to overtime pay,
however, is not absolute: as relevant here, the statute exempts
employees who are subject to the Secretary of Transportation's
jurisdiction under the Motor Carrier Act (MCA).

The Petitioners asks the Court to take up the issue of the
appropriate standard for determining whether a wholly intrastate
movement of goods is separate from, or constitutes the first leg of
an interstate movement of goods, for the purpose of determining
whether drivers who made such intrastate movements are subject to
the power of the Secretary of Transportation for establishing
qualifications and maximum hours, and is therefore exempt from the
overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act under 29
U.S.C. Section 213(b)(1). [BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners Leonid Burlaka, et al., are represented by:

          Jill Marie Hartley, Esq.
          THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM S.C.
          1555 N. RiverCenter Drive, Suite 202
          Milwaukee, WI 53212
          Telephone: (414) 240-1185
          E-mail: jh@previant.com

COVIA HOLDINGS: Faces Plagens Suit Over Decline of Share Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM PLAGENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JENNIFFER D. DECKARD, MARK E. BARRUS,
MICHAEL F. BIEHL, ANDREW D. EICH, RICHARD A. NAVARRE, Defendants,
Case No. 1:20-cv-02744 (N.D. Ohio, December 10, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants issued materially false
and misleading statements about Covia Holdings Corporation's
business, operations, and prospects in order to attract investors
and to artificially inflate prices of Covia and/or Fairmount
Santrol securities between March 15, 2016 and June 29, 2020.
Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's
proprietary value-added proppants were not necessarily more
effective than ordinary sand; (2) the Company's revenues, which
were dependent on its proprietary value-added proppants, was based
on misrepresentations; (3) when Company insiders raised this issue,
the Defendants did not take meaningful steps to rectify the issue;
and (4) as a result, the Defendants' statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

When the truth about Covia's operations and financial performance
was disclosed to the public, the company's share prices
continuously declined. On June 29,2020, share prices fell $0.18, or
37.5%, from closing at $0.48, suspending trading June 30, 2020, and
resuming trading over-the-counter (OTC) on July 1, 2020 at $0.30,
the suit says.

As a result of the Defendants' omissions, the Plaintiff and Class
members purchased Covia and/or Fairmount Santrol securities at
artificially inflated prices during the Class period. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Daniel Karon, Esq.
         KARON LLC
         700 W. St. Clair Ave., Ste. 200
         Cleveland, OH 44113
         Telephone: (216) 622-1851
         E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com

                 - and –

         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
         THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 686-1060
         Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
         E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 lrosen@rosenlegal.com

CRODA INC: Faces Class Action Over Altas Point Plant Emission
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sophia Schmidt, writing for Delaware Public Media, reports that a
controversial chemical plant in New Castle has violated its air
pollution limits again.

A plant at the Croda facility in New Castle leaked massive amounts
of the explosive and carcinogenic chemical ethylene oxide in 2018,
causing a temporary shutdown of the Delaware Memorial Bridge. The
company's New Castle facility is also the subject of a federal
chemical exposure suit filed this year.

State environmental regulators found additional violations at the
plant this fall.

The Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
(DNREC) learned after a stack test in September that Croda had
exceeded its annual emission limit for ethylene oxide at an air
pollution scrubber, and that the scrubber had failed to reduce
volatile organic compound emissions by at least 95 percent. Croda
also routed an unpermitted source into an air pollution scrubber
and operated an unpermitted source of ethylene oxide at a part of
the plant known as a hotwell, which environmental regulators say
condenses vapors from the purification and distillation of crude
ethylene glycol.

State Representative Larry Lambert has been an outspoken critic of
Croda since the 2018 leak.   

"At this point, we're looking at a full-blown pattern," Lambert
said Friday, after learning about the latest violations. "It
appears that it may very well be how they conduct business."

Lambert sees this as the last strike.

"This is really the last time that it's really acceptable to have
any kind of violations like this," he said. "I'm looking forward to
DNREC and the state of Delaware taking the necessary steps to
ensure that this pattern doesn't continue."

DNREC says the ethylene oxide plant has not operated since the date
of the test.

DNREC included several action items in the Notice of Violations
hand delivered to Croda Nov. 11. The state agency is requiring
Croda to obtain a permit for the unpermitted equipment and submit
documentation of emissions "for all chemical species" by
mid-January.

DNREC has advised Croda that further operation of the ethylene
oxide plant at the New Castle facility for a purpose other than
demonstrating compliance with permit limits would be viewed as a
"flagrant violation."

DNREC was set to hold a virtual information session on the "path
forward" for the plant on Nov. 19.

The federal lawsuit filed against Croda in August is over the
company's emissions of ethylene oxide in New Castle.

The plaintiff, New Castle County resident Catherine Baker, is
seeking class-action status. She claims residents near Croda's
Altas Point facility along Route 9 are subject to increased risk of
illness as a result of exposure to the chemical over decades. She
is seeking monetary damages, including the cost of medical
monitoring. Croda is attempting to get the case dismissed.

The suit came after members of Delaware's Congressional Delegation
urged the EPA to alert New Castle-area residents of the health
risks of exposure to ethylene oxide from Croda, following an EPA
Inspector General report flagging the issue this spring. [GN]


CVS HEALTH: Continues to Defend LTC Business Unit-Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend putative class action suits related to the
Company's LTC business unit, which allegedly injured investors who
acquired CVS Health securities between February 9, 2016 and
February 20, 2019.

Between February and August 2019, six class action complaints were
filed by putative plaintiffs against the Company and certain
current and former officers and directors: Anarkat v. CVS Health
Corp., et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode
Island); Labourers' Pension Fund of Central and Eastern Canada v.
CVS Health Corp., et al. (New York Supreme Court); City of Warren
Police and Fire Retirement Sys. v. CVS Health Corp., et. al. (Rhode
Island Superior Court); Cambria Co. Employees Retirement Sys. v.
CVS Health Corp., et al. (New York Supreme Court); Freundlich v.
CVS Health Corp., et al. (Rhode Island Superior Court); and In re
CVS Health Corp. Securities Act Litigation (formerly captioned
Waterford Twp. Police & Fire Retirement Sys. v. CVS Health Corp.,
et al.) (U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island).

The plaintiffs in these cases assert a variety of causes of action
under federal securities laws that are premised on allegations that
the defendants made certain omissions and misrepresentations
relating to the performance of the Company's LTC business unit,
which allegedly injured investors who acquired CVS Health
securities between February 9, 2016 and February 20, 2019.

The Labourers' Pension Fund and Cambria County cases have been
consolidated into a single action based on the Labourers' Pension
Fund complaint. The Freundlich and City of Warren cases have been
consolidated into In re CVS Health Corp. Securities Litigation and
stayed in favor of the earlier-filed Anarkat and Labourers' Pension
Fund cases.

The Company is defending itself against these claims.

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

CVS Health Corporation, incorporated on August 22, 1996, together
with its subsidiaries, is an integrated pharmacy healthcare
company. The Company provides pharmacy care for the senior
community through Omnicare, Inc. (Omnicare) and Omnicare's
long-term care (LTC) operations, which include distribution of
pharmaceuticals, related pharmacy consulting and other ancillary
services to chronic care facilities and other care settings. It
operates through three segments: Pharmacy Services, Retail/LTC and
Corporate. The company is based in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.

CVS HEALTH: Direct Purchaser EpiPen Litigation Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the court granted
the parties' motion to consolidate Rochester Drug Cooperative, Inc.
v. Mylan Inc., et al. and Dakota Drug, Inc. v. Mylan Inc., et al.
and renamed it as In re Direct Purchaser EpiPen Litigation (U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota).

In re Direct Purchaser EpiPen Litigation (U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota).

This putative class action (originally captioned as Rochester Drug
Cooperative, Inc. v. Mylan Inc., et al.) was filed in March 2020
against Caremark, other PBMs and the manufacturer of EpiPen
products and their authorized generics on behalf of purported
classes of direct purchasers of these products.

The complaint alleges violations of Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations (RICO) and claims that rebate agreements
between the drug manufacturer and PBMs caused the direct purchasers
to pay inflated prices for these drug products.

A nearly identical case was separately filed in the same court
(Dakota Drug, Inc. v. Mylan Inc., et al.).

The court granted a motion to consolidate the two complaints.

The Company is defending itself against these claims.

CVS Health Corporation, incorporated on August 22, 1996, together
with its subsidiaries, is an integrated pharmacy healthcare
company. The Company provides pharmacy care for the senior
community through Omnicare, Inc. and Omnicare's long-term care
(LTC) operations, which include distribution of pharmaceuticals,
related pharmacy consulting and other ancillary services to chronic
care facilities and other care settings. It operates through three
segments: Pharmacy Services, Retail/LTC and Corporate. The company
is based in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.

CVS HEALTH: Direct Purchaser Insulin Pricing Litigation Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a putative consolidated class action suit
entitled,  In re Direct Purchaser Insulin Pricing Litigation (U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey).

This putative class action (originally captioned as Rochester Drug
Cooperative, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., et al.) was filed in March
2020 against CVS Caremark Corporation, other pharmacy benefit
managements (PBMs) and the manufacturers of analog insulin products
on behalf of purported classes of direct purchasers of these
products.

The complaint alleges violations of The Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and claims that rebate agreements
between the drug manufacturers and PBMs caused the direct
purchasers to pay inflated prices for these drug products.

Two nearly identical cases were separately filed in the same court
(FWK Holdings, LLC v. Novo Nordisk, et al. and Value Drug Company
v. Eli Lilly & Co., et al.).

The court granted a motion to consolidate all three complaints.

The Company is defending itself against these claims.

CVS Health Corporation, incorporated on August 22, 1996, together
with its subsidiaries, is an integrated pharmacy healthcare
company. The Company provides pharmacy care for the senior
community through Omnicare, Inc. and Omnicare's long-term care
(LTC) operations, which include distribution of pharmaceuticals,
related pharmacy consulting and other ancillary services to chronic
care facilities and other care settings. It operates through three
segments: Pharmacy Services, Retail/LTC and Corporate. The company
is based in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.

CVS HEALTH: EpiPen ERISA Litigation Junked
------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the putative class
action suit entitled, In re EpiPen ERISA Litigation, has been
dismissed, following denial of the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

Klein, et al. v. Prime Therapeutics, et al. (U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota).

This putative class action was filed against the Company and other
PBMs in June 2017 on behalf of The Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) plan members who purchased and paid
for EpiPen or EpiPen Jr.

Plaintiffs allege that the pharmacy benefit managements(PBMs) are
ERISA fiduciaries to plan members and have violated ERISA by
allegedly causing higher inflated prices for EpiPens through the
process of negotiating increased rebates from EpiPen manufacturer
Mylan.

This case was consolidated with a similar matter and was proceeding
as In re EpiPen ERISA Litigation.

In October 2020, the lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed with
prejudice following denial of the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

CVS Health Corporation, incorporated on August 22, 1996, together
with its subsidiaries, is an integrated pharmacy healthcare
company. The Company provides pharmacy care for the senior
community through Omnicare, Inc. and Omnicare's long-term care
(LTC) operations, which include distribution of pharmaceuticals,
related pharmacy consulting and other ancillary services to chronic
care facilities and other care settings. It operates through three
segments: Pharmacy Services, Retail/LTC and Corporate. The company
is based in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.

CVS HEALTH: Radcliffe and Flaim Class Suits Underway
----------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend class action suits entitled, Radcliffe v. Aetna
Inc., et al. and Flaim v. Aetna Inc., et al.

In August and September 2020, two Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) class actions were filed in the U.S.
District Court in the District of Connecticut against CVS Health
Corp., Aetna Inc., and several current and former executives,
directors and/or members of Aetna's Compensation and Talent
Management Committee: Radcliffe v. Aetna Inc., et al. and Flaim v.
Aetna Inc., et al.

The plaintiffs in these cases assert a variety of causes of action
premised on allegations that the defendants breached fiduciary
duties and engaged in prohibited transactions relating to
participants in the Aetna 401(k) plan's investment in company stock
between December 3, 2017 and February 20, 2019, claiming losses
related to the performance of the Company's LTC business unit.

The Company also received a related document request pursuant to
ERISA Section 104(b).

The Company is evaluating these matters.

CVS Health Corporation, incorporated on August 22, 1996, together
with its subsidiaries, is an integrated pharmacy healthcare
company. The Company provides pharmacy care for the senior
community through Omnicare, Inc. and Omnicare's long-term care
(LTC) operations, which include distribution of pharmaceuticals,
related pharmacy consulting and other ancillary services to chronic
care facilities and other care settings. It operates through three
segments: Pharmacy Services, Retail/LTC and Corporate. The company
is based in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.

DESJARDINS FINANCIAL: Langlois Lawyers Discuss Ruling in Asselin
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ariane-Sophie Blais, Esq. -- ariane-sophie.blais@langlois.ca --
Sandra Desjardins, Esq. -- sandra.desjardins@langlois.ca -- Vincent
De L'Etoile, Esq. -- vincent.deletoile@langlois.ca -- Sean Griffin,
Esq., and Sophie Perreault, Esq., of Langlois lawyers, LLP, in an
article for Mondaq, report that on October 30, the Supreme Court of
Canada released its long-awaited decision in Desjardins Financial
Services Firm Inc. v. Asselin (the "Asselin decision"). Ever since
leave to appeal was granted in June 2019,2 practitioners and
litigants have been kept in suspense, anticipating a potential
amendment to the analytical framework of the criteria for
authorization of a class action in Quebec.

However, far from liberalizing or restricting the interpretation
and application of the authorization criteria in Article 575 of the
Quebec Code of Civil Procedure ("CCP"), the Asselin decision
maintains the status quo with respect to the legal framework for
authorizing a class action in Quebec. The Court reiterated the
position and the principles it developed in Infineon,3 Vivendi,4
and Oratoire Saint-Joseph,5 which form the jurisprudential basis
for this critical procedural stage, without modifying the
applicable law.

I. CONTEXT

In 2011, the plaintiff moved to authorize a class action against
the defendants with respect to principal-protected investment
vehicles that, as a result of the 2008 financial crisis and the
collapse of the asset-backed commercial paper ("ABCP") market, did
not ultimately generate any returns, though investors were able to
recover the value of their original investment.

Alleging that the investment vehicles were offered to the public
and presented to investors as providing an attractive return
potential, the applicant contends that one of the defendants is
contractually liable for making false representations because it
failed to disclose the "risk" associated with the investment, and
that the other defendant is extracontractually liable for designing
flawed investment vehicles and for mismanaging the funds.

In 2016, the Superior Court dismissed the proposed class action
having found no contractual relationship with one of the
defendants, as well as insufficient allegations to justify a cause
of action against it; and the implausibility of the proposed
syllogism against the other in light of the allegations in the
motion and not permitting to engage its extracontractual
liability.6 Furthermore, since the proposed action is based on
representations made at the time that the investment vehicles in
dispute were being marketed, the authorization judge concluded that
the assessment of such a cause of action does not lend itself to
adjudication by way of a class action.

The Court of Appeal,7 in a much-publicized decision, overturned the
Superior Court's judgment and authorized the class action against
the defendants.

In its decision, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed the flexible,
liberal, and generous approach to the authorization conditions to
facilitate access to justice, a class action being a vehicle for
achieving the twin goals of deterrence and victim compensation. The
Court also urged authorization judges to exercise caution when
weighing evidence at the authorization stage and indicated that one
must be able to "read between the lines" when considering
allegations that are imperfect, but which true meaning is
nonetheless clear.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the motion, when properly
assessed and understood, alleges a generalized and systematic
breach of the duty to inform in the sale of investment vehicles to
all class members, giving rise to the contractual liability of one
defendant, as well as the extracontractual liability of the other
defendant with respect to the design and management of the
investments in dispute. Accordingly, the defendants' liability can
be debated on a common basis and will depend on the merits of the
case.

II. THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

The majority of the Supreme Court of Canada, written by Justice
Kasirer, upheld the authorization to institute the class action
against the defendants on essentially the same grounds as those of
the Quebec Court of Appeal.

The Asselin decision reaffirms the flexible, liberal, and generous
approach to the authorization criteria in order to achieve the twin
goals of deterrence and victim compensation and access to justice.
The decision also reaffirms that the legal threshold for
authorization to institute a class action in Quebec is a low one.

A. Reminders from the Asselin Decision
In keeping with the Court's case law, and without modifying the
interpretation and application of the authorization criteria under
Article 575 CCP, the Asselin decision contains some useful
reminders.

1. The standard for appellate intervention
From the outset, the majority opinion reiterates that a judgment
dismissing a class action is entitled to deference on appeal,
particularly because of the discretionary nature of authorization
judges' decisions.

However, if the motion judge errs in analyzing certain aspects of
the authorization conditions, misunderstands the proposed legal
syllogism, or assumes the role of arbiter of the facts, any of
these may constitute a reviewable error warranting appellate
intervention.

2. What it means to "read between the lines"

The Court of Appeal's use of this expression, in this case, created
considerable controversy. Refusing to see this as a change in the
law or a loosening of authorization criteria, the majority opinion
states that this figurative or metaphorical expression was intended
as a warning against the excesses of literalism in the analysis of
an application for authorization to institute a class action, and
not an invitation to search for allegations that are missing from
the application.

Without relieving the plaintiff of its burden of demonstration and
without inventing wording nout found in the pleadings, the
following measures are appropriate for a motion judge to assess an
application for authorization:

   a. The judge may draw inferences or presumptions from the
allegations in the application to establish the existence of an
arguable case;

   b. Conversely, no inference may be drawn in the complete absence
of allegations, nor may the authorization judge add to the text or
read into the application something that is not written therein;
and

   c. The applicant must advance facts that are specific enough to
allow the legal syllogism to be considered, but it is not necessary
to provide step-by-step details of the legal argument to be made in
the submissions on the merits of the case.
Thus, the analytical approach at the authorization stage makes it
possible to overlook certain defects of form in order to understand
the "full message" of the allegations in the application, based on
the wording therein.

3. Demonstration of an arguable case (Article 575(2) CCP)

As we know, the onus on the plaintiff at the authorization stage is
simply to establish an "arguable case" in light of the facts and
the applicable law.

At the authorization stage, pure questions of law may be resolved
by the court if the outcome of the proposed action depends on its
doing so.

Otherwise, when the cause of action is dependent on the assessment
of facts, the authorization judge cannot rule on the merits of the
conclusions in light of the alleged facts; the screening function
is merely to ensure that frivolous or unsustainable claims are
dismissed, so that the parties are not subjected to unnecessary
litigation.

The corollary of this flexible approach is that the plaintiff does
not have the burden of proving each element of the syllogism
according to the usual civil standard. A class action may be
authorized without evidence on a balance of probabilities, as long
as it is supported by "some evidence." In each case, to assess the
sufficiency of the evidence and the allegations, an authorization
judge must consider the particular features of the context and what
would ultimately have to be proved at trial.

4. The existence of identical, similar, or related questions of law
or fact (Article 575(1) CCP)
The case law calls for a flexible approach to the common interest
that must exist among the class. It follows that the fact that the
situation of all members of the class are not perfectly identical
does not mean that commonality does not exist or is not uniform; a
class action may be authorized as long as certain issues are common
to all members of the group.

The majority opinion specifically reiterates that:

a. The threshold to establish the existence of common issues at
the authorization stage is low;

  b. Unlike other provinces, the CCP does not require common issues
to predominate over individual issues. Rather, a single common
issue is sufficient as long as it advances the litigation in a
manner that is not insignificant; and

  c. The issue must be common to the class members, but need not
call for a common answer.

Thus, the fact that some individual issues remain and may need to
be analyzed at the end of the class action is not an obstacle to
satisfying this authorization criterion.

B. The outcome of the application in this case

Based on the principle that authorization to institute a class
action must be granted once the four criteria of Article 575 CCP
have been met, because the Court has no residual discretion to deny
authorization on the ground that the action would not be the most
appropriate procedural vehicle, and since any doubt must weigh in
favour of continuing the proceedings, the Supreme Court of Canada
has authorized the institution of the class action in this case.

Despite the criticisms levelled against the drafting of the motion,
which was acknowledged to be lacking in elegance, and refusing to
see in it a cause of action based on representations made
individually to each class members at the time of their investment
in the financial vehicles in dispute, the Court was satisfied that
the motion was sufficient to establish an arguable case against the
defendants, and that this case lends itself to adjudication by way
of a class action, taking into account the legal framework relating
to the causes of action and the substance of the allegations.

Thus, the defences available to the defendants relating to the
adequacy of the information communicated to investors, the impact
of the 2008 financial crisis on returns, and the scope of a
judicial release with respect to the ABCP market and other markets
will have to be debated and examined at trial.

C. Partial dissent
For her part, Justice Cote, whose reasons are supported by Justices
Moldaver and Rowe, would have dismissed the authorization to
institute a class action with respect to the alleged breach of the
duty to inform by one of the defendants, and would have authorized
the class action against the other defendant with respect to the
alleged faults in the design and management of the investments, but
only with respect to the claim for compensatory damages, excluding
punitive damages.

Although in certain circumstances, a class action alleging breaches
of the duty to inform by financial advisers may be possible, the
allegations in the application were insufficient in this case.
Since the analysis of the duty to inform would normally require an
individual examination of each member's particular circumstances,
an allegation establishing the presence of a breach that is
systemic in nature would have been required to satisfy the
requirements of Article 575(1) CCP.

With respect to the alleged faults in the design and management of
the investments by the other defendant, Justice Cote also confirmed
the Court of Appeal's decision that the four criteria of Article
575 CCP are met with respect to the claim for compensatory damages
only.

Indeed, with respect to the claim for punitive damages, Justice
Cote noted that an authorization judge may interpret a pure
question of law at this stage if it does not require the analysis
of evidence. From the perspective of judicial economy and
proportionality, if the issue can be decided at this stage, it is
not advisable to defer the matter to the trial on the merits. In
the case at bar, the plan of arrangement for the restructuring of
the ABCP market, approved by the courts, provided for a release in
favour of several financial institutions, including the defendants.
Contrary to the findings of the majority, Justice Cote concluded
that the ABCP release could be construed without evidence being
adduced at this stage, and therefore should have precluded any
claim for punitive damages in this case.

III. CONCLUSION

As the Supreme Court of Canada rightly points out, the
authorization to institute a class action is only a preliminary
decision that can be modified during the trial and does not in any
way prejudge the outcome of the litigation, nor does it prejudice
the rights of the defendant.

Such is the case in Asselin, a decision rendered at the
authorization stage of a class action and which content and
comments are based on a low threshold of proof, derived from
allegations that are considered generously and without considering
the required evidence through the applicable burden for the actual
determination of rights. [GN]


DIRECT ENERGY: Faces Lindenbaum Suit Over Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTA LINDENBAUM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. DIRECT ENERGY SERVICES LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, and JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10, Case No.
: 1:20-cv-02731-DCN (N.D. Ohio, Dec. 8, 2020) arises from the
Defendants' alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

The Plaintiff brings this class action to: (1) stop the Defendants'
practice of placing calls using "an artificial or prerecorded
voice" to the residential landline telephones of consumers
nationwide without their prior express written consent; (2) stop
the Defendants from calling consumers who are registered on the
National Do Not Call Registry and (3) obtain redress for all
persons injured by their conduct.

Direct Energy is a certified supplier in the Ohio Energy Choice
Program, offering electricity and natural gas to consumers in Ohio.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam T. Savett, Esq.
          Savett Law Offices LLC
          2764 Carole Lane
          Allentown, PA 18104
          Telephone: (610) 621-4550
          Facsimile: (610) 978-2970
          E-mail: adam@savettlaw.com

DIRECTV: 9th Cir. Judge Bennett Tries to Reverse Ruling in Revitch
------------------------------------------------------------------
People for the American Way reports that Trump Ninth Circuit judge
Mark Bennett tried to reverse a district court and rule that claims
that DIRECTV made illegal telemarketing calls had to be arbitrated
individually and could not form the basis of a class action against
the corporation. Bennett's dissent relied on a 2-1 ruling to that
effect by Trump judge Rushing in the Fourth Circuit. The majority,
including a judge nominated by President Reagan, rejected Bennett's
view and affirmed the district court in its September 2020 decision
in Revitch v DIRECTV.

In 2018, Jeremy Revitch filed a class action suit against DIRECTV,
contending that the company had violated federal law by subjecting
him and many others to "multiple telephone calls" to their
cellphones trying to push them to subscribe. Revitch contended that
he had no previous contact with the company and "certainly did not
give DIRECTV permission to flood his cell phone with robocalls."

Seven years earlier, Revitch had become an AT&T Mobility cellphone
customer. The contract he signed included a clause agreeing to
arbitrate all claims with AT&T Mobility and its "affiliates."  Four
years after the contract was signed, DIRECTV was acquired by AT&T
Mobility's parent company, AT&T Inc., so DIRECTV filed a motion to
compel Revitch to arbitrate his individual claim, and to dismiss
the class action complaint, because it had become an AT&T
"affiliate."

In a 27-page opinion, the district court rejected DIRECTV's motion,
concluding that the Revitch-AT&T Mobility contract clearly "did not
reflect an intent to arbitrate the claim" against DIRECTV, which
was not an AT&T affiliate until four years after the contract was
signed. The case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

In a 2-1 opinion by Reagan nominee Diarmuid O'Scannlain, the
appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling. The majority
explained that under California law, looking to the "reasonable
expectations" of the parties at the time of the contract, there was
no valid agreement to arbitrate between DIRECTV and Revitch since
DIRECTV was not an affiliate of AT&T Mobility at the time the
agreement was signed.  The majority specifically rejected the
contrary opinion by Trump judge Rushing of the Fourth Circuit,
noting that Rushing's opinion would improperly require consumers to
arbitrate "any and all disputes with (yet-unknown) corporate
entities that might later become affiliated with the service
provider," and that this would be so even where neither the
later-affiliated entity (in this case DIRECTV) nor the dispute
"bear any relation to the services provided under the initial
agreement." Judge O'Scannlain also pointed out that DIRECTV's
motion should be denied under the express language of the Federal
Arbitration Act (FAA), because the dispute did not "arise out of"
the original contract with AT&T Mobility, as required by the FAA.

Trump judge Bennett dissented. He relied on arguments similar to
those in Trump judge Rushing's decision and his interpretation of
the language of the arbitration clause itself. He claimed that the
Supreme Court's decision in the Lamps Plus case dictated that if
there were any ambiguities about the scope of arbitration, they
must be resolved "in favor of arbitration," and that the district
court's decision should be reversed.

As the majority explained, however, Lamps Plus was a limited
ruling, holding only that ambiguous terns in a contract should be
interpreted in favor of arbitration when the ambiguity is used to
"impose class arbitration in the absence of the parties' consent."
In contrast, the majority went on, the court was simply determining
that the "mutual intent" of the parties based on their "reasonable
expectations at the time of the contract" did not support the
conclusion that all disputes between Revitch and all future
affiliates of AT&T were intended to be arbitrated, even if the
subject had nothing to do with the original contract.

The majority recognized that its decision created a "circuit split"
on the issue of the scope of the arbitration cause in contracts
like the AT&T Mobility agreement, which the Supreme Court may well
decide to resolve. It is unfortunately all too possible that the
Court, which now includes three Trump justices, will adopt the same
pro-corporate, anti-consumer interpretation that Trump judges
Bennett and Rushing have urged. For now, at least, Bennett's views
are in the minority in the Ninth Circuit, and Revitch can proceed
with his class action to obtain broad relief against the illegal
telemarketing by DIRECTV. [GN]


DOMINION ENERGY: Employment-Related Action vs. SCANA Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Dominion Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that SCANA Corporation
continues to defend an employment class action suit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina.

In August 2017, a case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina on behalf of persons who were formerly
employed at the NND Project. In July 2018, the court certified this
case as a class action.  

In February 2019, certain of these plaintiffs filed an additional
case, which case has been dismissed and the plaintiffs have joined
the case filed August 2017.  The plaintiffs allege, among other
things, that SCANA, Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. (DESC),
Fluor Corporation and Fluor Enterprises, Inc. violated the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act in connection with the
decision to stop construction at the NND Project.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to provide
adequate advance written notice of their terminations of employment
and are seeking damages, which could be as much as $100 million for
100% of the NND Project.

In September 2018, a case was filed in the State Court of Common
Pleas in Fairfield County, South Carolina by Fluor Enterprises,
Inc. and Fluor Daniel Maintenance Services, Inc. against DESC and
Santee Cooper.

The plaintiffs make claims for indemnification, breach of contract
and promissory estoppel arising from, among other things, the
defendants' alleged failure and refusal to defend and indemnify the
Fluor defendants in the aforementioned case.

These cases are pending.

Dominion Energy, Inc., formerly Dominion Resources, Inc.,
incorporated on February 18, 1983, is a producer and transporter of
energy. Dominion is focused on its investment in regulated electric
generation, transmission and distribution and regulated natural gas
transmission and distribution infrastructure. Dominion manages its
operations through three primary segments: Dominion Virginia Power
operating segment (DVP), Dominion Generation, Dominion Energy, and
Corporate and Other. The company is based in Richmond, Virginia.

DOMINION ENERGY: Issues $322MM Shares to Satisfy Obligation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dominion Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that it issued $322
million of shares of Dominion Energy common stock to satisfy its
obligation under the settlement agreement with Santee Cooper
ratepayers, including interest charges.

Dominion Energy's acquisition of SCANA Corporation was completed on
January 1, 2019 pursuant to the terms of the SCANA Merger
Agreement, which was entered on January 2, 2018. The SCANA Merger
Approval Order was issued by the South Carolina Commission on
December 21, 2018.

In September 2017, a purported class action was filed by Santee
Cooper ratepayers against Santee Cooper, Dominion Energy South
Carolina, Inc. (DESC), Palmetto Electric Cooperative, Inc. and
Central Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. in the State Court of
Common Pleas in Hampton County, South Carolina (the Santee Cooper
Ratepayer Case).

The allegations are substantially similar to those in the DESC
Ratepayer Case. The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the
defendants may not charge the purported class for reimbursement for
past or future costs of the NND Project.

In March 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint including
as additional named defendants, including certain then current and
former directors of Santee Cooper and SCANA. In June 2018, Santee
Cooper filed a Notice of Petition for Original Jurisdiction with
the Supreme Court of South Carolina.

In December 2018, Santee Cooper filed its answer to the plaintiffs'
fourth amended complaint and filed cross claims against DESC, which
was denied. In October 2019, Santee Cooper voluntarily consented to
stay its cross claims against DESC pending the outcome of the trial
of the underlying case.

In November 2019, DESC removed the case to the U.S. District Court
for the District of South Carolina. In December 2019, the
plaintiffs and Santee Cooper filed a motion to remand the case to
state court.

In January 2020, the case was remanded to state court. In March
2020, the parties executed a settlement agreement relating to this
matter as well as the Luquire Case and the Glibowski Case.

The settlement agreement provides that Dominion Energy and Santee
Cooper will establish a fund for the benefit of class members in
the amount of $520 million, of which Dominion Energy's portion is
$320 million of shares of Dominion Energy common stock.

Also in March 2020, the court granted preliminary approval for the
settlement agreement.

In July 2020, the court issued a final approval of the settlement
agreement.

In September 2020, Dominion Energy issued $322 million of shares of
Dominion Energy common stock to satisfy its obligation under the
settlement agreement, including interest charges.

Dominion Energy, Inc., formerly Dominion Resources, Inc.,
incorporated on February 18, 1983, is a producer and transporter of
energy. Dominion is focused on its investment in regulated electric
generation, transmission and distribution and regulated natural gas
transmission and distribution infrastructure. Dominion manages its
operations through three primary segments: Dominion Virginia Power
operating segment (DVP), Dominion Generation, Dominion Energy, and
Corporate and Other. The company is based in Richmond, Virginia.

DOMINION ENERGY: RICO-Linked Class Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------
Dominion Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the class action
suit alleging violation of The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations (RICO), has been dismissed.

In January 2018, a purported class action was filed, and
subsequently amended, against SCANA Corporation, Dominion Energy
South Carolina, Inc. (DESC and certain former executive officers in
the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina).

The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that SCANA, DESC and the
individual defendants participated in an unlawful racketeering
enterprise in violation of RICO and conspired to violate RICO by
fraudulently inflating utility bills to generate unlawful proceeds.


The DESC Ratepayer Class Action settlement described previously
contemplates dismissal of claims by DESC ratepayers in this case
against DESC, SCANA and their officers.

In August 2019, the individual defendants filed motions to dismiss.


In March 2020, the parties executed a settlement agreement as
described above relating to this matter as well as the Santee
Cooper Ratepayer Case and the Luquire Case.

This case was dismissed as part of the Santee Cooper Ratepayer Case
settlement.

Dominion Energy, Inc., formerly Dominion Resources, Inc.,
incorporated on February 18, 1983, is a producer and transporter of
energy. Dominion is focused on its investment in regulated electric
generation, transmission and distribution and regulated natural gas
transmission and distribution infrastructure. Dominion manages its
operations through three primary segments: Dominion Virginia Power
operating segment (DVP), Dominion Generation, Dominion Energy, and
Corporate and Other. The company is based in Richmond, Virginia.

DOMINION ENERGY: SCANA Appeal on Securities Class Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dominion Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that SCANA Corporation
filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit on the District Court's denial of its motion to
intervene.

Dominion Energy's acquisition of SCANA was completed on January 1,
2019 pursuant to the terms of the SCANA Merger Agreement, which was
entered on January 2, 2018. The SCANA Merger Approval Order was
issued by the South Carolina Commission on December 21, 2018.

In January 2018, a purported class action was filed against SCANA,
Dominion Energy and certain former executive officers and directors
of SCANA in the State Court of Common Pleas in Lexington County,
South Carolina.

The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that defendants violated
their fiduciary duties to shareholders by executing a merger
agreement that would unfairly deprive plaintiffs of the true value
of their SCANA stock, and that Dominion Energy aided and abetted
these actions. Among other remedies, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin
and/or rescind the merger.

In February 2018, Dominion Energy removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina, and filed a
Motion to Dismiss in March 2018. In June 2018, the case was
remanded back to the State Court of Common Pleas in Lexington
County. Dominion Energy appealed the decision to remand to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, where the appeal was
consolidated with a similar appeal in the Metzler Lawsuit.

In June 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
reversed the order remanding the case to state court.

In February 2018, a purported class action was filed against
Dominion Energy and certain former directors of SCANA and DESC in
the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County, South Carolina
(the Metzler Lawsuit).

The allegations made and the relief sought by the plaintiffs are
substantially similar to that described for the City of Warren
Lawsuit.

In February 2018, Dominion Energy removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina, and filed a
Motion to Dismiss in March 2018. In August 2018, the case was
remanded back to the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland
County.

Dominion Energy appealed the decision to remand to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, where the appeal was
consolidated with the City of Warren Lawsuit. In June 2019, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the order
remanding the case to state court.

In September 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Carolina granted the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the
City of Warren Lawsuit and the Metzler Lawsuit.

In October 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against
certain former directors and executive officers of SCANA and DESC,
which stated substantially similar allegations to those in the City
of Warren Lawsuit and the Metzler Lawsuit as well as an inseparable
fraud claim. In November 2019, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss.

In April 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina denied the motion to dismiss. In May 2020, SCANA filed a
motion to intervene, which was denied in August 2020.

In September 2020, SCANA filed a notice of appeal with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

This case is pending.

Dominion Energy, Inc., formerly Dominion Resources, Inc.,
incorporated on February 18, 1983, is a producer and transporter of
energy. Dominion is focused on its investment in regulated electric
generation, transmission and distribution and regulated natural gas
transmission and distribution infrastructure. Dominion manages its
operations through three primary segments: Dominion Virginia Power
operating segment (DVP), Dominion Generation, Dominion Energy, and
Corporate and Other. The company is based in Richmond, Virginia.

DOMINO'S PIZZA: Flores Employment Class Suit Removed to D. Nevada
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled EMMANUEL FLORES, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. DOMINO'S PIZZA LLC and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. A-20-809599-C, was removed from the Eighth
Judicial District Court in and for the County of Clark, State of
Nevada, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on
December 10, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Nevada assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-02233-KJD-EJY to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Nevada Constitution and the Nevada Revised Statutes including
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime, and failure
to timely pay all wages due and owing.

Domino's Pizza LLC is an American multinational pizza restaurant
chain based in Ann Arbor, Michigan. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
          
         
         Montgomery Y. Paek, Esq.
         Amy L. Thompson, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
         3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 300
         Las Vegas, NV 89169-5937
         Telephone: (702) 862-8800
         Facsimile: (702) 862-8811
         E-mail: mpaek@littler.com
                 athompson@littler.com

DXC TECHNOLOGY: Appeal on Class Action's Dismissal Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
DXC Technology Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the appeal on the
order of dismissal in the purported class action suit filed before
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, is pending.

On December 27, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia against the Company and two of its current officers.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is premised on
allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and alleged
non-disclosure of material facts, regarding the Company's business,
operations, prospects and performance during the proposed class
period of February 8, 2018 to November 6, 2018.

The Company moved to dismiss the claims in their entirety, and on
June 2, 2020, the court granted the Company's motion, dismissing
all claims and entering judgment in the Company's favor.

On July 1, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

The appeal remains pending.

DXC Technology Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
information technology services and solutions primarily in North
America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. It operates through three
segments: Global Business Services (GBS), Global Infrastructure
Services (GIS), and United States Public Sector (USPS). DXC
Technology Company was founded in 1959 and is headquartered in
Tysons, Virginia.

DXC TECHNOLOGY: California Securities Class Suits Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
DXC Technology Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend class suits in California that alleged false
and/or misleading statements, and alleged non-disclosure of
material facts, regarding the Company's prospects and expected
performance.

On August 20, 2019, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa
Clara, against the Company, directors of the Company, and a former
officer of the Company, among other defendants.

On September 16, 2019, a substantially similar purported class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California against the Company, directors
of the Company, and a former officer of the Company, among other
defendants.

On November 8, 2019, a third purported class action lawsuit was
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
San Mateo, against the Company, directors of the Company, and a
former officer of the Company, among other defendants. The third
lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff and re-filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa
Clara on November 26, 2019, and thereafter was consolidated with
the earlier-filed action in the same court on December 10, 2019.

The California lawsuits assert claims under Sections 11, 12, and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and are premised on
allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and alleged
non-disclosure of material facts, regarding the Company's prospects
and expected performance. The plaintiff in the federal action filed
an amended complaint on January 8, 2020.

The putative class of plaintiffs in these cases includes all
persons who acquired shares of the Company's common stock pursuant
to the offering documents filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the April 2017 transaction that
formed DXC.

On July 15, 2020, the Superior Court of California, County of Santa
Clara, denied the Company's motion to stay the state court case but
extended the Company's deadline to seek dismissal of the state
action, until after a decision on the Company's motion to dismiss
the federal action.

On July 27, 2020, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California granted the Company's motion to dismiss the
federal action.

The Court's order permitted plaintiffs to amend and refile their
complaint within 60 days, and on September 25, 2020, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint. The Company plans to file a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.

DXC Technology Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
information technology services and solutions primarily in North
America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. It operates through three
segments: Global Business Services (GBS), Global Infrastructure
Services (GIS), and United States Public Sector (USPS). DXC
Technology Company was founded in 1959 and is headquartered in
Tysons, Virginia.

EAGLE BANCORP: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Nix New York Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss the putative class action suit filed before the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, is
still pending.

On July 24, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company, its current and former President and Chief
Executive Officer and its current and former Chief Financial
Officer, on behalf of persons similarly situated, who purchased or
otherwise acquired Company securities between March 2, 2015 and
July 17, 2019.

On November 7, 2019, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel in that matter, and on January 21, 2020, the lead plaintiff
filed an amended complaint on behalf of the same class against the
same defendants as well as the Company's former General Counsel.

The plaintiff alleges that certain of the Company's 10-K reports
and other public statements and disclosures contained materially
false or misleading statements about, among other things, the
effectiveness of its internal controls and related party loans, in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 20 (a) of that act, resulting
in injury to the purported class members as a result of the decline
in the value of the Company's common stock following the disclosure
of increased legal expenses associated with certain government
investigations involving the Company.

The Company intends to defend vigorously against the claims
asserted.

On April 2, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On May 15, 2020, the plaintiffs filed their
opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss, and on June 15,
2020, the defendants filed their reply brief.

Briefing on the defendants' motion is now complete, and the motion
is under consideration by the court.

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

Eagle Bancorp, Inc. operates as the bank holding company for
EagleBank that provides commercial and consumer banking services
primarily in the United States.  It accepts business and personal
checking, NOW, tiered savings, and money market accounts, as well
as individual retirement, certificate of deposit, and investment
sweep accounts; and time deposits.  Eagle Bancorp, Inc. was founded
in 1997 and is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland.

EIDOS THERAPEUTICS: Andrews & Springer Probes for Potential Breach
------------------------------------------------------------------
bizjournals.com reports that Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique
securities class action law firm focused on representing
shareholders nationwide, is investigating potential breach of
fiduciary duty claims against the Board of Directors of Eidos
Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: EIDX) ("Eidos" or the "Company")
relating to the sale of the Company to BridgeBio Pharma, Inc.
("BridgeBio"), which owns and controls over 63% of Eidos. The two
parties have announced that they reached an agreement in principle
pursuant to which BridgeBio will acquire Eidos. As a result of the
merger, Eidos shareholders are only anticipated to receive either
1.85 shares of BridgeBio common stock or $73.26 per share in cash
in exchange for each share of Eidos.

Andrews & Springer's investigation so far has revealed that the
consideration Eidos shareholders are expected to receive is
inadequate. Our Firm's investigation so far has discovered that the
process leading up to the announcement of the merger appears to
have significant conflicts of interest, thus making the process and
consideration unfair. Andrews & Springer is also investigating
whether the Eidos directors breached their fiduciary duties by
failing to adequately shop the company and maximize shareholder
value.

If you own shares of Eidos and want to receive additional
information and protect your investments free of charge, please
visit us at
http://www.andrewsspringer.com/cases-investigations/eidos-merger-class-action-investigation/
or contact Craig J. Springer, Esq. at
cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call toll free at 1-800-423-6013.
You may also follow us on LinkedIn --
www.linkedin.com/company/andrews-&-springer-llc, Twitter --
www.twitter.com/AndrewsSpringer or Facebook --
www.facebook.com/AndrewsSpringer for future updates.

Andrews & Springer is a boutique securities class action law firm
representing shareholders nationwide who are victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty or corporate misconduct. Having
formerly defended some of the largest financial institutions in the
world, our founding members use their valuable knowledge,
experience, and superior skill for the sole purpose of achieving
positive results for investors. These traits are the hallmarks of
our innovative approach to each case our Firm decides to prosecute.
For more information please visit our website at
www.andrewsspringer.com. This notice may constitute Attorney
Advertising. [GN]

EL PASO CTY., CO: Weikert Balks at Lack of COVID-19 Safety Measures
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Weikert, Jennifer Hermanns, Terrence Lacey, Sean Nelson,
Jean-Joseph Le Chiffre, and Gilbert Trujillo, on their own and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. BILL ELDER,
Sheriff of El Paso County, Colorado, in his official capacity, Case
No. 1:20-cv-03646 (D. Colo., Dec. 13, 2020), is brought for relief
from conditions of confinement that violate their rights under the
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and Article II Sections 20 and 25
of the Colorado Constitution with regard to COVID-19 spreading in
the Defendant's jail due to reckless negligence.

While COVID-19 is spreading like wildfire in Defendant's jail and
ravishing the population gripped by fear and suffering, jail staff
have told people incarcerated there begging for help: "we're just
going to let the virus run its course." This callous statement sums
up the policy of the El Paso County Sheriff's Office (EPSO)
regarding the novel coronavirus ("COVID-19" or "virus"). Rather
than fulfill his constitutional duty to protect and care for those
detained in the jail through mask provision and enforcement, intake
and separation protocols, careful monitoring and treatment, and
other proven measures, Defendant Elder and the EPSO have chosen to
let COVID-19 "run its course" and have its way with this
highly-vulnerable population.

While communities across America buckled down on strict mask
compliance and isolation protocols over the summer and fall of
2020—especially in crowded residential settings like jails -- the
El Paso County Criminal Justice Center (CJC or "jail") failed to
require or even distribute masks to all inmates. Infection
blossomed in these fertile viral conditions. By October, the jail
found itself in the midst of a massive outbreak so out of control
that the Defendant called the National Guard for assistance testing
the population. By November 8, the jail's Website confirmed that at
least 859 inmates in the jail, out of a population of approximately
1,200, had tested positive for the coronavirus, with 73 staff
members testing positive on November 9.

Despite this mammoth, preventable outbreak, Defendant Elder
continues to fail to meet his constitutional obligations in two
overarching respects discussed in greater detail herein: (1) he is
failing to implement adequate protective measures to prevent the
spread of COVID 19, and (2) he is failing to ensure adequate
evaluation, monitoring, and treatment of symptomatic inmates
confirmed or suspected positive for COVID-19. As a result of
Defendant Elder's constitutionally-deficient practices and
policies, the Plaintiffs are subjected to an unjustifiable risk of
substantial harm to their health and even to their lives.
Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all current and future
detainees and prisoners in the jail, seek prospective relief to
protect their health, their lives, and their state and federal
constitutional rights, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are detained pretrial in the El Paso County Criminal
Justice Center.

Bill Elder is the Sheriff of El Paso County.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel D. Williams, Esq.
          HUTCHINSON BLACK AND COOK, LLC
          921 Walnut Street, Suite 200
          Boulder, Colorado 80302
          Phone: (303) 442-6514
          Email: Williams@hbcboulder.com

               - and -

          David G. Maxted, Esq.
          MAXTED LAW LLC
          1543 Champa Street Suite 400
          Denver, CO 80202
          Phone: (720) 717-0877
          Fax: (720) 500-1251
          Email: dave@maxtedlaw.com

               - and -

          Jamie Hughes Hubbard, Esq.
          STIMSON STANCIL LABRANCHE HUBBARD LLC
          1652 Downing Street
          Denver, CO 80218
          Phone:  (720) 689-8909
          Email: hubbard@sslhlaw.com

               - and -

          Mark Silverstein, Esq.
          Sara Neel, Esq.
          Arielle Herzberg, Esq.
          Asma Kadri Keeler, Esq.
          Anna I. Kurtz, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION  OF COLORADO
          303 E. 17th Avenue, Suite 350
          Denver, Colorado 80203
          Phone: (720) 402-3114
          Email: msilverstein@aclu-co.org
                 sneel@aclu-co.org
                 akeeler@aclu-co.org
                 aherzberg@aclu-co


ELANCO ANIMAL: Hunter Securities Class Action Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Elanco Animal Health Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
company continues to defend a shareholder class action lawsuit
captioned Hunter v. Elanco Animal Health Inc., et al.

On May 20, 2020, a shareholder class action lawsuit captioned
Hunter v. Elanco Animal Health Inc., et al. was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against
Elanco, Jeffrey Simmons and Todd Young.

The lawsuit alleges, in part, that Elanco and certain of its
executives made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose certain facts about Elanco's supply
chain, inventory, revenue and projections.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and purports to
represent purchasers of Elanco securities between January 10, 2020
and May 6, 2020.

On September 3, 2020, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff. The
deadline for the lead plaintiff to file an amended complaint is
November 9, 2020.

Elanco said, "We believe the claims made in the case are meritless,
and we intend to vigorously defend our position. The process of
resolving these matters is inherently uncertain and may develop
over an extended period of time; therefore, at this time, the
ultimate resolution cannot be predicted."

Founded in 1954 as part of Eli Lilly and Company, Elanco Animal
Health Incorporated is a premier animal health company that
innovates, develops, manufactures and markets products for
companion and food animals. Headquartered in Greenfield, Indiana,
the company is the fourth largest animal health company in the
world, with revenue of $3,071.0 million for the year ended December
31, 2019.

ELANCO ANIMAL: Safron Capital Corporation Class Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elanco Animal Health Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
company continues to defend a shareholder class action lawsuit
captioned Safron Capital Corporation v. Elanco Animal Health Inc.,
et al.

On October 16, 2020, a shareholder class action lawsuit captioned
Safron Capital Corporation v. Elanco Animal Health Inc., et al. was
filed in the Marion Superior Court of Indiana against Elanco,
certain executives, and other individuals.

The lawsuit alleges, in part, that Elanco and certain of its
executives made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose certain facts about Elanco's
relationships with third-party distributors and revenue
attributable to those distributors within the registration
statement on Form S-3/ASR dated January 21, 2020 and accompanying
prospectus on Form 424B5 issued in connection with Elanco's
secondary public offering that closed on or about January 27, 2020.


The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and purports to
represent purchasers of Elanco securities pursuant to the secondary
public offering.

Elanco said, "We believe the claims made in the case are meritless,
and we intend to vigorously defend our position. The process of
resolving these matters is inherently uncertain and may develop
over an extended period of time; therefore, at this time, the
ultimate resolution cannot be predicted."

Founded in 1954 as part of Eli Lilly and Company, Elanco Animal
Health Incorporated is a premier animal health company that
innovates, develops, manufactures and markets products for
companion and food animals. Headquartered in Greenfield, Indiana,
the company is the fourth largest animal health company in the
world, with revenue of $3,071.0 million for the year ended December
31, 2019.

ELEVATE CREDIT: Facing Class Suit Related to TFI Operations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Elevate Credit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company is
facing a class action suit related to the operations of Think
Finance, Inc. prior to and immediately after the 2014 spin-off.

A class action lawsuit against Elevate was filed on August 17, 2020
in the Eastern District of Virginia alleging violations of usurious
interest and aiding and abetting various racketeering activities
related to the operations of TFI prior to and immediately after the
2014 spin-off.

Elevate views this lawsuit as without merit and intends to
vigorously defend its position.

Elevate Credit, Inc. provides online credit solutions to consumers
and banks in the United States and the United Kingdom who are not
well-served by traditional bank products and who are looking for
better options than payday loans, title loans, pawn and storefront
installment loans. The company is based in Forth Worth, Texas.

ERNST & YOUNG: Wirecard Investors File Suit Over Negligence
-----------------------------------------------------------
Simon Goodley, writing for The Guardian, reports that a prominent
anti-corruption campaign group is calling on the government to ban
EY from bidding on public contracts for three years, accusing the
big four accounting and consultancy group of "recurring
professional misconduct".

Spotlight on Corruption has written to the Crown Procurement
Service asking it to examine if business should be awarded to the
firm, which has been embarrassed by its involvement in a string of
corporate collapses and court judgments.

The accounting group is currently being investigated by the UK's
Financial Reporting Council for its audits of the private hospital
operator NMC Health and the investment firm London Capital Finance,
which both collapsed amid claims of fraud.

It has also played a notable role in a series of scandals regarding
overseas contracts.

The company said it strongly disputed "the characterisation of EY"
by the campaign group.

Spotlight on Corruption's letter stated: "EY's serious and
recurring professional misconduct amounts to sufficient grounds to
review whether a discretionary exclusion under the Public Contracts
Regulations 2015 should apply.

"It should also trigger proper consideration of whether the firm
is, as a result, a ‘high-risk' supplier as defined in the
government's Strategic Supplier Risk Management Policy, and whether
it can be considered a reliable contractor."

Other examples of EY's alleged misconduct cited by the campaign
group included:

   -- An EY whistleblower awarded $10.8m (£8.6m) in damages in
April 2020 after being forced out of his job following his claims
of misconduct during an audit of a Dubai gold refiner. The metals
company had been silver-coating gold to avoid export restrictions
and the high court in London ruled that EY had repeatedly breached
the code of ethics

   -- In October 2020, the Spanish audit regulator ICAC fined EY
almost EUR800,00 (GBP720,000) for "serious violations" of Spain's
auditing laws during the course of its 2015 audit of the financial
statements of Bankia, one of Spain's largest banks. ICAC's ruling
banned EY from auditing Bankia's accounts for the next three years

   -- In Germany, hundreds of Wirecard investors are involved in
class action lawsuits against EY for its supposed negligence in
failing to uncover a huge alleged fraud by the company's
executives.

Spotlight on Corruption said that disbarring firms from public
contracts is "increasingly recognised globally as an effective tool
to protect the integrity of public contracting and prevent
corruption and fraud", although it said the rules are very rarely
used in the UK. [GN]


ESSENTIAL UTILITIES: Discovery Ongoing in Suit Over Water Advisory
------------------------------------------------------------------
Essential Utilities, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that discovery is
ongoing in the putative class action suit related to the "do not
consume" water advisory.

During a portion of 2019, the Company initiated a do not consume
advisory for some of its water customers in one division served by
the Company's Illinois subsidiary.  

Although the Company had determined that it is reasonably possible
that a fine or penalty may be incurred, it cannot estimate the
possible range of loss at this time and no liability has been
accrued for these future costs.  

In addition, on September 3, 2019, two individuals, on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated, commenced an action
against the Company's Illinois subsidiary in the State court in
Will County, Illinois related to this do not consume advisory.  The
complaint seeks class action certification, attorney's fees, and
"damages, including, but not limited to, out of pocket damages, and
discomfort, aggravation, and annoyance" based upon the water
provided by the Company's subsidiary to a discrete service area in
University Park Illinois.  

The complaint contains allegations of damages as a result of
supplied water that exceeded the standards established by the
federal Lead and Copper Rule.  

The complaint is in the discovery phase and class certification has
not been granted.  

The Company plans to vigorously defend against this claim.  A claim
for the expenses incurred related to such claim was submitted to
the Company's insurance carrier for potential recovery of a portion
of these costs, and on August 3, 2020, the Company received $2,874
in insurance proceeds.  

The Company continues to assess the potential loss contingency on
this matter.  

Essential said, "While the final outcome of this claim cannot be
predicted with certainty, and unfavorable outcomes could negatively
impact the Company, at this time in the opinion of management, the
final resolution of this matter is not expected to have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of
operations or cash flows."

Essential Utilities, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, is the
holding company for regulated utilities providing water,
wastewater, or natural gas services to what we estimate to be
almost five million people in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, Illinois,
North Carolina, New Jersey, Indiana, Virginia, West Virginia, and
Kentucky under the Aqua and Peoples brands.

EVERQUOTE INC: Runyon TCPA Putative Class Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
EverQuote, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the putative,
statewide (Colorado) class action lawsuit captioned Scott M. Runyon
v EverQuote, Inc., has been dismissed.

On April 29, 2020, EverQuote was named as a defendant in a
putative, statewide class action lawsuit filed in U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado captioned Scott M. Runyon v
EverQuote, Inc.

The complaint alleged that the Company violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act by making unsolicited marketing calls to
his cellphone and those of other Colorado residents using an
automatic telephone dialing system without prior express consent.

Plaintiff sought, among other forms of relief, statutory damages of
$500 to $1,500 for each alleged violation and an order enjoining
future violations. Plaintiff also asserted an individual claim
against the Company for invasion of privacy arising out of the same
calls to his cellphone and a claim for unspecified damages.

The Company believed Plaintiff's claims lacked merit. On July 23,
2020, the U.S. District Court granted a stay pending the Supreme
Court's decision in Facebook Inc. v. Duguid, Case No. 19-511.

In October 2020 the case was resolved on an individual basis for an
immaterial amount, with EverQuote denying any wrongdoing, and the
Company expects the case will be dismissed in November 2020.

EverQuote, Inc. operates a leading online marketplace for insurance
shopping, connecting consumers with insurance providers. The
company's goal is to reshape insurance shopping for consumers and
improve the way insurance providers, which the company views as
including both carriers and agents, attract and connect with
customers shopping for insurance. The company is based in
Cambridge, Massachusetts.

EVERQUOTE INC: Scavo TCPA Putative Class Suit Tossed
----------------------------------------------------
EverQuote, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the putative,
nationwide class action captioned Carol Scavo v. EverQuote, Inc.,
has been dismissed.

On July 30, 2020, EverQuote was named as a defendant in a putative,
nationwide class action lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania captioned Carol Scavo v.
EverQuote, Inc.

The complaint alleged that the Company violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited text message
advertisements to her cellphone and those of other United States
residents using an automatic telephone dialing system without prior
express consent. Plaintiff sought, among other forms of relief,
statutory damages of $500 to $1,500 for each alleged violation and
an order enjoining future violations.

The Company believed Plaintiff's claims lacked merit.

The case was resolved on an individual basis for an immaterial
amount, with EverQuote denying any wrongdoing, and was dismissed
pursuant to the settlement in October 2020.

EverQuote, Inc. operates a leading online marketplace for insurance
shopping, connecting consumers with insurance providers. The
company's goal is to reshape insurance shopping for consumers and
improve the way insurance providers, which the company views as
including both carriers and agents, attract and connect with
customers shopping for insurance. The company is based in
Cambridge, Massachusetts.

EVOLENT HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Plymouth Retirement Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evolent Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint in the class action suit
entitled, Plymouth County Retirement System v. Evolent Health,
Inc., Frank Williams, Nicholas McGrane, Seth Blackley, Christie
Spencer, and Steven Wigginton, is pending.

On August 8, 2019, a shareholder of the Company filed a class
action complaint against the Company, asserting claims under
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in
the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia,
Alexandria Division.

An amended complaint was filed on January 10, 2020. The case,
Plymouth County Retirement System v. Evolent Health, Inc., Frank
Williams, Nicholas McGrane, Seth Blackley, Christie Spencer, and
Steven Wigginton, alleges that the Company's executives made false
or misleading statements regarding its business with Passport.

A second amended complaint, which was substantially similar to the
amended complaint, was filed on June 8, 2020. The Company filed a
motion to dismiss in response on June 22, 2020 and the briefing was
completed on July 17, 2020; the parties are now waiting for the
court's decision.

Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, PSLRA, all
discovery in the case is stayed until the motion to dismiss is
decided upon by the court.

Evolent said, "Based on the Company's investigation so far, we
believe the case has little legal or factual merit. However, the
outcome of any litigation is uncertain, and at this early stage,
the Company is currently unable to assess the probability of loss
or estimate a range of potential loss, if any, associated with this
lawsuit."

Evolent Health, Inc., through its subsidiary, Evolent Health LLC,
provides health care delivery and payment solutions in the United
States. The company operates through two segments, Services and
True Health. Evolent Health, Inc. was founded in 2011 and is
headquartered in Arlington, Virginia.

EXELA TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Shen Putative Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Exela Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by Bo
Shen.

On March 23, 2020, the Plaintiff, Bo Shen, filed a putative class
action against the Company, Ronald Cogburn, the Company's Chief
Executive Officer, and James Reynolds, the Company's former Chief
Financial Officer.  

Plaintiff claims to be a current holder of 4,000 shares of Company
stock, purchased on October 4, 2019 at $1.34/share.  

Plaintiff asserts two claims covering the purported class period of
March 16, 2018 to March 16, 2020: (1) a violation of Section 10(b)
and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act against all defendants; and (2)
a violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Mr.
Cogburn and Mr. Reynolds.

The allegations stem from the Company's press release, dated March
16, 2020 (announcing the postponement of the earnings call and
delay in filing of its annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019), and press release and related SEC
filings, dated March 17, 2020 (announcing its intent to restate its
financial statements for 2017, 2018 and interim periods through
September 30, 2019).

Exela said, "At this early stage in the litigation, it is not
practicable to render an opinion about whether an unfavorable
outcome is probable or remote with respect to this matter; however,
the Company has moved to dismiss the case and believes it has
meritorious defenses and will vigorously assert them."

Exela Technologies, Inc. provides transaction processing solutions
and enterprise information management services worldwide.  The
company is based in Irving, Texas.

FACEBOOK INC: Sherman Sues Over Social Media Market Monopoly
------------------------------------------------------------
VICKIE SHERMAN, LEZAH NEVILLE-MARRS, KATHERINE LOOPERS and JARRED
JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware corporation headquartered in
California, Case No. 5:20-cv-08721 (N.D. Ca., Dec. 9, 2020) is a
class action complaint brought by the Plaintiffs against the
Defendant for equitable relief and treble damages under the Sherman
Act and the California Unfair Competition Law.

According to the complaint, Facebook's sites (including Instagram)
account for 75% of all user time spent on social networks, and
Facebook.com captures roughly 50% of the billions spent annually on
digital display advertising. Facebook allegedly collects monopoly
rents, manages the flow of information to most of the nation, and
engages in virtually unlimited surveillance, and will continue to
do so into the foreseeable future. The Company's weaponization of
user data and its strategy to "acquire, copy, or kill" competitors
have been wildly successful at the expense of consumers. Thus,
Facebook's anti-competitive scheme has lessened, if not eliminated,
competition and harmed consumers.

Further, Facebook took consumers' data without providing adequate
compensation to its users (i.e., the members of the putative class
in this action) leading to antitrust injury. Through its deception
and the acquisitions enabled by such deception, Facebook fought for
at least a decade to avoid competition on the merits in the social
networks market. As a result, users receive a lower quality product
for their data than they would receive in a competitive market.

Facebook has engaged in a long-term, integrated, anticompetitive
strategy of half-truths about its privacy policies, exclusionary
application programming interface manipulation, and anticompetitive
acquisitions of nascent competitors that led to its current
dominance of a market in which it now wields significant power over
consumers and advertisers. The methods used by Facebook to achieve
monopoly violated U.S. antitrust law and harmed consumer welfare,
the suit says.

Facebook, Inc. is an American social media conglomerate corporation
based in Menlo Park, California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          Theodore W. Maya, Esq.
          Rachel Johnson, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500
          Burbank, CA 91505
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                  rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                  tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
                  rjohnson@ahdootwolfson.com

FALAFEL INC: Faces Sandoval Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. State Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
DIMAS SANDOVAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FALAFEL, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-588043 (Cal. Super., San
Francisco Cty., Nov. 30, 2020) is brought under the California
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders and applicable provisions
of the California Code of Regulations, California Business &
Professions Code, California Civil Code, California Code of Civil
Procedure, and California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the proposed Class, seeks
declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and restitution of all
benefits Defendants have received from their employees due to their
unlawful business practices, including but not limited to, their
failure to timely provide minimum, regular, and overtime
compensation due for all hours worked, failure to reimburse
business expenses, failure to provide compliant meal periods and
rest breaks to their employees or compensation in lieu thereof, and
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements.

The Plaintiff was formerly employed by the Defendants in California
as a non-exempt employee during the Class period. His job duties
included, inter alia, preparing and cooking food, working the cash
register, dish washing, cleaning, general janitorial duties, and
providing customer service to Falafel's customers.

Falafel, Inc. is a falafel quick-service food social enterprise.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jose R. Garay, Esq.
          JOSE GARAY, APLC
          249 E. Ocean Blvd. #814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (949) 208-3400
          Facsimile: (562) 590-8400  
          E-mail: jose@garaylaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel J. Hyun, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL J. HYUN
          1100 West Town and Country Road, Suite 1250
          Orange, CA 92868
          Telephone: (949) 596-4782
          Facsimile: (949) 528-2596  
          E-mail: dh@danielhyunlaw.com

FAMOUS DAVE'S: Court Certifies Classes in Graham Labor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTOPHER GRAHAM, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. FAMOUS DAVE'S OF AMERICA, INC., and
Doe Defendants 1-10, Civil Action No. DKC 19-0486 (D. Md.), Judge
Deborah K. Chasanow of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland (i) granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's
motion to conditionally certify a collective action and to certify
a class; (ii) denied the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary
judgment; (ii) denied the Plaintiff's motion to strike the
declaration of Demetrius Weeden; (iv) denied the Plaintiff's motion
for discovery sanctions; and (v) granted in part and denied in part
the motions to seal with instructions.

Plaintiff Graham, on his own behalf and on behalf of those
similarly situated, filed the suit on Feb. 19, 2019, against his
former employer, Famous Dave's.  He alleges violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, the
Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law, and Maryland common law.


Defendant Famous Dave's is a national restaurant chain offering
barbeque style food with a principal place of business in
Minnetonka, Minnesota.  It currently owns 30 locations in
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, New York, New Jersey, Iowa, Michigan
and Ohio, with multiple franchisees nationwide.

Mr. Graham is a resident of the state of Maryland and was employed
by Famous Dave's as a server in the Waldorf location from Jan. 27,
2016 to July 1, 2017.  Although he occasionally worked at large
catering jobs for Famous Dave's at an over minimum wage rate, Mr.
Graham typically worked and was paid at a server's cash wage plus
tips from customers.  He alleges that when he worked smaller
catering jobs (typically half an hour or an hour long), he was also
paid the cash wage.  His typical shift started at 3:00 p.m. and
ended around 12:30 a.m.  Occasionally he would work the "early
shift" on Saturday or Sunday mornings.  At times he worked in
excess of 40 hours a week and alleges that he was "repeatedly" told
to clock out and then finish his side or closing work.

Since January of 2016, Famous Dave's opted to utilize a "tip
credit" for the Plaintiff and other servers, hosts and bartenders
employed by Famous Dave's, that would allow Famous Dave's to claim
a percentage of the employees' tips as payment under Federal and
State minimum wage laws in order to pay them a cash wage of less
than the applicable minimum wage.  Mr. Graham argues that Famous
Dave's failed adequately to inform him and other Tipped Employees
of the tip credit provisions as required by law, pointing to the
"Tip Credit Notice" Famous Dave's used in Maryland.

Mr. Graham also alleges that Famous Dave's did not provide managers
with any specific "instructions or training" on how to provide the
tip credit notification, but Famous Dave's asserts that such
instructions were left to local managers.  Further, Mr. Graham
argues that Famous Dave's utilized, and forced him to take part in,
an illegal tip pool when it included "expeditors" within the pool,
despite being normally untipped employees.  Similarly, he alleges
that Famous Dave's illegally required Tipped Employees to use their
own tips to pay out employer expenses like "dine and dash"
customers who leave without paying and other cash shortages.

The Plaintiff has filed a motion to certify conditionally a
collective action pursuant to the FLSA and a class action for a
state law claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23.  Specifically, he
seeks to "conditionally certify a collective action of all Tipped
Employees employed by the Defendant from Feb. 19, 2016 to the
present."  As to the proposed class, he seeks certification of "all
current and former Tipped Employees who have worked for the
Defendants in the State of Maryland during the statutory period
covered by the Complaint and who do not opt-out of the action ("MD
State Class")."  In addition to the conditional certification
motion, other pending motions are: a motion for partial summary
judgment; a motion to strike a declaration; a motion for discovery
sanctions, filed by Plaintiff; and seven motions to seal.

The declaration for Demetrius Weeden is relevant to the disposition
of several motions and the motion to strike it will be considered
first.  Mr. Graham argues that he suffered "surprise and prejudice"
at Famous Dave's submission of the declaration along with its
opposition to the motion to certify.  Mr. Graham argues that Mr.
Weeden's statements are unsubstantiated as there is no evidence
that he "personally observed" such statements or that such
"actions" were done "pursuant to corporate policy."  The Plaintiff
seeks discovery sanctions as a result.   

However, Judge Chasanow holds that as general manager of the
Waldorf location, Mr. Weeden would have the requisite personal
knowledge to make such comments and observations as he would have
had an intimate awareness and participation in the new hire
process.  Famous Dave's correctly argues that such arguments go to
the weight such statements should be afforded and not their
admissibility.  The Motion to Strike Declaration of Demetrius
Weeden is denied.

Turning to the Collective Action and Class Certification, the
Plaintiff puts forward multiple basis for identifying prospective
Plaintiffs as a collective or class, all based on alleged "common
duties" and the "same company policies and procedures" to which the
employees were subject and for which they seek relief.  The
Defendant responds with numerous possible defenses.  Among other
things, it argues that all Famous Dave's employees had a tip credit
notice that was provided to them.  Further, the Plaintiff himself
received a tip notice as acknowledged by his electronic signature
in receipt.  It argues that instead of acknowledging this fact, the
Plaintiff attempts to poke holes in the credit notice itself with
meritless allegations of its deficiencies.

The Plaintiff seeks to "conditionally certify a collective action
of all Tipped Employees employed by the Defendant from Feb. 19,
2016 to the present.  Judge Chasanow analyzes the potential
collective solely in relation to Famous Dave's alleged failure to
provide proper tip credit notification.  He finds that the only
claim common to the purported class is Famous Dave's alleged
failure to meet the requirements of Section 203(m) and it therefore
improperly claimed a tip credit and failed to meet its obligations
under Maryland and federal wage laws.  Given the wide berth
afforded claims of willfulness at this stage, the three-year
statute of limitations will apply as it relates to potential class
certification.  Accordingly, a collective action will be
conditionally certified as to tipped employees at Famous Dave's
company owned restaurants during the three year period prior to the
date the certification motion was filed.

Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23, the Plaintiffs seek class certification for
all Maryland Tipped Employees during the statutory period covered
by the Complaint who did not opt-out of the action" under its MWHL
claims.  The Plaintiff argues that the purported class satisfies
Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3) in that the alleged and common injury
suffered by the class, being underpaid due to improper use of a tip
credit, predominates over individualized questions and that class
action is the superior method of adjudicating the matter.

Judge Chasanow holds that as the Plaintiff argues, individual class
members have "little incentive" to bring their claims individually
as individual recoveries would be small relative to the costs of
litigating.  In that sense, there is a clear collective action
problem that class certification would solve.  Both the
predominance and superiority requirements are met, and a single
forum for such claims is clearly desirable in this instance as a
matter of judicial economy.  The purported class is certified as it
relates to the Plaintiff's claim that the requirements to use a tip
credit were not met and thus Maryland Tipped Employees were not
paid a wage at or above the state's minimum wage.  The parties will
be directed to confer regarding access to identifying information
about the putative Plaintiffs and the form and contents of notice.

Mr. Graham moves for partial summary judgment on behalf of himself
and "all others similarly situated."  The motion for summary
judgment seems to extend to the potential claims of Famous Dave's
Tipped Employees nationwide.  The Plaintiff argues that the factual
record indisputably demonstrates that the Defendant failed to (i)
properly inform its Tipped Employees of all of the provisions of
the statute and (ii) utilized an improper tip pool, as well as
retained part of the employees' tips.  Famous Dave's shows that the
record amply demonstrates that there are material factual questions
that remain as to both claims.

Judge Chasanow finds that Mr. Weeden's declaration is fatal to the
Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, even considered
alone.  That evidence, along with the other evidence put forth by
Famous Dave's, shows, in a multitude of ways, that the factual
record does not indisputably show what Mr. Graham purports it to
show, on either count.  The Plaintiff's motion for partial summary
judgment is denied.

Like the Plaintiff's motion to strike, his request for discovery
sanctions against the Defendant is without merit.  Discovery
sanctions are reserved for egregious discovery violations.  As
Famous Dave's points out, it consistently complied with its duty to
supplement its document production with additional documents as
they were discovered.  Further, Mr. Hank's extension depositions
show an adequately prepared deponent except for the occasional
misstatement, misunderstanding or lack of knowledge on isolated
topics.  Given the extreme and exceptional nature of discovery
sanctions, however, the latter inference is more proper.  The
Parties may shape and supplement their arguments in response to new
legal and factual disputes as they arise without running afoul of
their discovery obligations.  The discovery sanctions are denied.

Finally, as to seven pending unopposed motions to seal, four filed
by the Plaintiff and three by the Defendant.  Judge Chasanow holds
that nearly all of the motions to seal contain only boilerplate
recitations.  Proposed redactions must be limited to information
specifically identified as containing either sensitive private
information or, alternatively, trade secrets.  

The Plaintiff's first motion to seal sought to seal the memorandum
in support of his certification motion, a declaration, and two
exhibits to the declaration based on the Defendant's designation
the exhibits as "confidential" under the stipulated protective
order.  Such a request is insufficient.  The parties were told that
the motion to seal would be denied if no one filed a properly
supported motion.  Accordingly, that motion to seal will be denied
and ECF Nos. 27, 28, 29, and 30 will be unsealed, rules the Court.

The Plaintiff has also moved to seal his memorandum in support of
his motion for partial summary judgment, and his reply memorandum
on the certification motion with a declaration, based on the same
so-called "confidential" exhibits.  Because there's no
justification has been supplied, the Judge wil deny those motions
and ECF Nos. 35, 49, and 50 will be unsealed.

An even more generalized motion to seal the Plaintiff's reply
memorandum in support of partial summary judgment was filed by Mr.
Graham on Oct. 21, 2019.  Without identifying any specific
information, it states simply that the memorandum discussed
documents similarly designed as confidential by the Defendant.  As
with the previous motions, it fails in justifying any sealing.  The
motion to seal is denied.  If the Plaintiff wishes to redact
sensitive information in his reply memorandum to his motion for
partial summary judgment or if the Defendant seeks similar relief,
they have 14 days to file an appropriate motion with a memorandum
that complies with Rule 105.11.  In the meantime, the memorandum
will remain temporarily under seal.  If neither party moves to seal
or redact, the paper at ECF No. 52 will be unsealed, rules Judge
Chasanow.

The Defendant subsequently filed a motion to seal Exhibits E and F
to its motion in opposition to the certification motion.  It first
seeks to file Exhibit E under the same confidentiality order, but
specifically identifies it as the Plaintiff's paystubs with "wages
earned and tax withholdings" listed.  It argues that Exhibit F is
comprised of "internal company documents" that the Defendant wishes
to keep out of the public record so that it cannot be used by
"Famous Dave's competitors."  Unlike Mr. Graham's motion, it seeks
only the "least restrictive approach" to protecting the
confidentiality of these exhibits in moving to file them, but not
any portion of the Opposition, under seal.  The motion to seal is
granted.  The actual exhibits may remain under seal.

Famous Dave's similarly moves to seal the Exhibits E and H to its
opposition to motion for partial summary judgment.  Exhibit E is
Famous Dave's Tip Pool Notice previously discussed,  and Exhibit H
is the alternate tip credit notification labeled for use in Famous
Dave's Indiana, Kentucky, New Jersey and Virginia locations.
Damous Dave's identifies these as "internal company documents" that
it also does not want to be part of the public record to protect
what it claims is proprietary information.

Judge Chasanow holds that confidentiality order and the generic
labeling of these documents as "internal company documents," does
not entitle them to be filed under seal.  Nowhere does Famous
Dave's lend factual support to the assertion that these documents
contain any proprietary information at all, or how a competitor
would even exploit such information to its advantage.  The public
interest in access to these documents outweighs any countervailing
force and the motion to seal is denied.  If the Defendant wishes to
redact what it considers proprietary business information from
these documents, it has 14 days to renew the motion with a
memorandum that complies with Rule 105.11.  In the meantime, the
exhibits will remain temporarily under seal.  If it does not renew
its motion, the ECF Nos. 45 and 46 will be unsealed.

Famous Dave's final motion to seal is made in reference to Exhibit
A to its opposition to the Plaintiff's motion to strike. The
already partially redacted document contains "employees' job
titles, work locations, salaries, dates of hire, eligibility for
benefits, job status and termination date (if applicable)."  The
motion to seal is granted.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Chasanow (i) granted in part and
denied in part the motion conditionally to certify a collective
action and to certify a class; (i) denied the motion for partial
summary judgment; (iii) denied the motion to strike the declaration
of Weeden; (iv) denied the motion for sanctions; (v) granted the
first and third motions to seal filed by the Defendant, and (vi)
denied the rest of the motions to seal.  A separate order will
follow.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 23, 2020 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6fktaow from Leagle.com.

FAMOUS TRANSPORTS: Walters Suit Moved to Northern District of Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GREGORY WALTERS, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. FAMOUS
TRANSPORTS, INC., ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-08016-YGR
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California granted Defendants
Panther II Transportation, Inc.'s, and the ArcBest entities' motion
to transfer venue to the Northern District of Ohio.

Plaintiffs Gregory Walters, and Christi Walters bring the putative
class-action lawsuit against Defendants Famous, Panther II, and
ArcBest Logistics, Inc. and ArcBest Corp., for failure to provide
(1) required meal periods and (2) required rest periods; failure to
pay (3) overtime wages, (4) minimum wage, and (5) all wages due to
discharges or quitting employees; (6) failure to maintain records;
(7) failure to provide accurate itemized statements; (8) failure to
indemnify employees for necessary expenditures incurred in the
discharge of duties; (9) unlawful deductions from wages; (10)
breach of contract; (11) breach of covenant of good faith and fair
dealing; and (12) unfair and unlawful business practices in
violation of the California Unfair Competition Law.

The Defendants removed the case to the Court on Dec. 6, 2019.  Now
before the Court is Defendants Panther II's, and the ArcBest
entities' motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of
Ohio.  The Moving Defendants aver that transfer is appropriate
under a forum selection clause in the relevant contractual
agreement.  Alternatively, they contend that transfer is warranted
under the relevant factors to be considered under a section 1404(a)
analysis.

As to Forum Selection Clause, Judge Rogers finds that while some
putative class members are California residents, the overwhelming
majority including the named Plaintiffs are not.  At times, such a
situation would create a strong public policy dilemma.  However,
the Judge need not definitively resolve the dispute, because even
assuming that the forum selection clause is not enforceable due to
California's strong public policy in retaining jurisdiction over
labor disputes under its codes and statutes, the relevant factors
under section 1404(a) overall weigh in favor of transfer to the
Northern District of Ohio.

As to the Section 1404(a) Factors, the relevant factors to consider
under it include: (1) the Plaintiff's choice of forum, (2)
convenience of the parties, (3) convenience of the witnesses, (4)
ease of access to the evidence, (5) familiarity of each forum with
the applicable law, (6) feasibility of consolidation with other
claims, (7) any local interest in the controversy, and (8) the
relative court congestion and time of trial in each forum.

Judge Rogers holds that while some of the factors here weigh
neutrally between Ohio and California, most of the remaining
factors weigh in favor of transfer to Ohio.  She finds that (i)
neither of the named Plaintiffs are residents of California and
only a small percentage of the potential class members are
California residents; (ii) on a purely geographic and mileage
basis, Ohio is the closer forum for the named parties than is the
state of California, and Ohio is further overwhelmingly more
convenient to potential class members than is California; (iii) the
Plaintiffs' lack of specificity does little to show that witness
convenience favors California; (iv) the Defendants have
demonstrated that the majority of records and relevant policies in
the matter are stored electronically either in Ohio with Panther
II, or in Michigan with Famous; (v) the Sixth Circuit is capable of
certifying a question to the California Supreme Court just as the
Ninth Circuit can so do; (vi) judicial efficiency is neutral
between Ohio and California ; and (vii) Panther II is a company
with its headquarters in the state of Ohio.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Rogers concludes that transfer to
the Northern District of Ohio is appropriate.  She granted the
motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of Ohio.  The
Clerk of the Court is directed to transfer the matter to U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 23, 2020 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/y5kvmozg from Leagle.com.

FARMLAND PARTNERS: Discovery in Turner Insurance Suit Still Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Farmland Partners Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion for
leave by class plaintiff and the motion to adjourn class
certification by the defendant in the "Turner Suit" remains
pending.  Discovery is still stayed pending decision on the
defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings.

On July 11, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit, captioned
Kachmar v. Farmland Partners Inc. was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado against the Company and
certain of our officers by a purported Company stockholder.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's
disclosure related to the FPI Agribusiness Inc. (FPI) Loan Program
was materially false and misleading in violation of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

On August 17, 2018, a second purported class action, captioned
Mariconda v. Farmland Partners Inc. was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado, alleging substantially
identical claims as the Kachmar Action.

Several purported shareholders moved to consolidate the Kachmar
Action and the Mariconda Action and for appointment as Lead
Plaintiff.  On November 13, 2018, the plaintiff in the Kachmar
action voluntarily dismissed the Kachmar Action.  

On December 3, 2018, the court appointed two purported stockholders
of the Company, the Turner Insurance Agency, Inc. and Cecilia
Turner, as lead plaintiffs in the Mariconda Action.

On March 11, 2019, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs and
additional plaintiff Obelisk Capital Management filed an amended
complaint in the Turner Action.  

On April 15, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint in the Turner Action. On June 18, 2019, the court denied
the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the
Turner Action. The defendants answered the amended complaint on
July 2, 2019.

On December 6, 2019, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Obelisk
Capital Management from the case. In connection with Obelisk
Capital Management's dismissal from the case, the defendants filed
a motion for judgment on the pleadings on December 10, 2019, which
automatically stayed discovery in the action pending the court's
determination of the motion. On December 16, 2019, plaintiffs filed
a motion for class certification.

On December 27, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a
second amended complaint. Defendants filed a response opposing the
motion for leave to file a second amended complaint on January 17,
2020, and filed a motion to adjourn the class certification
briefing schedule in light of the discovery stay on January 29,
2020.

These motions remain pending and discovery remains stayed pending
decision on defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Farmland said, "At this time, no class has been certified in the
Turner Action and we do not know the amount of damages or other
remedies being sought by the plaintiffs. The Company can provide no
assurances as to the outcome of this litigation or provide an
estimate of related expenses at this time."

Farmland Partners Inc. is an internally managed real estate company
that owns and seeks to acquire high-quality North American farmland
and makes loans to farmers secured by farm real estate. The company
is based in Denver, Colorado.

FINE CRAFTSMAN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alvarez Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
ZULAY ANDREA ALVAREZ; GERARDO AYALA; ANIBAL YAGUACHI CAMPOVERDE;
EDUARDO GABRIEL VILLAFUERTE CHAVEZ; CESAR CUA; RAFAEL HERNANDEZ;
OSCAR SANCHEZ JUAREZ; EDUARDO MUNOZ; ELIAS ANTONIO CHAVEZ PENA
ALEJANDRO PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. FINE CRAFTSMAN GROUP, LLC; JOSEPH
ZYSKOWSKI; and KRZYSZTOF POGORZELSKI, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-10452 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2020) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, and statutory
penalties for notice and record keeping violation.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as carpenters.

Fine Craftsman Group, LLC provides building and construction
services. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ria Julien, Esq.
          MIRER MAZZOCCHI & JULIEN, PLLC
          1 Whitehall Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 231-2235
          E-mail: jmirer@mmsjlaw.com


FIVE POINT: Bayview Hunters Point Litigation Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
Five Point Holdings, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by the
residents of the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood.

In May 2018, residents of the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood in
San Francisco filed a putative class action in San Francisco
Superior Court naming Tetra Tech, Inc. and Tetra Tech EC, Inc., an
independent contractor hired by the U.S. Navy to conduct testing
and remediation of toxic radiological waste at The San Francisco
Shipyard (Tetra Tech), Lennar and the Company as defendants.

The plaintiffs allege that, among other things, Tetra Tech
fraudulently misrepresented its test results and remediation
efforts.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages against Tetra Tech and have
requested an injunction to prevent the Company and Lennar from
undertaking any development activities at The San Francisco
Shipyard.

Since July 2018, a number of lawsuits have been filed in San
Francisco Superior Court on behalf of homeowners in The San
Francisco Shipyard, which name Tetra Tech, Lennar, the Company and
the Company's CEO, among others, as defendants.

The plaintiffs allege that environmental contamination issues at
The San Francisco Shipyard were not properly disclosed to them
before they purchased their homes.

They also allege that Tetra Tech and other defendants (not
including the Company) have created a nuisance at The San Francisco
Shipyard under California law. They seek damages as well as certain
declaratory relief.

All of these cases have been removed to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the
allegations in all of these cases and may have insurance and
indemnification rights against third parties, including related
parties, with respect to these claims.

Five Point said, "Given the preliminary nature of these claims, the
Company cannot predict the outcome of these matters."

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

Five Point Holdings, LLC, through its subsidiary, Five Point
Operating Company, LP, plans, develops, and owns mixed-use
communities in California, the United States. The company operates
through four segments: Newhall, San Francisco, Great Park, and
Commercial. The company was formerly known as Newhall Holding
Company, LLC and changed its name to Five Point Holdings, LLC in
May 2016. Five Point Holdings, LLC was founded in 2009 and is
headquartered in Irvine, California.

FLUIDIGM CORPORATION: Facing Putative Class Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fluidigm Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company is a
defendant in a putative class action suit filed before the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

In September 2020, a putative class action complaint alleging
violations of the federal securities laws was filed against the
Company (also naming its Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer as defendants) in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of persons and entities who acquired the company's common
stock between February 7, 2019 and November 5, 2019.

The litigation is in its early stages and the lead plaintiff has
not yet been determined.

Fluidigm said, "We believe the claims alleged in the complaint lack
merit and we intend to defend ourselves vigorously."

Fluidigm Corporation is a global company that improves life through
comprehensive health insight. The company's innovative technologies
and multi-omic tools are used by researchers to reveal meaningful
insights into health and disease, identify biomarkers to inform
decisions, and accelerate the development of more effective
therapies. The company creates, manufactures, and markets a range
of products and services, including instruments, reagents and
software that are used by researchers and clinical labs worldwide.
The company is based in South San Francisco, California.

FORD MOTOR: F-150 Transmission Class Action Tossed
--------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Ford
F-150 transmission lawsuit has been dismissed after an Illinois
truck owner alleged defects caused 2017-2019 F-150s to hesitate and
surge.

According to the transmission class action lawsuit, the plaintiff
leased a 2018 Ford F-150 XLT 3.5 EcoBoost equipped with a 10R80
10-speed automatic transmission.

The plaintiff claims Ford knew or should have known the
transmissions shift harshly and slip gears, but the automaker chose
to conceal the alleged defects to continue selling the trucks.
Those alleged defects lead to severe damage which can cause the
F-150s to catch fire, allegedly making the trucks too dangerous to
drive.

The Ford F-150 transmission lawsuit alleges drivers have constantly
complained about their trucks jerking and lunging since the 10R80
transmissions were first installed in the trucks.

The lawsuit also alleges Ford issued several technical service
bulletins to dealerships, and F-150 owners have submitted multiple
complaints to the government.

Ford dealers were told the F-150 10-speed transmissions "may
exhibit harsh/bumpy upshift, downshift and/or engagement concerns,"
and the bulletins suggested reprogramming the powertrain control
modules.

The TSBs further said the F-150 trucks were "equipped with an
adaptive transmission shift strategy which allows the vehicle's
computer to learn the transmission's unique parameters and improve
shift quality. When the adaptive strategy is reset, the computer
will begin a re-learning process," which "may result in firmer than
normal upshifts and downshifts for several days."

But according to the transmission lawsuit, Ford's ideas for a fix
failed to prevent the alleged problems.

"Ford refuses to replace or repair the Transmissions and merely
states that the abrupt and harsh shifting is normal." - F-150
transmission lawsuit

Judge Dismisses The Ford F-150 Transmission Lawsuit
Ford filed a motion to dismiss the 10-speed transmission lawsuit,
and the judge found Ford's arguments persuasive.

According to the automaker, express and implied warranty claims
don't hold up for multiple reasons, including because the F-150
truck owner failed to provide Ford with pre-lawsuit notice of
alleged breach of warranties.

The judge agreed and noted how the Illinois Supreme Court requires
a plaintiff to "directly notify the seller of the troublesome
nature of the transaction or be barred from recovering for a breach
of warranty." This requirement is meant "to encourage pre-suit
settlement negotiations."

Once the warranty claims were dismissed, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act claim had to be dismissed because, "it is contingent on
Plaintiff having a viable state law warranty claim."

The Ford F-150 transmission lawsuit also alleges Ford engaged in
deceptive trade practices in violation of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act, but the judge dismissed the claim after finding the
allegations were too generalized.

According to Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr., the generalized allegations
fail to specifically describe the misrepresentations on which the
plaintiff allegedly relied.

"Defendant does not identify 'the time, place, and content of the
misrepresentation,' or 'the method by which the misrepresentation
was communicated to the plaintiff.'" - Judge Dow

Ford also argued a claim for unjust enrichment had to go because
the plaintiff failed to state a claim under Illinois law. In
addition, the automaker said a claim for negligence should be
dismissed because the transmission lawsuit didn't allege the
plaintiff suffered any non-economic damage.

The judge agreed to dismiss both claims and ruled the F-150 owner
didn't allege that he suffered any physical injuries as a result of
driving the F-150. The plaintiff also never alleged the
transmission caused any damage to property.

The Ford F-150 transmission lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois - O'Connor, et al., v.
Ford Motor Company.

The plaintiff is represented by Greg Coleman Law, and Wexler
Wallace. [GN]


FREIGHTCENTER INC: Swarthout Sue Over Sales Staff's Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN SWARTHOUT, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FREIGHTCENTER, INC., MATTHEW BROSIOUS, ALI CHOINIERE,
AMY VAN NESS and JAMIE SMITH, Case No. 8:20-cv-02910 (M.D. Fla.,
Dec. 7, 2020) alleges that the Defendants denied the Plaintiff and
those similarly situated proper overtime compensation under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from mid-2013 to late 2015
and early 2017 to late 2019 in Palm Harbor, Florida. The Plaintiff
was employed as carrier sales representative or other similar job
title.

FreightCenter is a privately owned, non-asset based 3rd-party
logistics provider with headquarters in Palm Harbor, Florida.
FreightCenter acts as a conduit between freight carriers and
commercial or residential shippers located in the United States and
Canada. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William J. Cantrell, Esq.
          Dorrella L. Gallaway, Esq.
          CANTRELL ZWETSCH, P.A.
          401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2340
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (800) 698-6650
          Facsimile: (813) 448-2094
          E-mail: wcantrell@czeblaw.com
                  dgallaway@czeblaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew A. Crist, Esq.
          CRIST LEGAL | PA
          2904 West Bay to Bay Boulevard
          Tampa, FL 33629
          Telephone: (813) 575-5200
          Facsimile: (813) 575-2520
          E-mail: cristm@cristlegal.com

FULTON FINANCIAL: Tentative Agreement Reached in Kress Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fulton Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
corporation and plaintiffs' counsel in D. Kress v. Fulton Bank,
N.A., Case No. 1:19-cv-18985, have reached a tentative agreement
with respect to the financial terms of a potential settlement to
resolve this lawsuit.

On October 15, 2019, a former Fulton Bank teller supervisor, D.
Kress filed a putative collective and class action lawsuit on
behalf of herself and other teller supervisors, tellers, and other
similar non-exempt employees in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, D. Kress v. Fulton Bank, N.A., Case No.
1:19-cv-18985.

Fulton Bank accepted summons without a formal service of process on
January 20, 2020. The lawsuit alleges that Fulton Bank did not
record or otherwise account for the amount of time D. Kress and
putative collective and class members spent conducting branch
opening security procedures.

The allegation is that, as a result, Fulton Bank did not properly
compensate those employees for their regular and overtime wages.
The lawsuit alleges that by doing so, Fulton violated: (i) the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act and seeks back overtime wages for
a period of three years, liquidated damages and attorney fees and
costs; (ii) the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law and seeks back
overtime wages for a period of six years, treble damages and
attorney fees and costs; and (iii) the New Jersey Wage Payment Law
and seeks back wages for a period of six years, treble damages and
attorney fees and costs.

The lawsuit also asserts New Jersey common law claims seeking
compensatory damages and interest.

Following the submission of a formal demand for damages by Counsel
representing plaintiffs, the Corporation and Plaintiffs' Counsel
engaged in negotiations regarding the potential settlement of this
lawsuit on a collective and class basis.

While the negotiations are ongoing, the Corporation and Plaintiffs'
Counsel have reached a tentative agreement with respect to the
financial terms of a potential settlement to resolve this lawsuit.


If the parties are able to reach a formal settlement agreement,
that settlement agreement would be subject to approval by the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The Corporation is not able to provide any assurance that a formal
settlement agreement will be reached, or that the District Court
will approve the settlement agreement.

The financial terms of the potential settlement involve an amount
that is not expected to be material to the Corporation. The
Corporation established an accrued liability during the third
quarter of 2020 for the amount of the potential settlement.

Fulton Financial Corporation is a multi-bank holding company. The
Banks offer a full range of general retail and commercial banking
services, including deposits, loans, equipment leasing and
financing, and credit cards. Fulton operates in Pennsylvania,
Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey. The company is based in
Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

FUN & FIT: Hickmon Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Home Health Aides
---------------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA HICKMON, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. FUN & FIT LLC d/b/a Home Instead Senior Care,
BRIAN TRAINOR and JOHN DOES #1-10, Case No. 1:20-cv-10270
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 5, 2020) arises from the Defendants' alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law,
and the N.Y. Health Care Worker Wage Parity Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiff and the Class minimum wages and/or overtime wages equal
to time and one half their employees' regular wages for hours
worked over 40 in a work week, breached their obligation to pay all
wages they were due, failed to pay an extra hour at the minimum
wage for working a "spread of hours" in excess of 10 hours, and
failed to pay the living wages and health benefits or health
benefit supplements for all labor performed by the Plaintiff and
the Class.

The Plaintiff was a home health aide/maid employed by the
Defendants from about September 7, 2011 until about April 17,
2020.

Fun & Fit LLC d/b/a Home Instead Senior Care is an elderly home
care services provider. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William C. Rand, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
          501 Fifth Ave., 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 286-1425
          Facsimile: (646) 688-3078
          E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com

GENERAL MILLS: Loses Bid to Seal Expert Declaration in Hilsley Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CRYSTAL HILSLEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MILLS,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00395-L-BLM (S.D. Cal.),
Judge M. James Lorenz of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California denied the Defendants' Motion to Seal
Portions of the Expert Declaration of Dolf DeRovira.

The Expert Report was filed with the Defendants' non-opposition to
the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement.  The Plaintiffs' motion includes consideration whether
a class action should be certified.  Although in ruling on class
certification courts do not decide the merits of the case, the
inquiry overlaps with the merits inquiry.  Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs' motion is sufficiently related to the merits to warrant
the application of the "compelling reasons" standard.

The Defendants contend that the Expert Report contains references
to "highly proprietary product formulas," and that public release
of such information could cause Defendants to suffer significant
competitive disadvantage.  The publication of materials that could
result in infringement upon trade secrets has long been considered
a factor that would overcome the strong presumption in favor of
public access to judicial records.  Nevertheless, sealing of court
records requires a particularized showing.

Judge Lorenz finds that the Defendants' motion is general and
conclusory.  It does not address either the elements necessary to
show the trade secret nature of the formulas, nor specific
prejudice or harm that would result from disclosure.  No
declaration is provided in support of their contention.  Moreover,
upon review of the redacted and unredacted versions of the Expert
Report, the Judge finds it apparent that the Defendants request the
sealing of more than just proprietary product formulas or specific
discussion of the formulas.  Accordingly, the Defendants have not
made the requisite showing of compelling reasons.  It is therefore
denied.  Because the unredacted Expert Report was lodged pending
order on motion to seal, it will not be considered, rules the
Court.

Judge Lorenz wrote in his Sept. 23, 2020 Order, a full-text copy of
which is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5ay5bbt from Leagle.com,
that he is doubtful that the redacted portions of the Expert
Report, including the product formula, is relevant.  In their
Non-opposition, which was publicly filed and not included in the
Motion to Seal, the Defendants quote from the Expert Report and
discuss expert opinions to the extent necessary to support their
Non-opposition arguments.  The Defendants should evaluate the
publicly-filed redacted version of the Expert Report in light of
the arguments they raise in their Non-opposition to determine
whether reference to the redacted portions of the report, and a
related motion to seal, are necessary at all, notes the Court.

GENERAL MOTORS: Adams Appeals Judgment in RICO Suit to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Marc Adams, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Estate of William D. Pilgrim, et
al. v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-08047-JFW-E, in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks damages for the Defendant's violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The complaint concerns
purchasers or lessees of Corvette vehicles equipped with the LS7
7.0LV8 engine concerning model years 2006 to 2013. The vehicles
exhibited excessive valve guide wear which led to engine failures
and inspections and repairs.

The Plaintiffs filed the initial complaint in this matter on
October 14, 2015.

The Plaintiffs are seeking an appeal to review the District Court's
Judgment dated November 24, 2020, wherein the Court ORDERED,
ADJUDGED AND DECREED that New GM shall have judgment in its favor
against Plaintiffs. The Court further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and
DECREED that Plaintiffs take nothing and that New GM shall have its
costs of suit.

The appellate case is captioned as Marc Adams, et al. v. General
Motors LLC, Case No. 20-56290, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, December 7, 2020.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case:

   -- Appellants Marc Adams, Lyle Barkley, Michael Fernandez, Roy
Haleen, Kaleb Isley, Howard Kopel, Benjamin Luke, Robert C. Murphy,
Dennis Palmquist, John Pendleton, Mike Peters, Kai Qian, Miguel
Quezada, Mark Rowe, Anthony Stack, Randy Standke and Dallas Wicker
Mediation Questionnaire is due on December 14, 2020;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by January 5, 2021;

   -- Transcript is due on February 4, 2021;

   -- Appellants Marc Adams, Lyle Barkley, Michael Fernandez, Roy
Haleen, Kaleb Isley, Howard Kopel, Benjamin Luke, Robert C. Murphy,
Dennis Palmquist, John Pendleton, Mike Peters, Kai Qian, Miguel
Quezada, Mark Rowe, Anthony Stack, Randy Standke and Dallas Wicker
opening brief is due on March 17, 2021;

   -- Appellee General Motors LLC answering brief is due on April
19, 2021; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants MARC ADAMS, LYLE BARKLEY, MICHAEL FERNANDEZ,
ROY HALEEN, KALEB ISLEY, HOWARD KOPEL, BENJAMIN LUKE, ROBERT C.
MURPHY, DENNIS PALMQUIST, JOHN PENDLETON, MIKE PETERS, KAI QIAN,
MIGUEL QUEZADA, MARK ROWE, ANTHONY STACK, RANDY STANDKE, and DALLAS
WICKER are represented by:

          Andre Emilio Jardini, Esq.
          KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE
          550 North Brand Boulevard
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 547-5000
          E-mail: aej@kpclegal.com  

Defendant-Appellee GENERAL MOTORS LLC is represented by:

          Andrew Holmer, Esq.
          CROWELL & MORING, LLP
          515 South Flower Street, 40th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 622-4750
          E-mail: aholmer@crowell.com   

               - and -

          Gregory Oxford, Esq.
          ISAACS CLOUSE CROSE & OXFORD
          21515 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 950
          Torrance, CA 90503
          Telephone: (310) 316-1990
          E-mail: goxford@icclawfirm.com

               - and -

          April N. Ross, Esq.
          Kathleen Taylor Sooy, Esq.  
          CROWELL & MORING LLP
          1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 624-2500
          E-mail: aross@crowell.com
                  ksooy@crowell.com

GENERAL MOTORS: Altobelli Sues Over Defective Lithium-Ion Batteries
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBIN ALTOBELLI; and F. DAYLE ANDERSEN, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-13256-TGB-CI ECF (E.D. Mich., Dec. 11,
2020) is an action against the Defendant for failure to disclose a
uniform and widespread defect in the 60 kWh 350 V lithium-ion
battery.

According to the complaint, the defect in the battery causes the
high voltage battery to overheat when charged to full capacity and
results in an unreasonable safety risk to the drivers and
passengers of vehicles equipped with the defective battery. These
vehicles are the 2017, 2018, and 2019 models of the Chevrolet
Bolt.

The Defective Battery contains a serious manufacturing defect that
causes the battery system to overheat when the battery is charged
to full or nearly full capacity, putting the battery at risk of
exploding or catching fire. This can result in catastrophic damage
to the Class Vehicles, and it also causes an immediate safety risk
to the vehicles' occupants or the property surrounding the
vehicles.

General Motors Company designs, builds, and sells cars, trucks,
crossovers, and automobile parts. The Company offers vehicle
protection, parts, accessories, maintenance, satellite radio, and
automotive financing services. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          Ryan McDevitt, Esq.
          Emma Wright, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
                  lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
                  rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com
                  ewright@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
                  ssa@millerlawpc.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Rankin Sues Over Defective Automobile Batteries
---------------------------------------------------------------
Casper Rankin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-13279-GAD-APP
(E.D. Mich., Dec. 11, 2020), is brought under consumer protection,
common law, and warranty claims, as well as claims under the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act against the Defendant, arising from the
sale or lease of thousands of 2017- 2019 Chevrolet Bolt vehicles
throughout California and the United States manufactured by the
Defendant that are equipped with defective high voltage batteries
which pose a significant fire risk when charged to full or near
full capacity.

The fire risk stemming from the defective high voltage batteries is
present even when the vehicle is off, is parked, and is not
receiving a charge. The defect affects model year 2017 through 2019
Chevy Bolt vehicles sold or leased to consumers in the United
States, including Plaintiff's vehicle. All Class Vehicles share the
same dangerously defective condition that GM failed to disclose to
the Plaintiff, consumers, and each Class Member. General Motors
issued a recall on November 13, 2020, citing the potential number
of vehicles affected at 50,932 and stating that a battery fire
increases the risk of injury.

General Motors acknowledged in these recall documents that the
defective high voltage batteries create significant safety risks:
"A certain number of these vehicles were built with high voltage
cells produced at LG Chem's Ochang, Korea facility that may pose a
risk of fire when charged to full, or very close to full,
capacity." The Plaintiff and Class Members purchased GM vehicles
fitted with a defective high voltage battery pack that poses a
significant fire risk. This is a major safety concern because
owners have reported that a fire may originate from the battery
pack when the vehicle is parked, such as in a garage or car port.

The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered harm because of GM's
decision to limit, through software, their vehicle's battery
capacity and, by extension, the distance they can travel on a
single charge. The Plaintiff and Class members have overpaid for
their vehicles and will pay significant sums for GM to attempt, and
possibly fail, to properly repair their vehicles and return the
battery pack to full capacity. The Plaintiff seeks damages,
injunctive and declaratory relief, restitution, disgorgement of
profits, attorneys' fees and costs, punitive damages, and the
repair of, replacement of, or refund of money paid to own or lease
all Class Vehicles, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased a Certified Pre-Owned 2017 Chevrolet Bolt
from Courtesy Chevrolet Center in San Diego, California.

The Defendant designs, manufactures, and sells automobiles
throughout the United States, including in the State of California,
under the brand names Chevrolet, GMC, and Cadillac.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
          Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
          William Kalas, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          950 West University, Suite 300
          Rochester, Michigan 48307
          Phone: (248) 841-2200
          Email: epm@millerlawpc.com
                 ssa@millerlawpc.com
                 dal@millerlawpc.com
                 wk@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
          412 H Street N.E., Ste. 302
          Washington, DC 20002
          Phone: (202) 470-3520
          Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
                 jrathod@classlawdc.com


GEO GROUP: Class Suits Over Voluntary Work Program on Standby
-------------------------------------------------------------
The GEO Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the trial court
overseeing two Washington cases has alerted the Company that
litigation will remain on standby due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Former civil immigration detainees at the Aurora Immigration
Processing Center filed a class action lawsuit on October 22, 2014,
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado.

The complaint alleges that the Company was in violation of the
Colorado Minimum Wages of Workers Act and the Federal Trafficking
Victims Protection Act ("TVPA").

The plaintiff class claims that the Company was unjustly enriched
because of the level of payment the detainees received for work
performed at the facility, even though the voluntary work program,
as well as the wage rates and standards associated with the program
that are at issue in the case, are authorized by the Federal
government under guidelines approved by the United States Congress.


On July 6, 2015, the Court found that detainees were not employees
under the Colorado Minimum Wage Order and dismissed this claim. In
February 2017, the Court granted the plaintiff-class' motion for
class certification on the TVPA and unjust enrichment claims.

The plaintiff class seeks actual damages, compensatory damages,
exemplary damages, punitive damages, restitution, attorneys' fees
and costs, and such other relief as the Court may deem proper.

In the time since the Colorado suit was initially filed, three
similar lawsuits have been filed. two in Washington and one in
California.

In Washington, one of the two lawsuits was filed on September 9,
2017 by immigration detainees against the Company in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington.  

The second lawsuit was filed on September 20, 2017 by the State
Attorney General against the Company in the Superior Court of the
State of Washington for Pierce County, which the Company removed to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on
October 9, 2017.

In California, a class-action lawsuit was filed on December 19,
2017 by immigration detainees against the Company in the U.S.
District Court Eastern Division of the Central District of
California. All three lawsuits allege violations of the respective
state's minimum wage laws.

However, the California lawsuit, like the Colorado suit, also
includes claims that the Company violated the TVPA and California's
equivalent state statute. The Court certified a nationwide class
which would allow the plaintiffs to primarily seek injunctive
relief or policy changes at a number of facilities if they are
successful on the merits of their claims.

On July 2, 2019, the Company filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in
the Washington Attorney General's Tacoma lawsuit based on the
Company's position that its legal defenses prevent the case from
proceeding to trial.

The federal court in Washington denied the Company's Motion for
Summary Judgment on August 6, 2019. However, on August 20, 2019,
the Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest, which
asked the Washington court to revisit its prior denial of the
Company's intergovernmental immunity defense in the case.

While the Washington court ultimately elected not to dismiss the
case at the time, its order importantly declared that the Company's
intergovernmental immunity defense was legally viable, to be
ultimately determined at trial.

On July 20, 2020, the trial court for the two Washington cases
alerted the Company that the litigation continued to be on
"standby" due to the COVID-19 pandemic, "which is still 'raging and
explosive'" in the jurisdiction.

As a result, a probable trial date is unknown.

The Company intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously
defend itself and has consistently refuted the allegations and
claims in these lawsuits. The Company has not recorded an accrual
relating to these matters at this time, as a loss is not considered
probable nor reasonably estimable at this stage of the lawsuits.

The GEO Group, Inc. is the first fully-integrated equity real
estate investment trust specializing in the design, financing,
development, and operation of correctional, detention, and
community reentry facilities around the globe. The company is based
in Boca Raton, Florida.

GEO GROUP: Lead Plaintiff and Counsel Appointed in Hartel Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The GEO Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the court entered
an unopposed order appointing lead plaintiff and approving the
selection of counsel in the purported shareholder class action suit
initiated by Steve Hartel.

On July 7, 2020, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, George C.
Zoley, and its Chief Financial Officer, Brian R. Evans, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.


The complaint alleges that the Company and Messrs. Zoley and Evans
made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, and operational and compliance policies, specifically
related to the Company's COVID-19 response procedures.

The lawsuit is brought by Steve Hartel individually and on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons other than the defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities during the
alleged class period between February 27, 2020 through and
including June 16, 2020.

The complaint alleges that the Company, Messrs. Zoley and Evans
violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and alleges
that Messrs. Zoley and Evans violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act. The complaint seeks damages, interest, attorneys' fees, expert
fees, other costs, and such other relief as the court may deem
proper.

On October 1, 2020, the court entered an unopposed order appointing
lead plaintiff, approving the selection of counsel, dismissing the
initial complaint and setting a deadline of November 17, 2020 for
plaintiffs to amend the complaint.

The GEO Group, Inc. is the first fully-integrated equity real
estate investment trust specializing in the design, financing,
development, and operation of correctional, detention, and
community reentry facilities around the globe. The company is based
in Boca Raton, Florida.

GLOBALROSE.COM LLC: Monegro Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GLOBALROSE.COM LLC.
The case is captioned as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GLOBALROSE.COM LLC,
Case No. 1:20-cv-10000-RA (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 29, 2020).

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and is assigned to Judge
Ronnie Abrams.

Globalrose.com LLC, a member of the Society of American Florists,
is an online fresh flower company serving the United States market.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

GOGO INC: Motion to Dismiss Pierrelouis Putative Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gogo Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the
putative class action suit entitled, Pierrelouis v. Gogo Inc., is
pending.

On June 27, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division styled
Pierrelouis v. Gogo Inc., naming the Company, its former Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer and its current Chief
Financial Officer and President, Commercial Aviation as defendants
purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the company's securities
from February 27, 2017 through May 4, 2018.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, alleging misrepresentations or omissions by
us purporting to relate to our 2Ku antenna's reliability and
installation and remediation costs.

The plaintiffs seek to recover from the company and the individual
defendants an unspecified amount of damages. In December 2018 the
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and in February 2019, the
company filed a motion to dismiss such amended complaint.

In October 2019 the judge granted the motion to dismiss on two
independent grounds, finding that plaintiffs failed to plausibly
allege that defendants made materially false or misleading
statements and that plaintiffs failed to plead with particularity
that defendants acted with scienter. The amended complaint was
dismissed without prejudice, and in December 2019, plaintiffs filed
a second amended complaint.

In February 2020 the company filed a motion to dismiss such second
amended complaint. In July 2020, plaintiffs filed a motion
requesting leave to file a proposed third amendment complaint,
which was granted by the Court.

Plaintiffs proceeded to file the third amended complaint in July
2020 and the company filed a motion to dismiss in September 2020.

Gogo said, "We believe that the claims are without merit and intend
to continue to defend the claims vigorously. In accordance with
Delaware law, we will indemnify the individual named defendants for
their defense costs and any damages they incur in connection with
the suit. We have filed a claim with the issuer of our Directors'
and Officers' insurance policy with respect to this suit. No
amounts have been accrued for any potential losses under this
matter, as we cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the
litigation or any potential losses."

Gogo Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides inflight broadband
connectivity and wireless entertainment services to the aviation
industry in the United States and internationally. It operates
through three segments: Commercial Aviation North America (CA-NA),
Commercial Aviation Rest of World (CA-ROW), and Business Aviation
(BA). The company was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois.

GREENWAY HEALTH: Charges Customers for EHR Release, Valley Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Valley OB-Gyn Clinic, P.C., a Michigan Professional Corporation v.
GREENWAY HEALTH, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and
GREENWAY HEALTH, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
3:20-cv-00220-TCB (N.D. Ga., Dec. 11, 2020), is brought to recover
the illegal fees Greenway charged for the return of its customers'
own proprietary data.

According to the complaint, these fees amounted to little more than
a ransom for patient data held hostage by Greenway. Valley also
seeks the return of the patient billing data that Greenway
continues to wrongly possess.

The Defendant sells electronic health record ("EHR") to doctors and
nurses and charges them upfront and recurring monthly fees totaling
tens (often hundreds) of thousands of dollars over the course of a
contractual term. Digital medical records stored on EHRs have
largely replaced paper medical records that doctors and nurses
previously kept in their offices. With the advent of cloud
computing, patient records are often no longer stored at practice
group offices at all. Instead, doctors and nurses often type their
patient records into an Internet-connected software interface and
store the records remotely on an HER vendor's servers. Greenway
offers this type of "hosted" or "cloud" EHR. The service is
analogous to storage centers that offer physical space for
businesses to store paper records.

Despite this technological sea change, two basic facts have not
changed. First, patient records are still critical to the practice
of medicine and the health and safety of patients. Second, the
medical practice groups that create the patient records and store
them on EHRs are still the owners of their own business records.
While Greenway serves as the sole custodian of the data during the
term of its customer's contract, it does not and has never owned
the data entered by doctors and nurses. The mere act of storing
records with a vendor does not transfer ownership, regardless of
whether the records are placed in a vendor's physical locker or an
Internet-connected database.

The importance of patient data to medical care gives EHR vendors
the opportunity to illegally exploit their customer's data for
their commercial advantage. Not all EHR vendors do so.
Unfortunately, Greenway did by implementing a policy of charging
surprise fees to provide customers with a copy of their own data
when customers terminated their contracts with Greenway. This
policy punishes customers who terminate their contracts by holding
critical patient data hostage until the customer pays a previously
undisclosed and unagreed fee. The policy furthers Greenway's
commercial interest by increasing its profits and deterring
customers from terminating their contracts (effectively locking
them in to a continued business relationship with Greenway), the
suit says.

Valley OB-Gyn was one of many customers who paid these fees to
Greenway for the release of its data upon the termination of its
contract. Like many other customers, Valley OB-Gyn reasonably
terminated its contract with Greenway after learning that Greenway
had made false statements about its EHR's capabilities. Valley
OB-Gyn first learned this information in February 2019, when the
Department of Justice filed a False Claims Act complaint against
Greenway and announced Greenway's agreement to pay $57 million to
settle the case. Greenway's settlement with the Government also
included a Corporate Integrity Agreement (the "CIA"), which, among
other things, expressly prohibited Greenway from charging any fees
for the service of returning all data to existing customers.
Despite its legal obligations to return its customers' data under
the CIA, its contracts, and common law, Greenway refused Valley
OB-Gyn's request for copies of its proprietary data. Instead,
Greenway demanded multiple flat fees of $11,200 for the return of
Valley OB-Gyn's patient medical records. Additionally, Greenway
refused to return Valley's patient billing data and continued to
charge Valley excessive monthly fees for access to this
information, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Valley is a healthcare clinic comprised of skilled
providers who have been offering women obstetric and gynecology
services since 1968.

Greenway Health, LLC is an EHRs software vendor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. Cooper Knowles, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF C. COOPER KNOWLES, LLC
          750 Hammond Drive, Bldg. 12, Ste. 200
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Phone: (770) 668-2081
          Email: cknowles@cckfirm.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Brickman, Esq.
          James C. Bradley, Esq.
          Nina Fields Britt, Esq.
          Caleb M. Hodge, Esq.
          RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC
          1037 Chuck Dawley Blvd., Bldg. A (29464)
          Post Office Box 1007
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29465
          Phone: (843) 727-6500
          Email: mbrickman@rpwb.com
                 jbradley@rpwb.com
                 nfields@rpwb.com
                 chodge@rpwb.com

               - and -

          Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
          John T. Nicolaou, Esq.
          Gabriel A. Panek, Esq.
          LEIFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013-1413
          Phone: (212) 355-9500
          Email: jselbin@lchb.com
                 jnicolaou@lchb.com
                 gpanek@lchb.com

               - and -

          Timothy C. Bailey, Esq.
          BAILEY JAVINS & CARTER, LC
          213 Hale Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Phone: (304) 345-0346
          Email: tbailey@bjc4u.com

               - and -

          Brett Ialacci, Esq.
          BADHAM & BUCK, LLC
          2001 Park Place, North Suite 500
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: (205) 521-0036
          Email: bialacci@badhambuck.com


HARRIS WATER: Loses FLSA Class Decertification Bid in Pino Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EDEN PINO, LESTER MONCADA, and WALTER ULLOA, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
HARRIS WATER MAIN & SEWER CONTRACTORS INC., STEVEN KOGEL,
Individually, and BRETT KOGEL, individually; Defendants, Case No.
17-cv-5910 (KAM)(RER)(E.D. N.Y.), Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (i) denied
the Defendants' motion for decertification of the conditionally
certified Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action
pursuant to Section 216(b); and (ii) granted in part and denied in
part the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint.

On Oct. 10, 2017, Plaintiffs Pino, Moncada, and Ulloa brought the
action on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated current
and former workers employed by Defendants Harris, Steven Kogel and
Brett Kogel, alleging violations of the FLSA, New York Labor Law
("NYLL"), and N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. ("NYCCRR").  The
Plaintiffs were formerly employed by defendant Harris as non-exempt
crew members/field employees.

The Plaintiff Pino was employed by the Defendants from
approximately 2010 through 2016 and worked an average of 60 hours
per week.  Plaintiff Moncada was employed by the Defendants, from
approximately 2005 until June 29, 2015, and worked an average of 70
hours per week.  Plaintiff Ulloa was employed by the Defendants,
between approximately September 2010 and 2015, and worked an
average of 60 to 65 hours per week.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants engaged in unlawful
policies and practices regarding their hours and wages.  They
allege, inter alia, that they were the victims of the Defendants'
unlawful common and uniform policy of failing to pay earned wages
and earned overtime wages for hours worked over 40 hours in a week.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that they were not compensated
for time spent loading and unloading trucks at the beginning and
end of each day, and that the Defendants reduced their wages by one
hour each day for a lunch break even when the Plaintiffs worked
through lunch.  The Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendants
failed to provide the Plaintiffs with the required pay rate notices
and wage statements.  They further allege that the Defendants
retaliated against workers who complained about the aforementioned
unlawful practices and policies.  

On Sept. 2, 2018, Magistrate Judge Raymon Reyes granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification.  Twelve
individuals opted to join the class, which at the time included the
three named Plaintiffs, for a total of 15 Plaintiffs.  The
Defendants requested and were granted leave to file a motion before
the Court to decertify the conditionally-certified FLSA collective
action.  On Jan. 9, 2020, the parties filed their fully-briefed
motion papers in connection with the Defendants' motion to
decertify.  

On Nov. 8, 2019, the Plaintiffs requested to amend their complaint
as a result of discovery that allegedly uncovered the Defendants'
failure to comply with their obligations under Section 195.1(a) of
NYLL.  The Court granted the Plaintiffs leave to file a motion to
amend the complaint and set a corresponding briefing schedule.  As
part of the order, it held the Plaintiff's letter request seeking a
pre-motion conference regarding a potential Rule 23 motion in
abeyance until the Court had ruled on the motion to amend and the
motion to decertify.

The proposed Amended Complaint differs from the original Complaint
in two respects: (1) an expanded putative Rule 23 class for the
Defendants' alleged failure to provide all employees with written
pay rate notices as required by NYLL Section 195; and (2) the
removal of the Plaintiffs' waiver of liquidated damages in the
event that the class is certified.

The Plaintiffs allege that discovery has uncovered information
substantiating the Defendants' failure to comply with their
obligations under NYLL Section 195, and allege that the Defendants'
failure was pervasive and extended beyond the original putative
class of "non-exempt crew members/field employees performing manual
labor" to all employees employed by them.  The Plaintiffs also seek
to amend the complaint to remove their waiver of liquidated damages
to reflect the remedies available to the Plaintiffs under Rule 23.


In their opposition, the Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs'
amendment would cause undue delay; the Defendants will be
prejudiced if the class is expanded and the amendment regarding the
liquidated damages waiver is accepted; and the proposed amendment
regarding the expanded class is futile.  In their reply, the
Plaintiffs assert good cause for the amendments; the amendments
would not result in undue delay or prejudice; and the amendments
are not futile.

Because she finds that the Plaintiffs have met their modest burden
in showing that they were adversely affected by the Defendants'
common policy or plan, and thus the Plaintiffs are "similarly
situated," Judge Matsumoto denied the Defendants' motion to
decertify the FLSA collective action.  The Plaintiffs have
adequately established that there was a common policy or plan that
violated the FLSA.  First, the Plaintiffs performed the same type
of work under the direction of the same supervisors and were
compensated according to the same plan.  Second, the Judge is not
persuaded that the various defenses available to the Defendants are
so individualized that decertification is required.  Third, 15
Plaintiffs have joined the action, and the Judge finds that
litigating overtime claims for each of these Plaintiffs
individually would be unduly burdensome on all parties.

The Plaintiffs will file the Amended Complaint, with the changes
noted, on Oct. 7, 2020.  Within two business days of the
Plaintiffs' filing of the Amended Complaint, the Judge directed the
parties to file a joint letter, certifying that the Amended
Complaint complies with the Order.  As needed, any
discovery-related or other pretrial issues or questions are
respectfully referred to Magistrate Judge Reyes.

Judge Matsumoto granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs'
motion to amend.  She granted the Plaintiffs' request to remove the
complaint's waiver of liquidated damages in the event a class is
certified.  She denied as futile the Plaintiffs' proposed amendment
to expand the putative Rule 23 class based on the Defendants'
alleged failure to supply them with written pay notices as required
by the NYLL.

Among other things, Judge Matsumoto finds that the Defendants do
not cite any case law in support of their position, nor have they
shown that they would be prejudiced.  And though the Plaintiffs
have not been diligent in correcting their pleading error, the
Second Circuit has left open the possibility that amendments could
be permitted even where a plaintiff has not been diligent in
seeking an amendment, absent a showing of undue prejudice for the
non-moving party.  

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 23, 2020 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5oxp5ol from Leagle.com.

HC2 HOLDINGS: Agents Distributes Settlement Funds in DBMG Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
HC2 Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the settlement
distribution agents had distributed the settlement funds to the
eligible former and present record holders of DBM Global Inc.
stock.

On November 6, 2014, a putative stockholder class action complaint
challenging the tender offer by which HC2 acquired approximately
721,000 of the issued and outstanding common shares of DBM Global
Inc. was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
captioned Mark Jacobs v. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul
Voigt, Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O.
Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., and Schuff International, Inc., Civil
Action No. 10323.

On November 17, 2014, a second lawsuit was filed in the Court,
captioned Arlen Diercks v. Schuff International, Inc. Philip A.
Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul Voigt, Michael R. Hill, Rustin
Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O. Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc.,
Civil Action No. 10359.

On February 19, 2015, the Court consolidated the actions (now
designated as Schuff International, Inc. Stockholders Litigation)
and appointed lead plaintiff and counsel.

The initially operative complaint filed by Mark Jacobs alleged,
among other things, that in connection with the tender offer, the
individual members of the DBMG Board of Directors and HC2, the
now-controlling stockholder of DBMG, breached their fiduciary
duties to members of the plaintiff class. The Complaint also
challenged a potential short-form merger based upon the plaintiff's
expectation that the Company would cash out the remaining public
stockholders of DBMG following the completion of the tender offer.


The Complaint sought rescission of the tender offer and/or
compensatory damages, as well as attorney's fees and other relief.


The defendants filed answers to the Complaint on July 30, 2015. On
November 15, 2019, the parties filed definitive documentation in
support of a proposed settlement of the action. On January 14,
2020, plaintiff filed an amended complaint restating and
elaborating on the claims raised in the Complaint.

The Amended Complaint sought compensatory and rescissory damages,
as well as attorney's fees and other relief.

On February 13, 2020, the Court held a settlement hearing to
consider a proposed settlement and certain objections filed by two
current DBMG stockholders. The Court expressed concerns about
certain terms of the proposed settlement and the parties requested
additional time to evaluate potential modifications to the proposed
settlement. On May 8, 2020, the parties filed with the Court a
revised settlement agreement for all claims relating to the Amended
Complaint.

The Revised Settlement Framework provided for a settlement payment
of $35.95 per share to a fund for the benefit of the former DBMG
stockholders who tendered their shares in the 2014 tender offer
other than stockholders who were defendants in the action or their
immediate family members, officers of DBMG, or directors or
officers of HC2.

In total, the proposed settlement payment to the Tendered
Stockholders applied to approximately 568,850 shares and totaled
approximately $20.45 million. The Revised Settlement Framework
provided that the amount received by the Tendered Stockholders
would be reduced by the per share amount of any fee award to lead
plaintiff's counsel.

HC2's D&O insurers agreed to contribute approximately $12.38
million of this approximately $20.45 million settlement payment,
and DBMG has agreed to fund the remaining approximately $8.07
million either through cash on hand or borrowing from a third-party
lender.

The Revised Settlement Framework also provided that HC2 would fund
two types of payments to the owners of the 289,902 902 shares of
DBMG common stock not owned by HC2 or its affiliates.

The first payment of $2.51 per share, or approximately $0.7 million
total, was intended to offset the indirect burden that the public
DBMG stockholders arguably would bear (by virtue of their
approximately 7.52% ownership of DBMG) from DBMG's funding of the
approximately $8.07 million portion of the settlement payment to
the Tendered Stockholders.

The second payment of $1.00 per share, or approximately $0.3
million total, represented consideration for a full release of
claims from the public DBMG stockholders related to the action and
the implementation of the Revised Settlement Framework.

The Revised Settlement Framework provides that HC2 would fund
payments of $3.51 per share, or approximately $1.0 million total,
to the public DBMG stockholders.

On August 14, 2020, the Court entered a Final Order approving the
Revised Settlement Framework, awarding the plaintiff's counsel fees
and expenses totaling $5,795,886 out of the funds payable to the
Tendered Stockholders, and awarding one of the objector's counsel
fees and expenses totaling $50,000 out of the fee and expense award
to plaintiff's counsel.

The settlement of the action became final, and the settlement
releases became effective, upon the expiration of the appeal period
for the Final Order on September 14, 2020.

As of October 12, 2020, the settlement distribution agents had
distributed the settlement funds to the eligible former and present
record holders of DBMG stock.

HC2 Holdings, Inc. provides construction, marine services, energy,
telecommunications, insurance, life sciences, broadcasting, and
other services in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
internationally. The company was formerly known as PTGi Holding
Inc. and changed its name to HC2 Holdings, Inc. in April 2014. HC2
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.

HC2 HOLDINGS: Fair Value Investments Putative Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HC2 Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a putative stockholder class action suit
entitled, Fair Value Investments Incorporated v. Roach, et al.,
C.A. No. 2020-0847-JTL (Del. Ch.).

On October 1, 2020, Fair Value Investments Incorporated (FVI) filed
a putative stockholder class action and derivative complaint in the
Delaware Court of Chancery against HC2 and certain of DBM Global
Inc.'s current and former officers and directors, including current
and former HC2 officers and directors AJ Stahl, Kenneth S. Courtis,
Robert V. Leffler, Jr., Philip A. Falcone, Michael J. Sena, and
Paul Voigt styled Fair Value Investments Incorporated v. Roach, et
al., C.A. No. 2020-0847-JTL (Del. Ch.).

In the FVI Action, FVI alleges that HC2, in its capacity as DBMG's
controlling stockholder, and DBMG's current and former officers and
directors breached their fiduciary duties to DBMG and DBMG's
minority stockholders by approving certain transactions that
allegedly provide disproportionate benefits to HC2. FVI challenges
the following transactions: (i) DBMG's payments to HC2 from
2016–present pursuant to a Tax Sharing Agreement between DBMG and
HC2; (ii) DBMG acting as a guarantor or providing collateral for
loans taken on by HC2; (iii) DBMG's issuance of dividends to its
common and preferred stockholders in 2017–2020; (iv) DBMG's
issuance of preferred stock to HC2 to finance DBMG's 2018
acquisition of GrayWolf Industrial; and (v) HC2's appointment of
directors to DBMG's board of directors by written consent in lieu
of holding an annual stockholder meeting.

HC2 believes the allegations in the FVI complaint are without
merit, and HC2 intends to vigorously defend this litigation.

HC2 Holdings, Inc. provides construction, marine services, energy,
telecommunications, insurance, life sciences, broadcasting, and
other services in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
internationally. The company was formerly known as PTGi Holding
Inc. and changed its name to HC2 Holdings, Inc. in April 2014. HC2
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.

HC2 HOLDINGS: Tera Class Action Concluded
-----------------------------------------
HC2 Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the court entered
an order closing the class action suit entitled, Tera v. HC2
Holdings Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2020-0275-JRS.  

On April 10, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
class action complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery captioned
Tera v. HC2 Holdings Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2020-0275-JRS.

The complaint alleged that the Company's consent revocation
materials (i) contain misleading disclosures relating to the
Certificates of Designation, (ii) fail to disclose that a majority
of the Board may approve the nominees set forth by Percy Rockdale
LLC and certain of its affiliates, for purposes of the Certificates
of Designation such that the Percy Rockdale nominees would be
considered "Continuing Directors" and (iii) inaccurately state that
electing the Percy Rockdale nominees will cause a Change of Control
(as defined in the Certificates of Designation) under the
Certificates of Designation because it will lead to a person or
group obtaining the power to elect a majority of the members of the
Board.

The complaint sought (i) a declaration requiring the Board to
approve the Percy Rockdale nominees for purposes of the
Certificates of Designation, (ii) a declaration that the Board
breached its fiduciary duties by issuing misleading disclosures and
(iii) an injunction requiring the Board to issue additional
disclosures relating to the Change of Control provisions in the
Certificates of Designation.

On April 19, 2020, the plaintiff amended his complaint to allege
that the Supplement to the Consent Revocation Statement, filed with
the SEC on April 17, 2020, contained misleading disclosures
relating to the Certificates of Designation. The amended complaint
sought, among other remedies, (i) a declaration that the Board
breached its fiduciary duties by issuing misleading disclosures;
(ii) a declaration that, if a Change of Control could be deemed to
occur under the Certificates of Designation, that such Change of
Control provisions are invalid and unenforceable under Delaware
law; (iii) an injunction requiring the defendants to issue
corrective disclosures; and (iv) an order enjoining the Board from
relying upon consent revocations received to date.

On April 20, 2020, the Court of Chancery granted the plaintiff's
motion for expedited proceedings.

On April 15, 2020, the Board (with Mr.  Philip A. Falcone Falcone
recusing himself as a non-Independent Director) determined to
approve the Percy Rockdale nominees, solely and specifically for
the purposes of deeming them Continuing Directors pursuant to the
Certificates of Designation, to avoid triggering, and to render
inapplicable, such prong of the Change of Control definition.

On April 17, 2020 and April 21, 2020, each of the holder of the
Series A Preferred Stock and the holder of the Series A-2 Preferred
Stock, respectively, and, in each case, entitled to give a waiver,
agreed that such holder will not seek to exercise its right to
require the Company to redeem the shares of such Series A Preferred
Stock or Series A-2 Preferred Stock, as applicable, if such
redemption right were to arise as a result of the outcome of the
Consent Solicitation based on one of the Change of Control prongs
of the Certificate of Designation (which prong may require the
Company to make an offer to redeem the Preferred Stock if any
person or "group" (within the meaning of Rules 13d-3 and 13d-5
under the Exchange Act) obtains the power to elect a majority of
the members of the Board).

Therefore, in light of the foregoing, if the Percy Rockdale
nominees became a majority of the Board pursuant to Percy
Rockdale's consent solicitation, the Company would not be required
to offer to redeem the shares of the Series A Preferred Stock and
the Series A-2 Preferred Stock.

On April 23, 2020, the parties agreed that the waiver and
additional disclosures, combined with the prior disclosures and
approval of Percy Rockdale's nominees as Continuing Directors,
mooted the need for expedition and a preliminary injunction
hearing, and the parties informed the court that the plaintiff was
withdrawing its request for expedition and a preliminary
injunction.

On May 14, 2020, the Company announced that it had reached a
resolution of Percy Rockdale's consent solicitation.

On May 6, 2020, the plaintiff filed a motion for an order awarding
attorneys' fees and expenses, requesting a $2.5 million fee.

On August 12, 2020, the parties informed the court that they had
reached a resolution. That same day, the court entered an order
closing the case.

HC2 Holdings, Inc. provides construction, marine services, energy,
telecommunications, insurance, life sciences, broadcasting, and
other services in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
internationally. The company was formerly known as PTGi Holding
Inc. and changed its name to HC2 Holdings, Inc. in April 2014. HC2
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.

HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Wins Partial Summary Judgment in Sorrano Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEPH SORANNO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HEARTLAND PAYMENT SYSTEMS,
LLC, successor in interest to HEARTLAND PAYMENT SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 18-16218 (FLW) (LHG) (D. N.J.), Judge
Freda F. Wolfson of the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey (i) granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment on all claims against it; (ii) granted
the Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Jury Demand; and (iii)
denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on his
breach of contract, the New Jersey Sales Representatives' Rights
Act ("SRRA"), and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law ("WPL") claims.

Plaintiff Soranno filed the putative class action against the
Defendant for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations
of SRRA and WPL.  The Plaintiff, a former HPS sales representative,
alleges that the Defendant failed to pay him certain vested
commissions for services he sold during his employment.

The Defendant sells, among other things, card payment processing
services to merchants and retailers.  Since its creation in 1997,
it has processed bank-issued Visa and Mastercard payments.  The
Defendant also provides other ancillary services to merchants.
Relevant in the case, from December 2007 to July 2014, the
Defendant acted as a sales agent for American Express ("AMEX"), a
third-party that offered its own card payment processing services
to eligible merchants known as the OnePoint card acceptance program
and ESA.  AMEX was obligated to pay the Defendant monthly
commissions for a maximum of 60 months from the date the merchant
began using AMEX to process payments.  Upon the expiration of the
60-month period, AMEX had no further obligation to pay the
Defendant commissions for OnePoint transactions, even if the
merchants continued to use the service.

In January 2007, the Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a
Relationship Manager ("RM").  In that capacity, the Plaintiff sold
the Defendant's products and services, as well as third-party
services such as OnePoint, to retail merchants.  In exchange, he
received commission-only compensation.  With respect to
compensation, the Defendant retained the right to modify the costs
and methods used to calculate Sales Compensation to be earned for
future sales with at least 30 days written notice to active RMs.
However, the Sales Policy provides that HPS will not modify the
costs or methods it uses to calculate Sales Compensation earned by
an RM after Installation.  The TM Agreement additionally entitles
the Plaintiff to earn limited and contingent "Vested" rights to
certain "Residual Commissions" on specific products and services he
sold during his employment after his employment ended.

In December 2012, the Plaintiff voluntarily resigned from
employment with the Defendant.  Consistent with the TM Agreement,
the Defendant continued to pay the Plaintiff his vested commissions
after his departure, in the same manner as when he was an active
employee.

In 2013, shortly after the Plaintiff's resignation, AMEX informed
the Defendant that it would be ending OnePoint and implementing a
new service called OptBlue.  On Aug. 2, 2013, the Defendant entered
into an agreement with AMEX to offer OptBlue services which
required the Defendant to process AMEX payments itself and charge
its own fees on top of AMEX's rates.  Essentially, under the
OptBlue program, the Defendant processes AMEX transactions in the
same manner it processed Visa and Mastercard transactions.

In the wake of the transition to OptBlue, the Defendant states that
OptBlue differs from OnePoint because it is a Primary Service that
generates Margin in the same way as Visa and Mastercard.  It
interprets the TM Agreement as not requiring it to pay Residual
Commissions on margin from OptBlue transactions.  Nevertheless, it
decided to pay Residual Commissions to active Sales Employees who
were employed as of July 2014 for transactions processed by
merchants who transitioned from OnePoint to OptBlue, which were
calculated in the same way as other primary services, like Visa and
Mastercard.  It is undisputed that the Defendant ceased
compensating the Plaintiff for AMEX transactions processed by his
merchant in January 2015.

On Oct. 15, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the putative class action
against the Defendant in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer
County, alleging claims of breach of contract, breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust
enrichment.  Shortly thereafter, on Nov. 16, 2018, the Defendant
removed the Plaintiff's complaint to the Court based on the
diversity of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a).
Following removal, the Defendant moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's
claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, which the Court granted on July 26, 2019.  

The Plaintiff thereafter filed an Amended Complaint, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, alleging claims of (1)
breach of contract, (2) unjust enrichment, (3) violation of the New
Jersey Wage Payment Law, and (4) violation of the New Jersey Sales
Representatives' Rights Act.  

On April 24, 2020, the Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment
on his breach of contract, WPL, and SRRA claims.  His motion also
seeks to invalidate the jury trial waiver set forth in the TM
Agreement.  That same day, the Defendant moved for summary judgment
on all the Plaintiff's claims and to strike the Plaintiff's demand
for a jury trial.

Judge Wolfson granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment.  She granted summary judgment in the
Defendant's favor on the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment, SRRA, and
WPL claims, and denied on the Plaintiff's breach of contract claim.


Among other things, Judge Wolfson finds that the Plaintiff cannot
proceed with an unjust enrichment claim because there is no dispute
that the TM Agreement and Sales Policy govern the parties' dispute.
As the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim stems solely from the
contractual relationship between the parties, his unjust enrichment
claim fails as a matter of law.  

The Plaintiff's WPL claim fails because the WPL does not cover
post-termination commissions.  While the New Jersey Supreme Court
has not addressed the issue, the New Jersey Appellate Division,
albeit in an unpublished opinion, has held that the WPL applies
only to wages earned by an employee before the termination of his
employment.  Moreover, the plain language of the statute makes
clear that the WPL is meant to protect only those wages which an
employee earned before the termination of his employment.

The Residual Commissions sought by the Plaintiff are the result of
a unique contractual provision between him and the Defendant that
is not plainly covered by the SRRA because the commissions in
question were not yet "earned" at the time the Plaintiff resigned.
While the SRRA is a remedial statute that should be liberally
construed, the Judge cannot extend its coverage to a situation that
was not clearly contemplated by the Legislature.  Accordingly, the
Plaintiff's SRRA claim cannot survive summary judgment and is
dismissed, rules the Court.

Judge Wolfson also granted the Defendant's motion to strike the
Plaintiff's demand for jury trial.  The TM Agreement specifically
provides that the Plaintiff and HPS irrevocably waive any right to
trial by jury in any suit, action or proceeding under, or in
connection with or to enforce the Agreement.  It is undisputed that
the Plaintiff signed the contract and admitted at his deposition
that he read and understood the jury trial waiver provision and had
the opportunity to consult with his own counsel prior to signing
the agreement.  While the waiver is not in different or larger
lettering that the rest of the TM Agreement, the clause is
underlined and clearly described as "Waiver of Jury Trial."
Considering these factors, the Judge finds the jury waiver to be
enforceable.  

Finally, Judge Wolfson granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment.  Because the Defendant takes the view that extrinsic
evidence is not necessary to interpret the parties' agreement, it
does not put forth any evidence on the issue of intent.  Even so,
the Judge cannot resolve the factual issue of the parties' intent
on a motion for summary judgment.  Accordingly, summary judgment on
the Plaintiff's breach of contract claim, in favor of either the
Plaintiff or the Defendant, is inappropriate at this time.  In
denying both motions for summary judgment, the Judge notes that it
appears the parties did not adequately take discovery on the issue
of intent under these circumstances.  To the extent such discovery
is needed, the parties may apply to the Magistrate Judge for
limited additional discovery.  

The Plaintiff's breach of contract claim will proceed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 23, 2020 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/y45n3cm3 from Leagle.com.

HECLA MINING: Continues to Defend New York Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------
Hecla Mining Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend class action suits pending before the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On May 24, 2019, a purported Hecla stockholder filed a putative
class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Hecla and certain of its executive
officers, one of whom is also a director.

The complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of
Hecla common stock from March 19, 2018 through and including May 8,
2019, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and seeks, among other things, damages and costs and
expenses.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Hecla, under the authority
and control of the individual defendants, made certain material
false and misleading statements and omitted certain material
information regarding Hecla's Nevada Operations unit.

The complaint alleges that these misstatements and omissions
artificially inflated the market price of Hecla common stock during
the class period, thus purportedly harming investors.

A second suit was filed on June 19, 2019, alleging virtually
identical claims.

Hecla said, "We cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits or
estimate damages if plaintiffs were to prevail. We believe that
these claims are without merit and intend to defend them
vigorously."

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

Hecla Mining Company, together with its subsidiaries, discovers,
acquires, develops, and produces precious and base metal properties
worldwide. The company offers lead, zinc, and bulk flotation
concentrates to custom smelters and brokers; and unrefined gold and
silver bullion bars to precious metals traders. Hecla Mining
Company was founded in 1891 and is headquartered in Coeur d'Alene,
Idaho.

HOSOPO CORP: Settlement Proposed in TCPA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Paronich Law, P.C. and CW Law Group PC announce that a settlement
has been proposed in a class action lawsuit alleging that HOSOPO
Corporation d/b/a Horizon Solar ("HOSOPO") made or caused to be
made unsolicited telemarketing calls. HOSOPO denies wrongdoing and
liability, and both sides disagree on how much, if anything, the
Class could have recovered after trial.  The Court has not decided
which side is right.

You are included in the settlement as a "Settlement Class Member"
if you fit into the following definition: (1) All persons in the
United States who are the users or subscribers of the telephone
numbers identified by Flowmedia in Jamie Williams's affidavit as
being called for Horizon Solar (2) using the ViciDialer dialing
system (3) between October 16, 2017 and December 8, 2017.

The Settlement provides $800,000 to pay: (1) claims of eligible
Settlement Class Members; (2) a Fees, Costs, and Expenses Award to
Settlement Class Counsel; (3) a Service Payment to Plaintiff; and
(4) costs of Settlement administration and notice.  If you are a
Settlement Class Member, you are eligible to receive a pro rata
share of the Net Settlement Fund by timely and validly submitting a
Claim Form.  The value of a Settlement Class Member's individual
award will depend upon the number of Settlement Class Members who
file valid Claim Forms.

To receive a Settlement award, you must timely complete and submit
a valid Claim Form by December 9, 2020.  Claim Forms are available
at www.HorizonCallsSettlement.com.

If you don't want to be legally bound by the Settlement, you must
exclude yourself by December 9, 2020, or you won't be able to sue
HOSOPO or others involved with the calls at issue about the legal
claims in the Action ever again.  If you stay in the Settlement,
you may object to it by December 9, 2020.

For complete information visit www.HorizonCallsSettlement.com or
call 1-866-714-9374.  [GN]

IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Bid to Dismiss Newman Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
IAC/InterActiveCorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss filed in the shareholder class action and derivative
lawsuit entitled, David Newman v. IAC/InterActiveCorp et al., No.
2020-0505 (Delaware Chancery Court), is pending.

On June 24, 2020, a shareholder class action and derivative lawsuit
was filed in Delaware state court against then IAC/InterActiveCorp
(now Match Group, Inc.), then IAC Holdings, Inc. (now
IAC/InterActiveCorp), IAC's Chairman and Senior Executive Barry
Diller, former Match Group (as a nominal defendant only), and the
ten members of former Match Group's Board of Directors at the time
of the Separation, challenging, on behalf of a putative class of
then Match Group public shareholders, the agreed-upon terms of the
Separation.

The gravamen of the complaint is that the terms of the Separation
are unfair to former Match Group and unduly beneficial to IAC as a
result of undue influence by IAC and Mr. Diller over the then Match
Group directors who unanimously approved the transaction.

The complaint asserts direct and derivative claims: (i) for breach
of fiduciary duty against IAC and Mr. Diller as former Match
Group's controlling shareholders, (ii) for breach of fiduciary duty
against the Match Group directors who unanimously approved the
Separation, (iii) for breach of contract (i.e., a provision of
former Match Group's charter), (iv) for breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and (v) for tortious
interference with contract against IAC. The complaint seeks various
declarations and damages in an unspecified amount.

On September 24, 2020, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint.

IAC believes that the allegations in this lawsuit are without merit
and will defend vigorously against them.

IAC/InterActiveCorp, together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
media and Internet company in the United States and
internationally. It operates through Match Group, ANGI
Homeservices, Video, Applications, and Publishing segments.
IAC/InterActiveCorp was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.

INOVIO PHARMA: McDermid Class Action Ongoing
--------------------------------------------
Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, McDermid v.
Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and J. Joseph Kim.

On March 12, 2020, a purported shareholder class action complaint,
McDermid v. Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and J. Joseph Kim, was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, naming the company and J. Joseph Kim, the
company's Chief Executive Officer, as defendants.

The lawsuit alleges that the company made materially false and
misleading statements regarding its development of a vaccine for
COVID-19 in its public disclosures in violation of certain federal
securities laws.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the
putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including
reasonable attorneys' fees.

On June 18, 2020, the court appointed Manuel Williams to serve as
lead plaintiff.

On August 3, 2020, the plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint,
naming the company and three of its officers as defendants.

On September 21, 2020, the plaintiff filed his first amended
complaint, naming the company and three of its officers as
defendants. Defendants will file a motion to dismiss plaintiff's
first amended complaint on November 5, 2020.

Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. researches and develops
pharmaceuticals. The Company develops cancer DNA and infectious DNA
vaccines, anti-inflammatory drugs, and animal health products.
Inovio Pharmaceuticals serves the healthcare sector in the United
States. The company is based in Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania.

INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Plaintiff's Bid for Class Status Due Feb. 2021
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification is due on February 17,
2021.

On December 18, 2015, a former individual customer filed a
purported class action complaint against IB LLC, IBG, Inc., and
Thomas Frank, PhD, the Company's Executive Vice President and Chief
Information Officer, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut.

The complaint alleges that the purported class of IB LLC's
customers were harmed by alleged "flaws" in the computerized system
used to close out (i.e., liquidate) positions in customer brokerage
accounts that have margin deficiencies. The complaint seeks, among
other things, undefined compensatory damages and declaratory and
injunctive relief.

On September 28, 2016, the District Court issued an order granting
the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, and
without providing plaintiff leave to amend.

On September 28, 2017, plaintiff appealed to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On September 26, 2018, the
Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's claims of
breach of contract and commercially unreasonable liquidation but
vacated and remanded back to the District Court plaintiff's claims
for negligence.

On November 30, 2018, the plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the new complaint
on January 15, 2019, which was denied on September 30, 2019.

On December 9, 2019, the Company filed a motion requesting that the
District Court certify to the Connecticut Supreme Court two
questions of Connecticut law directly relevant to the motion to
dismiss. The Court denied the Company's motion to certify on May
15, 2020.

Currently, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is due on
February 17, 2021.

Interactive said, "Regardless of the outcome of this motion, the
Company does not believe that a purported class action is
appropriate given the great differences in portfolios, markets and
many other circumstances surrounding the liquidation of any
particular customer's margin-deficient account. IB LLC and the
related defendants intend to continue to defend themselves
vigorously against the case and, consistent with past practice in
connection with this type of unwarranted action, any potential
claims for counsel fees and expenses incurred in defending the case
may be fully pursued against the plaintiff."

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

Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. operates as an automated electronic
broker worldwide. It specializes in executing and clearing trades
in securities, futures, foreign exchange instruments, bonds, and
mutual funds. Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. was founded in 1977
and is headquartered in Greenwich, Connecticut.

INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Chauhan Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a purported shareholder class action, styled
Chauhan v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

On November 5, 2020, a purported shareholder class action, styled
Chauhan v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants.


The plaintiff claims to be suing on behalf of anyone who purchased
or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between September
28, 2019 and October 7, 2020.

This lawsuit alleges that material misrepresentations and/or
omissions of material fact were made in the Company's public
disclosures during the period from September 28, 2019 to October 7,
2020, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The alleged improper disclosures relate to statements regarding the
Company's New Drug Application for Ocaliva (OCA) for the treatment
of liver fibrosis due to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and
the use of Ocaliva in patients with primary biliary cholangitis
(PBC), as well as the Company's operations, financial performance
and prospects. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on
behalf of the putative class, and an award of costs and expenses,
including attorney's fees.

Intercept said, "While the Company believes that it has a number of
valid defenses to the claims described above and intends to
vigorously defend itself, the matters are in the early stages of
litigation and no assessment can be made as to the likely outcome
of the matters or whether they will be material to the Company.
Accordingly, an estimate of the potential loss, or range of loss,
if any, to the Company relating to the matters is not possible at
this time."

Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company
focused on the development and commercialization of novel
therapeutics to treat progressive non-viral liver diseases,
including primary biliary cholangitis, nonalcoholic
steatohepatitis, primary sclerosing cholangitis ("PSC") and biliary
atresia. The Company currently has one marketed product, Ocaliva.
Founded in 2002 in New York, Intercept has operations in the United
States, Europe and Canada.

INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Liu Appeals S.D.N.Y. Ruling to 2nd Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that a notice of
appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, has been filed in Hou Liu and Amy Fu v. Intercept
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

On September 27, 2017, a purported shareholder class action,
initially styled DeSmet v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, naming the Company and certain of its
officers as defendants.

The Court appointed lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit on June 1, 2018,
and the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 31,
2018, captioned Hou Liu and Amy Fu v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., naming the Company and certain of its current and
former officers as defendants.

The lead plaintiffs claim to be suing on behalf of anyone who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between
June 9, 2016 and September 20, 2017.

This lawsuit alleges that material misrepresentations and/or
omissions of material fact were made in the Company's public
disclosures during the period from June 9, 2016 to September 20,
2017, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The alleged improper disclosures relate to statements
regarding Ocaliva dosing, use and pharmacovigilance-related
matters, as well as the Company's operations, financial performance
and prospects.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the
putative class, an award of costs and expenses, including
attorney's fees, and rescissory damages.

On September 14, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On March 26, 2020, the Court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety,
and on March 27, 2020 the Court entered judgment in favor of the
Company.

On May 8, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion to set aside the
judgment and grant leave to file a second amended complaint.

On September 9, 2020, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to
set aside the judgment and grant leave to file a second amended
complaint, finding that the proposed second amended complaint did
not cure the deficiencies identified in the amended complaint.

On October 9, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, challenging
the March 27, 2020 judgment and several orders entered in this
action.

Separately, on December 1, 2017, a purported shareholder demand was
made on the Company based on substantially the same allegations as
those set forth in the securities case above. In addition, on
January 5, 2018, a follow-on derivative suit, styled Davis v.
Pruzanski, et al., was filed in New York state court by shareholder
Gregg Davis based on substantially the same allegations as those
set forth in the securities case above.

Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company
focused on the development and commercialization of novel
therapeutics to treat progressive non-viral liver diseases,
including primary biliary cholangitis, nonalcoholic
steatohepatitis, primary sclerosing cholangitis and biliary
atresia.  The Company currently has one marketed product, Ocaliva.
Founded in 2002 in New York, Intercept has operations in the United
States, Europe and Canada.

INTERFACE INC: Frank Cruz Alerts of Jan. 21 Plaintiff Bid Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on Nov. 14 disclosed 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") 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[/url]. 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]


INTERNATIONAL MONEY: Paid $2.9MM to Settle Sawyer Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
International Money Express, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
$2.9 million settlement amount in the settled putative class action
suit initiated by Stuart Sawyer, was paid to the settlement fund in
October 2020.

On May 30, 2019, Stuart Sawyer filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida asserting a claim under the TCPA, 47 U.S.C.
Section 227, et seq., based on allegations that since May 30, 2015,
the Company had sent text messages to class members' wireless
telephones without their consent.

Following a mediation held on October 7, 2019, the Company and the
plaintiff entered into a term sheet providing the general terms for
the settlement of the action, which was memorialized in a
definitive Settlement Agreement on March 16, 2020 subject to
subsequent Court approval.

The Settlement Agreement provides for resolution of Mr. Sawyer's
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) claims and the claims of a
class of similarly situated individuals, as defined in the
complaint, who received text messages from the Company during the
period May 30, 2015 through October 7, 2019, and for the creation
of a $3.25 million settlement fund that will be used to pay all
class member claims, class counsel's fees and the costs of
administering the settlement.

The Settlement Agreement also established procedures for the
notification of claimants and the processing of claims. The
settlement fund will be managed by a duly-appointed settlement
administrator which will be authorized to communicate with class
members, process claims and make payments from the fund in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the final
judgment in the case. No amount of the settlement fund will revert
to the Company; instead, any unclaimed funds will be sent to a
consumer advocacy organization approved by the Court.

The remaining balance of the amount payable under the Settlement
Agreement of approximately $2.9 million is included in accrued and
other liabilities in the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of
September 30, 2020.

The $2.9 million was paid to the settlement fund in October 2020.

International Money Express, Inc., through its subsidiary, operates
as a money remittance services company in the United States, Latin
America, Mexico, Central and South America, and the Caribbean. The
company offers remittance services, including a suite of ancillary
financial processing solutions and payment services. It provides
services through sending and paying agents and company-operated
stores, as well as through online and Internet-enabled mobile
devices. The company was formerly known as FinTech Acquisition
Corp. II. International Money Express, Inc. is headquartered in
Miami, Florida.

J2 GLOBAL: Affiliates Moved to Decertify Class in DN Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
J2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that J2 Global
affiliates have moved to decertify the class in the suit initiated
by Davis Neurology, P.A.

On January 21, 2016, Davis Neurology, P.A. filed a putative class
action lawsuit against two J2 Global affiliates in the Circuit
Court for the County of Pope, State of Arkansas (58-cv-2016-40),
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA").

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas (No. 4:16-cv-00682). On March 20, 2017, the
District Court granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed
by the J2 Global affiliates and dismissed all claims against the J2
Global affiliates.

On July 23, 2018, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the
judgment and remanded to the district court with instructions to
return the case to state court. On January 29, 2019, after further
appeals were exhausted, the case was remanded to the Arkansas state
court.

On April 1, 2019, the state court granted a motion for class
certification filed by the plaintiff in 2016. Because the prior
removal to federal court had deprived the state court of
jurisdiction, the J2 Global affiliates had not yet filed an
opposition brief to the 2016 motion when the state court granted
the motion. The J2 Global affiliates appealed the order.

On July 15, 2019, the J2 Global affiliates removed the case to
federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. On
November 26, 2019 the court denied the Plaintiff's motion to
remand. On December 20, 2019, the court granted the Plaintiff's
motion for leave to amend its complaint.

On May 21, 2020, the court denied J2 Global affiliates' motion to
dismiss.

On August 11, 2020, the court approved an opt-in class notice.
Notice has not yet been issued and the J2 Global affiliates have
moved to decertify the class.

j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides Internet
services worldwide. It operates through three segments: Fax and
Email Marketing; Voice, Backup, and Security; and Digital Media.
The company was formerly known as j2 Global Communications, Inc.
and changed its name to j2 Global, Inc. in December 2011. j2
Global, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Los
Angeles, California.

J2 GLOBAL: Garcia's Putative Securities Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
J2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by
Jeffrey Garcia.

On July 8, 2020, Jeffrey Garcia filed a putative class action
lawsuit against J2 Global in the Central District of California
(20-cv-06906), alleging violations of federal securities laws.

J2 Global intends to defend against the lawsuit.

j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides Internet
services worldwide. It operates through three segments: Fax and
Email Marketing; Voice, Backup, and Security; and Digital Media.
The company was formerly known as j2 Global Communications, Inc.
and changed its name to j2 Global, Inc. in December 2011. j2
Global, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Los
Angeles, California.


JONES LANG: Class Cert. Bid in WDES Suit Denied Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WACKER DRIVE EXECUTIVE SUITES, LLC, on behalf of
itself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. JONES LANG LASALLE AMERICAS (ILLINOIS), LP,
Defendant, Case No. 18-CV-5492 (N.D. Ill.), Magistrate Judge Sunil
R. Harjani of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, denied without prejudice (i) WDES'
motion for class certification, and (ii) JLL's motion to exclude
the expert testimony of Dr. Robert Kaestner as to damages.

Plaintiff WDES brings the proposed class action under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), alleging that
Defendant JLL conspired with three labor unions to force commercial
tenants of Chicago Loop office buildings managed by JLL to hire
union only contractors and movers.  WDES alleges that the cost
difference between union and non-union labor in the Chicago Loop is
substantial and the conspiracy caused it to overpay for contractors
and movers.

JLL manages office buildings in the Chicago Loop, including 125 S.
Wacker Drive.  WDES leased the third floor of that building between
August 2005 and December 2017.  WDES alleges that it was required
to use union contractors and movers when it performed renovations
to its leased space in 2014 and 2017 and moved office furnishings
into its space in 2015 as the result of an illegal
conspiracy/agreement between JLL and three labor unions to force
tenants into hiring union-only movers and union-only building
trades contractors in violation of RICO.  LL allegedly conspired
with the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 399 of
the AFL-CIO, Service Employees International Union, Local 1, and
Teamsters Local 705.  The first two of these unions have collective
bargaining agreements with JLL governing the terms of employment of
its building engineers and janitors, respectively.  The third
union, Local 705, represents movers and does not have a collective
bargaining agreement with JLL.

WDES now moves to certify a class of tenants at 20 office buildings
managed by JLL who were required to hire union contractors or
movers.  In opposing commonality, JLL argues that a common answer
to WDES' first proposed common question -- whether JLL enforced the
union-only requirement at class buildings -- will not drive the
resolution of the case as a whole because that conduct, by itself,
is not illegal.

Magistrate Judge Harjani finds that WDES does not support its
enterprise/conspiracy allegation with evidence.  Because WDES
provides no proof that the union-only restriction is imposed as a
result of an agreement between JLL and the Unions to potentially
tie all the claims together, it has failed to sufficiently
demonstrate commonality as to its RICO claims.  Given its
unsupported allegation regarding an enterprise/agreement between
JLL and the Unions to enforce the union-only requirement together
with JLL's specific evidence showing that JLL enforced the
union-only rule pursuant to a mandate from the building owners,
WDES has failed to satisfy its burden of offering "significant
proof" of a RICO enterprise and conspiracy that violates RICO.
WDES has thus not met is burden of establishing commonality, and
its motion for class certification is denied on this basis at the
present time.

Based on the evidence currently before the Court, the Magistrate
Judge holds that it is not yet "practicable" to conclusively
resolve the commonality issue.  WDES has not presented supporting
evidence of a JLL-Unions conspiracy, and the Judge cannot conduct
the rigorous analysis required to determine whether WDES has
satisfied the commonality requirement of Rule 23.  Whether class
certification is appropriate in the case is better explored on a
more developed factual record.  WDES has conducted some discovery
but discovery is still ongoing.

In situations such as this, where the decision on class
certification turns primarily on the overlap between the
requirements of Rule 23 and the merits on the case, it is more
prudent to allow the Plaintiff to further develop its factual
record before conclusively deciding a class certification motion.
It is entirely possible, given the ability to utilize the full
discovery schedule set by the Court, that WDES can overcome the
current deficit and allow the Court to conduct a more substantive
analysis of the commonality requirement.  Whether that is possible,
however, will not be known until both parties have had the
opportunity to complete further discovery.  

In addition, in light of the present ruling, the Judge defers
consideration of whether WDES has satisfied the remaining
requirements of Rule 23 as well as JLL's motion to exclude the
expert testimony of Dr. Robert Kaestner.   If the class
certification motion is refiled, WDES must address the evidence
that supports each element of Rule 23 in order to satisfy the
Supreme Court's admonition in Walmart.

Based on the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Harjani denied without
prejudice (i) WDES' motion for class certification, and (ii) JLL's
motion to exclude expert testimony of Dr. Robert Kaestner.  The
Court ordered the parties to file a joint status report identifying
what discovery remains and providing a proposed schedule for the
completion of that discovery.  The parties are given leave to
refile the present motions once further discovery has been
completed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 23, 2020 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2xk2zux from
Leagle.com.


JP MORGAN: Banks Can Pay 0% Interest on Escrow Acct, 9th Cir. Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Elliot Mincberg, writing for People for the American Way, reports
that Trump Ninth Circuit judge Ryan Nelson wrote a 2-1 ruling that
reversed a district court and ruled that national banks can pay
zero interest to consumers on escrow accounts related to loans they
purchased from savings associations, despite a California law
requiring payment of interest. The September 2020 decision was in
McShannock v. JP Morgan Chase Bank.

Under California law, when homeowners pay money into escrow
accounts used by banks to pay real estate taxes and for other
purposes, they are entitled to receive at least 2% interest on
those funds. JP Morgan Chase Bank acquired and took over all loans
issued by Washington Mutual, a federal savings association that
failed during the 2008 financial crisis, but refused to pay any
interest on those escrow accounts. A class action was filed against
Chase by California mortgage loan customers seeking to recover
those interest payments. Chase claimed it did not have to pay such
interest because the savings association that had made the loans
did not have to pay interest under the federal Home Owners Loan Act
(HOLA) and moved to dismiss the case.

A federal district court denied the motion. It explained that
national banks like Chase are required to pay such interest, and
that it could not avoid such payments for the period that it held
the loans by trying to rely on HOLA, which does not apply to
national banks.  Chase appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

Trump judge Ryan Nelson wrote a 2-1 decision reversing the district
court and ruling that Chase could disregard California law and pay
no interest to California homeowners on escrow accounts. Even
though the Ninth Circuit had previously held that federal law does
not prevent California from requiring national banks like Chase to
pay interest on escrow accounts, Nelson held that because the loans
at issue were "originated by savings associations" that themselves
were exempted from paying interest because of HOLA, the banks also
did not have to pay interest after they acquired the loans and
required consumers to pay into escrow accounts.

Judge James Gwin strongly dissented. He explained that the
"statutory text" of HOLA "gives no suggestion" that its exemption
from paying interest on escrow accounts applied to banks that
purchase loans from savings associations. The majority "justifies
its disregard" of the statute's text, he went on, by suggesting
that treating banks differently would make sales of savings
association loans more difficult, "even though Congress reached the
directly opposite policy judgment" in the Dodd-Frank Act. In any
event, Gwin continued, judges "are not legislators charged with
weighing the costs and benefit of the escrow interest requirement,"
but instead should make their decisions based on the "actual text"
of the laws and regulations involved in the case, which the
majority failed to do.

Fortunately, as Judge Gwin pointed out, the harmful effect of the
majority's decision will be limited, since federal law now provides
that interest must be paid on escrow accounts with respect to loans
by national banks and federal savings associations "after January
21, 2013."  But for homeowners who took out earlier loans as in
this case, Trump judge Nelson's decision means that big banks will
be able to use their escrow accounts as the banks please without
paying any interest on these substantial sums. [GN]


K12 INC: Faces Baig Suit Over Drop in Share Price
-------------------------------------------------
ENNIFER BAIG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. K12 INC.; NATHANIEL A. DAVIS; and TIMOTHY
MEDINA, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01528 (Dec. 11, 2020) is a
federal securities class action on behalf of a class that purchased
or otherwise acquired K12 securities between April 27, 2020 and
September 18, 2020, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover
damages caused by the Defendants' violation of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class period, the
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operational, and compliance policies. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose to investors that: (i) K12 lacked the technological
capabilities, infrastructures, and expertise to support the
increased demand for virtual and blended education necessitated by
the global pandemic; (ii) K12 lacked adequate cyberattack protocols
and protections to prevent the disabling of its computer system;
(iii) K12 was unable provide the necessary levels of administrative
support and training to teachers, students, and parents; and (iv)
based on the foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for
their positive statements about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects and/or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted facts.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of K12's securities, the
Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses
and damages.

K12 Inc. is a technology-based education company. The Company
offers proprietary curriculum, software, and educational services
created for online delivery to students in kindergarten through
12th grade, or K-12. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew B. Kaplan, Esq.
          THE KAPLAN LAW FIRM
          1100 N. Glebe Road, Suite 1010
          Arlington, VA 22201
          Telephone: (703) 665-9529

               - and -

          Jermy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Putative Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a putative securities class action which was
filed in California federal court, but was transferred to in the
New York federal court.

Beginning in March 2017, putative shareholder class actions were
filed against Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. and certain of its
current and former directors and officers in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California and the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.


The complaints generally alleged violations of the federal
securities laws based Kandi's disclosure in March 2017 that its
financial statements for the years 2014, 2015 and the first three
quarters of 2016 would need to be restated, and seek damages on
behalf of putative classes of shareholders who purchased or
acquired Kandi's securities prior to March 13, 2017.

Kandi moved to dismiss the remaining cases, all of which were
pending in the New York federal court, and that motion was granted
by an order entered on September 30, 2019, and the time to appeal
has run.

In June 2020, a similar but separate putative securities class
action was filed against Kandi and certain of its current and
former directors and officers in California federal court. In
September 2020, this action was transferred to the New York federal
court and remains pending.

Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. manufactures electric vehicle
products, EV parts, and off-road vehicles for sale in the Chinese
and the global markets.  The Company conducts its primary business
operations through its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Zhejiang Kandi
Vehicles Co., Ltd., Kandi Vehicles' wholly and partially-owned
subsidiaries, and SC Autosports LLC ("SC Autosports", d/b/a Kandi
America). The Company is based in Jinhua City, Zhejiang Province,
People's Republic of China.

KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Valdes Sues Over 28.34% Decline in Share Price
------------------------------------------------------------------
Leonel Valdes, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. KANDI TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC., HU XIAOMING, JEHN MING
LIM, and ZHU XIAOYING, Case No. 2:20-cv-06042-JMA-AYS (E.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 11, 2020), is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities other than the Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Kandi securities between March 15, 2019 and
November 27, 2020, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages
caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws
and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) Kandi artificially inflated its reported revenues through
undisclosed related party transactions, or otherwise had
relationships with key customers that indicated those customers did
not have an arms length relationship with Kandi; (ii) the majority
of Kandi's sales in the past year had been to undisclosed related
parties and/or parties with such a close relationship and history
with Kandi that it cast doubt on the arms-length nature of their
relationship; (iii) all the foregoing, once revealed, was
foreseeably likely to cast doubt on the validity of Kandi's
reported revenues and, in turn, have a foreseeable negative impact
on the Company's reputation and valuation; and (iv) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On November 30, 2020, Hindenburg Research published a report
entitled "Kandi: How This China-Based NASDAQ-Listed Company Used
Fake Sales, EV Hype to Nab $160 Million From U.S. Investors".
Citing "extensive on-the-ground inspection at Kandi's factories and
customer locations in China, interviews with over a dozen former
employees and business partners, and review of numerous litigation
documents and international public records", the Hindenburg report
asserted that almost 64% of Kandi's sales over the year have been
to undisclosed related parties.

Following publication of the Hindenburg report, Kandi's stock price
fell $3.86 per share, or 28.34%, to close at $9.76 per share on
November 30, 2020. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff acquired Kandi securities at artificially inflated
prices.

Kandi was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Jinhua, China.
The Company, through its subsidiaries, designs, develops,
manufactures, and commercializes EV products and parts and off-road
vehicles in China and internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          James M. LoPiano, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                 ahood@pomlaw.com
                 jlopiano@pomlaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


LOGMEIN INC: Shareholder Class Action Against Firm Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
lawstreetmedia.com reports that a federal judge sitting in Boston,
Mass. dismissed a shareholder class action filed on behalf of the
former shareholders of LogMeIn, Inc. The suit against the company
and several of its officers charged the defendants with violating
federal securities laws. The three lead plaintiffs' claims centered
on LogMeIn's acquisition of GetGo, Inc. and the transition of GetGo
customers from monthly to annual billing plans. The court's opinion
and order permitted the plaintiffs leave to amend a small subset of
their allegations.

According to the order, LogMeIn is "a Boston-based provider of
cloud-based software services used by mobile professionals to work
remotely and IT service providers to manage computers and servers."
It reportedly generates revenue chiefly from subscription fees
charged to individual consumers and small and medium-sized
businesses. In July 2016, LogMeIn announced that it was planning to
acquire GetGo, a subsidiary of LogMeIn's biggest rival, Citrix
Inc., and with it GetGo's "GoTo family of products," including
GoToMeeting, GoToWebinar, and a handful of others. The order
reported that "the transition did not go particularly smoothly."

The shareholders' complaint principally relied on information
supplied by five confidential witnesses, who varied in their
seniority and areas of expertise within LogMeIn's corporate
structure. According to the court, "the common theme espoused by
the (confidential witnesses was) that LogMeIn management bungled
the transition and lost customers as a result."

In turn, the plaintiffs alleged securities fraud in violation of
both Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act for
misrepresentations made prior to and after the acquisition.
Specifically, the shareholders contended that the defendants "knew
that the transition was proving challenging throughout the class
period based on their own internal review of anticipated (customer)
cancellations, yet failed to disclose that fact to investors, as
made evident by their eventual admission that (customer) retention
rates had been declining for the duration of the class period."

The defendants argued that the court should dismiss the complaint
because it failed to plead facts that satisfy the first two
elements of a Section 10(b) claim, that any statement was false or
misleading and scienter.

The court analyzed factual allegations setting forth LogMeIn's
supposed misrepresentations, like statements made during earnings
calls by company officers concerning its financial welfare. As to
the overwhelming majority of factual allegations, the court held
that even if it assumed that they were true, the complaint did not
adequately allege that they were fraudulent. The court explained
that most of the challenged statements were either not material
misrepresentations or omissions, were mere puffery, or were
unactionable forward-looking statements.

As to scienter, the court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to
"plead sufficient facts to support the conclusion that the Company
acted with the requisite state of mind." Finally, because Section
20(a) claims are derivative of Section 10(b) claim, the court held
that the plaintiff's 20(a) claim fell alongside the latter. The
court noted that because allegations concerning whether customers
were being transitioned to the new payment regime against their
will presented "a close call," the plaintiffs were permitted to
amend their complaint within 21 days with respect to those
allegations only.

The plaintiffs are represented by Glancy Prongay & Murray, Block &
Leviton, and The Rosen Law Firm. LogMeIn is represented by Latham &
Watkins LLP. [GN]

MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation (MIC) said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2020, that the company's motions to dismiss the consolidated class
action complaint is still pending.

On April 23, 2018, a complaint captioned City of Riviera Beach
General Employees Retirement System v. Macquarie Infrastructure
Corp., et al., Case 1:18-cv-03608 (VSB), was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

A substantially identical complaint captioned Daniel Fajardo v.
Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-03744 (VSB) was filed in the same court on April 27, 2018.


Both complaints asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder on
behalf of a putative class consisting of all purchasers of MIC
common stock between February 22, 2016 and February 21, 2018. The
named defendants in both cases were the Company and four current or
former officers of MIC and one of its subsidiaries, IMTT Holdings
LLC.

The complaints in both actions allege that the Company and the
individual defendants knowingly made material misstatements and
omitted material facts in its public disclosures concerning the
Company's and IMTT's business and the sustainability of the
Company's dividend to stockholders.

On January 30, 2019, the Court issued an opinion and order
consolidating the two cases, appointing Moab Partners, L.P. (Moab)
as Lead Plaintiff and approving Moab's selection of lead counsel.
On February 20, 2019, Moab filed a consolidated class action
complaint.

In addition to the claims noted above, the consolidated class
action complaint also asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 relating to the Company's
November 2016 secondary public offering of common stock.

The consolidated amended complaint also adds Macquarie
Infrastructure Management (USA) Inc., Barclays Capital Inc. and
seven additional current or former officers or directors of MIC as
defendants. On April 22, 2019, the Company and the other defendants
filed motions to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint in
its entirety, with prejudice.

Briefing concluded on July 22, 2019.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously contest the claims
asserted, which the Company believes are entirely meritless.

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

Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation owns and operates a portfolio
of businesses that provide services to other businesses, government
agencies, and individuals. It operates through: International-Matex
Tank Terminals (IMTT), Atlantic Aviation, and MIC Hawaii segments.
The company was founded in 2004 and is based in New York, New York.

MARS IT CORP: Mendez Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MARS IT CORP. The
case is styled as Jesus Mendez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MARS IT CORP., Case No.
5:20-cv-08813-NC (N.D. Cal., Dec. 11, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Mars It Corp -- https://marssg.com/ -- is located in Waukesha,
Wisconsin and is part of the information technology services
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd Michael Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Phone: (877) 206-4741
          Fax: (866) 633-0228
          Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                 abacon@toddflaw.com


MASSACHUSETTS: Thousands Back Lawsuit Against Flu Vaccine Mandate
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaylee Pugliese at westernmassnews.com reports that a group of
about 11,000 people in Massachusetts is filing a class-action
lawsuit against Gov. Charlie Baker and the state against the
mandated flu vaccine.

According to a statement from the organizer of the lawsuit, Vincent
Delaney, he finds the mandate "unconstitutional."

The group's campaign is called "FLU YOU BAKER," according to the
statement.

The mandate requires children and young adults ages six months to
30 years old who attend state childcare or schools from
pre-kindergarten through the college level to get an annual
influenza vaccine by December 31 to be able to go to school in
January 2021.

"Mr. Delaney and FLU YOU BAKER parents oppose the mandate and
government overreach, stating the choice to vaccinate resides with
the parents and their family physicians," according to the
statement. "The state's decision to deny education on the basis of
an annual vaccine requirement violates the rights of citizens
granted by the Constitution."

The law firms of Thomas O. Mason, Patrick Leduc, and Luke Lirot
will represent the FLU YOU BAKER plaintiffs, according to the
statement. [GN]


MATCH GROUP: Candelore Suit Stayed Pending Appeal in Kim Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Match Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the court has
issued an order staying the class claims in the case, Allan
Candelore v. Tinder, Inc., No. BC583162, pending the decision by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the appeal
related to the case, Lisa Kim v. Tinder, Inc., No. 18-cv-3093.

On May 28, 2015, a putative statewide class action was filed
against Tinder in state court in California. Allan Candelore v.
Tinder, Inc., No. BC583162 (Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles).

The complaint principally alleged that Tinder violated California's
Unruh Civil Rights Act (the Unruh Act) by offering and charging
users age 30 and over a higher price than younger users for
subscriptions to its premium Tinder Plus service.

The complaint sought certification of a class of California Tinder
Plus subscribers age 30 and over and damages in an unspecified
amount.

On September 21, 2015, Tinder filed a demurrer seeking dismissal of
the complaint. On October 26, 2015, the court issued an opinion
sustaining Tinder's demurrer to the complaint without leave to
amend, ruling that the age-based pricing differential for Tinder
Plus subscriptions did not violate California law in essence
because offering a discount to users under age 30 was neither
invidious nor unreasonable in light of that age group's generally
more limited financial means.

On December 29, 2015, in accordance with its ruling, the court
entered judgment dismissing the action. On February 1, 2016, the
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the judgment, and the
parties thereafter briefed the appeal.

On January 29, 2018, the California Court of Appeal (Second
Appellate District, Division Three) issued an opinion reversing the
judgment of dismissal, ruling that the lower court had erred in
sustaining Tinder's demurrer because the complaint, as pleaded,
stated a cognizable claim for violation of the Unruh Act.

Because the company believes that the appellate court's reasoning
was flawed as a matter of law and runs afoul of binding California
precedent, on March 12, 2018, Tinder filed a petition with the
California Supreme Court seeking interlocutory review of the Court
of Appeal's decision. On May 9, 2018, the California Supreme Court
denied the petition. The case was then returned to the trial court
for further proceedings.

In a related development, on June 19, 2019, in a substantially
similar putative class action asserting the same substantive claims
and pending in federal district court in California, the court
issued an order granting final approval of a class-wide settlement,
the terms of which are not material to the Company. See Lisa Kim v.
Tinder, Inc., No. 18-cv-3093 (U.S. District Court, Central District
of California).

On June 21, 2019, the Kim court entered judgment in accordance with
its prior order. Because the approved settlement class in Kim
subsumes the proposed settlement class in Candelore, the judgment
in Kim would effectively render Candelore a single-plaintiff
lawsuit.

Accordingly, on July 11, 2019, two objectors to the Kim settlement,
represented by the plaintiff's counsel in Candelore, filed a notice
of appeal from the Kim judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, which is fully briefed and awaiting a hearing
for oral argument.

On September 13, 2019, Tinder filed a motion to stay the Candelore
case pending the Ninth Circuit's decision on the appeal of the
court-approved settlement in the Kim case. On November 13, 2019,
the court issued an order staying the class claims in the Candelore
case pending the Ninth Circuit's decision on the Kim appeal.

Match Group said, "We believe that the allegations in the Candelore
lawsuit are without merit and will continue to defend vigorously
against it."

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

Match Group, Inc. provides dating products worldwide. It operates a
portfolio of brands, including Tinder, Match, PlentyOfFish, Meetic,
OkCupid, OurTime, Pairs, and Hinge, as well as other brands. Match
Group, Inc. offers its dating products through its applications and
Websites in approximately 40 languages. The company was
incorporated in 2009 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Match
Group, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of IAC/InterActiveCorp.

MATCH GROUP: Crutchfield Securities Class Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Match Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a shareholder securities class action suit
entitled, Phillip R. Crutchfield v. Match Group, Inc., Amanda W.
Ginsberg, and Gary Swidler, No. 3:19-cv-02356-C.

On September 25, 2019, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC filed a
lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas against Former Match
Group. FTC v. Match Group, Inc., No. 3:19-cv-02281-K (N.D. Tex.).

On October 3, 2019, a Former Match Group shareholder filed a
securities class action lawsuit in federal court in Texas against
Former Match Group, its CEO, and its CFO, on behalf of a class of
acquirers of Former Match Group securities between August 6, 2019
and September 25, 2019. Phillip R. Crutchfield v. Match Group,
Inc., Amanda W. Ginsberg, and Gary Swidler, No. 3:19-cv-02356-C
(Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division).

Invoking the allegations in the FTC lawsuit, the complaint alleges
(i) that Defendants failed to disclose to investors that Former
Match Group induced customers to buy and upgrade subscriptions
using misleading advertisements, that Former Match Group made it
difficult for customers to cancel their subscriptions, and that, as
a result, Former Match Group was likely to be subject to regulatory
scrutiny; (ii) that Former Match Group lacked adequate disclosure
controls and procedures; and (iii) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about Former Match
Group's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On January 6, 2020, the court approved a stipulation appointing two
lead plaintiffs as well as co-lead counsel.

On April 14, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint. Former
Match Group filed a motion to dismiss on June 12, 2020.

Plaintiff's response was filed on August 26, 2020, and Former Match
Group filed its reply on September 25, 2020.

Match Group said, "We believe that the allegations in this lawsuit
are without merit and will defend vigorously against them."

Match Group, Inc. provides dating products worldwide. It operates a
portfolio of brands, including Tinder, Match, PlentyOfFish, Meetic,
OkCupid, OurTime, Pairs, and Hinge, as well as other brands. Match
Group, Inc. offers its dating products through its applications and
Websites in approximately 40 languages. The company was
incorporated in 2009 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Match
Group, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of IAC/InterActiveCorp.

MDL 2311: Court Awards Counsel Fees & Incentives in Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sean F. Cox of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan granted End-Payor Plaintiffs ("EPPs")'s Motion
for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Payment of Incentive Awards to
Class Representatives in Connection with Round Four Settlements in
IN RE: AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. In Re: Heater Control
Panels In Re: Occupant Safety Systems In Re: Switches In Re:
Ignition Coils In Re: Steering Angle Sensors In Re: Electric
Powered Steering Assemblies In Re: Fuel Injection Systems In Re:
Valve Timing Control Devices In Re: Air Conditioning Systems In Re:
Automotive Constant Velocity Joint Boot Products In Re: Automotive
Hoses In Re: Shock Absorbers In Re: Body Sealing Products In Re:
Interior Trim Products In Re: Automotive Brake Hoses In Re: Exhaust
Systems In Re: Ceramic Substrates In Re: Power Window Switches In
Re: Automotive Steel Tubes In Re: Side-Door Latches. THIS DOCUMENT
RELATES TO: End-Payor Actions, Case No. 12-md-02311, Case Nos.
2:12-cv-00403, 2:12-cv-00603, 2:13-cv-01303, 2:13-cv-01403,
2:13-cv-01603, 2:13-cv-01903, 2:13-cv-02203, 2:13-cv-02503,
2:13-cv-02703, 2:14-cv-02903, 2:15-cv-03203, 2:15-cv-03303,
2:16-cv-03403, 2:16-cv-03503, 2:16-cv-03603, 2:16-cv-03703,
2:16-cv-03803, 2:16-cv-03903, 2:16-cv-04003, 2:17-cv-04303 (E.D.
Mich.).

Judge Cox held a hearing by video conference on Sept. 17, 2020 to
consider the motion.  He has granted final approval to the
settlements referred to by the parties and the Court as the Round 4
Settlements in its Order Granting Final Approval of the Round 4
Settlements.  The Judge has considered the submissions of the
parties and the relevant case law and authority relating to the
motion.  He concludes that awards of attorneys' fees, reimbursement
of expenses to Co-Lead Counsel from the litigation fund, and
incentive awards to be paid out of the proceeds of the Round 4
Settlements are appropriate under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
23(h) and 54(d)(2).

Accordingly, Judge Cox granted an award of attorneys' fees to the
Co-Lead Counsel equal to 22% of the Round 4 Settlements including a
pro rata share of the interest earned thereon, excluding the yet to
be determined TKH settlement amount.  The award, taken together
with the prior awards from the Round 1 Settlements, Round 2
Settlements, and Round 3 Settlements will result in a total award
equal to 22.05% of the proceeds of the four rounds of settlements,
excluding the TKH settlement.  The Round 4 attorneys' fees,
totaling $40,470,760, together with a pro rata share of the
interest earned thereon, will be paid on a pro rata basis from the
net settlement funds provided by each of the Round 4 Settlements
currently before the Court.

The Co-Lead Counsel is authorized to allocate the attorneys' fees
awarded among the EPP Class Counsel who performed work on behalf of
EPPs in accordance with the Co-Lead Counsel's assessment of each
firm's contribution to the prosecution and settlement of these
actions.

The Co-Lead Counsel has also requested a total of $565,000 in
incentive awards to be paid to 59 named Class Representatives.  The
Co-Lead Counsel hassplit those Class Representatives into two
groups based on their contributions to the cases.  

Group 1 is comprised of the following five individuals: (1) Jane
Butler; (2) Melissa Croom; (3) Theresia Dillard; (4) James Phelps;
and (5) Bonnie Vander Meulen. Co-Lead Counsel have proposed that
each of these individuals would receive a single $5,000 award per
person.  

Group 2 is comprised of the following 54 individuals: (1) Ifeoma
Adams; (2) Halley Ascher; (3) Gregory Asken; (4) Melissa Barron;
(5) Kimberly Bennett; (6) David Bernstein; (7) Ron Blau; (8)
Tenisha Burgos; (9) Kent Busek; (10) Jennifer Chase; (11) Rita
Cornish; (12) Nathan Croom; (13) Lori Curtis; (14) Jessica
DeCastro; (15) Alena Farrell; (16) Jane Fitzgerald; (17) Frances H.
Gammell-Roach; (18) Carroll Gibbs; (19) Dori Gilels; (20) Jason
Grala; (21) Ian Groves; (22) Curtis Gunnerson; (23) Paul Gustafson;
(24) Tom Halverson; (25) Curtis Harr; (26) Andrew Hedlund; (27)
Gary Arthur Herr; (28) John W. Hollingsworth; (29) Carol Ann
Kashishian; (30) Elizabeth Kaufman; (31) Robert P. Klingler; (32)
Kelly Klosterman; (33) James E. Marean; (34) Michelle McGinn; (35)
Rebecca Lynn Morrow; (36) Edward T. Muscara; (37) Stacey R.
Nickell; (38) Sophie O'Keefe-Zelman; (39) Roger D. Olson; (40)
William Dale Picotte; (41) Whitney Porter; (42) Cindy Prince; (43)
Janne Rice; (44) Robert M. Rice, Jr.; (45) Darrel Senior; (46)
Meetesh Shah; (47) Darcy C. Sherman; (48) Erica J. Shoaf; (49)
Arthur Stukey; (50) Kathleen A. Tawney; (51) Jane Taylor; (52)
Keith Uehara; (53) Michael Wick; and (54) Phillip G. Young.  The
Co-Lead Counsel have proposed that each of these individuals would
receive a single $10,000 award per person.

After reviewing the request for incentive awards, Judge Cox finds
that the awards requested are reasonable.  The Class
Representatives provided discovery and assistance in a litany of
cases, sometimes in as many as 41 cases.  These incentive awards,
totaling $565,000, will be paid on a pro rata basis from the net
settlement funds provided by each of the Round 4 Settlements
currently before the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 23, 2020 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/y68xv6f6 from Leagle.com.

MDL 2389: $35MM Facebook IPO Securities Suit Deal Approval Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: Facebook, Inc., IPO Class Action Settlement,
Case No. 18-3845 (2d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit affirmed the district court's decision approving the
settlement of a multi-district securities class action.

Objector-Appellant James J. Hayes, proceeding pro se, appeals the
district court's decision approving the settlement of a
multi-district securities class action.  Several institutional and
individual Plaintiffs, on behalf of similarly situated investors,
sued Facebook, several of its directors and officers, and the
underwriters of Facebook's 2012 initial public offering ("IPO"),
claiming that they misled investors about Facebook's revenue prior
to the IPO in violation of the Securities Act of 1933.

The district court appointed certain institutional investors as
Lead Plaintiffs pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act.  It later certified two subclasses: an institutional
investor subclass and an individual retail investor subclass, and
appointed certain individual plaintiffs as Class Representatives of
the retail investor subclass.

After years of litigation, the parties settled the action for $35
million.  In August and September 2018, Hayes filed pro se
objections to the settlement, primarily arguing that the Lead
Plaintiffs erred in failing to raise fraud claims under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against one of the underwriter
defendants, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC.  Hayes had previously
contacted the Lead Plaintiffs and the Class Counsel, in 2015,
protesting their failure to raise Exchange Act claims in the
action; counsel responded that they had declined to bring such
claims for strategic reasons.  The district court rejected Hayes'
objections and approved the settlement in November 2018.

The Second Circuit finds that the fistrict court considered all the
relevant factors in its thorough Nov. 26, 2018 opinion approving
the settlement.  On appeal, Hayes does not challenge the court's
holding that the settlement was procedurally and substantively
fair.  Instead, he primarily reiterates his argument that the Lead
Plaintiffs and Class Counsel should have raised fraud claims
against Morgan Stanley pursuant to the Exchange Act.  But, as the
district court correctly held, the Lead Plaintiffs and the Class
Counsel acted well within their discretion in choosing not to raise
such claims.  Further, Hayes knew since at least October 2015 that
the Lead Plaintiffs were not raising Exchange Act claims, and he
could have brought an individual action raising such a claim if he
so wished.

Hayes also argues that there was a conflict of interest between the
Lead Plaintiffs and the retail investor subclass because only the
retail investor subclass could raise his proposed Exchange Act
claims.  As an initial matter, Hayes failed to timely raise the
argument in district court, raising it for the first time in a
letter filed after the settlement hearing and over a month after
objections were due.  Further, the Class Representatives included
class members from both the institutional investor subclass and the
individual retail subclass.  In any event, the Court has previously
held that the presence of potential claims under both Exchange Act
and Securities Act claims in the same action does not create a
"fundamental conflict."

Finally, Hayes argues, for the first time on appeal, that the Lead
Plaintiffs lacked standing to raise their Securities Act claims.
But the argument is meritless because the Lead Plaintiffs
sufficiently alleged that they had purchased Facebook stock, the
Defendants' misleading statements resulted in a decline of that
stock's value, and that injury was redressable through damages
under the Securities Act.

The Second Circuit has considered all of Hayes's remaining
arguments and finds them to be without merit.  Accordingly, it
affirmed the judgment of the district court.

A full-text copy of the Second Circuit's Sept. 23, 2020 Summary
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2rejgus from
Leagle.com.

JOHN JAMES RIZIO-HAMILTON -- johnr@blbglaw.com -- (Salvatore J.
Graziano -- salvatore@blbglaw.com -- on the brief), Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY; Thomas A. Dubbs,
James W. Johnson, Thomas G. Hoffman, Jr., Labaton Sucharow LLP, New
York, NY; Frank R. Schirripa, Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie LLP,
New York, NY; Nicholas Diamand, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellees

CHARLES S. DUGGAN -- charles.duggan@davispolk.com -- (James P.
Rouhandeh -- rouhandeh@davispolk.com -- Andrew Ditchfield --
andrew.ditchfield@davispolk.com -- on the brief), Davis Polk &
Wardwell LLP, New York, NY; Andrew B. Clubok, Susan E. Engel, Samir
Deger-Sen, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC, for
Defendants-Appellees.

James J. Hayes, pro se, Annandale, VA, for Objector-Appellant.

METLIFE INC: Bid to Approve Notice of Proposed Settlement Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the plaintiff in
City of Westland Police and Fire Retirement System v. MetLife,
Inc., et. al. (S.D.N.Y., filed January 12, 2012), filed with the
district court a motion to approve notice of the proposed
settlement to the classes.

Plaintiff filed this class action on behalf of a class of persons
who either purchased MetLife, Inc. common shares between February
9, 2011 and October 6, 2011, or purchased or acquired MetLife, Inc.
common stock in the Company's August 3, 2010 offering or the
Company's March 4, 2011 offering.

Plaintiff alleges that MetLife, Inc. and several current and former
directors and executive officers of MetLife, Inc. violated the
Securities Act of 1933, as well as the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to
issue, materially false and misleading statements concerning
MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions of dollars in
insurance benefits that should have purportedly been paid to
beneficiaries or escheated to the states.

The parties reached an agreement on a class settlement of the case,
and on June 17, 2020, plaintiff filed with the district court a
motion to approve notice of the proposed settlement to the classes.


The Company has accrued the full amount of the settlement payment.

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York.

METLIFE INC: MLIC Still Defends Julian & McKinney Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company (MLIC) remains a defendant in a class action
lawsuit styled, Julian & McKinney v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class and collective action on
behalf of themselves and all current and former long-term
disability (LTD) claims specialists between February 2011 and the
present for alleged wage and hour violations under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Connecticut Minimum
Wage Act.

The suit alleges that MLIC improperly reclassified the plaintiffs
and similarly situated LTD claims specialists from non-exempt to
exempt from overtime pay in November 2013.

As a result, they and members of the putative class were no longer
eligible for overtime pay even though they allege they continued to
work more than 40 hours per week.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, as
well as other relief.

On March 22, 2018, the court conditionally certified the case as a
collective action, requiring that notice be mailed to LTD claims
specialists who worked for MLIC from February 8, 2014 to the
present.

MLIC intends to defend this action vigorously.

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

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York.

METLIFE INC: Parchmann Class Action Ongoing in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend itself in the putative class action entitled,
Parchmann v. MetLife, Inc., et al. (E.D.N.Y., filed February 5,
2018).

Plaintiff filed this putative class action seeking to represent a
class of persons who purchased MetLife, Inc. common stock from
February 27, 2013 through January 29, 2018.

Plaintiff alleges that MetLife, Inc., its former Chief Executive
Officer and Chairman of the Board, and its former Chief Financial
Officer violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by issuing materially false and/or
misleading financial statements.

Plaintiff alleges that MetLife's practices and procedures for
estimating reserves for certain group annuity benefits were
inadequate, and that MetLife had inadequate internal control over
financial reporting.

Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.


Defendants intend to defend this action vigorously.

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

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York.

MICHAELS ORGANIZATION: AMC Loses Bid to Dismiss Amended Lenz Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSHUA LENZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE MICHAELS
ORGANIZATION, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No.
8:19-cv-2950-T-60AEP (M.D. Fla.), Judge Tom Barber of the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied Defendant
AMC East Communities' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended
Complaint.

The Plaintiffs are members of the U.S. Military and their spouses
that are currently or formerly housed at MacDill Air Force Base in
Tampa, Florida.  According to the Plaintiffs, Defendant Clark
MacDill Design Build failed to properly design and build their
homes, and Defendants AMC, The Michaels Organization, LLC, Michaels
Management Services, Inc., and Interstate Realty Management Co.
failed to maintain and manage their housing, which has resulted in
widespread and well-known problems with mold and led to serious
injuries and safety issues for the Plaintiffs, prospective class
members, and their families.

The Plaintiffs allege numerous causes of action against the
Defendants, including: breach of contract (Count I), breach of the
implied warranty of habitability (Count II), violation of the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (Count III),
negligence (Count IV), gross negligence (Count V), and unjust
enrichment (Count VI).

The matter is before the Court on Defendant AMC' Motion to Dismiss,
filed on April 30, 2020.  AMC argues several grounds for relief,
including: the complaint constitutes a shotgun pleading; the
Plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient information about the lease
agreements and attach the lease agreements to the amended
complaint; the Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently state claims
for relief; and the Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently allege
the requisite class allegations.  On June 1, 2020, the Plaintiffs
filed a response in opposition.  

Judge Barber finds that the amended complaint does not constitute a
shotgun pleading.  Although the complaint is lengthy and each count
incorporates all prior factual allegations, he finds that the
complaint is sufficiently pled and gives the Defendants, including
AMC, notice of the claims against them.  Additionally, each
individual Plaintiff is not required to separately plead a distinct
claim against each individual Defendant, particularly in a
purported class action complaint.  The motion to dismiss is denied
as to this ground.

Next, the Judge disagrees with AMC's argument that the amended
complaint should be dismissed due to the Plaintiffs' failure to
sufficiently plead the dates of the leases or attach the leases to
the amended complaint.  He finds that the amended complaint
contains sufficient allegations to put AMC on notice as to the
nature of the claim and the relief the Plaintiffs seek.  The
alleged facts satisfy the simple notice pleading requirements of
Rule 8(a), and any remaining inquiries concerning the specific
terms of the alleged contract may be resolved through discovery.
The Plaintiffs' failure to make detailed factual allegations
concerning the dates and specific terms of the alleged contract
does not warrant dismissal.  Furthermore, the Plaintiffs are not
required to attach a copy of the written lease agreements to
support their claims.  The motion to dismiss is denied as to these
grounds.

As to Count III, the Judge holds that the Plaintiffs have
sufficiently alleged the existence and terms of the lease
agreements, and they are not required to attach their leases to the
complaint.  To the extent AMC argues that the Plaintiffs have
failed to give appropriate notice before bringing the suit, he
finds that the statute cited by AMC applies to nonresidential
tenancies rather than residential tenancies.  Furthermore, even if
such notice were required, the Plaintiffs actually allege that they
provided notice of the mold and moisture issues to AMC.  The motion
to dismiss is denied as to these grounds.

As to Count V, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have alleged
numerous acts and omissions that could support a finding of gross
negligence.  Although AMC contends that it affirmatively took
actions, the Judge cannot, at this stage of the proceedings,
determine whether those actions were adequate in any meaningful
way.  He denied the motion to dismiss as to this ground.

As to Count VII, the Judge holds that the Plaintiffs are entitled
to assert an alternative theory of unjust enrichment at this stage
of the proceedings.  Moreover, he finds that the Plaintiffs have
sufficiently alleged an unjust enrichment claim.  As such, the
motion to dismiss is denied as to these grounds.

Finally, as to AMC's argument that the Plaintiffs' class action
allegations are insufficient as a matter of law, the Judge agrees
with the Plaintiffs' assertion that the class certification
arguments are premature.  Because he has granted an extension of
time for the Plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification,
and such motion has not been filed at this time, the Judge declines
to address these class certification arguments now.  AMC is not
precluded from raising these issues in its opposition to any class
certification motion that is eventually filed.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Barber denied Defendant AMC' Motion
to Dismiss.  The Defendant was directed to file an answer.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 23, 2020 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/y6h57lnp from Leagle.com.


MILLENDO THERAPEUTICS: Mediation Ongoing in Freedman Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Millendo Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that mediation is
ongoing in the purported class action suit headed by Freedman
Family Investments LLC.

On March 24, 2017, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(Dahhan v. OvaScience, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-10511-IT (D. Mass.))
against OvaScience and certain former officers of OvaScience
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.

On July 5, 2017, the court entered an order approving the
appointment of Freedman Family Investments LLC as lead plaintiff,
the firm of Robins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel and the
Law Office of Alan L. Kovacs as local counsel.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 25, 2017. The
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which the
court denied on July 31, 2018. On August 14, 2018, the Company
answered the amended complaint. On December 9, 2019, the court
granted leave for the lead plaintiff to file a second amended
complaint under seal and permitted the defendants to file a motion
to strike the second amended complaint.

On December 30, 2019, the court granted the parties' joint motion
to stay all proceedings in the case pending mediation.

On March 3, 2020, the parties conducted a mediation session. The
mediation was unsuccessful. The Company filed a motion to strike
the second amended complaint on May 1, 2020.

The Company believes that the amended complaint and the second
amended complaint are without merit.

The parties have agreed to participate in a second mediation
session on November 10, 2020. A resolution of this lawsuit adverse
to the Company or the other defendants could have a material effect
on the Company's consolidated financial position and results of
operations.

At present, the Company is unable to estimate potential losses, if
any, related to the lawsuit.

Millendo Therapeutics, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical
company, engages in the development of various treatments for
orphan endocrine diseases in the United States. The company is
based in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

MYLAN NV: April 2021 Summary Judgment Trial in EpiPen(R) Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020, that a trial date on the motion
for summary judgment in the EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector pending before
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, has been
scheduled for April 2021.

Mylan Specialty and other Mylan-affiliated entities have been named
as defendants in putative indirect purchaser class actions relating
to the pricing and/or marketing of the EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector.

The plaintiffs in these cases assert violations of various federal
and state antitrust and consumer protection laws, the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), as well as
common law claims.

Plaintiffs' claims include purported challenges to the prices
charged for the EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector and/or the marketing of the
product in packages containing two auto-injectors, as well as
allegedly anti-competitive conduct. A Mylan officer and other
non-Mylan affiliated companies were also named as defendants in
some of the class actions.

These lawsuits were filed in the various federal and state courts
and have either been dismissed or transferred into a multidistrict
litigation ("MDL") in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas and have been consolidated. Mylan filed a motion to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint, which was granted in part and
denied in part.

On December 7, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification. On February 27, 2020, the District Court issued an
order denying in part and granting in part plaintiffs' motion for
class certification. The District Court declined to certify
consumer protection and unjust enrichment damages classes, as well
as an injunctive relief class. The District Court certified an
antitrust class that applies to 17 states and a RICO class.

The company filed a petition for permission to appeal the class
certification decision on March 12, 2020, which was denied. On July
15, 2020, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment as to the
remaining claims asserted by plaintiffs. The motion is pending. A
trial date has been scheduled for April 2021.

Mylan said, "We believe that the remaining claims in these lawsuits
are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously."

Mylan N.V., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, and distributes generic, branded-generic,
brand-name, and over-the-counter (OTC) pharmaceutical products in
North America, Europe, and internationally. The company was founded
in 1961 and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.

MYLAN NV: Bid to Nix EpiPen(R) Direct Purchasers' Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the
consolidated putative direct purchaser class action suit filed in
the District of Minnesota, is pending.

Beginning in March 2020, Mylan Inc. and Mylan Specialty, together
with other non-Mylan affiliated companies, were named as defendants
in putative direct purchaser class actions filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota relating to contracts
with certain pharmacy benefit managers concerning EpiPen(R)
Auto-Injector.

The plaintiffs claim that the alleged conduct resulted in the
exclusion or restriction of competing products and the elimination
of pricing constraints in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") and federal antitrust law.

These actions have been consolidated and, on August 21, 2020,
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which remains pending.

Mylan said, "We believe that the claims in these lawsuits are
without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously."

Mylan N.V., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, and distributes generic, branded-generic,
brand-name, and over-the-counter (OTC) pharmaceutical products in
North America, Europe, and internationally. The company was founded
in 1961 and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.

MYLAN NV: Class Suit Over Valsartan Recalls Ongoing in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit over personal injuries related to
Valsartan.

Mylan N.V., and certain of its subsidiaries, along with numerous
other manufacturers, retailers, and others, are parties to
litigation relating to alleged trace amounts of nitrosamine
impurities in certain products, including valsartan and ranitidine.


The vast majority of these lawsuits in the United States are
pending in two MDLs, namely an MDL pending in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey concerning valsartan
and an MDL pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida concerning raniditine.

The lawsuits against Mylan in the MDLs include putative class
actions seeking the refund of the purchase price and other economic
damages allegedly sustained by consumers and end payors as well as
individual claims for personal injuries allegedly caused by
ingestion of the medications.

Similar lawsuits pertaining to valsartan have been filed in Canada
and other countries.

Mylan has also received claims and inquiries related to these
products, as well as requests to indemnify purchasers of Mylan's
active pharmaceutical ingredient and/or finished dose forms of
these products.

Mylan said, "We believe the claims in these matters are without
merit and intend to defend against them vigorously."

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

Mylan N.V., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, and distributes generic, branded-generic,
brand-name, and over-the-counter (OTC) pharmaceutical products in
North America, Europe, and internationally. The company was founded
in 1961 and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.

MYLAN NV: EpiPen(R) Direct Purchasers' Suit in Kansas Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020, that the putative direct purchaser
class action against the company related to the pricing and/or
marketing of the EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector, is ongoing.

On February 14, 2020, Mylan Specialty and other Mylan-affiliated
entities, together with other non-Mylan affiliated companies, were
named as defendants in a putative direct purchaser class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
relating to the pricing and/or marketing of the EpiPen(R)
Auto-Injector.

The plaintiff, in this case, asserts federal antitrust claims which
are based on allegations that are similar to those in the putative
indirect purchaser class actions.

On June 18, 2020, the District Court granted Mylan's motion to
compel pre-suit mediation, which did not result in a resolution of
this matter.

On September 10, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
Mylan filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on October
13, 2020. On November 3, 2020, the plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint that is substantially similar to the allegations in the
amended complaint thereby mooting the motion to dismiss.

Mylan said, "We believe that the claims in this lawsuit are without
merit and intend to defend against them vigorously."

Mylan N.V., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, and distributes generic, branded-generic,
brand-name, and over-the-counter (OTC) pharmaceutical products in
North America, Europe, and internationally. The company was founded
in 1961 and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.

MYLAN NV: Israeli Securities Suit Still Stayed
----------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020, that the IEC Fund securities
action remains stayed in the Tel Aviv District Court (Economic
Division) until a judgment is issued in a securities litigation
pending in the United States.

On October 13, 2016, a purported shareholder of Mylan N.V. filed a
lawsuit, together with a motion to certify the lawsuit as a class
action on behalf of certain Mylan N.V. shareholders on the Tel Aviv
Stock Exchange, against Mylan N.V. and four of its directors and
officers in the Tel Aviv District Court (Economic Division).

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made false or misleading
statements and omissions of purportedly material fact in Mylan
N.V.'s reports to the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange regarding Mylan
N.V.'s classification of its EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector for purposes
of the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program ("MDRP"), in violation of both
U.S. and Israeli securities laws, the Israeli Companies Law and the
Israeli Torts Ordinance. The plaintiff seeks damages, among other
remedies.

On April 30, 2017, another purported shareholder of Mylan N.V.
filed a separate lawsuit, together with a motion to certify the
lawsuit as a class action on behalf of certain Mylan N.V.
shareholders on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange, in the Tel Aviv
District Court (Economic Division), alleging substantially similar
claims and seeking substantially similar relief against the
defendants and other directors and officers of Mylan N.V., but
alleging also that this group of defendants made false or
misleading statements and omissions of purportedly material fact in
connection with allegedly anticompetitive conduct with respect to
EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector and certain generic drugs, and alleging
violations of both U.S. federal securities laws and Israeli law.

On April 10, 2018, the Tel Aviv District Court granted the motion
filed by plaintiffs in both the Friedman Action and the IEC Fund
Action, voluntarily dismissing the Friedman Action and staying the
IEC Fund Action until a judgment is issued in the purported class
action securities litigation pending in the U.S.

Mylan said, "We believe that the claims in the IEC Fund Action are
without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously."

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

Mylan N.V., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, and distributes generic, branded-generic,
brand-name, and over-the-counter (OTC) pharmaceutical products in
North America, Europe, and internationally. The company was founded
in 1961 and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.

NANTHEALTH INC: Deora Settlement Granted Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------
NantHealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the court in Deora
v. NantHealth, Inc., 2:17-cv-01825. entered an order granting final
approval of the settlement, and the order and settlement are now
final.

In March 2017, a number of putative class action securities
complaints were filed in U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, naming as defendants the Company and
certain of our current or former executive officers and directors.


These complaints have been consolidated with the lead case
captioned Deora v. NantHealth, Inc., 2:17-cv-01825.

In June 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint, which generally alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by making material misrepresentations in
NantHealth's initial public offering (IPO) registration statement
and in subsequent public statements.

In particular, the complaint refers to various third-party articles
in alleging that defendants misrepresented NantHealth's business
with the University of Utah, donations to the university by
non-profit entities associated with the Company's founder Dr.
Patrick Soon-Shiong, and orders for GPS Cancer.

The lead plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief on
behalf of putative classes of persons who purchased or acquired
NantHealth securities in the IPO or on the open market from June 1,
2016 through May 1, 2017.

In March 2018, the court largely denied the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On July 30, 2019, the
court certified the case as a class action.

On October 23, 2019, the parties notified the court that they had
reached a settlement in principle to resolve the action on a
class-wide basis in the amount of $16,500, which was included in
accrued and other current liabilities on the Consolidated Balance
Sheet at December 31, 2019. The court granted preliminary approval
of the settlement on January 31, 2020.

A hearing for final approval of the settlement was scheduled for
June 15, 2020, but on June 5, 2020, the Court decided to take the
final approval motion on submission, and on July 17, 2020, the
Court directed Plaintiff's counsel to submit evidence
substantiating all costs incurred.

The $16,500 settlement was paid into a settlement fund prior to the
payment deadline of March 2, 2020. The majority of the settlement
amount was funded by the Company's insurance carriers, and a
portion was funded by the Company.

On September 10, 2020, the court entered an order granting final
approval of the settlement, and the order and settlement are now
final.

NantHealth, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
healthcare technology company in the United States and
internationally. The company was founded in 2010 and is
headquartered in Culver City, California. NantHealth, Inc. is a
subsidiary of NantWorks, LLC.

NANTHEALTH INC: Status Conference in Class Suit Set for Feb. 4
--------------------------------------------------------------
NantHealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the court scheduled
a status conference for February 4, 2021 in Bucks County Employees
Retirement Fund v. NantHealth, Inc., BC 662330 putative class
suit.

In May 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed in
California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, asserting claims for
violations of the Securities Act based on allegations similar to
those in Deora.

That case is captioned Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund v.
NantHealth, Inc., BC 662330.

The parties agreed to stay the case.

At a status conference on October 30, 2020, the court scheduled a
status conference for February 4, 2021, to enable the plaintiff to
decide whether to voluntarily dismiss, following the finalization
of the Deora settlement.

The Company believes that the claims lack merit and intends to
vigorously defend the litigation.

NantHealth, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
healthcare technology company in the United States and
internationally. The company was founded in 2010 and is
headquartered in Culver City, California. NantHealth, Inc. is as a
subsidiary of NantWorks, LLC.


NATURMED INC: Henson Bid for Add'l Time to Serve Defendants Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES HENSON, Plaintiff, v. NATURMED, INC., D/B/A
INSTITUTE FOR VIBRANT LIVING, ET AL. Defendants, Civil Action No.
ELH-18-1102 (D. Md.), Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland granted in part and
denied in part Henson's motion (i) seeking and extension of time to
serve the additional Defendants and determine their involvement;
and (ii) seeking an extension of time to refile his motion for
default judgment against NaturMed.

On April 17, 2018, Henson filed a class action suit against
Defendant NaturMed.  The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant
manufactured, distributed, and/or sold dietary supplements that are
toxic to human beings.  Henson asserted breach of warranty claims,
tort claims, and a violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection
Act.  The Defendant filed its Answer on July 10, 2018 and the
Scheduling Order was issued on Aug. 27, 2018.  In the Scheduling
Order, the Court set a deadline of Oct. 15, 2018, to amend the
pleadings.

By Order of March 11, 2019, the Court granted the Motion of
NaturMed's attorneys to withdraw as counsel for the Defendant.
Since then, no counsel has appeared for NaturMed.  The Clerk
entered a default against NaturMed in February 2020.

In a Memorandum and Order of May 15, 2019, the Court granted
Henson's motion to amend the Complaint.  In the Amended Complaint,
Henson added three new corporate Defendants to the suit: (1)
Bactolac Pharmaceutical, Inc.; (2) Independent Vital Life, LLC; and
(3) HKW Capital Partners III, L.P.  But, in the year and several
months that have since passed, he has never effected service of
process on any of the additional Defendants.

On Jan. 20, 2020, the Plaintiff moved for an entry of default as to
NaturMed.  The Clerk of Court entered a default against NaturMed on
Feb. 5, 2020.  Then, on July 15, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a motion
for default judgment against NaturMed for the relief sought in the
Amended Complaint.

The Court referred the motion for default judgment to Chief
Magistrate Judge Beth Gesner for review and for recommendations.
In an Order of Aug. 14, 2020, Judge Gesner denied the motion,
without prejudice to the Plaintiff's right to refile by Sept. 14,
2020.  She reasoned that the motion did not "address whether the
factual allegations contained in the Amended Complain constitute a
legitimate cause of action.  Moreover, she pointed out that the
Motion failed to establish a basis for the requested award of
damages and legal fees.  

Of particular relevance in the matter, Judge Gesner also explained
that because Bactolac, Independent Vital, and HKW have not been
served with the Amended Complaint, entering default only as to
NaturMed would be inappropriate, in light of the allegations
asserting joint and several liability and the risk of inconsistent
judgments.  She gave the Plaintiff until Sept. 14, 2020, to refile
the motion for default judgment.

In his instant motion filed Sept. 10, 2020, Henson seeks an
extension of time to serve the additional Defendants and determine
their involvement.  He also seeks an extension of time to refile
his motion for default judgment against NaturMed.

Judge Hollander explains that Bactolac, Independent Vital, and HKW
were added to the suit by way of the Amended Complaint, filed on
May 15, 2019.  That was approximately 16 months ago.  The Plaintiff
offers no explanation whatsoever as to why he has not served these
Defendants in more than a year.  Accordingly, she is without a
"reasoned basis" to excuse the untimely service.

Moreover, the case was filed in April 2018.  At this point, more
than two years later, the Judge discerns no basis to justify
further delay of the litigation.  It would be as if the case was
just getting started, although it has been pending for about two
and a half years.

Therefore, she declined to extend the time for service upon
Bactolac, Independent Vital, and HKW.  However, she granted Henson
an extension of time to refile his motion for default judgment
against NaturMed.  And, if the Plaintiff believes that he is
entitled to a default judgment without dismissing his claims, with
prejudice, against Bactolac, Independent Vital, and HKW, he should
present his argument to Judge Gesner, with supporting authority.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Hollander granted in part and
denied in part Henson's motion.  An Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 16, 2020 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y48fob64 from Leagle.com


NCL CORP: Class Suit Over Misleading COVID-19 Statements Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
NCL Corporation Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated securities class action related
to alleged false and misleading statements of the Company to the
market and customers about COVID-19.

On March 12, 2020, a class action complaint, Eric Douglas v.
Norwegian Cruise Lines, Frank J. Del Rio and Mark A. Kempa, Case
No. 1:20-CV-21107, was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, naming the Company, Frank J.
Del Rio, the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer, and
Mark A. Kempa, the Company's Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer, as defendants.  

Subsequently, two similar class action complaints were also filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida naming the same defendants.

On July 31, 2020, a consolidated amended class action complaint was
filed by lead plaintiff's counsel. The complaint asserts claims,
purportedly brought on behalf of a class of shareholders, under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and allege that the Company
made false and misleading statements to the market and customers
about COVID-19.   

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and an award of costs and
expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of our ordinary shares between
February 20, 2020 and March 10, 2020.

NCL said, "We believe that the allegations contained in the
complaint are without merit and intend to defend the complaint
vigorously. We cannot predict at this point the length of time that
this action will be ongoing or the liability, if any, which may
arise therefrom. In addition, in March 2020 the Florida Attorney
General announced an investigation related to the Company's
marketing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Following the announcement
of the investigation by the Florida Attorney General, we received
notifications from other attorneys general and governmental
agencies that they are conducting similar investigations. The
Company is cooperating with these ongoing investigations, the
outcomes of which cannot be predicted at this time."

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

NCL Corporation Ltd. is a global cruise company operating the
Norwegian Cruise Line, Oceania Cruises and Regent Seven Seas
Cruises brands. The Company is based in Miami, Florida.

NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Still Defends Securities Suits in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nektar Therapeutics said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend class action lawsuits in California.

On October 30, 2018, the company and certain of its executives were
named in a putative securities class action complaint filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (U.S.
District Court in California), which complaint was subsequently
amended on May 15, 2019.

Also, on February 13, 2019, and February 18, 2019, shareholder
derivative complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware naming the CEO, CFO and certain members of the
company's board of directors.

These class action and shareholder derivative actions assert, among
other things, that for a period beginning at least from November
11, 2017 through October 2, 2018, our stock was inflated due to
alleged misrepresentations about the efficacy and safety of
bempegaldesleukin.

On July 13, 2020, the U.S. District Court in California Court
granted Nektar's motion to dismiss all claims in this securities
class action filing, stating (among other things) that the amended
complaint failed "to adequately allege that any of the statements
… identified by Plaintiffs were false or misleading."

Following the motion to dismiss, on August 10, 2020, the class
action plaintiffs filed a second consolidated class action
complaint, and the matter remains pending.

In addition, on August 19, 2019, we and certain of our executives
were named in a putative securities class action complaint filed in
U.S. District Court in California, which complaint was subsequently
amended on January 24, 2020.

Also, on February 11, 2020, and on February 20, 2020, shareholder
derivative complaints were filed in U.S. District Court in
California naming the CEO, CFO and certain members of the company's
board of directors, which derivative complaints were consolidated
and subsequently amended on July 1, 2020.

The class action and shareholder derivative complaints assert,
among other things, that for a period between February 15, 2019 and
August 8, 2019, inclusive, the company's stock was inflated due to
an alleged failure to disclose a reduction in the planned number of
bempegaldesleukin clinical trials and a bempegaldesleukin
manufacturing issue.

Nektar Therapeutics develops drug candidates for cancer,
auto-immune disease, and chronic pain in the United States. The
Company was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.

NESTLE USA: Slack-fill Class Suit Now Pending in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
CPT Group, Inc. announced a class action lawsuit now pending in the
Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles
with Defendants Nestle U.S.A., Inc., and Ferrara Candy Company in
Thomas, et al., v. Nestle U.S.A., Inc. The Action has been
certified by the Court to proceed as a class action on behalf of
the Class. This case arises out of allegations that Defendants
violated the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, False
Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law. Specifically, the
Action alleges that Defendants' Products contain nonfunctional
slack-fill in violation of California and federal law.

If you purchased a box of Raisinets(R), Buncha Crunch(R),
Butterfinger Bites(R), Tollhouse Semi-Sweet Chocolate Morsels(R),
Rainbow Nerds(R), SweeTarts(R), Spree(R), Gobstopper(R), or
Sno-Caps(R) in California for personal use and not for resale
during the time period February 9, 2013, through the present, and
you are not excluded from the Class by definition, you are a member
of the Class. If you are a member of the Class, you have the right
to decide whether to remain a member of the Class.

Members of the Class will be eligible to participate in any
recovery that might be obtained in the Action. If you have proof of
purchase of one or more of the Products, keep these records. Do not
mail them to Class Counsel or the Administrator at this time. No
money or benefits are available now and there is no guarantee that
money or benefits will be obtained. If they are, Class Members will
be notified regarding how to obtain a share.

If you wish to be excluded from the Class, you must specifically
request exclusion in accordance with the following procedures. To
exclude yourself from the Class, you must send a letter by
first-class mail stating that you request exclusion from the Class
in Thomas, et. al., v. Nestle U.S.A., Inc., Case No. BC649863. Your
request must: (i) state your name, address, and telephone number;
and (ii) be signed by you. You must mail your exclusion request,
postmarked by no later than November 9, 2020, to: Thomas, et al. v.
Nestle U.S.A., Inc., et al. c/o CPT Group, Inc. 50 Corporate Park,
Irvine CA 92606.

If you choose to be excluded from the Class, you will not be bound
by any judgment in this Action, nor will you be eligible to share
in any recovery that might be obtained in this Action. You will
retain any right you have to individually pursue any legal rights,
if any, that you may have against any Defendants with respect to
the claims asserted in the Action. [GN]

NEW VISION PIZZA: Darcy Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON DARCY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEW VISION PIZZA, LLC; JM PIZZA, INC.; J & B
PIZZA INC.; D&J PIZZA, L.L.C.; JOHN MEKLER; DAN FLECK; DOE
CORPORATION 1-10; JOHN DOE 1-10; Defendants, Case No.
5:20-cv-01245-PRW (W.D. Okla., Dec. 11, 2020) seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff Darcy was employed by the Defendant as delivery driver.

New Vision Pizza, LLC owns and operates a chain of fast food
restaurants. The Company provides pizzas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey A. Taylor, Esq.
          JEFFREY A. TAYLOR, P.C.
          5613 North Classen Boulevard
          Oklahoma City, OK 73118
          Telephone: (405) 286-1600
          Facsimile: (405) 842-6132
          E-mail: taylorjeff@mac.com

               - and -

          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
          Columbus, OH 43219
          Telephone: (614) 604-8759
          Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
          E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com

               - and -

          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          Erica Blankenship, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515
          Cincinnati, OH 45236
          Telephone: (513) 715-8711
          Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
          E-mail: akimble@billerkimble.com
                  eblankenship@billerkimble.com


NORTONLIFELOCK INC: Court Approves Avila Case Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
NortonLifeLock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended October 2, 2020, that the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona has approved the
settlement in Avila v. LifeLock et al.

On August 29, 2019, the Ninth Circuit issued a mandate remanding a
securities class action lawsuit, originally filed on July 22, 2015,
against our subsidiary, LifeLock, as well as certain of LifeLock's
former officers for further proceedings in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Arizona.

The Ninth Circuit had affirmed in part and reversed in part the
August 21, 2017 decision of the District Court, which had dismissed
the case with prejudice.

The complaint in the remanded action alleges that, during a
purported class period of July 30, 2014 to July 21, 2015, a period
that predates the company's acquisition of LifeLock, the LifeLock
Defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.

In fiscal 2020, the company settled this lawsuit and recorded a
charge of $20 million in General and administrative expenses.

The United States District Court for the District of Arizona
approved the settlement on July 21, 2020.

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

NortonLifeLock, Inc. engages in the provision of security, storage,
and systems management solutions. It operates through Enterprise
Security and Consumer Digital Safety segments. The Consumer Digital
Safety segment provides solutions to protect information, devices,
networks and the identities of consumers. The company is based in
Tempe, Arizona.

NORTONLIFELOCK INC: Trial in California Class Suit Set for June 14
------------------------------------------------------------------
NortonLifeLock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended October 2, 2020, that a trial date has been
set for June 14, 2021, in the consolidated securities class action
suit pending before the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

Securities class action lawsuits, which have since been
consolidated, were filed in May 2018 against us and certain of our
former officers, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

The lead plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint alleged that,
during a purported class period of May 11, 2017 to August 2, 2018,
defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a), and that certain individuals violated
Section 20A, of the Securities Exchange Act.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss, which the Court granted in an
order dated June 14, 2019. Pursuant to that order, plaintiff filed
a motion seeking leave to amend and a proposed first amended
complaint on July 11, 2019.

The Court granted the motion in part on October 2, 2019 and the
first amended complaint was filed on October 11, 2019.

The Court's order dismissed certain claims against certain of our
former officers. Defendants filed answers on November 7, 2019.

A trial date has been set for June 14, 2021.

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

NortonLifeLock, Inc. engages in the provision of security, storage,
and systems management solutions. It operates through Enterprise
Security and Consumer Digital Safety segments. The Consumer Digital
Safety segment provides solutions to protect information, devices,
networks and the identities of consumers. The company is based in
Tempe, Arizona.

NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Faces Amended Suit Over False COVID-19 Statements
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9,
2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that a
consolidated amended complaint has been filed by the lead
plaintiff's counsel in a consolidated class action suit, which
alleged that Norwegian Cruise made false and misleading statements
to the market and customers about COVID-19

On March 12, 2020, a class action complaint, Eric Douglas v.
Norwegian Cruise Lines, Frank J. Del Rio and Mark A. Kempa, Case
No. 1:20-CV-21107, was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, naming the Company, Frank J.
Del Rio, the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer, and
Mark A. Kempa, the Company's Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer, as defendants.

Subsequently, two similar class action complaints were also filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida naming the same defendants.  

On July 31, 2020, a consolidated amended class action complaint was
filed by lead plaintiff's counsel. The complaint asserts claims,
purportedly brought on behalf of a class of shareholders, under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and allege that the Company
made false and misleading statements to the market and customers
about COVID-19.  

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and an award of costs and
expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the company's ordinary shares
between February 20, 2020 and March 10, 2020.

Norwegian Cruise said, "We believe that the allegations contained
in the complaint are without merit and intend to defend the
complaint vigorously. We cannot predict at this point the length of
time that this action will be ongoing or the liability, if any,
which may arise therefrom."

In addition, in March 2020 the Florida Attorney General announced
an investigation related to the Company's marketing during the
COVID-19 pandemic. Following the announcement of the investigation
by the Florida Attorney General, the company received notifications
from other attorneys general and governmental agencies that they
are conducting similar investigations. The Company is cooperating
with these ongoing investigations, the outcomes of which cannot be
predicted at this time.

Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. operates a fleet of passenger
cruise ships. The Company offers an array of cruise itineraries and
theme cruises, as well as markets its services through various
distribution channels including retail and travel agents,
international and incentive sales, and consumer direct. Norwegian
Cruise Line Holdings serves customers worldwide. The company is
based in Miami, Florida.

NPAS SOLUTIONS: 11th Cir Eliminates Incentive Awards in TCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
jdsupra.com reports that in a split decision, the 11th Circuit
rejected a $6,000 incentive award for the named plaintiff in a TCPA
class action. According to the majority in Johnson v. NPAS
Solutions, LLC, U.S. Supreme Court precedent prohibits such awards
-- a holding that is bound to discourage class actions in the 11th
Circuit. The decision is the most recent in a series of 11th
Circuit rulings against TCPA plaintiffs.

The named plaintiff in Johnson alleged, on behalf of himself and a
putative class, that defendant NPAS Solutions, LLC, violated the
TCPA by using an automatic telephone dialing system to call cell
phone numbers that had been reassigned to a non-consenting
consumer. The case quickly settled, and the plaintiff moved to
certify a settlement class. The district court granted preliminary
approval, appointing the plaintiff as the class representative and
his attorneys as class counsel. It also set a deadline for class
members to object to the settlement that was nearly three weeks
before the parties had to submit their petitions for fees and costs
and their motion for final approval of the settlement.

One class member objected to the settlement, taking issue with,
among other things, the proposed $6,000 incentive award for the
named plaintiff (which the objector had learned about through the
settlement notice). The parties thereafter moved for final approval
of the settlement, requested attorney's fees and costs, and opposed
the objection, arguing that the settlement was fair. After holding
a final fairness hearing, the district court sided with the parties
and issued an order setting forth its fairness findings in a
single, boilerplate sentence and awarding the named plaintiff a
$6,000 incentive payment. (Remaining class members who submitted
claims stood to receive only $79.) The order also stated, without
explanation, that the objection "is OVERRULED."

The objector appealed. Agreeing with the objector, the 11th Circuit
held that the Supreme Court's decisions in Trustees v. Greenough,
105 U.S. 527 (1882), and Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. Pettus,
113 U.S. 116 (1885), prohibit incentive awards. In Greenough (and
reiterated a few years later in Pettus), the Supreme Court refused
the plaintiff's request for an award to compensate for his
"personal services and private expenses" incurred in successfully
bringing a claim on behalf of himself and other bondholders.
According to the Supreme Court, such an award "would present too
great of a temptation to parties to intermeddle in the management
of valuable property or funds in which they have only the interest
of creditors." The Johnson majority concluded that an incentive
award was "roughly analogous" to a payment for personal services
barred in Greenough and, if anything, presented an even greater
risk of intermeddling to the extent the award provides a "bounty"
for bringing suit.

Notably, the 11th Circuit appears to be the only circuit to have
applied Greenough and Pettus to bar incentive awards. While the
11th Circuit acknowledged that a contrary Second Circuit opinion
had disregarded Greenough and Pettus as factually inapposite, it
also explained that challenges to incentive awards are "few and far
between" because the challenge must come from objectors, who have
minimal incentives to assert a challenge. As a result, there are
few opportunities for courts to consider the legal basis for an
incentive award, which allows them to proliferate in class action
settlements "as a product of inertia and inattention, not adherence
to the law."

The majority also rejected the dissenting judge's view that Holmes
v. Continental Can Co., 706 F.2d 1144 (11th Cir. 1983), required
the court to consider simply whether the incentive award is fair.
The majority countered that Holmes did not address a salary,
bounty, or incentive award for a class representative; rather, it
involved whether disparities in payments to the named plaintiffs
were justified by the value of their unique, individual claims.

In addition to rejecting incentive awards, the majority held that
the district court failed to follow Rule 23(h) when it required
objections to be filed before the class representative and counsel
were required to move for final settlement approval and fees. It
also concluded that the district court failed to adequately explain
its rulings, including its denial of the objection to the
settlement.

The Johnson decision is the latest in a series of 11th Circuit
rulings against TCPA plaintiffs, including Medley v. DISH Network,
LLC (holding TCPA does not permit unilateral revocation of
contractual consent), Glasser v. Hilton Grand Vacations Co., LLC
(narrowly interpreting the definition of an automated telephone
dialing system), and Salcedo v. Hanna (holding plaintiff lacked
standing where he received only a single text message). Johnson's
holding, however, extends beyond the TCPA to limit incentives for
class representatives generally. This far-reaching consequence,
along with the opposing views of the Second Circuit and dissent,
could lead to a rehearing en banc by the 11th Circuit or Supreme
Court review. [GN]

OHIO: Attys. Asks Supreme Court to Hear Ogle Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
nrtw.org reports that National Right to Work Legal Defense
Foundation staff attorneys filed a petition for certiorari, asking
the United States Supreme Court to hear the case of Nathaniel Ogle.
Ogle is an employee of the Ohio Department of Taxation who,
despite never being a member, still had mandatory union fees
deducted from his paycheck by officials of the Ohio affiliate of
the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees
(AFSCME) union.

In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in Janus v AFSCME that it is
unconstitutional to require public sector employees like Ogle to
subsidize union activities. Soon after, Ogle filed his class action
lawsuit seeking a return of fees seized before the Janus decision
from himself and potentially thousands of other state employees.

AFSCME officials have thus far relied on the so-called "good faith"
defense to avoid paying back money they took from nonmembers before
the ruling in violation of the First Amendment as Janus recognized.
However, in the Janus decision, not only did the Supreme Court not
rule out retroactive relief, it also observed that union officials
have been "on notice" for years that mandatory fees likely would
not comply with the High Court's heightened level of First
Amendment scrutiny articulated in the 2012 Knox v. SEIU Supreme
Court decision.

Foundation staff attorneys argue that in addition to there being no
valid basis for the "good faith" defense under existing law, AFSCME
officials also understood the dubious constitutionality of what
they were doing when they extracted payments from nonmembers but
still went forward with their legally suspect collection of forced
union fees.

Ogle's case was dismissed by the district court in July of 2019. A
three judge panel of the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals later
held that the union could avoid paying back its victims, despite
the Supreme Court's assertion that unions had been "on notice,"
leading to today's petition for a writ of certiorari.

Ogle is the fifth dues repayment case the Court is being asked to
consider. The other four, including Foundation-backed cases
Casanova v. IAM and the Janus case itself, are fully briefed and
were scheduled to be considered at the Court's October 9th
conference. Foundation staff attorneys are actively litigating
about 20 of these cases which collectively seek the return of an
estimated $130 million or more in forced union fees seized from
workers in violation of the First Amendment.

In a recent supplemental brief in Janus, Mark Janus' attorneys from
the National Right to Work Foundation and Illinois-based Liberty
Justice Center point out that two of three judges on a panel of the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently opined that the "good
faith" defense is invalid, while other federal judges have upheld
it. This, they argue, makes it especially vital that the Court hear
the case to clear up the confusion among lower courts and
ultimately reject this spurious argument allowing union officials
to profit from violating workers' constitutional rights.

"The so-called 'good faith' defense, which permits union bosses to
continue to ignore an established Supreme Court precedent, has
already been rejected by two federal judges. It is vital that the
Supreme Court take up this issue to disabuse all lower courts of
this flawed argument, and to ensure that the victims of union
officials' First Amendment violations finally get some justice,"
National Right to Work President Mark Mix said. "The Court already
ruled in Janus that public workers cannot be forced to pay union
dues. It is past time for the victims of these First Amendment
violations, including Mr. Ogle and his coworkers, to receive
justice." [GN]

PARKER UNIVERSITY: Klein Suit Pending in N.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------
In the case, DR. LAURIE KLEIN, DR. CRAIG MAURER, DR. STEVE LIRINGIS
AND LISA LIRINGIS, DR. TODD ANTOVICH AND CAROL ANTOVICH, DR. RANDY
MANTZ AND CARLENE MANTZ, DR. PAMELA HART, DR. GREG MOLIS, DR. LES
COHEN, DR. KEN CARLE, DR. SHANE STAKER AND KELLY STAKER, DR. KEITH
ALEXANDER, BETSY STUMMER, DR. JOHN SUTO AND DR. BILLIE SUTO, DR.
JEFFREY FAILING, DR. MICHAEL GAGNON, DR. CRAIG LADOW, MIMI H.
DUONG, DR. CRAIG THORNALLY, DR. MARK de DUBOVAY AND BARBARA de
DUBOVAY, DR. RONALD B. SANDERS, DR. PEGGY ANDERSON, AND DR. PAM
WACHHOLZ AND BOB NESTE, Plaintiffs, v. PARKER UNIVERSITY,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-03194-RS (N.D. Cal.), Judge Richard
Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (a) extended the Defendant's time to respond to the
First Amended Complaint ("FAC"); and (b) vacated the Initial Case
Management Conference ("CMC"), vacated the Oct. 1, 2020 deadline to
file CMC Statements, and reset the CMC for Dec. 10, 2020 and the
deadline to file CMC Statements to Dec. 3, 2020.

The Plaintiffs filed their Original Class Action Complaint on May
9, 2020.  Thereafter, the Parties stipulated to an extension of
time for the Defendant to respond to the Plaintiff's Complaint and
to an extension of the CMC.

On Aug. 3, 2020, the Court continued the CMC from Aug. 13, 2020 to
Oct. 8, 2020.  The Parties' CMC Statements are due on Oct. 1, 2020.
In compliance with Local Rule 6-1(b), the date of the stipulation
is more than 14 days prior to the Oct. 8, 2020 CMC.

On Sept. 17, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed the operative FAC.
Parker's Response to the FAC is currently due on Oct. 1, 2020, the
same date by which the Parties must file CMC Statements.  It
anticipates that it will file a Motion to Dismiss.

Pursuant to Local Rules 6-1(b), the Parties stipulated that the
Defendants will have an additional 14 days to respond to the FAC,
making the Defendant's responsive deadline Oct. 15, 2020.  Also
pursuant to Local Rule 6-1(b) and to conserve the Court's and the
Parties' resources, they stipulated to and respectfully request
that the Court vacates the CMC currently scheduled for Oct. 8, 2020
and resets the CMC to take place approximately 60 days from the
date of the current setting, or until after a hearing on Parker's
Motion to Dismiss, or to a date that is convenient for the Court.

Based upon the Court-approved Stipulation of the Parties, and the
Declaration of Andrew M. Massara submitted therewith, the Parties
requested entry of an Order pursuant to Local Rule 6-2(b) that (a)
extends the Defendants' time to respond to the FAC from Oct. 1,
2020 to Oct. 15, 2020; and, (b) vacates the CMC currently scheduled
for Oct. 8, 2020, vacates the Oct. 1, 2020 deadline to file CMC
Statements, and resets the CMC for Dec. 10, 2020 and the deadline
to file CMC Statements to Dec. 3, 2020.  All parties will appear
telephonically and must contact Court Conference at (866) 582-6878
at least one week prior to the Conference to arrange their
participation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 23, 2020 court-approved
stipulation is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5nwcj85 from
Leagle.com.

BRIAN D. BERRY -- brian.berry@ogletree.com -- ANDREW M. MASSARA --
andrew.massara@ogletree.com -- OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK &
STEWART, P.C., San Francisco, CA, THOMAS A. LIDBURY, OGLETREE,
DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., Chicago, IL, Attorneys for
Defendant PARKER UNIVERSITY.

SBAITI & COMPANY PLLC, Mazin A. Sbaiti -- MAS@SbaitiLaw.com --
Jonathan E. Bridges -- JEB@SbaitiLaw.com -- (Pro Hac Vice Motion
Forthcoming) Brad J. Robinson -- BJR@SbaitiLaw.com -- (Pro Hac Vice
Motion Forthcoming) Dallas, TX, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.


PEABODY ENERGY: OKC Firefighters Pension & Retirement Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Peabody Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a securities class action suit initiated by the
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System.

On September 28, 2020, the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and
Retirement System brought a securities lawsuit against the Company
and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of the Plaintiff and a
putative class for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Company made false or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose certain adverse facts
pertaining to safety practices at the Company's North Goonyella
Mine and that, after a September 28, 2018 fire at the mine, made
false or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose certain
adverse facts pertaining to the feasibility of the Company's plan
to restart the mine after the fire.

The Plaintiff further alleges that the false or misleading
statements and/or failure to disclose adverse facts caused the
Company's stock price to trade at artificially inflated levels only
to fall in value after the alleged adverse facts were subsequently
revealed.

As a result of purchasing the Company's stock between the asserted
class period of April 3, 2017 and October 28, 2019, the Plaintiff
and the putative class allegedly suffered economic loss and damages
under federal securities laws.

The Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in an unspecified
amount and reimbursement of expenses, including legal fees.

Peabody said, "The Company does not believe the lawsuit is
meritorious and intends to vigorously defend against the
allegations."

Peabody Energy Corporation is involved in mining and sale of
thermal coal to electric utilities and metallurgical coal for
industrial customers. The company was founded in 1883 and is
headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.

PERRIGO: Pension Funds Get Class Action Status Over Tax Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Pollock at independent.ie reports that two Florida public
service pension funds have won class action certification in a case
alleging pharmaceutical company Perrigo failed to disclose a
disputed EUR1.6bn tax liability to Ireland.

The Southern District of New York court rejected Perrigo's argument
that the pension funds - City of Boca Raton General Employees'
Pension Plan and Palm Bay Police and Firefighters' Pension Fund -
have "too little knowledge of and too little engagement" with the
case to be adequate class representatives.

The funds claim Perrigo failed to share the disputed EUR1.6bn tax
liability, which was included in a letter from Revenue it received
in October 2018, with its investors. They allege details of the
liability were not included in a report in November 2018 sent to
the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

They allege Perrigo didn't reveal the liability until an SEC filing
in December 2018, leading to Perrigo's share price falling by 30pc
in a day.

The funds have achieved class action status for all entities
damaged by buying the stock between November 8, 2018, through to
December 20, 2018. It means several potential lawsuits with similar
claims against Perrigo from other investors can be combined into a
single proceeding led by one firm.

The conflict stems from Revenue's audit of Elan's sale of a 50pc
stake in Tysabri to Biogen. The deal happened eight months before
Perrigo's acquisition of Elan in 2013.

Through the deal, Elan received $3.25bn (EUR2.9bn) and an ongoing
royalty stream. Revenue claims it should have been taxed as capital
gains at 33pc instead of trading income at 12.5pc.

Perrigo appealed against Revenue's decision in February. A hearing
concluded in June and the High Court is still to announce its
judgment. [GN]

PINNACLE FINANCIAL: Suit vs. Bank Unit Voluntarily Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
suit against Pinnacle Bank related to its failure to pay fees to
purported agents of Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) borrowers was
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.

In June 2020, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
Pinnacle Bank alleging, among other claims, that Pinnacle Bank
failed to pay fees to purported agents of PPP borrowers that the
plaintiff alleged were owed under the PPP in violation of SBA
regulations.

During the third quarter of 2020, this suit was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiff, though the plaintiff could file the
suit again.

Pinnacle Bank disputed the plaintiff's initial claims and would
vigorously defend itself in connection with any future proceeding
relating to the alleged claims.

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

Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc. is a holding company for Pinnacle
National Bank. The Bank operates as a community bank emphasizing
personal banking relationships with individuals and businesses
located in its primary service area, which is comprised of the
Metropolitan Nashville, Tennessee area and surrounding counties.
The company is based in Nashville, Tennessee.

PLUM BOROUGH: Associated Builders Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PLUM BOROUGH, et al.
The case is styled as ASSOCIATED BUILDERS & CONTRACTORS OF WESTERN
PENNSYLVANIA; HAMPTON MECHANICAL INC.; LAWRENCE PLUMBING LLC; R.A.
GLANCY & SONS INC.; ROBERT L. CASTEEL; ANTHONY SCARPINE; as
individuals and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PLUM
BOROUGH; PITTSBURGH REGIONAL BUILDING TRADES COUNCIL, Case No.
2:20-cv-01933-WSH (W.D. Pa., Dec. 12, 2020).

The case alleges civil rights violations.

Plum -- https://www.plumboro.com/ -- is a borough in Allegheny
County in the U.S. state of Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan F. Mitchell, Esq.
          MITCHELL LAW PLLC
          111 Congress Avenue, Suite 400
          Austin, TX 78701
          Phone: (512) 686-3940
          Fax: (512) 686-3941
          Email: jonathan@mitchell.law


PLYMOUTH COUNTY: Justice Dept. Prevails in Detainees' Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
plymouth.wickedlocal.com reports that the U.S. Attorney's Office
prevailed in a habeas class action brought by law firms WilmerHale
and Todd & Weld LLP seeking the release of over 150 detainees
awaiting trial on federal charges, including serious drug and gun
crimes, on the ground that continued detention was unconstitutional
because of the threat to health and safety posed by COVID-19.

"The COVID-19 pandemic has put enormous pressure on detention
facilities," stated United States Attorney Andrew E. Lelling in a
press release. "Our law enforcement partners in Plymouth met that
challenge by swiftly instituting measures to ensure the safety of
detainees, staff, and the public. Consequently, they prevailed,
despite the plaintiffs' insistence that the facility was still
unsafe. We are pleased the court recognized Plymouth's efforts in
this case."

"The health and safety of the persons committed to the department's
care and custody, the staff, and the public is of paramount
importance," Plymouth County Sheriff Joseph D. McDonald Jr., said.
"It is gratifying to see that the court has recognized the many
measures the department has taken to protect people during this
time of unprecedented challenge."

In April 2020, the detainees filed a habeas petition challenging
the conditions at the Plymouth County Correctional Facility, the
state jail where they are held, as inadequate to address the
COVID-19 pandemic. They sought an injunction that would require the
immediate release of some or all of them, as well as various other
forms of relief. In May 2020, U.S. District Court Judge Leo T.
Sorokin denied their request for an injunction based on the many
measures and policies in place at PCCF to protect detainees and
staff, but stopped short of dismissing the case at that time. In
September 2020, the Court found that the detainees could not
establish an entitlement to habeas relief, and that it would deny
the habeas petition unless they presented additional evidence by
Oct. 8, 2020. Instead, the detainees voluntarily dismissed the
case.

U.S. Attorney Lelling and Sheriff McDonald made the announcement.
The case was handled by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jason C. Weida and
Rachel Goldstein of Lelling's Civil Division, with assistance from
Lisa Olson of the Justice Department's Civil Division. [GN]

PLYMOUTH CTY, MA: Renewed Request for Discovery in Baez Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTHONY BAEZ et al., Petitioners, v. ANTONE MONIZ,
Respondent, Civil No. 20-10753-LTS (D. Mass.), Judge Leo T. Sorokin
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied
the Petitioners renewed request for discovery.

On April 17, 2020, four federal detainees housed at the Plymouth
County Correctional Facility ("PCCF"), on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, filed what they styled as a "Class
Action Petition Seeking Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C.
Section 2241 and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief,"
in which they raised constitutional challenges to their confinement
arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.  At the same time, the
Petitioners filed a motion seeking preliminary injunctive relief.
The Respondent opposed the motion and moved to dismiss the
petition.  After receiving supplemental information from the
parties and holding a hearing, on May 18, 2020, the Court denied
both the Petitioners' request for injunctive relief and the
Respondent's request for dismissal.

Thereafter, the focus shifted to whether and how discovery should
occur related to the merits of the Petitioners' claims.  The
Petitioners proposed engaging in broad discovery over several
months, while the Respondent urged that no discovery was warranted.
After hearing from the parties, the Court denied the Petitioners'
request for discovery, finding they had neither identified with
sufficient specificity the information they seek, nor demonstrated
good cause to believe that engaging in discovery will yield
information demonstrating that their claims are meritorious and
entitle them to the relief they seek.

The Court, however, permitted the Petitioners to "refine" their
request, provided that they: a) specifically identify the
information they seek and how they wish to obtain it; b) show good
cause for their request by explaining in a non-speculative fashion
why they expect that their requests will yield evidence that is not
only relevant to, but will support the merits of, their claims; and
c) propose a reasonable schedule for conducting the described
discovery.

On July 31, 2020, the Petitioners renewed their request for
discovery, supporting their motion with a memorandum of law and
attaching interrogatories and requests for documents that they
proposed serving on the respondent.  The Respondent opposed the
discovery motion, urging that four "independent reasons" supported
denying it, including one which it suggested warranted denying the
habeas petition on its merits. The Petitioners addressed some of
the Respondent's arguments in a reply brief.

All the while, the Respondent continued to update the Court when
new cases of COVID-19 were confirmed at PCCF, specifying the number
of tests that PCCF had performed, the circumstances surrounding
each new case, and the manner in which PCCF responded to new cases.
To date at PCCF, a total of four detainees have tested positive
for the virus, with no new cases among detainees in the last six
weeks.

Judge Sorokin finds that the Petitioners have not resolved the
problems that led to the denial of their original request in their
renewed motion for discovery.  The Petitioners ground their
requests in their stated belief that engaging in discovery "may
enable" them to demonstrate that PCCF is not complying with the
CDC's nonbinding guidance, and that such a showing "could," in
turn, "entitle them to relief."  That belief is unsupported by any
meaningful showing suggesting that the fact or duration of their
custody -- in the conditions as they presently exist at PCCF --
violates the Constitution.  Rather, it is just the sort of vague
and speculative justification that the Court already has found
insufficient to open the doors to discovery in a case such as this
one.  Accordingly, the Petitioners have again failed to demonstrate
that discovery is merited under the standards governing federal
habeas proceedings.

The Respondent has urged that the nature of the Petitioners'
discovery requests -- and the Petitioners' failure to dispute much
if any of the information provided in his robust factual return and
in his other submissions over the last four months -- justifies
denial not only of the discovery motion, but of the habeas petition
itself.

In these somewhat unusual circumstances -- where a prior
determination that the petition will not succeed is coupled with no
further factual development -- the Judge concludes that the
Petitioners cannot establish an entitlement to habeas relief and,
thus, that he should deny the petition.  Although the Respondent
invited denial of the petition in his opposition to the motion for
discovery -- a proposition not addressed in the Petitioners' reply
-- the request was not raised by separate motion and rested on
reasoning slightly distinct from that which he has outlined.

Judge Sorokin, therefore, will not dispose of the petition without
allowing a final opportunity for the petitioners to respond.
However, he will deny the petition, with all of the Petitioners'
objections and rights preserved, unless the Petitioners make a
further filing showing cause why further proceedings as to the
merits of their claims are warranted.

Accordingly, Judge Sorokin denied the motion for discovery, and the
habeas petition will be denied, with all of the Petitioners'
objections and rights preserved, unless they show cause why the
Court should not deny the petition.  The motion for class
certification, which was previously stayed, was to be terminated as
moot if the petition is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 23, 2020 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/y3bfure4 from Leagle.com.

POLAR CORP: Court Narrows Claims in Amended McNulty Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KIMBERLY McNULTY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. POLAR CORP.,
Defendant, Case No. 19 Civ. 8903 (LGS) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Lorna G.
Schofield of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion
to dismiss the Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff McNulty brings the putative consumer class action against
the Defendant, alleging various state law claims arising out of its
labeling flavored seltzer beverages as "100% Natural."  The
Defendant manufactures flavored seltzer beverages that are sold in
retail stores.  The Products come in a variety of flavors and are
labeled "100% Natural" on their packaging and container labels.  

In June 2019, the Plaintiff purchased a Cranberry-Lime flavor box
of the Products for $4.99 at Target.  She buys natural or organic
products when possible and decided to purchase the Products after
reading "100% Natural" on the label.

The Center for Applied Isotope Studies recently performed
radiocarbon testing to determine whether the Defendant's Products
are flavored or made with synthetic substances.  According to the
Complaint, radiocarbon testing differentiates between "bio-based"
and "petrochemical-based" content, which is one way to measure
whether food is made with "synthetic" or "natural" ingredients.
Testing revealed that extracts of the Products produced estimates
of 58% to 96% non-bio-based carbon content, meaning the Products
include artificial compounds.

The Complaint alleges that the Plaintiff would not have purchased
the Products or would have paid significantly less if she knew the
Products were not as represented, i.e., not 100% natural.  As a
result of purchasing the Products, she is "worse off," since she
believed the Products were 100% natural and discovered that she did
not receive the benefit of her bargain.  The Plaintiff would be
interested in purchasing the Products in the future, if they were
as represented.

The Plaintiff filed the lawsuit on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, alleging that the Defendant labels the Products
as "100% Natural" to enhance its profits when the Products are not
actually as represented.  The Complaint alleges violations of New
York laws on unfair and deceptive trade and sale practices, New
York Gen. Bus. L. ("GBL") Sections 349 and 350, and breach of
contract.  She seeks, among other remedies, monetary damages and
declaratory relief.

The Defendant moves to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(c), arguing that the
Plaintiff lacks standing and that the Complaint fails to state a
claim.  It also seeks a stay of litigation.

Judge Schofiled granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's
motion.  She granted the motion with respect to the claims for
declaratory relief and breach of contract (Count III), but denied
with respect to the GBL claims (Counts I and II).

Among other things, Judge Schofiled finds that drawing all
inferences in favor of the Plaintiff, the Complaint adequately
alleges injury under a "price premium" theory.  It alleges that the
purpose of the Defendant's misrepresentation was to enhance the
Defendant's profits, and had the Plaintiff been aware that the
Products were not 100% natural, she would have paid significantly
less for them.  The Complaint further alleges that she and the
other consumers are "worse off" after the purchases and did not
receive the benefit of their bargain, since they paid for products
that were inferior to what was promised.  Allegations that a
product had significantly less value than it warranted constitute a
classic price premium theory of injury that is plausible and
cognizable.  The Defendant argues that the Complaint lacks
information on the actual price premium, but the Complaint provides
the price at which the Plaintiff last purchased the Products, which
is sufficient.

The Defendant's remaining two arguments with respect to these
claims are rejected.  Its argument that individualized questions of
injury would cleave the putative class in two is appropriately
addressed later, at the class certification stage.  The Defendant's
argument as to the significance of the Plaintiff's purchase of the
Products three weeks after the radiocarbon test results requires
assessing the weight of the evidence, which is not the Court's task
at this juncture.  Therefore, the motion is denied as to the GBL
Sections 349 and 350 claims, rules the Court.

The application for a stay is denied.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at
Dkt. No. 50.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 23, 2020 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y5u5deod from Leagle.com.

POLARITYTE INC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Litigation Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
PolarityTE, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company is
awaiting a court decision on its motion to dismiss the class action
suit entitled, In re PolarityTE, Inc. Securities Litigation.

On June 26, 2018, a class action complaint alleging violations of
the Federal securities laws was filed in the United States District
Court, District of Utah, by Jose Moreno against the Company and two
directors of the Company, Case No. 2:18-cv-00510-JNP.

On July 6, 2018, a similar complaint was filed in the same court
against the same defendants by Yedid Lawi, Case No.
2:18-cv-00541-PMW.

Both the Moreno Complaint and Lawi Complaint allege that the
defendants made statements or disseminated information to the
public through reports filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission and other channels that contained material misstatements
or omissions in violation of Sections 10 and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 adopted thereunder. Specifically, both
complaints allege that the defendants misrepresented the status of
one of the Company's patent applications while touting the unique
nature of the Company's technology and its effectiveness.

Plaintiffs are seeking damages suffered by them and the class
consisting of the persons who acquired the publicly-traded
securities of the Company between March 31, 2017, and June 22,
2018. Plaintiffs have filed motions to consolidate and for
appointment as lead plaintiff.

On November 28, 2018, the Court consolidated the Moreno and Lawi
cases under the caption In re PolarityTE, Inc. Securities
Litigation, and requested the appointment of the plaintiff in Lawi
as the lead plaintiff.

On January 16, 2019, the Court granted the motion of Yedid Lawi for
appointment as lead plaintiff, and on February 1, 2019, the Court
granted the lead plaintiff's motion for approval of lead counsel
and liaison counsel.

The Court also ordered that the lead plaintiff file and serve a
consolidated complaint no later than 60 days after February 1,
2019. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on April 2,
2019, and asserted essentially the same violations of Federal
securities laws recited in the original complaints.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on
June 3, 2019. Plaintiffs' opposition to the Company's motion to
dismiss was filed on August 2, 2019, and the Company filed a reply
to the opposition on September 13, 2019.

A hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss was held on November
19, 2019; no order has been issued to date.

PolarityTE said, "At this early stage of the proceedings the
Company is unable to make any prediction regarding the outcome of
the litigation."

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

PolarityTE, Inc., a biotechnology and regenerative biomaterials
company, focuses on discovering, designing, and developing a range
of regenerative tissue products and biomaterials for the fields of
medicine, biomedical engineering, and material sciences in the
United States. The company operates in two segments, Regenerative
Medicine and Contract Services. PolarityTE, Inc. is headquartered
in Salt Lake City, Utah.

PRECIGEN INC: Rosen Law Announces Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
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 Precigen, Inc. f/k/a Intrexon Corporation (NASDAQ:
PGEN , XON) between May 10, 2017 and September 25, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Precigen f/k/a Intrexon investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the Precigen class action, call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free
at 866-767-3653 or email him for information on the class action.

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

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December
4, 2020 . A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to [To enable links contact MENAFN]
or 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 [email protected] or [email
protected] .

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]

PRECIGEN INC: Stock Purchasers Putative Class Suits Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Precigen, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company is a
named defendant in three purported shareholder class action
lawsuits initiated by its stock purchasers.

In October 2018, the Company received a subpoena from the Division
of Enforcement of the Securities and Exchange Commission informing
the Company of a non-public, fact-finding investigation concerning
the Company's disclosures regarding its methane bioconversion
platform.

The Company produced documents to, and met with, the staff of the
SEC and voluntarily cooperated with the SEC investigation. In
September 2020, the Company reached a final settlement with the SEC
regarding the matter.

Under the terms of the settlement, the Company, without admitting
or denying the allegations of the SEC, consented to the entry of an
administrative order requiring that the Company: (i) cease and
desist from committing or causing any violations and future
violations under Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rules 13a-11 and 12b-20 promulgated
thereunder; and (ii) pay a $2,500 civil money penalty to the SEC.

In October 2020, three purported shareholder class action lawsuits,
captioned Abadilla v. Precigen, Inc., F/K/A Intrexon Corp., et al,
Chen v. Precigen, Inc. F/K/A Intrexon Corp., et al., and Seppen v.
Precigen, Inc. F/K/A Intrexon Corp., et al., were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of
certain purchasers of the Company's common stock.

The complaints name as defendants the Company and certain of its
current officers and, in one matter, a former officer.

Plaintiff's claims track the allegations in the SEC's
administrative order described above.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, interest and an award of
reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

The Company intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously; however,
there can be no assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of these
lawsuits.

Precigen, Inc. is a dedicated discovery and clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company advancing the next generation of gene and
cell therapies with the overall goal of improving outcomes for
patients with significant unmet medical need. The company is based
in Germantown, Maryland.

PROGENITY INC: Bid to Consolidate Soe and Brickman Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Progenity, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that motions for
appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel, as well as to
consolidate the Aung Kyaw Soe v. Progenity, Inc., et al. and
Brickman Investments Inc. v. Progenity, Inc., et al. actions, are
pending.

On August 28, 2020, a putative securities class action was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California,
entitled Aung Kyaw Soe v. Progenity, Inc., et al., No.
3:20-cv-01683-CAB-AHG.

The plaintiff, Aung Kyaw Soe, seeks to bring this action on behalf
of all purchasers of Progenity common stock pursuant to or
traceable to the registration statement issued in connection with
the initial public offering (IPO).

On September 23, 2020, the court ordered that no defendant has any
obligation to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint in this
action pending appointment of a lead plaintiff and the lead
plaintiff's filing of an amended complaint or designation of the
existing complaint as the operative complaint.

On September 11, 2020, a putative securities class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California,
entitled Brickman Investments Inc. v. Progenity, Inc., et al., No.
3:20-cv-01795-BEN-LL.

The plaintiff, Brickman Investments Inc., seeks to bring this
action on behalf of all purchasers of Progenity common stock
pursuant to or traceable to the registration statement and related
prospectus issued in connection with the initial public offering
(IPO).

In addition to the remedies described, the plaintiff seeks
rescission or rescissory damages.

Motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel, as well
as to consolidate the two actions, are pending.

Progenity, Inc. is a biotechnology company with an established
track record of success in developing and commercializing molecular
testing products as well as innovating in the field of precision
medicine. The company is based in San Diego, California.

PROSHARES TRUST II: Appeal from Dismissed Securities Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ProShares Trust II said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the plaintiffs'
appeal from the January 2020 Court order dismissing their
consolidated securities class action is still pending.

ProShare Capital Management LLC (the Sponsor) and ProShares Trust
II are named as defendants in the following purported class action
lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on the following dates: (i) on January 29,
2019 and captioned Ford v. ProShares Trust II et al.; (ii) on
February 27, 2019 and captioned Bittner v. ProShares Trust II, et
al.; and (iii) on March 1, 2019 and captioned Mareno v. ProShares
Trust II, et al.

The allegations in the complaints are substantially the same,
namely that the defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the 1933
Act, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the 1934 Act, and
Items 303 and 105 of Regulation S-K, 17 C.F.R. Section
229.303(a)(3)(ii), 229.105 by issuing untrue statements of material
fact and omitting material facts in the prospectus for ProShares
Short VIX Short-Term Futures ETF, and allegedly failing to state
other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading.

Certain Principals of the Sponsor and Officers of the Trust are
also defendants in the actions, along with a number of others. The
Court consolidated the three actions and appointed lead plaintiffs
and lead counsel.

On January 3, 2020, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated class action in its entirety and ordered
the case closed. On January 31, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice
of appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Trust and Sponsor will continue to vigorously defend against
this lawsuit. The Trust and the Sponsor cannot predict the outcome
of this action.

ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures ETF may incur expenses in
defending against such claims.

ProShares Trust II is a Delaware statutory trust formed on October
9, 2007 and is currently organized into separate series.

PROSHARES TRUST II: Named as Defendant in Di Scala Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
ProShares Trust II said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the trust together
with ProShare Capital Management LLC and ProShares Ultra Bloomberg
Crude Oil continues to defend a purported class action suit
entitled, Di Scala v. ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil, et al.

On July 28, 2020, ProShare Capital Management LLC (the "Sponsor"),
ProShares Trust II, and ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil
("UCO"), a series of the Trust, were named as defendants in a
purported class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Di Scala v.
ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil, et al.

The allegations in the complaint claim that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 by issuing untrue statements of material fact and
omitting material facts in the prospectus for UCO, and allegedly
failing to state other facts necessary to make the statements made
not misleading. Certain Principals of the Sponsor and Officers of
the Trust are also defendants in the action.

The defendants cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit.

The Trust and the Sponsor intend to vigorously defend against these
lawsuits. The Trust and the Sponsor cannot predict the outcome of
these lawsuits.

ProShares said, "Accordingly, no loss contingency has been recorded
in the Statement of Financial Condition and the amount of loss, if
any, cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. ProShares Ultra
Bloomberg Crude Oil may incur expenses in defending against such
lawsuits."

ProShares Trust II is a Delaware statutory trust formed on October
9, 2007 and is currently organized into separate series.

REATA PHARMACEUTICALS: Patel Securities Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a securities class action suit initiated by
Toshif Patel.

On October 15, 2020, Toshif Patel filed a complaint for alleged
violation of federal securities laws against the Company, its Chief
Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.  

The complaint purports to bring a federal securities class action
on behalf of a class of persons who acquired the Company's common
stock between October 15, 2019 and August 7, 2020.  

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made
false and misleading statements regarding the sufficiency of its
MOXIe Part 2 study results to support a single study marketing
approval of omaveloxolone for the treatment of Friedreich's ataxia
(FA) in the United States.  

The plaintiff seeks, among other things, the designation of this
action as a class action, an award of unspecified compensatory
damages and interest, costs, and expenses, including counsel fees
and expert fees.

The Company believes that the allegations contained in the
complaint are without merit and intends to defend the case
vigorously.  

Reata said, "The Company cannot predict at this point the length of
time that this action will be ongoing or the liability, if any,
which may arise therefrom."

Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc. operates as a biopharmaceutical
company. The Company focuses on identifying, developing, and
commercializing product candidates that modulate the activity of
key regulatory proteins involved in the biology of mitochondrial
function, oxidative stress, and inflammation to address the unmet
medical needs of patients with various life-threatening diseases.
The company is based in Plano, Texas.

RECRO PHARMA: Seeks to Nix Amended Complaint Over IV Meloxicam
---------------------------------------------------------------
Recro Pharma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss filed in the securities class action suit related to the
New Drug Application (NDA) for IV meloxicam, is pending.

On May 31, 2018, a securities class action lawsuit, or the
Securities Litigation, was filed against us and certain of our
officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 2:18-cv-02279-MMB) that
purported to state a claim for alleged violations of Section 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated
thereunder, based on statements made by the company concerning the
NDA for IV meloxicam.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and other costs. On December 10, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint that asserted the same claims and sought the same
relief but included new allegations and named additional officers
as defendants.

On February 8, 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in its entirety, which the lead plaintiff opposed
on April 9, 2019. On May 9, 2019, the company filed its response
and briefing was completed on the motion to dismiss.

In response to questions from the Judge, the parties submitted
supplemental briefs with regard to the motion to dismiss the
amended complaint during the fall of 2019. On February 18, 2020,
the motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice.

On April 25, 2020, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint.
The company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
on June 18, 2020. The plaintiff filed an opposition to the
company's motion to dismiss on August 17, 2020. On September 16,
2020, the company filed a reply in support of its motion to
dismiss.

In connection with the separation of Baudax Bio, Baudax Bio
accepted assignment by the company of all of its obligations in
connection with the Securities Litigation and agreed to indemnify
the company for all liabilities related to the Securities
Litigation. Baudax Bio and the company believe that the lawsuit is
without merit and intend to vigorously defend against it.

Recro Pharma, Inc. operates as a specialty pharmaceutical company.
It operates through two divisions, an Acute Care, and Contract
Development and Manufacturing (CDMO). The company was formerly
known as Recro Pharma I, Inc. and changed its name to Recro Pharma,
Inc. in August 2008. Recro Pharma, Inc. was founded in 2007 and is
based in Malvern, Pennsylvania.

RESURGENT CAPITAL: Loses Schwebel Suit Dismissal Bid Under FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AVROHOM SCHWEBEL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RESURGENT CAPITAL
SERVICES, L.P., et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-8821 (KMK) (S.D.
N.Y.), Judge Kenneth M. Karas of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York denied the Defendants' Motion To
Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Plaintiff Schwebel brings the putative Class Action against
Resurgent, LVNV Funding, and John Does 1-25, alleging that the
Defendants engaged in unlawful credit and collection practices in
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").  The
Plaintiff is a resident of Rockland County, New York.  

At some time before April 5, 2019, the Plaintiff allegedly acquired
a "debt obligation" held by Credit One Bank, N.A.  Subsequently,
Credit One Bank (and thus the Debt) was acquired by LVNV, which
then contracted with Resurgent to collect the Debt.  The Plaintiff
avers that LVNV and Resurgent are "debt collectors" which regularly
engage in business the principal purpose of which is to attempt to
collect debts using the mail, telephone, and facsimile.

On April 5, 2019, Resurgent sent the Plaintiff a letter concerning
the Debt.  The Plaintiff labels the communication from Resurgent an
initial contact notice.  The first page of the Letter includes a
box in the top right corner that contains several pieces of
information about the Debt, including the amount and identity of
its current owner.  The second page of the Letter includes text
explaining an indebted person's rights under the FDCPA.

The Plaintiff alleges that, as a consumer, he was left confused by
the combination of the Inquiry Notice and the Validation Notice and
that he therefore incurred an informational injury.  In particular,
he alleges that while the Inquiry Notice leads him to believe that
his account is already under review and that he does not need to
dispute the debt, the Validation Notice suggests the opposite by
stating that he has 30 days to dispute his debt.  Similarly, the
Plaintiff alleges that the Inquiry Notice's suggestion that he call
to discuss for further assistance misled him by implying that a
phone call is sufficient to discuss all facets of the account
including disputing the debt, when in reality, in order to properly
assert all his rights, he Plaintiff must put the dispute request in
writing.

The Plaintiff seeks actual damages, statutory damages, costs, and
attorneys' fees for the Defendants' alleged violations of 15 U.S.C.
Sections 1692e and §1692g.  Finally, he also seeks to certify the
instant Action as a class action on behalf of: all individuals with
addresses in the state of New York to whom Resurgent sent an
initial collection letter attempting to collect a consumer debt on
behalf of LVNV that included materially misleading and
contradictory language regarding the status of a consumer's dispute
as well as the method of communication a consumer must use in order
to assert their dispute rights under 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692e(10)
and 1692g that was sent on or after a date one year prior to the
filing of the Action and on or before a date 21 days after the
filing of the Action.

The Plaintiff filed the Complaint on Sept. 23, 2019.  Pursuant to a
briefing schedule adopted at a conference held on Jan. 9, 2020, the
Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss and accompanying papers on
Feb. 5, 2020, and, due to a filing error, refiled the same on Feb.
27, 2020.  The Plaintiff filed his Opposition on Feb. 19, 2020.
The Defendants filed their Reply on March 11, 2020.

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim
under the FDCPA because the Letter was not sent pursuant to a debt
collection, because it adequately informs him of his rights, and
because its text creates no risk of confusion.  The Parties dispute
three issues with respect to these provisions: whether the Letter
(1) was an attempt to collect a debt; (2) was "deceptive" under
Section 1692e(10); and (3) sufficiently informed the Plaintiff of
his rights under Section 1692g(a).

First, Judge Karas finds that the Letter, which the Plaintiff
attaches to his Complaint, states as part of the Validation Notice:
"this is an attempt to collect a debt and any information obtained
will be used for that purpose."  Moreover, the Second Circuit has
previously found that two nearly identical statements created the
impression that they were sent in connection with debt collection.
The Plaintiff has therefore successfully alleged that a consumer
receiving the communication could reasonably interpret it as being
sent in connection with the collection of a debt.

Second, Judge Karas agrees with the Plaintiff.  The Inquiry Notice
states that "a review of his inquiry" has been "initiated," and
directs him to call a toll-free number if he wishes to receive
"further assistance."  Drawing all inferences in the Plaintiff's
favor, a least sophisticated consumer may well interpret these
statements as suggesting that he need not file a written dispute in
order to maintain his validation rights.  In other words, the
Plaintiff might assume, based on the Inquiry Notice (and despite
the Validation Notice), that he need not do anything further to
dispute his debt, and may therefore fail to send a written dispute
or validation request, resulting in an inadvertent forfeiture of
his FDCPA rights.  Creating such uncertainty about the appropriate
method of dispute resolution is sufficient to state a claim under
the FDCPA.

Finally, Judge Karas finds it plausible that an unsophisticated
consumer could interpret the Inquiry notice as "overshadowing" the
Validation Notice.  In other words, while the Validation Notice
accurately informs the Plaintiff of his rights and explains the
method by which he can dispute the Debt, the Inquiry Notice
suggests that the Debt is already being investigated, that
subsequent communication should be by phone, and that further (and
written) contact by the Plaintiff might be unnecessary.
Accordingly, because he has plausibly alleged that a "least
sophisticated consumer" might have interpreted the Inquiry Notice
as "overshadowing or contradicting" the Validation Notice, the
Plaintiff's Section 1692g claim survives the instant Motion.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Karas denied the Defendant's
Motion To Dismiss.  The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to
terminate the pending Motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 23, 2020 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yxnryyxk from Leagle.com.

Kenneth Willard, Esq. -- kwillard@steinsakslegal.com -- Raphael
Deutsch, Esq. -- rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com -- Stein Saks, PLLC,
Hackensack, NJ, Counsel for Plaintiff.

Randolph A. Scott, Esq., Peter G. Siachos, Esq. --
psiachos@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees, LLP, Florham Park, NJ, Counsel
for Defendants.

RINGCENTRAL INC: Reuben Class Suit over Privacy Violations Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RingCentral, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by Meena
Reuben.

On June 16, 2020, Plaintiff Meena Reuben filed a complaint against
the Company for a putative class action lawsuit in California
Superior Court for San Mateo County.

The complaint alleges claims on behalf of a class of individuals
for whom, while they were in California, the Company allegedly
intercepted and recorded communications between individuals and the
Company's customers without the individual's consent, in violation
of the California Invasion of Privacy Act Sections 631 and 632.7.

Reuben seeks statutory damages of $5,000 for each alleged violation
of Sections 631 and 632.7, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees
and costs, and other unspecified amount of damages.

On July 7, 2020, the Court granted the parties' stipulation to
extend time for the Company to respond to the Reuben's complaint.
The Company has not responded to the complaint.

RingCentral said, "This litigation is still in its earliest stages.
Based on the information known by the Company as of the date of
this filing and the rules and regulations applicable to the
preparation of the Company's condensed consolidated financial
statements, it is not possible to provide an estimated amount of
any such loss or range of loss that may occur. The Company intends
to vigorously defend against this lawsuit."

RingCentral, Inc. provides software-as-a-service solutions that
enable businesses to communicate, collaborate, and connect
primarily in North America. The company was incorporated in 1999
and is headquartered in Belmont, California.

RINGCENTRAL: Hurley Suit on Hold Pending Settlement Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
RingCentral, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the court has
issued an order holding the case in abeyance pending approval of
the settlement in the putative class action suit initiated by Joann
Hurley.

On November 17, 2017, Joann Hurley, filed a second amended
complaint in an ongoing putative class action lawsuit pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia, adding the Company as a named defendant and alleging that
the Company and other defendants violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA) and regulations promulgated thereunder by
allegedly using an automated telephone dialing system to deliver
prerecorded political messages to Hurley, an incumbent running for
reelection, and others.

Hurley alternatively alleged that the Company was vicariously
liable for the actions of the other co-defendants. Hurley seeks
statutory, compensatory, consequential, incidental and punitive
damages, costs, and attorneys' fees in connection with her claims.


The Company was served with the second amended complaint on January
4, 2018. On March 23, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint for lack of standing and failure to sufficiently
state a claim on which relief may be granted.

Hurley filed her opposition brief on April 6, 2018, and the Company
filed its reply brief on April 13, 2018. On October 4, 2018, the
district court issued its memorandum and opinion order granting in
part and denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss. The
district court dismissed Hurley's vicarious liability claim but
allowed Hurley's TCPA claim to proceed.

The Company filed its answer and affirmative defenses to the second
amended complaint on October 18, 2018. Hurley filed a motion to
certify a class on July 9, 2019. The Company and another defendant
filed oppositions to the motion, which have been fully briefed and
is pending decision by the court. Discovery closed on October 25,
2019.

The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on November 14,
2019. Hurley opposed the motion, which has been fully briefed and
is pending decision by the court.

The parties mediated the case before a private mediator on January
23, 2020, at which time a tentative settlement was achieved. The
settlement will need to be approved by the court.

Meanwhile, the court has issued an order holding the case in
abeyance pending approval of the settlement. The condensed
consolidated financial statements include an immaterial accrual for
the estimated loss that is expected to occur.

RingCentral, Inc. provides software-as-a-service solutions that
enable businesses to communicate, collaborate, and connect
primarily in North America. The company was incorporated in 1999
and is headquartered in Belmont, California.

RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Plaintiffs' Bid to Amend Complaint Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Riot Blockchain, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that motion for leave to
amend the complaint in the consolidated Takata-Klapper suit has
been fully briefed and is pending before the court.

On February 17, 2018, Creighton Takata filed an action asserting
putative class action claims on behalf of the Company's
stockholders in the United District Court for the District of New
Jersey, Takata v. Riot Blockchain Inc., et al., Case No. 3:
18-cv-02293.

The complaint asserts violations of federal securities laws under
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 on behalf of a putative class of stockholders that purchased
stock from November 13, 2017 through February 15, 2018. The
complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors made, caused to be made, or failed to correct false
and/or misleading statements in press releases and public filings
regarding its business plan in connection with its cryptocurrency
business.

The complaint requests damages in unspecified amounts, costs and
fees of bringing the action, and other unspecified relief.

On April 18, 2018, Joseph J. Klapper, Jr., filed a complaint
against Riot Blockchain, Inc., and certain of its officers and
directors in the United District Court for the District of New
Jersey (Klapper v. Riot Blockchain Inc., et al., Case No. 3:
18-cv-8031).

The complaint contained substantially similar allegations and the
same claims as those filed by Mr. Takata, and requests damages in
unspecified amounts, costs and fees of bringing the action, and
other unspecified relief.

On November 6, 2018, the court in the Takata action issued an order
consolidating Takata with Klapper into a single putative class
action. The court also appointed Dr. Golovac as Lead Plaintiff and
Motely Rice as Lead Counsel of the consolidated class action.

Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on January 15, 2019.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss on March 18, 2019. In lieu of
opposing defendants' motions to dismiss, Lead Plaintiff filed
another amended complaint on May 9, 2019. Defendants filed multiple
motions to dismiss the amended complaint starting on September 3,
2019.

On April 30, 2020, the court granted the motions to dismiss, which
resulted in the dismissal of all claims without prejudice. On June
1, 2020, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file another
amended complaint. The motion for leave to amend has been fully
briefed and is pending before the court.

Riot Blockchain said, "If the court grants Lead Plaintiff leave to
amend, defendants intend to continue to vigorously contest Lead
Plaintiff's amended allegations. Because this litigation is still
at this early stage, we cannot reasonably estimate the likelihood
of an unfavorable outcome or the magnitude of such an outcome, if
any."

Riot Blockchain, Inc. focuses on building, supporting, and
operating blockchain technologies, primarily through its
cryptocurrency mining operations and other developed businesses, as
well as joint ventures, acquisitions, and targeted investments in
the sector. The company was formerly known as Bioptix, Inc. and
changed its name to Riot Blockchain, Inc. in October 2017. Riot
Blockchain, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is based in Castle Rock,
Colorado.

SCIENTIFIC SPECIALTIES: Paner Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Scientific
Specialties, Inc. The case is styled as Nicole Paner, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Scientific
Specialties, Inc., a California corporation, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2020-0010233 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Dec. 7,
2020).

The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."

Scientific Specialties -- https://ssibio.com/ -- offers Pipette
Tips, PCR, Screw Cap, Centrifuge, and Cryogenic Tubes, HTS and
Tubes Racks. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christina M. Lucio, Esq.
          FARNAES & LUCIO, APC
          2235 Encinitas Blvd., Suite 210
          Encinitas, CA 92024
          Phone: 760-942-9430
          Email: clucio@farnaeslaw.com

SHEPHERD'S CARE: Faces $8.1MM Suit on Handling of Covid Outbreak
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Labine, writing for Edmonton Journal, reports that Shepherd's
Care Foundation is facing an $8.1-million class-action lawsuit over
its handling of the COVID-19 outbreak at its Mill Woods care home.

The statement of claim, filed on Oct. 28, alleges the non-profit
charitable organization was negligent in its obligation to
"safeguard the life, health, and dignity of residents and to ensure
continued and adequate care." The representative plaintiff in this
case is the daughter of a resident who tested positive for the
virus in September and later died on Oct. 2.

Statements of claim contain allegations not proven in court.

The outbreak at the Millwoods Long Term Care Centre was confirmed
by the company on Sept. 25. In late October, as many as 60
residents and 40 staff tested positive for the virus. As of
Nov. 15, there were two active cases among residents. In total, 13
residents have died.

Rick Mallett, the lawyer spearheading the lawsuit, said roughly 10
people have signed onto the legal action so far. He said when the
claim is approved, all residents who became ill and all the family
members of those who died will automatically be included, unless
they wanted to opt-out.

"In this particular one, it went from zero to 100 very quickly," he
said. "You had over 60 residents, 40 staff that have ended up with
the virus. There are still ongoing cases. I think it's one of the
more dramatic outbreaks, certainly in Alberta, and it's one of
those that needs to be adjudicated in terms of having an action on
behalf of the family members who are affected and also the
residents who were ill and recovered or still ill."

Mallett said the families are looking for accountability and
transparency as well as assurances that an outbreak like this won't
happen again.

The claim lists roughly 20 alleged breaches of duty of care
including failing to have enough staff, adopting advanced testing
methods, failing to ensure adequate safety protocols were in place,
failing to provide or monitor the separation of residents, failing
to conduct regular testing, allowing employees to work at other
sides and allowing visitors without having proper testing or
protocols in place.

"It's particularly devastating if you lose a parent (and) then you
weren't able to spend that kind of quality time with them at the
end of their life," Mallett said.

Shepherd's Care Foundation, which was served the lawsuit on Nov.
13, has up to 20 days to provide a defence to the claim. Zachary
Penner, executive director of communications with the foundation,
confirmed in an email that Shepherd's Care plans to fight the
lawsuit.

Foundation president and CEO Shawn Terlson in a statement on Nov.
13 said they are currently reviewing the allegations.

"As this matter is now before the courts, we will not be able to
speak to the specifics of it," he said. "However, we can say with
confidence that we will approach this situation with compassion and
respect."

In the statement, Terlson praised the non-profit charitable
organization's front line staff for their hard work during the
pandemic and said they continue to provide quality care and
accommodations to seniors. He said the foundation has spent an
additional $4 million on staffing, PPE and other protective
measures.

Shepherd's Care Foundation provides care to more than 1,800 seniors
throughout Edmonton and Barrhead. [GN]


SOCIAL SECURITY: SSA to Release Files on Doan & Nguyen in Thai Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANH TUYET THAI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ANDREW M. SAUL,
Commissioner of Social Security, et al., Defendants, Case No.
15cv583-WQH (NLS) (S.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (i)
authorized the Social Security Administration ("SSA") to release
any SSA investigative files pertaining to Don Doan and Tommy
Nguyen; and (ii) entered a protective order.

Before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion for Determination of
Discovery Dispute No. 1.  The case is a class action in which the
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants William Villasenor and Dulce
Sanchez violated their constitutional rights when they entered the
Plaintiffs' homes to question them about their SSA applications for
benefits.

Don Doan and Tommy Nguyen were previously named Plaintiffs in the
lawsuit as well, but were dismissed with prejudice on Aug. 18,
2016.  The operative complaint at that time was the Second Amended
Complaint, and the Plaintiffs alleged in that complaint that they
had been the subject of a campaign of intimidation by agents and
employees of the SSA after they filed affidavits in another class
action against the SSA, Diep Nguyen, Anh Thai, et al. v. SSA,
13-2036 (S.D. Cal. 2003).  Doan and Nguyen were dismissed with
prejudice because they did not file affidavits in the prior
action.

The Plaintiffs then filed a Third Amended Complaint.  In that
complaint, Defendants Villasenor and Sanchez were named for the
first time as "armed agents" who were investigators with the Los
Angeles District Attorney Investigators Unit and members of the Los
Angeles Cooperative Disability Investigations Unit.  Doan and
Nguyen were not named as Plaintiffs in the complaint.  The
complaint was again dismissed.  The Court also denied a motion for
reconsideration on the dismissal, and entered judgment in favor of
the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs appealed the judgment to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.  They appealed the dismissal of their claims against
Defendants Villasenor and Sanchez and the appellate court reversed,
finding that a plausible claim could exist against them for
entering Plaintiff Anh Thai's home without her consent.  In
addition, Doan and Nguyen appealed their dismissal from the Second
Amended Complaint and the appellate court also reversed in part,
finding that the complaint plausibly alleged that state and/or
local law enforcement agents of the SSA's CDI unit carrying guns
and police badges entered their homes without their consent but
their other claims were properly dismissed because they did not
submit affidavits in the prior lawsuit.

The case is now back in front of the Court after the appeal.  The
Court held a case management/status conference with the parties at
which time the parties discussed this discovery dispute but failed
to reach agreement on the issue.  The parties subsequently filed
the instant motion.

In the motion, the Defendants request the entry of a protective
order and for an order authorizing the release of the SSA files
pertaining to Doan, and Nguyen.  The Plaintiff opposes the request,
arguing that at present there is no operative complaint in the
case, and because Doan and Nguyen are not currently named
Plaintiffs in the case, there is no basis for the Defendants to
request their SSA files until they are added.

Magistrate Judge Stormes holds that both parties have alerted the
Court to the issue regarding the Plaintiff seeking to add the two
new plaintiffs.  Even though the issue has not yet been formally
raised in a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, the
Plaintiff does not dispute her intention to do so.  Indeed, the
Plaintiff raised it on appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which reversed
in part on the issue.  The only point of contention is one of
timing -- the Plaintiff does not believe that the Defendants should
get the SSA file discovery related to the two new plaintiffs until
the motion is formally made and granted.

However, the Magistrate Judge agrees with the Defendants.
Production of these files right now would promote more efficient
litigation of the case.  The privacy of Plaintiff Thai and Doan and
Nguyen is be protected by the attached protective order.
Accordingly, she granted the Defendants' motion and issued the
Order, authorizing the SSA to release any SSA investigative files
pertaining to Doan and Nguyen.

Magistrate Judge Stormes also entered the protective order in the
case.  She made modifications to the proposed protective order in
Paragraphs 12, 13, and 27, as shown in bold and underlined.  In
addition, if Doan and Nguyen are not ordered to be added as
Plaintiffs to the case, the Defendants must either return and/or
destroy, and provide verification to the Plaintiff of the
destruction, of their SSA files within seven days of such order.

Finally, both parties seek sanctions and fees against the other for
having to file the motion.  Magistrate Judge Stormes denied both
requests and declined to impose monetary sanction either party.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 23, 2020 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/y37y58d3 from Leagle.com.

STERLING JEWELERS: Sup. Court Declines to Hear Class-Action Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------------
jckonline.com reports that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear
Sterling Jewelers' appeal of a court ruling that will allow 70,000
female employees to participate in a massive class-action
arbitration that alleges that the company systematically
discriminated against them.

The court case dates back to 2008, when a group of 14 female
Sterling employees filed a gender-discrimination complaint in New
York federal court. The suit, which sought class-action status,
claimed that female employees were paid less than their male
counterparts because of certain company policies, including a "tap
on the shoulder" promotion system.

The court sent to the case to arbitration, as mandated by the
company's RESOLVE (internal dispute-resolution) program.

In 2009, arbitrator Kathleen Roberts ruled that Sterling's RESOLVE
agreement permitted class-action suits. She eventually certified a
class that could include as many as 70,000 women -- which would
constitute the largest class-action arbitration in history.

Sterling disputed that RESOLVE allowed class actions, as they
weren't mentioned in the original agreement. It appealed the
arbitrator's decision in 2010, setting off a battle that has lasted
a decade.

In 2018, a New York judge ruled the arbitrator had exceeded her
authority and limited to the class to just 250 litigants who had
opted in to the class action. The plaintiffs appealed to the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals.

In March 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lamps Plus Inc. v.
Varela that ambiguous arbitration agreements didn't permit
class-action suits -- a seeming victory for Sterling's position.
Its attorney told JCK that it hoped the Supreme Court decision
would help bring the original claimants "closure."

Yet six months later, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled
against Sterling and overturned the district court's ruling, while
noting this was the "fourth time this case has come before this
Court."

In its unanimous decision, the court of appeals differentiated
between the Sterling and Lamps Plus cases, as the Lamps Plus
agreement said that a court, not an arbitrator, would settle the
class-action question.

"By signing the RESOLVE Agreement," wrote Circuit Judge Peter Hall,
"[employees] consented to the arbitrator's authority to decide the
threshold question of whether the agreement permits class
arbitration."

Sterling then filed a motion for an en banc panel to rehear the
case -- which was denied -- before turning to the U.S. Supreme
Court. The Supreme Court's decision likely means that Sterling has
reached the end of the line on this particular question.

It is now possible that, after 12 years, arbitrator Roberts may
finally get to rule on the underlying question of whether
Sterling's policies permitted gender discrimination. The size of
the class means that the arbitration could prove potentially costly
to the company, which has already sustained considerable PR damage
from this saga. While allegations of sexual harassment have arisen
in the class action -- and have comprised a lion's share of the
press coverage of this case -- they are not part of the
class-action litigation, which is largely focused on the question
of pay equity.

Plaintiff attorney Joseph Sellars did not return a request for
comment by the time of publication.

A statement from Signet said, "We believe the claims in this matter
are without merit and are not substantiated by the relevant facts
and statistics. We will continue to vigorously defend against these
claims, which do not accurately reflect our company or our culture.
Indeed, we have long been committed to fostering a culture of
respect, integrity, diversity, and inclusion where all employees
feel safe, supported, and empowered—this is a tenet of who we
are."

It noted that "Signet is a recognized leader among companies for
gender diversity, with women filling 74% of store management
positions and gender parity in both the C-Suite and Board of
Directors. Under the leadership of our CEO, Gina Drosos, we
continue to champion diversity and inclusion as a strategic
priority, as we have been honored to be included on the Bloomberg
Gender Equality Index for two consecutive years." [GN]

SUGAR MEMORIES: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sugar Memories,
L.L.C. The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Sugar Memories, L.L.C., Case
No. 1:20-cv-10548 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 14, 2020).

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

Sugar Memories, L.L.C. --
https://www.groovycandies.com/collections/sugar-memories-llc -- is
a collection of candies by Groovy candies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SWATCH GROUP: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind Users, Brooks Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE SWATCH GROUP (U.S.) INC. d/b/a BREGUET;
DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02462-JAM-DB
(E.D. Cal., Dec. 11, 2020) arises from the Defendants' violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants'
Website, https://www.breguet.com/en, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of
the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the
Plaintiff.

The Swatch Group (U.S.) Inc. operates as a holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sales finished
watches, jewelry, and watch movements and components. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Thiago Coelho, Esq.
           Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
           WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
           3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
           Los Angeles, CA 90010
           Telephone: (213) 381-9988
           Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
           E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
                   jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com


TD ASSET: Loses Bid to Block Class Action Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
investmentexecutive.com reports that TD Asset Management Inc.
(TDAM) has lost a bid to appeal the certification of a class action
lawsuit regarding trailing commissions paid to discount brokers on
TD mutual funds.

The Ontario Divisional Court has rejected TDAM's leave to appeal an
earlier ruling from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice that
certified a class action alleging investors lost tens of millions
of dollars over trailer fees paid to firms that didn't provide any
advice.

Siskinds LLP, class counsel in the lawsuit against TDAM, also is
class counsel in six other class actions against other mutual fund
trustees/managers that are alleged to have paid trailing
commissions to discount brokers.

The other class actions involve Scotia/Dynamic, CIBC, RBC, National
Bank, BMO and Mackenzie mutual funds, according to a release from
Siskinds. [GN]

TD ASSET: Suit for Commissions to Discount Brokers Certified
------------------------------------------------------------
cbc.ca reports that an Ontario law firm says a class action centred
on TD Asset Management Inc.'s trailing commissions to discount
brokers has been certified.

Siskinds LLP says the class action was prompted by a retired
dentist investing in mutual funds, who discovered that TD Asset
Management was paying trailing commissions to discount brokers like
TD Direct Investing for services and advice, but neither was being
provided.

A trailing commission, also known as a trailer fee, is paid by
mutual fund investors to financial advisers in exchange for
regularly reviewing holdings and providing guidance.

The retired dentist alleges his mutual fund assets were wasted by
the commissions he had to pay and says investors lost tens of
millions of dollars because of the practice.

TD Bank Group, which Siskinds says unsuccessfully sought an appeal
of the certification decision, declined to comment because it said
the matter is still before the courts.

Siskinds is currently pursuing six other trailing commissions class
actions against mutual fund trustees managers, including the Bank
of Nova Scotia's Dynamic, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Royal
Bank of Canada, National Bank and Bank of Montreal Investments.
[GN]

THINK FINANCE: Two Venture Capitalists Pay $50 Million
------------------------------------------------------
Peg Brickley and Becky Yerak, writing for The Wall Street Journal,
report that online lender Think Finance LLC and its backers
resisted critics for years, litigating and lobbying in defense of
its payday lending business. Now two of Silicon Valley's most
prominent venture capitalists are paying $50 million over their
roles in the failed company's allegedly illegal practices.

The settlement covers venture-capital firms Sequoia Capital and
TCV, which backed Think Finance before it collapsed into bankruptcy
in 2017, hammered as a predatory lender by regulators and consumer
class-action lawyers. [GN]


TIVITY HEALTH: Lead Plaintiff Appointed in Strougo Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Tivity Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the Court in the
putative class action suit initiated by Robert Strougo, appointed
Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 33, Cleveland District, Pension Fund
as lead plaintiff.

On February 25, 2020, Robert Strougo, claiming to be a stockholder
of the Company, filed a complaint on behalf of stockholders who
purchased Common Stock between March 8, 2019 and February 19, 2020.


The Strougo Lawsuit was filed as a putative class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, naming
the Company, the Company's chief financial officer and former chief
executive officer as defendants.  The complaint alleges that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act in making false
and misleading statements and omissions related to the performance
of the Nutrisystem business that the Company acquired on March 8,
2019.  

The complaint seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported
class.  

On August 18, 2020, the Court appointed Sheet Metal Workers Local
No. 33, Cleveland District, Pension Fund as lead plaintiff. The
deadline for lead plaintiff to file its amended complaint is
November 13, 2020.

Tivity Health, Inc. provides fitness and health improvement
programs in the United States. The company was formerly known as
Healthways, Inc. and changed its name to Tivity Health, Inc. in
January 2017. Tivity Health, Inc. was founded in 1981 and is
headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee.

TIVITY HEALTH: Trial in Weiner Class Suit Currently Set for May 18
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tivity Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the class action
suit initiated by Eric Weiner, is currently set for trial on May
18, 2021.  

On November 20, 2017, Eric Weiner, claiming to be a stockholder of
the Company, filed a complaint on behalf of stockholders who
purchased Common Stock between February 24, 2017 and November 3,
2017.  

The Weiner Lawsuit was filed as a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, naming as defendants
the Company, the Company's chief executive officer, chief financial
officer and a former executive who served as both chief accounting
officer and interim chief financial officer.  

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act in making false and
misleading statements and omissions related to the United Press
Release.  

The complaint seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported
class.  

On April 3, 2018, the Court entered an order appointing the
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System as lead
plaintiff and designated counsel for the lead plaintiff.  

On January 29, 2020, the Court granted lead plaintiff's motion to
certify the class.  The case is currently set for trial on May 18,
2021.  

Tivity said, "We are currently unable to predict the probable
outcome of the Weiner Lawsuit or to reasonably estimate a range of
potential loss, if any. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves
against the Weiner Lawsuit."

Tivity Health, Inc. provides fitness and health improvement
programs in the United States. The company was formerly known as
Healthways, Inc. and changed its name to Tivity Health, Inc. in
January 2017. Tivity Health, Inc. was founded in 1981 and is
headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee.

TL CANNON: Dees Seeks to Recover Restaurant Servers' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TAMMY DEES; and DAKOTA BOLAND, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. T.L. CANNON CORP. d/b/a
APPLEBEES; T.L. CANNON MANAGEMENT CORP.; TLC WEST, LLC; TLC
CENTRAL, LLC; and TLC UT, Defendants, Case No.
5:20-cv-01537-BKS-ATB (N.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2020) is an action
against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours,
minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as servers.

T.L. Cannon Corp. owns and operates grill & bar restaurants. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James Emmet Murphy, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
          E-mail: jmurphy@vandallp.com

               - and -

          Frank S. Gattuso, Esq.
          GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC
          7030 E. Genesee Street
          Fayetteville, NY 11901
          Telephone: (315) 314-8000
          E-mail: fgattuso@gclawoffice.com


TOYOTA MOTOR: Alaniz Consumer Class Suit Transferred to E.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARIANO ALANIZ, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION and TOYOTA MOTOR
SALES, U.S.A., INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-01351, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on
December 10, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Texas assigned Case
No. 4:20-cv-00943-ALM to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranty, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, the California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the
California's Unfair Competition Law by designing and marketing
Toyota 2010-2015 Prius and Prius PHV, 2012-2015 Prius V, 2012-2014
Camry Hybrid, and 2013-2015 Avalon Hybrid vehicles with defective
brake booster pump assemblies.

Toyota Motor Corporation is an automobile manufacturer, with its
principal place of business located at 1 Toyota-Cho, Toyota City,
Aichi Prefecture, 471-8571, Japan.

Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. is Toyota Motor Corporation's U.S.
sales and marketing arm, which oversees sales and other operations
in 49 states, headquartered in Plano, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
          
         
         L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
         Walnut Creek, CA 94596
         Telephone: (925) 300-4455
         Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
         E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com

                 - and –

         Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         2665 S. Bayshore Dr., Suite 220
         Miami, FL 33133
         Telephone: (305) 330-5512
         Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
         E-mail: scott@bursor.com

UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Affirms in Part Injunction Ruling in Roman
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KELVIN HERNANDEZ ROMAN; BEATRIZ ANDREA FORERO CHAVEZ;
MIGUEL AGUILAR ESTRADA, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Petitioners-Appellees, v. CHAD F.
WOLF, Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; TONY
H. PHAM, Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director,
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; DAVID MARIN, Director of
the Los Angeles Field Office, Enforcement and Removal Operations,
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; JAMES JANECKA, Warden,
Adelanto ICE Processing Center, Defendants-Respondents-Appellants,
Case No. 20-55436 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's preliminary injunction
order in part, vacated it in part, and remanded so that the
district court may immediately address current circumstances at the
Adelanto Immigration and Customs Enforcement Processing Center.

The Plaintiffs brought the class action on behalf of noncitizens
detained at Adelanto.  These noncitizens are being held in civil
detention in connection with various immigration proceedings, and
many of them have no criminal record.  The Plaintiffs seek
declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as habeas relief.  Their
Complaint alleges that, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic,
Adelanto's failure to implement necessary protective measures
violates detainees' due process rights under the Fifth Amendment.


The district court certified a class of 1,370 Adelanto detainees,
and granted a preliminary injunction that, inter alia, imposed a
moratorium on Adelanto's receipt of new detainees, required
specific sanitation measures, mandated compliance with guidance
issued by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
("CDC"), and ordered the facility's detainee population to be
reduced to a level that would enable social distancing.  It left to
the Government's discretion whether to achieve the requisite
population reduction by deporting selected detainees, transferring
selected detainees to other facilities, or releasing selected
detainees with appropriate conditions of release.  The court
likewise allowed the Government to determine which detainees to
release, deport, or transfer.

The Government timely appealed and sought an emergency stay of the
preliminary injunction pending appeal, which a motions panel, in an
unpublished order, granted, except to the extent the preliminary
injunction required substantial compliance with guidelines issued
by the CDC for correctional and detention facilities to follow in
managing COVID-19.

The Appellate Court heard oral argument on Sept. 15, 2020.  The
next day, in response to an inquiry from the Plaintiffs' counsel,
the Government revealed to the Plaintiffs' counsel that 38
detainees had tested positive for COVID-19 at Adelanto.

In the district court, the Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application
for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") on Sept. 16, 2020,
seeking an order compelling the Government to test all Adelanto
detainees (using rapid, point-of-care tests, if possible) and to
isolate all detainees who received positive test results.  The
Government filed a status report, which the district court
construed as an opposition to the TRO application.  The district
court denied the application for a TRO on Sept. 17, 2020, without
specifying its reasoning.

The following day, the Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application for
reconsideration of the district court's denial of their motion for
a TRO and sought a further TRO.  Specifically, they requested that
the district court order the Government to: (1) test all detainees
at Adelanto; (2) isolate, in single occupancy cells, all detainees
who have tested positive for COVID-19 and all detainees who are
awaiting test results; (3) prevent staff who worked in the West 5C
and West 5D housing units from returning to work pending their
COVID-19 test results, even if they are asymptomatic; (4) suspend
intake of new detainees into Adelanto; and (5) provide daily status
reports.

The Plaintiffs acknowledged that the Government was already
undertaking some of the measures requested but contended that the
Government had neither adopted the isolation protocols proposed by
them nor suspended its receipt of new detainees into Adelanto. The
Government again opposed the motion.  In an order issued on Sept.
22, 2020, the district court expressed concern about the adequacy
of the Government's response to the outbreak, but it stated that
its hands have been tied by the Ninth Circuit's stay.  It therefore
denied reconsideration, but it instructed the parties to file a
joint status report "regarding Adelanto's Covid-19 outbreak" with
the Appellate Court, which the latter received later that same
afternoon.

The parties' report informed the Court that, as of September 22,
there were 58 confirmed cases among detainees and eight among staff
members.  More than half of the detainees who had received results
tested positive.  Twenty of the COVID-19-positive detainees belong
to a medically vulnerable group at the greatest risk of suffering
severe complications, and nine detainees were hospitalized.  The
Government has stated its intention to test all Adelanto detainees
and staff.  Just over half of the 774 detainees had been tested by
September 20.  Tests apparently take at least three days to return
results, so the parties are awaiting results for hundreds of
detainees.

The Court received an emergency motion from the Plaintiffs on the
evening of September 22, several hours after it received the
parties' status report, asking it to clarify or to partially lift
the emergency stay imposed by the motions panel.  The emergency
motion asserted that the Government had not imposed measures at
Adelanto necessary to counter the developing outbreak.

Among other things, the Plaintiffs reported that the detainees in
the housing unit with confirmed cases were being held "two per
cell," less than six feet apart; new detainees were continually
being brought into the facility; and only some of the detainees had
been tested for the virus so far.  They asked the Court to clarify
that the emergency stay of the district court's preliminary
injunction did not deprive the district court of authority to order
appropriate isolation protocols and a temporary halt to new intakes
in light of the changed circumstances presented by the current
outbreak.  The Plaintiffs requested, in the alternative, that the
Court lifts the stay insofar as it prohibits the district court
from responding to the current crisis.

Yhe parties dispute whether district courts have authority to order
the types of relief in the preliminary injunction in response to
habeas claims.  Specifically, the Government argues that a district
court on habeas review may not order detainee releases or any other
injunctive relief to remedy unconstitutional conditions of
confinement.  

The Ninth Circuit need not reach that issue to resolve the appeal
because, separately from their habeas petition, the Plaintiffs
brought a class action complaint for declaratory and injunctive
relief seeking to remedy allegedly unconstitutional conditions at
Adelanto.  That action for declaratory and injunctive relief
independently provided the district court jurisdiction to hear the
Plaintiffs' challenges and authority to grant the types of relief
that they sought.

The Ninth Circuit holds that the district court did not abuse its
discretion by entering a preliminary injunction in response to the
Plaintiffs' due process claims.  The district court made detailed
factual findings in support of the preliminary injunction, none of
which the Government challenged in its brief on appeal as being
clearly erroneous.  In light of these factual findings, which the
Government has not shown to be clearly erroneous, the Court agrees
with the district court that the conditions at Adelanto in April
violated detainees' due process right to reasonable safety.

It also agrees with the district court that the Government likely
failed to meet its constitutional duty to provide reasonably safe
conditions to the Plaintiffs.  The district court was also correct
in its conclusion that the Plaintiffs were likely to suffer
irreparable harm absent relief given COVID-19's high mortality
rate.  Finally, the district court rightly concluded that the
equities tipped in the Plaintiffs' favor, particularly in light of
the lack of criminal records of many of the detainees and the
alternative means available to prevent their absconding if they
were released, such as electronic monitoring.

The Ninth Circuit further holds that the district court did not err
by provisionally certifying a class of all Adelanto detainees.  The
alleged due process violations exposed all Adelanto detainees to an
unnecessary risk of harm, not just those who are release-eligible
or uniquely vulnerable to COVID-19.  The preliminary injunction
afforded class-wide relief that would have remedied the
constitutional violations as to all detainees, even though it would
have entailed the release or transfer of only some of the
detainees.  The district court did not abuse its discretion in
holding that the Plaintiffs had satisfied the commonality,
adequacy, and typicality requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(a) and the uniform remedy requirement of Rule
23(b)(2).

Although it affirms the portions of the preliminary injunction
order concluding that the district court possesses the power to
grant injunctive relief and that the Plaintiffs are likely to
prevail on the merits of their due process claims, the Court
nonetheless vacates the provisions of the preliminary injunction
that ordered specific measures to be implemented at Adelanto.  It
vacates the provisions of the injunction ordering specific
reductions in the detainee population and specific changes in
conditions at the facility and remand to the district court for
further proceedings consistent with this disposition and with the
latest facts.  The facts that motivated the district court's
preliminary injunction no longer reflect the current realities at
Adelanto.  

Finally, the injunction should, to the extent possible, reflect the
scientific evidence about COVID-19 presented to the district court.
The Ninth Circuit sees no evidence in the current record that
suggests wearing a mask in this specific situation would reduce
COVID-19 transmission.  If the district court determines on remand
that scientific evidence supports ordering this measure, it should
clearly identify the relevant evidence.

Based on the foregoing, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and
vacated in part the preliminary injunction order, and remanded the
case for further proceedings consistent with its disposition.
Because the substantive provisions of the preliminary injunction
are vacated, the Court dissolved forthwith the stay pending appeal
of that order, and denied the Plaintiffs' emergency motion as moot.


A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's Sept. 23, 2020 Memorandum
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6aqnkc7 from Leagle.com.

UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Appeal in Teamsters Local 456 Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Universal Health Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that plaintiffs
in Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund, et. al. v. Universal Health
Services, Inc. et. al., have filed an appeal with the 3d Circuit
Court of Appeals on the court's denial of its motion with the court
seeking leave to file a second amended complaint.

In December 2016 a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against UHS and certain UHS officers alleging violations of the
federal securities laws.

The case was originally filed as Heed v. Universal Health Services,
Inc. et. al. (Case No. 2:16-CV-09499-PSG-JC). The court
subsequently appointed Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund and
Teamsters Local 456 Annuity Fund to serve as lead plaintiffs.  

The case has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the style of the case has been
changed to Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund, et. al. v. Universal
Health Services, Inc. et. al. (Case No. 2:17-CV-02817-LS).

In September 2017, Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund filed an
amended complaint. The amended class action complaint alleges
violations of federal securities laws relating to disclosures made
in public filings associated with alleged practices and operations
at our behavioral health facilities.  

Plaintiffs seek monetary damages for shareholders during the
defined class period as a result of the decrease in share price
following various public disclosures or reports. In December 2017,
the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

In August 2019, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion with the court seeking leave
to file a second amended complaint.

In April 2020, the court denied Plaintiffs' motion to file a second
amended complaint. Plaintiffs have filed an appeal with the 3d
Circuit Court of Appeals.

Universal Health said, "We deny liability and intend to defend
ourselves vigorously. The parties have recently initiated
settlement negotiations during the pendency of the appeal, however,
we can provide no assurance that a settlement will be reached. We
are uncertain as to potential liability or financial exposure, if
any, which may be associated with this matter."

Universal Health Services, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns and
operates acute care hospitals, outpatient facilities, and
behavioral health care facilities. The company operates through
Acute Care Hospital Services, Behavioral Health Care Services, and
Other segments. Universal Health Services, Inc. founded in 1978 and
is headquartered in King Of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

US ECOLOGY: Settlement Reached in Sullivan PAGA Claims
------------------------------------------------------
US Ecology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the parties in
Kevin Sullivan et. Al. v. National Response Corp., NRC
Environmental Services, Inc. and Paul Taveira et al., reached a
settlement resolving the pending California Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") claim, subject to court approval of
such settlement agreement.

In January 2019, Kevin Sullivan, a driver for NRC Group Holdings
Corp. from May 1, 2018 to August 22, 2018 filed a class action
complaint against NRC in California Superior Court (Kevin Sullivan
et. Al. v. National Response Corp., NRC Environmental Services,
Inc. and Paul Taveira et al.) alleging the failure by the
defendants to provide meal and rest breaks required by California
law and requiring employees to work off the clock. Mr. Sullivan's
complaint also asserted a claim under the PAGA, which permits an
employee to assert a claim for violations of certain California
Labor Code provisions on behalf of all aggrieved employees to
recover statutory penalties that could be recovered by the State of
California.

On April 17, 2019, NRC filed a motion to compel individual
arbitration, strike Mr. Sullivan's class action claims and stay the
PAGA claim pending the outcome of Mr. Sullivan's individual claim;
the court subsequently granted NRC's motion to compel.

In response, Mr. Sullivan amended his complaint to dismiss the
class claims without prejudice and proceed solely with the PAGA
claim. Unlike class claims, PAGA claims cannot be waived by an
employee's agreement to individual arbitration; therefore, the case
is proceeding as a pure representative PAGA claim only, absent any
individual or class claims against the Company or NRC.

The parties participated in a confidential mediation on August 3,
2020, and reached a settlement resolving the pending PAGA claim,
subject to court approval of such settlement agreement.

US Ecology, Inc. is a leading provider of environmental services to
commercial and governmental entities. The Company addresses the
complex waste management and response needs of its customers,
offering treatment, disposal and recycling of hazardous,
non-hazardous and radioactive waste, leading emergency response and
standby services, and a wide range of complementary field and
industrial services. The company is based in Boise, Idaho.

VERTEX GLOBAL: Franklin Files Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vertex Global
Solutions, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Henry Franklin, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Vertex Global
Solutions, Inc., Fresh Direct, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-10495-KPF
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 11, 2020).

The case alleges violation of civil rights.

Vertex Global Solutions -- https://vertexglobalsolutions.com/ --
provides staffing services primarily on the Eastern Seaboard of the
US.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 west 24th Street, Ste. 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Phone: (212) 465-1180
          Fax: (212) 465-1181
          Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


VIEWRAY INC: Bid to Dismiss PCRA Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------
ViewRay Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss filed
in the class action suit entitled, Plymouth County Retirement
Association v. ViewRay, Inc., et al., is pending.

On September 13, 2019, a class action complaint for violation of
federal securities laws was filed in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio against the Company, its chief executive
officer, chief scientific officer, and former chief financial
officer.

On December 19, 2019, the court appointed Plymouth County
Retirement Association as the lead plaintiff, and on February 28,
2020 the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting
securities fraud claims against the Company, its chief executive
officer, chief operating officer, chief scientific officer, and
former chief executive officer and former chief financial officer.


Now captioned Plymouth County Retirement Association v. ViewRay,
Inc., et al., the amended complaint alleges that the Company
violated federal securities laws by issuing materially false and
misleading statements that failed to disclose adverse facts
concerning its business, operations, and financial results, and
seeks damages, interest, and other relief.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May
28, 2020.

While the initial motion to dismiss was pending, the plaintiff was
granted leave to file a second amended complaint. A motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint was filed on September 16,
2020, and that motion has been fully briefed.

The Company believes the allegations in the complaint are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend the litigation.

ViewRay Inc. develops radiation therapy technology for the
treatment of cancer. The Company offers radiation therapy systems
that images and treats cancer patients simultaneously. ViewRay
serves customers worldwide. The company is based in Oakwood
Village, Ohio.

WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Trim Files Suit in S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wakefield &
Associates, Inc. The case is styled as Martin Trim, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wakefield &
Associates, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-02420-JLS-BLM (S.D. Cal., Dec.
11, 2020).

The case alleges civil rights violations.

Wakefield & Associates -- https://www.wakeassoc.com/ -- is a
provider of accounts receivable management and delinquent account
recovery in the healthcare arena.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Juliana G. Blaha, Esq.
          SWIGART LAW GROUP
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Phone: (866) 219-3343
          Fax: (866) 219-8344
          Email: juliana@swigartlawgroup.com



WALMART INC: Powell Labor Class Suit Removed to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DEARL POWELL, CHRISTINA GAST and ELIJHA GONZALEZ,
as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
WALMART INC., WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., WAL-MART STORES, INC., and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 37-02020-35007-CU-OE, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California on December 10, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-02412-BEN-LL to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code by failing to timely pay wages upon
termination of the Plaintiffs' employment.

Walmart Inc., formerly known as Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., is an
American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of
hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores,
headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.

Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. is a retail company based in Bentonville,
Arkansas. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
            
         
         Paloma P. Peracchio, Esq.
         OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
         400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 239-9800
         Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
         E-mail: paloma.peracchio@ogletree.com

                 - and –

         Mitchell A. Wrosch, Esq.
         OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
         Park Tower, Fifteenth Floor
         695 Town Center Drive
         Costa Mesa, CA 92626
         Telephone: (714) 800-7900
         Facsimile: (714) 754-1298
         E-mail: mitchell.wrosch@ogletree.com

WILLIAMS & FUDGE: $68,000 Yadgarova Suit Settlement Gets Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARINA YADGAROVA, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAMS & FUDGE, INC.,
Defendant, Class Action No. 1:19-cv-1232-AMD-RER (E.D. N.Y.), Judge
Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York granted the Parties' request for final
approval of their Class Action Settlement Agreement.

On Sept. 22, 2020, the Court held a fairness hearing.  Judge Reyes
finds that the Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and
finally approves the Agreement submitted by the Parties.

He certified pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) the class of (a)
all individuals with addresses in New York State (b) to whom
defendant Williams & Fudge, Inc. (c) sent an initial collection
letter (d) attempting to collect a debt (e) on which interest is
accruing (f) which did not positively disclose that the balance may
increase due to interest and fees, (g) which letter was sent on or
after a date one year prior to the filing of the action.

Judge Reyes approved a form of notice for mailing to the Settlement
Class.  He is informed notice of the settlement was successfully
sent to 2,260 class members of the total 2,379.  One person in the
Settlement Class requested exclusion, and zero objections were
filed or received.

Each Class Member whose notice was successfully mailed will receive
a check for $174.84 from the $68,000 Class Settlement Fund.  Costs
associated with class notice and administration will be deducted
from the Settlement Fund in accordance with the terms of the
Agreement.

Judge Reyes ordered the Defendant to pay the total amount of
$68,000 to the third-party class administrator, First Class, Inc.,
within 21 days after the Effective Date, for the establishment of
the Class Settlement Fund and for distribution to the Settlement
Class Members, in accordance with the terms of the Agreement.
Payments for notice and administration of the settlement, an
incentive to the class representative, and attorney's fees will be
deducted from the Class Settlement Fund.  The remaining amount will
be distributed equally among the 204 Settlement Class Members whose
claim forms were successfully mailed.

The Judge approved (i) an award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs to the
Class Counsel in the amount of $20,333.33; (ii) a payment of
$5,000,00 to Marina Yadgarova for her actual and statutory damages
and for her service as the Class Representative; and (iii) a
payment of $7,000,00 to the third-party class administrator, First
Class, Inc., for the costs associated with notice to the Settlement
Class Members and administering the class settlement.  These
amounts will be deducted from the Class Settlement Fund in
accordance with the terms of the Agreement.

The terms of the Agreement are incorporated into the Order.  The
Order will operate as a final judgment and dismissal with prejudice
of the claims in the action.

Judge Reyes also approved the Legal Aid Society as the cy pres
recipient, subject to the terms of the Agreement.

The Parties are ordered to comply with the terms of the Agreement
and the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 23, 2020 Final Approval Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yy4w3d7c from Leagle.com.

[*] Class Action Law Changes May Upend Antitrust Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eleanor Tyler, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that antitrust
litigation, in the form of both public and private enforcement,
looks to be entering a period of serious upheaval.

Both the U.S. and the European Union have begun a fundamental
policy debate about the purpose of their antitrust laws, their
appropriate scope, and who should be allowed to enforce them. As
this debate simmers among U.S. antitrust stakeholders, for the
first time since the 1970s, the practice may be in for a tectonic
shift.

The four developments with the most potential to impact antitrust
and trade litigation in 2021 are:

1. the introduction of possible new tools for enforcers,

2. the pending Supreme Court cases that could kick the FTC out of
   the consumer redress business,

3. the court battle over further narrowing the right to bring
   class actions, and

4. the rise of more enforcers worldwide.

New Enforcement Tools?

The U.S. and EU have separately proposed to give enforcers new
tools to attack anticompetitive conduct. Both attempt to address
how digital markets differ from traditional markets, and what many
perceive as overweening power for a few digital platforms. The
reforms could spell a reset of digital markets, and of antitrust
law more broadly, in 2021 and beyond.

A much-awaited report from the U.S. House of Representatives
proposes sweeping legal changes to private and public antitrust
enforcement to "recalibrate" U.S. antitrust law. It also puts a
bullseye on the back of the tech giants.

Among other recommendations, the House report advocates moving the
U.S. toward an "abuse of dominance" standard like the EU's. It also
supports legislatively erasing court precedents that have
critically narrowed the path to winning lawsuits filed under
Sherman Act § 2.

Given that the last major change to U.S. antitrust statutes was in
1976, if enacted, the proposed changes likely would begin at least
a decade of new lawsuits reckoning with concentrated markets.
Meanwhile, the DOJ has challenged Google Inc.‘s online empire
under the existing law, a rare public enforcement case alleging
monopoly.

The report's recommendations are controversial, and the outcome of
the U.S. Senate elections likely will dictate whether legislative
change materializes. David Cicilline (D-RI), the chair of the House
Judiciary Committee's Antitrust Subcommittee, has pledged to
propose legislation based on the report as soon as possible.

In the EU, the Competition Commission has proposed a "new
competition tool" that would permit the commission to intervene in
tipping markets even before a player becomes dominant. The proposed
new tool will be part of a Digital Markets Act for use in those
markets, where the "winner take all" effect makes early action
crucial to preserving competition. It could still be used outside
of digital markets, because the tool isn't yet a reality. But even
in limited use, the proposed tool represents a radical change for
EU enforcers: an experiment in stopping potential problems to
competition before they mature into legal violations.

Threats to the FTC's Role
2021 could see a radical shift in the role of the U.S. Federal
Trade Commission in antitrust and consumer protection enforcement.
During the 2020–2021 term, the Supreme Court will hear two cases
(consolidated) addressing the power of the FTC to seek injunctive
relief in federal court.

If the FTC loses its powers to seek disgorgement and to address
past wrongs through an injunction, it will be forced to rely more
on its administrative process to bring claims. While that gives the
Commission more of a direct say in how the law progresses, it could
end the FTC's ability to seek redress for defrauded consumers,
depriving the agency of a hammer in forcing companies to clean up
their act.

On the other hand, Commissioner Rohit Chopra encourages the agency
to return to using its penalty power under 15 USC § 45(m), which
explicitly allows the FTC to seek penalties in court against unfair
conduct that violates a standing cease-and-desist order. Those
penalties are limited to $10,000 per violation, however, and
therefore aren't related to losses consumers have suffered.

While the agency has options, new methods would lead to a sharp
turn from its long-standing practices.

A Harder Path for Class Actions

Changes in class action law could also upend antitrust (and
consumer protection) litigation, given the prominent role of big
consumer and direct purchaser class actions in the field. Relying
on two Supreme Court cases from the 1800s, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently held that any incentive
award for named plaintiffs who participate in a lawsuit on behalf
of the class is illegal.

A complete ban on plaintiff incentive awards, if it stands, would
make it more difficult to recruit plaintiffs to represent large
classes, like those that bring antitrust consumer actions.
Defendants are sure to appeal, and other cases will test these
waters.

The right to bring class actions is narrower each year. Next to
criminal charges, big treble-damages civil actions are what keep
U.S. antitrust defendants awake at night. If that threat is
neutralized, private antitrust enforcement becomes an entirely
different field.

Flexing Enforcers, Growing Voices

The growing role of newer enforcers outside of the U.S. continues
to be an important trend to watch. The German Bundeskartellamt,
armed with a new competition statute, continues to grow in
international stature as a leading enforcer.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is likewise
testing its strength against tech and telecom players and,
according to Chair Rod Sims, needs an unfair trade practices law
and additional powers to regulate market power in infrastructure.

China is also flexing the muscles of its State Administration for
Market Regulation, including potential changes to its antimonopoly
law that target tech companies and new merger control rules.

Increasingly, global companies face global antitrust enforcement.
In 2021, expect to see more from the 132 countries in the
international competition network. [GN]


[*] Exposure to Stock Drop Class Actions Amounts to $13BB in 3Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
Exposure of directors and officers of U.S. issuers and non-U.S.
issuers to stock-drop securities class action (SCA) lawsuits that
allege violations of the federal securities laws under Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, amounts to $133.2 billion in 3Q'20.
U.S. SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure of U.S. issuers amounts to $101.8
billion in 3Q'20, an increase of 126.7% relative to 2Q'20. ADR SCA
Rule 10b-5 Exposure of non-U.S. issuers listed on U.S. exchanges
that trade via American Depository Receipts (ADRs) amounts to $31.4
billion in 3Q'20, an increase of 285% relative to 2Q'20.

According to the SAR Securities Class Action (SCA) Rule 10b-5
Exposure Report - 3Q 2020, the U.S. SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure Rate of
U.S. issuers increased to 0.29% from 0.15% in 2Q'20, the highest
exposure rate observed during the preceding four quarters. The U.S.
SCA Rule 10b-5 Litigation Rate of U.S. issuers also increased to
1.16% from 1.04% in 2Q'20.

"For U.S. issuers, Rule 10b-5 exposure in 3Q increased by $57
billion to $102 billion, driven in large part by the SCA against
Intel which accounts for 40% of U.S. exposure. However, even after
discounting the Intel case, total U.S. SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure
increased 34% relative to 2Q. Non-U.S. issuers also exhibited a
material increase of 285% in ADR SCA Rule 10b-5 exposure, or $23.2
billion, relative to 2Q," said Nessim Mezrahi, CEO of SAR.   

3Q 2020 Securities Class Action Landscape observations:

40 U.S. issuers were sued for alleged violations of Rule 10b-5.
Based on the allegations presented in the first-filed SCA complaint
against each defendant corporation, U.S. SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure
amounts to $101.8 billion. This is a notable increase of $57
billion, or 127% relative to 2Q'20.
15 U.S. large cap issuers were sued for alleged violations of Rule
10b-5. The Large Cap SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure amounts to $93.7
billion, a material increase of $56.1 billion, or 149% relative to
2Q'20. The Large Cap SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure Rate increased by 15
basis points to 0.29%. The Large Cap SCA Rule 10b-5 Litigation Rate
increased to 1.81%, which is still below the rates exhibited in 1Q
and 2Q of 2020.

7 U.S. mid cap issuers were sued for alleged violations of Rule
10b-5. The Mid Cap SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure amounts to $2.7 billion,
an increase of $742 million, or 37% relative to 2Q'20. The Mid Cap
SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure Rate increased slightly by 4 basis points
to 0.20%. The Mid Cap SCA Rule 10b-5 Litigation Rate decreased to
1.17% in 3Q'20 from 1.29% in 2Q'20.

18 U.S. small cap issuers were sued for alleged violations of Rule
10b-5. The Small Cap SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure amounts to $5.4
billion, a slight increase of about $106 million, or 2% relative to
2Q'20. The Small Cap SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure Rate increased by 1
basis point in 3Q'20 to 0.80%. The Small Cap SCA Rule 10b-5
Litigation Rate increased to 0.89% in 3Q'20 from 0.85% in 2Q'20.

9 Non-U.S. issuers that trade via ADRs in the U.S. public markets
were sued for alleged violations of Rule 10b-5. The ADR SCA Rule
10b-5 Exposure increased materially by $23.2 billion, or 285%
relative to 2Q'20. The ADR SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure Rate in 3Q'20
amounts to 0.12%, a material increase of 9 basis points relative to
2Q'20. The ADR SCA Rule 10b-5 Litigation Rate in 3Q'20 is 0.45%, 20
basis points higher relative to 2Q'20, and the highest recorded
litigation rate against non-U.S. issuers in 2020. [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 ***