/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201221.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, December 21, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 254

                            Headlines

ALIBABA GROUP: Frank R. Cruz Announces Securities Class Action
ALIBABA GROUP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Jan. 12 Motion Deadline
ALIBABA GROUP: Robbins Geller Reminds of Jan. 12 Motion Deadline
ALIBABA GROUP: Thornton Law Reminds of Jan. 12 Motion Deadline
ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA: Responds to Add-on Insurance Class Action

ALPHACORE CAPITAL: Mannacio Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
AMAZON WEB: Court Dismisses McGoveran BIPA Suit Without Prejudice
AMERICAN INSTITUTE: Huth Files Suit in Connecticut
ANCESTRY.COM: Sued in Class Action for Using Data from Year Books
APPARIS INC: Kiler Files ADA Suit in New York

APPLE INC: Alameda County to Receive $4.1M in Settlement
APPLE INC: Judge Narrows iCloud Storage Subscribers' Class Action
APPLE INC: New Jersey to Get $3MM as Part of iPhone Settlement
APPLE INC: Settles Throttling Class Action for $113 Million
APPLE INC: To Pay $113M to U.S. States Over Battery Complaints

ARMSTRONG FLOORING: Reaches $3.75MM Class Settlement in Chupa Suit
AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over Vickery Extension Project
BAOZUN INC: Two Securities Class Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
BAYERISCHE MOTOREN: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of December 28 Deadline
BAYERISCHE MOTOREN: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Dec. 28 Deadline

BERRY CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Jan. 21 Motion Deadline
BERRY CORP: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Jan. 21 Motion Deadline
BERRY CORP: Gross Law Announces Securities Class Action
BERRY CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Jan. 21 Motion Deadline
BERRY CORP: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Jan. 21 Motion Deadline

BIOGEN INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Jan. 12 Motion Deadline
BIOGEN INC: Gross Law Announces Securities Class Action
BIOGEN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Jan. 12 Motion Deadline
BIOGEN INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Jan. 12 Motion Deadline
BIOGEN INC: Schall Law Reminds of Jan. 12 Deadline

BIOGEN INC: Thornton Law Reminds of Jan. 12 Motion Deadline
BLACKBAUD: Faces Consumer Class Actions in U.S., Canada
BOILERMAKER-BLACKSMITH: Search Terms Can't Be Compelled in Phillips
BRACKETRON INC: Sanchez Alleges Violation under ADA
CABOT OIL: Gainey McKenna Reminds of Jan. 12 Motion Deadline

CANADA: Suit Alleges Discrimination Against Black Public Servants
CANOPY GROWTH: Cannabis Related Putative Class Suit Underway
CAPITAL ONE: Cohen Class Action Over Alleged Usury Dismissed
CARNIVAL CORP: Bernstein, Kessler Named Counsel in Securities Suit
CARPARTS.COM: Monegro Files Suit under ADA in New York

CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Wins Bid to Dismiss Amended Alexander Suit
CELSION CORP: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of December 29 Deadline
CELSION CORP: Schall Law Firm Reminds of December 29 Deadline
CGU INSURANCE: Lawyers Urge Affected People to Join Bushfire Suit
CHEGG INC: Monegro Alleges Violation under ADA

CHICAGO, IL: Santiago's Towing Lawsuit Granted Class Action Status
CHIPOTLE: Workers Want S.C. to Deny Review of Wage Class Cert.
CITIGROUP INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Dec. 29 Motion Deadline
CITIGROUP INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of December 29 Deadline
CLYDESDALE BANK: Class Action Over TBLs Enters Final Phase

CMG CIT: Shortchanges Workers' Wages, Erguera Says
COLLECTION AGENCY: Conde et al. Sue Over Illegal Debt Collection
CONNECTICUT: Diaz Files Prisoner Civil Rights Suit
DANIEL RAINN FASHION: Kiler Files Suit in New York
DELL: Hit With Class-Action After Data Breach Led to Scam Calls

DHM RESEARCH: McKay Suit Won't Be Stayed Pending Facebook Outcome
DIAMOND DOLLS: Dancers Class in Harris FLSA Suit Cond. Certified
DIAMOND RESORTS INC: Zwicky Suit Transferred to Arizona Dist. Ct.
DIRECT HOLDINGS AMERICAS: Kiler Files Suit in New York
DOMINION COURTYARD: Class Certification Denial in Cardamon Flipped

DONALD TRUMP: Tenants Sue Over Scheme That Drove Up Rents
DR. JAMES HEAPS: $73MM Settlement Reached in Sex Abuse Suit
E.L.F. COSMETICS: Flaherty Sues Over Mislabeled Skincare Product
EL AZTECA: Resto Staff Seeks Overtime Pay, Withheld Tips
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Fasken Attorneys Discuss Loot Box Class Action

ENHANCED RECOVERY: Skvarla Files Suit under FDCPA
ENV SERVICES: Misclassifies Field Service Technicians, Kain Claims
EVOLUTION HEALTH: Carr Seeks OT Pay for Hours Worked Over 40/Week
EXPANSION CAPITAL: Fabricant et al. Sue Over Unsolicited Calls
FABFITFUN INC: Bunting Files ADA Suit in New York

FCA US: Anderson Suit Transferred From W.D. Wis. to E.D. Mich.
FEDERAL INSURANCE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Amended Abramson TCPA Suit
FINISAR CORP: February 11 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
FIRST AMERICAN: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of Dec. 24 Deadline
FIRST AMERICAN: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of Dec. 24 Motion Deadline

FIRST AMERICAN: Rosen Law Reminds of Dec. 24 Plaintiff Bid Deadline
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Shtroks Files Suit under FDCPA
FORD: Ecoboost Problems Lead to Class Action Lawsuit
FORTRESS BIOTECH: Rosen Law Reminds of Jan. 26 Motion Deadline
FRIEND FAMILY HEALTH: Smith Files PI Suit in Illinois

FUNKO INC: Officers and Directors Under Probe Over Fiduciary Breach
G8 EDUCATION: Slater and Gordon Files Shareholder Class Action
G8 EDUCATION: To Vigorously Defend Class Action
GENERAL MOTORS: Bolt Battery Recall Too Late, Alleges Lawsuit
GENERAL MOTORS: Class Action Filed Over Chevy Bolt EV Battery Pack

GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Brake Vacuum Pump Issues
GERMACK PISTACHIO CO: Sanchez Alleges Violation under ADA
GIANT EAGLE: Order on Performance Reviews of TLs in Jones Entered
GOLDMAN SACHS: Gender Discrimination Class Action Ongoing
GRUMA CORP: Citywide Consultants Suit Settlement Has Final Approval

HAMMEL & KAPLAN: Harvey Settlement Wins Final Court Approval
HARTFORD, CT: Faces Housing Discrimination Class Action
HEART OF TEXAS: Faces Dragon Suit Over Unreimbursed Expenses
HILLSTONE RESTAURANT: Faces Lawsuit Over 15% Takeout Fee
HILTON WORLDWIDE: Faces Class Action Over Automatic Gratuity Fees

HMG INC: Thorne Alleges Violation under ADA
HP INC: Gross Law Firm Announces Securities Class Action
HYUNDAI: Faces Class Action in South Korea Over Kona EV Fires
IHS MARKIT: Monteverde & Associates Probes Firm Over Merger Deal
ILLXILL CLOTHING LLC: Rodriguez Files Suit Under ADA in New York

INNATE PHARMA: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Dec. 22 Motion Deadline
INNATE PHARMA: Glancy Prongay Reminds of December 22 Deadline
INNATE PHARMA: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Dec. 22 Bid Deadline
INNATE PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of December 22 Deadline
INTELSAT: Class Action Complaints Underway

INTERCEPT PHARMA: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Jan. 4 Deadline
INTERCEPT PHARMA: Bragar Eagel Reminds of January 4 Motion Deadline
INTERCEPT PHARMA: Gross Law Announces Class Action
INTERCEPT PHARMA: Klein Law Reminds of Jan. 4 Motion Deadline
INTERCEPT PHARMA: Pomerantz Alerts of Jan. 4 Plaintiff Bid Deadline

INTERCEPT PHARMA: Robbins Geller Reminds of Jan. 4 Motion Deadline
INTERCEPT PHARMA: Rosen Law Reminds of January 4 Deadline
INTERCEPT PHARMA: Schall Law Reminds of Jan. 4 Deadline
INTERFACE INC: Brualdi Law Reminds of Jan. 11 Motion Deadline
INTERFACE INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Jan. 11 Motion Deadline

INTERFACE INC: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action Suit
INTERFACE INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Jan. 11 Motion Deadline
INTERFACE INC: Thornton Law Reminds of Jan. 11 Motion Deadline
INTUIT INC: Settles Class Action for $40 Million
JENNIFER ADAMS BRANDS: Thorne Files ADA Suit in New York

JNH FOOD: Faces Cornelson Suit Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
JOYY INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Jan. 19 Motion Deadline
JOYY INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of Jan. 19 Motion Deadline
JOYY INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action
JPMORGAN CHASE: Howard G. Smith Remind of December 23 Deadline

JPMORGAN CHASE: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Dec. 23 Motion Deadline
JPMORGAN CHASE: Zhang Investor Reminds of Dec. 23 Motion Deadline
K12 INC: Bernstein Liebhard Remind of Jan. 19 Motion Deadline
K12 INC: Levi & Korsinsky Remind of Jan. 19 Motion Deadline
K12 INC: Lowey Dannenberg Reminds of Jan. 19 Motion Deadline

K12 INC: Pomerantz LLP Investigates on Behalf of Investors
K12 INC: Zhang Investor Alerts of Class Action Filing
KALISPELL HEALTHCARE: Jan. 5 Hearing Set for Deal in Henderson Suit
KALISPELL REGIONAL: Agrees to $4.2M Fund for Security Breach
KELLOGG: Judge Dismisses First Amended Class Action Complaint

KENOSHA, WI: Kenosha Teachers Union Files Class Action
KIMBERLY-CLARK: Faces Class Action After Cottonelle Wipes Recall
KIMBRELL'S OF NORTH: Miller Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
KING SOOPERS: Prelim. OK of Class Settlement in Powell Recommended
KUCOIN: Restores Services, Class Action in U.S. Pending

KUSHNER COMPANIES: Tenants' Lawsuit Granted Class Action Status
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Dec. 21 Motion Deadline
LAS VEGAS: Zhang Investor Law Reminds of Dec. 21 Motion Deadline
LES SCHWAB: Employees Set to Get Class Action Settlement Payout
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Settles Drivers' Class Action for About $5 Mil.

LIBERTY HEALTH: Reaches $1.8 Million Deal to Settle Class Action
LLR INC: Ninth Circuit Flips Dismissal of Van Class Suit
LOUISVILLE GAS: Denial of Class Certification in Little Affirmed
LYFT: Judge Bewildered by Objection to ADA Class Certification Bid
MAYBELLINE LLC: Flaherty Sues Over Mislabeled Skincare Product

MDL 2262: $45+MM Awarded to EBP Counsel in Antitrust Suit
MDL 2332: Creation of California Subclass Denied in Lipitor Suit
MDL 2818: Leave to File Second Amended GM AC Consolidated Suit OK'd
MERCEDES: 1,000 Drives Launch Emissions Compensation Claims
MICHAEL SCHNELL: FLSA Collective Action Conditionally Certified

MOBILELINK ARKANSAS: Plough Files FLSA Class Action
NEOVASC INC: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Violations
NEOVASC INC: Zhang Investor Reminds of Jan. 5 Motion Deadline
NEW MEXICO: Plaintiffs to Take COVID-19 Class Suit to High Court
NEW YORK LIFE: Rejects Job Seekers With Arrest Records, Suit Says

NEW YORK: Caballero Files Prisoner Rights Suit
NEW YORK: Councilman, Parents File Suit to Reopen Schools
NISSAN NORTH: Faces Class Action Over Faulty AEB System
NORTHERN DYNASTY: Kehoe Law Reminds Investors of Dec. 21 Deadline
NORTHERN DYNASTY: Rosen Law Reminds of December 21 Deadline

OLD DOMINION: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Hopkins Suit Claims
OMNI: Diamondhead Property Owners File Class Action
OREGON EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT: Responds to Class Action Details
OREGON: Employment Department Picks Anew Modernization Vendor
OTTAWA: Civil Servants Allege Discrimination in Proposed Suit

PACIFIC MARKET: Monegro Suit Alleges Violation under ADA
PHI AIR: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik Files Wage Class Action
PINTEREST INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Jan. 22 Bid Deadline
PINTEREST INC: Gross Law Announces Securities Class Action
PINTEREST INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of January 22 Deadline

PINTEREST INC: Portnoy Law Announces Securities Class Action
PINTEREST INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Jan. 22 Motion Deadline
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND: Class Certification Appeal Dismissed in King
PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Court Denies Bid to Remand Ciccone Suit
PROMPT NURSING: 2nd Cir. Upholds Injunction Order in Paguirigan

PULTE HOME: Faces Class Action Over Cemetery Flooding
QUINCY BIOSCIENCE: Judge Strikes Objection to Prevagen Settlement
R.C. BIGELOW: Seeks Dismissal of False Advertising Class Action
RAYTHEON TECH: ClaimsFiler Reminds of December 29 Deadline
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Dec. 29 Bid Deadline

RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Gainey McKenna Reminds of Dec. 29 Deadline
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Hagens Berman Reminds of Dec. 29 Deadline
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Dec. 29 Deadline
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Dec. 29 Deadline
RCMP: Media Statement on Bastarache Report on Class Action

RCMP: Sexual Abuse Victims Come Forward as Claims Deadline Looms
RECKITT BENCKISER: Sterling Fund Suit Transferred to N.Y. Dist. Ct.
SAG-AFTRA: Performers Union Sues Over Health Plan Misrepresentation
SAN DIEGO USD: 9th Cir. Allows JF to Revise 1st Amended Complaint
SANTEE COOPER: Residents Could Get Class Settlement Refunds

SAP SE: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Violations
SIBANYE GOLD: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
SOUTH CAROLINA: Denmark Residents Sue Over HaloSan-Tainted Water
SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Class Action Can Proceed on "Opt Out Basis"
SPECTRUM BRANDS: January 29 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

SPLITS 59 LLC: Monegro Alleges Violation under ADA
SPLUNK INC: Faces Block & Leviton Suit Over Securities Fraud
SPLUNK INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of February 2 Deadline
STERLING INFOSYSTEMS: Settlement in Gambles Suit Has Final Approval
SYMANTEC: Robbins Geller Throws Grenade at Bernstein Litowitz

SYNACOR INC: Announces Dismissal of 2018 Class Action Lawsuit
TARGET CORP: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Francis Suit Claims
TESLA: Model S & X Owners File Suspension Class Action Lawsuit
TETRA TECH: Has Not Agreed to Settle Class Action
TILRAY INC: Consolidated Braun Suit Ongoing in Delaware

TILRAY INC: Langevin Putative Class Suit Underway in Canada
TOYOTA MOTOR: Discovery Order Entered in RAV4 Hybrid Fuel Tank Suit
TURQUOISE HILL: ClaimsFiler Reminds of December 14 Deadline
UGI STORAGE: Hughes Appeals Ruling to Penn. Supreme Court
UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over "No-Blank-Space Policy"

UNITED STATES: Sued Over Migrant Protection Protocols Program
UNITED STATES: US Army Settles Veterans' Class Action
UNITED STATES: West Midlands Restaurants Sue Over COVID-19 Closures
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Ryan S. Appeals Order in ERISA Suit to 9th Cir.
UPS: Judge Mostly Denies Class Certification to Workers

V. MARCHESE: Gomez-Velasquez Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
VELOCITY INVESTMENTS: Jackson Suit Seeks to Certify Five Classes
WALMART INC: Court Narrows Claims in Amended Morris Class Suit
WELD COUNTY, CO: Court Defers Approval of Settlement in Martinez
WELLS FARGO: Gainey McKenna Reminds of December 29 Deadline

WELLS FARGO: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Dec. 29 Motion Deadline
WELLS FARGO: Rosen Law Reminds of Dec. 29 Motion Deadline
WHISH BODY PRODUCTS: Kiler Files Suit under ADA
WORLEY: Shine Lawyers Appeals Class Action Dismissal
WWE: Settles Saudi Arabia Class Action for $39 Million

XCVI INC: Monegro Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act
YAHOO!: Court Approves Data Breach Class Action Settlement
ZENDESK INC: Calif. Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
ZOSANO PHARMA: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Dec. 28 Motion Deadline
ZOSANO PHARMA: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of December 28 Deadline

ZOSANO PHARMA: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Dec. 28 Motion Deadline
ZOSANO PHARMA: Zhang Investor Reminds of Dec. 28 Motion Deadline
[*] Arkansas PERS Trustees Approve Securities Litigation Policy
[*] Chambers of Commerce Discuss Class Action Lawsuits in Korea
[*] Covid-19 Presents Potential for Coordinated Class Action

[*] Life Science Companies Face Greater Risk of Shareholder Actions

                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you purchased Alibaba securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this
notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a
member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you
may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the Class. If you purchased Mesoblast securities,
have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or
have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R.
Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the
Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007,
by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
[GN]


ALIBABA GROUP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Jan. 12 Motion Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Alibaba Corporation.
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the
deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the
cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or
obligation to you.

Alibaba Group Holding Limited (NYSE:BABA)

BABA Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased October 21, 2020
- November 3, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline : January 12, 2021

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/alibaba-group-holding-limited-loss-submission-form?prid=11343&wire=1

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

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

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


ALIBABA GROUP: Robbins Geller Reminds of Jan. 12 Motion Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of Alibaba Group Holdings Limited (NYSE:BABA)
securities between October 21, 2020 and November 3, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The case is captioned Ciccarello v. Alibaba
Group Holdings Limited, No. 20-cv-09568, and is assigned to Judge
George B. Daniels. The Alibaba class action lawsuit charges Alibaba
and certain of its executives with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Alibaba securities during the Class Period
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Alibaba class action
lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest
financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who
is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead
plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing
the Alibaba class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a
law firm of its choice to litigate the Alibaba class action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery of the Alibaba class action lawsuit is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff
of the Alibaba class action lawsuit or have questions concerning
your rights regarding the Alibaba class action lawsuit, please
provide your information here or contact counsel, J.C. Sanchez of
Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Alibaba class
action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than January
12, 2021.

Alibaba is an online and mobile commerce company. Alibaba owns a
33% equity interest in Ant Small and Micro Financial Services Group
Co., Ltd. ("Ant Group"), a financial technology company that is
best known for operating Alipay, one of the largest mobile and
online payment platforms. On July 20, 2020, Ant Group announced
that it had begun the process of a concurrent initial public
offering ("IPO") on the Shanghai and Hong Kong stock exchanges. On
October 26, 2020, Ant Group priced its IPO and was set to raise
$34.5 billion, making it the largest public offering in history.

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

On November 2, 2020, Financial Times reported that Chinese
regulators had met with Ant Group's controller Jack Ma, executive
chairman Eric Jing, and Chief Executive Officer Simon Hu. The
article stated that, though regulators did not provide details,
"the Chinese word used to describe the interview - yuetan -
generally indicate[s] a dressing down by authorities." The article
also included a statement from Ant Group that it would "implement
the meeting opinions in depth." The following day, on November 3,
2020, the IPO was suspended because Ant Group "may not meet listing
qualifications or disclosure requirements due to material matters"
related to the meeting with regulators the previous day and "the
recent changes in the Fintech regulatory environment." On this
news, Alibaba's share price fell more than 8%, damaging investors.

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


ALIBABA GROUP: Thornton Law Reminds of Jan. 12 Motion Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm on Nov. 23 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors of Alibaba Group
Holdings Limited (NYSE: BABA). Investors who purchased BABA stock
or other securities between October 21, 2020 and November 3, 2020
may contact the Thornton Law Firm to obtain a copy of the complaint
or to discuss the lead plaintiff process. Interested investors are
encouraged to visit: www.tenlaw.com/cases/Alibaba. Investors may
email investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917. Interested Alibaba
investors have until January 12, 2021 to apply to be a lead
plaintiff.

FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/Alibaba

The Complaint alleges that Alibaba owns a 33% equity interest in
Ant Small and Micro Financial Services Group Co., Ltd. ("Ant
Group"), a financial technology company that announced it had begun
the process of a concurrent IPO on the Shanghai and Hong Kong stock
exchanges. The case alleges that Alibaba and its senior executives
made misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose
that: (1) Ant Group did not meet listing qualifications or
disclosure requirements for certain material matters; (2) that
certain impending changes in the Fintech regulatory environment
would impact Ant Group's business; and (3) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Ant Group's IPO was reasonably likely to be suspended.
When the IPO was suspended on November 3, 2020 Alibaba's stock
price fell 8%, allegedly harming investors.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: www.tenlaw.com/cases/Alibaba

The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal securities laws. The
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 allows any
investor who purchased the securities at issue in the case during
the Class Period to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other investor
class members in managing the class action and can select a law
firm of their choice to litigate the lawsuit. Serving as a lead
plaintiff does not impact an investor's share in any potential
recovery. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff to be a
member of the class. If investors choose to take no action, they
can remain an absent class member. Interested Alibaba investors
have until January 12, 2021 to apply to be a lead plaintiff. The
class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs,
investors are not represented by an attorney.

Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in
representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations
of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track
records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the
country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be
considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter.

CONTACT:

Thornton Law Firm LLP
1 Lincoln Street
State Street Financial Center
Boston, MA
02111
www.tenlaw.com/cases/Alibaba [GN]


ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA: Responds to Add-on Insurance Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Gangcuangco, writing for Insurance Business Australia,
reports that "worthless" and "junk" were among the words used by
Maurice Blackburn Lawyers to describe add-on insurance products
that were provided through car dealers, when the law firm announced
the launch of its class action against Allianz Australia.

According to Maurice Blackburn's class action, the supposed no-use
products span consumer credit insurance, shortfall insurance,
extended warranty insurance, as well as tyre and rim insurance.
These were purportedly upsold to thousands of car buyers who
arranged financing via dealerships.

The law firm asserted: "Many of these insurance products were
complex financial instruments with policy terms that had numerous
exclusions and exceptions which severely limited the protections
offered. For example, Allianz's loan protection insurance excluded
consumers who were self-employed, unemployed, casual employees, and
those over the age of 64."

On behalf of motorists, Maurice Blackburn is accusing the insurer
of having paid lucrative commissions to dealers in exchange for
promoting "unduly expensive" policies which the law firm claims did
not provide customer value.  

"The car dealers sold these products when they were of no or very
little value and not only did they keep quiet about that but they
added the junk insurance products to loan contracts often without
their customer being aware," said Maurice Blackburn principal
lawyer Andrew Watson.

"If customers knew and understood that they were being asked to pay
thousands of dollars for these valueless products, they would have
rejected the offer without hesitation."

Additionally, Watson's camp is pointing to alleged conduct that is
said to have been misleading or deceptive.

In response to the new class action -- which follows an earlier one
put forward by Johnson Winter & Slattery -- an Allianz spokesperson
told Insurance Business: "In 2018, Allianz Australia undertook a
customer remediation programme in relation to the sale of motor
vehicle add-on insurance products after we identified that some
policyholders had purchased cover which may not have been suited to
their circumstances and others that did not notify us to cancel
their cover."

Allianz said it had refunded approximately $45.6 million under the
programme.

Meanwhile, the company representative went on to note: "Allianz has
since ceased selling the motor add-on insurance products that are
the subject of the class action. We remain focussed on providing
quality products that help our customers protect what's important
to them. As the matter is now before the courts, Allianz is unable
to comment further on the matter." [GN]


ALPHACORE CAPITAL: Mannacio Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EUGENE MANNACIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALPHACORE CAPITAL LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:20-cv-08679-KAW (N.D. Cal., December 8, 2020) brings this class
action complaint against the Defendant for its alleged violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant placed at least two
telemarketing calls to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number
415-883-XXXX, which was registered on the National Do-Not Call
Registry since 2003, on December 2, 2020. When the Plaintiff
answered the second call, he has spoken to a certain Michael, who
has confirmed that he was an employee of the Defendant. The
Plaintiff had known that the purpose of the Defendant's call was to
again inquire as to whether the Plaintiff or his wife were
interested in its investing services.

The complaint asserts that the Defendant's unsolicited
telemarketing calls harmed and caused injury to the Plaintiff and
the other call recipients because their privacy was improperly
invaded, they were temporarily deprived of legitimate use of their
phones, and the calls were frustrating, obnoxious, annoying,
nuisance, and disturbed the solitude of the Plaintiff and the
Class.

Alphacore Capital LLC provides investment management services.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Susan S. Brown, Esq.
          SUSAN BROWN LEGAL SERVICES
          388 Market St., Suite 1300
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 712-3026
          E-mail: susan@susanbrownlegal.com

                - and –

          Mary Carolyn Turke, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
          612 Williamson Way, Suite 201
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: 608-237-1775
          E-mail: mary@turkestrauss.com
                  sam@turkestrauss.com
                  austind@turkestrauss.com

                - and –

          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: (617) 485-0018
          Facsimile: (508) 318-8100
          E-mail: anthony@bparonichlaw.com


AMAZON WEB: Court Dismisses McGoveran BIPA Suit Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois dismissed without prejudice the case,
CHRISTINE McGOVERAN, JOSEPH VALENTINE, and AMELIA RODRIGUEZ, on
behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC. and PINDROP SECURITY,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-CV-31-NJR (S.D. Ill.), for lack of
personal jurisdiction.

On Dec. 17, 2019, the named Plaintiffs filed a putative Class
Action Complaint against Defendants Amazon Web Services ("AWS"),
and Pindrop, in the Circuit Court for the Third Judicial Circuit in
Madison County, Illinois, alleging violations of the Biometric
Information Privacy Act ("BIPA").  Specifically, the Plaintiffs
allege Pindrop and AWS violated BIPA by collecting, possessing,
redisclosing, profiting from, and failing to safeguard their
biometric identifiers and biometric information, including their
voiceprints.

The Plaintiffs allege Pindrop offers voiceprint services for use by
call centers and customer service personnel to confirm the identity
of callers.  Pindrop does it through its "Deep Voice" product,
which uses biometrics to identify and analyze repeat caller.
Similarly, its "Phoneprinting" product analyzes call audio to
create a distinctive identifier for each caller.

AWS offers cloud storage services, including the ability for
customers to store their data, access data remotely, and create
backup copies of data.  It also offers call center services under
the brand "Amazon Connect."  In connection with Amazon Connect, AWS
possesses and stores a variety of types of customer data, including
biometric identifiers and information.

Pindrop was one of the first partners with AWS in launching Amazon
Connect.  The Plaintiffs allege that after an individual places a
call to an AWS client's call center, the audio is sent to Pindrop
for processing.  Pindrop then processes the audio, analyzes the
caller's unique voice biometric data, and sends the results of its
analysis to AWS' servers.  The Plaintiffs claim that once the
process occurs, AWS then possesses "biometric information" as
defined by BIPA.

The Plaintiffs' Complaint asserts five counts of BIPA violations.
In Count I, the Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants violated BIPA
section 14/15(a) by possessing their biometric information,
including voiceprints and related biometric information, without
creating and following a written policy, made available to the
public, establishing and following a retention schedule and
destruction guidelines for their possession of biometric
identifiers and information.  In Count II, they assert the
Defendants violated BIPA section 14/15(b) by failing to inform John
Hancock's Illinois callers that their biometric information is
being collected and stored and by not obtaining any form of
consent.

In Count III, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated
BIPA section 14/15(c) by profiting from the possession of their
biometric information, including their voiceprints.  Count IV
alleges the Defendants violated BIPA section 14/15(d) when they
disclosed, redisclosed, and disseminated their biometric
information, including voiceprints, without consent.  Finally, the
Plaintiffs claim Defendants violated BIPA section 14/15(e) by
failing to use reasonable care in storing, transmitting, and
protecting the biometric information from disclosure, or by failing
to do so in a manner the same as or more protective than the manner
in which the Defendants store, transmit, and protect other
confidential and sensitive information.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of:

   All Illinois citizens who placed one or more phone calls to, or
   received one or more phone calls from, an entity using Amazon
   Connect and Pindrop's voice authentication and/or fraud
   detection technology, from Dec. 17, 2014 until present.

On behalf of themselves and the putative class, the Plaintiffs seek
an order enjoining the Defendants from further violating BIPA,
actual damages, statutory damages of $5,000 for each intentional
and reckless violation of BIPA pursuant to 740 Ill. Comp. Stat.
14/20(2), or statutory damages of $1,000 for each negligent
violation of BIPA pursuant to 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. 14/20(1),
attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest.

The matter is before the Court on the motions to dismiss filed by
the Defendants.  They seek to dismiss the case for lack of personal
jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2).
Alternatively, they move for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim.

The Plaintiffs first argue that AWS consented to the Court's
personal jurisdiction when it asked the Court on Feb. 5, 2020 to
compel discovery from the Plaintiffs prior to asserting its
personal jurisdiction defense.  They argue that the motion to
compel discovery, which the Court denied, constituted a request for
affirmative relief that waived any objection to personal
jurisdiction.  In response, AWS contends that its motion only
sought to compel the Plaintiffs to provide basic contact
information, which would be relevant for a potential motion to
compel arbitration.  It was merely doing all it could do, as early
as possible, to prevent a finding that it waived its right to
arbitrate.

Judge Rosenstengel holds that a personal jurisdiction defense may
be waived if a defendant gives a plaintiff a reasonable expectation
that he will defend the suit on the merits or where he causes the
court to go to some effort that would be wasted if personal
jurisdiction is subsequently found lacking.  In the case, however,
AWS gave no indication that it intended to defend the suit on the
merits in the district court.  Instead, its motion to compel
discovery of information relevant to arbitration demonstrates the
opposite: that AWS thought it may be the improper venue to decide
the Plaintiffs' claims and that it would not be litigating the
merits of the claims in the Court.  AWS' motion also did not cause
the Court to undertake any effort that would be wasted if
jurisdiction subsequently was found lacking.  Accordingly, the
Juduge finds that AWS did not waive its personal jurisdiction
defense.

Because the Plaintiffs concede that general jurisdiction is
lacking, the Judge focuses her analysis on whether the Defendants
are subject to specific personal jurisdiction in the Court.  
Pindrop argues that the Plaintiffs have identified no
litigation-related contacts between Pindrop and Illinois that
suffice to establish specific personal jurisdiction.  AWS also
asserts specific personal jurisdiction is lacking because the
Plaintiffs have not alleged AWS engaged in any conduct in Illinois
that is connected to their claims.  In response, the Plaintiffs
contend both Pindrop and AWS are subject to personal jurisdiction
in Illinois because they collected, possessed, and used the
voiceprints of Illinois citizens who placed calls from within
Illinois and from Illinois phone numbers.

The Judge agrees with the Defendants.  The Judge finds there is no
indication that either AWS or Pindrop specifically targeted
Illinois citizens when they provided their voiceprinting services
to John Hancock.  Rather, the Plaintiffs' voiceprints were
collected because John Hancock chose to use Amazon Connect with
Pindrop to analyze the voices of its customers.  Because the
litigation does not arise from contacts that the Defendants
themselves created with Illinois or actions purposefully directed
at residents of Illinois, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have
failed to make a prima facie showing of specific personal
jurisdiction with regard to both Pindrop and AWS.  Accordingly, the
case must be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.

For these reasons, the motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by
the Defendants are granted.  The Plaintiffs' individual claims
against the Defendants are dismissed without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 18, 2020 Memorandum
& Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6bbcokk from
Leagle.com.


AMERICAN INSTITUTE: Huth Files Suit in Connecticut
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Institute
For Foreign Study, Inc. The case is styled as Alyson Huth,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. American Institute For Foreign Study, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-01786 (D. Conn., Dec. 1, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other
filed over Diversity-Breach of Contract.

The American Institute for Foreign Study is an American travel and
insurance company, managing a number of educational and travel
programs centered on cultural exchange founded or acquired by
British businessman and politician Sir Cyril Julian Hebden Taylor
starting in 1964.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Edward Toptani, Esq.
   Toptani Law Offices
   375 Pearl St Ste 1410
   New York, NY 10038
   Tel: (212) 699-8930
   Fax: (212) 699-8939
   Email: edward@toptanilaw.com


ANCESTRY.COM: Sued in Class Action for Using Data from Year Books
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ancestry.com was sued on November 30, 2020, in a putative class
action case filed in the Northern District of California for
"knowingly misappropriating the photographs, likenesses, names, and
identities of Plaintiff and the class; knowingly using those
photographs, likenesses, names, and identities for the commercial
purpose of selling access to them in Ancestry products and
services; and knowingly using those photographs, likenesses, names
and identities to advertise, sell and solicit purchases of Ancestry
services and products; without obtaining prior consent from
Plaintiffs and the class."

The basis of the allegations stem from Ancestry's business model of
acquiring "huge databases of personal information…then selling
access to that information for subscription fees." According to the
Complaint, "Ancestry's databases comprise billions of records
belonging to hundreds of millions of Americans." In particular, the
lawsuit alleges that Ancestry's database "entitled ‘U.S., School
Yearbooks, 1900-1999 ("Ancestry Yearbook Database"), which includes
the names, photographs, cities of residence, and schools attended
of many millions of Americans…includes over 60 million
individuals records from California schools and universities."

The Complaint alleges that Ancestry failed to obtain consent from,
give notice to, or provide compensation "to tens of millions of
Californians whose names, photographs, biographical information,
and identities appear in its Ancestry Yearbook Database," that this
information uniquely identifies individuals, and that Ancestry
sells access to the records to subscribers.

Neither of the named plaintiffs are subscribers to Ancestry.com,
yet their yearbook pictures and specific information are located
and searchable within the database.

The claims against Ancestry include violation of California's Right
of Publicity Statute for "misappropriation of a name, voice,
signature, photograph, or likeness in advertising or soliciting
without prior consent," which provides for statutory damages of up
to $750 per violation, and declaratory and injunctive relief, the
California Unfair Competition Law, intrusion upon seclusion, and
unjust enrichment. [GN]


APPARIS INC: Kiler Files ADA Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------
Apparis, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Marion
Kiler, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Apparis, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-05804 (E.D. N.Y., Dec. 1, 2020).

Apparis is a vegan fashion brand co-founded by Amelie Brick and
Lauren Nouchi in 2016. The New York-based label gained recognition
thanks to its colorful line of faux fur coats, sold at over 500
retailers worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
   Scarsdale, NY 10583
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com



APPLE INC: Alameda County to Receive $4.1M in Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Alameda County will receive $4.1 million in a settlement with Apple
Inc. over alleged misrepresentations about its iPhone, the
California Attorney General's Office said.

In all, the state will receive $24.6 million with $4.1 million
going to each of the district attorney's offices in the counties of
Alameda, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Los Angeles and San Diego, and
the balance going to the state Attorney General's Office.

Apple allegedly made misrepresentations about the batteries in some
of its iPhones and software that limited performance so the phones
would not shut off unexpectedly.

"Apple withheld information about their batteries that slowed down
iPhone performance, all while passing it off as an update,"
Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement.

"This type of behavior hurts the pockets of consumers and limits
their ability to make informed purchases," Becerra said.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Thirty-three other states are part of the settlement, which calls
for Apple to pay $113 million in all. The settlement includes terms
that may deter similar alleged misrepresentations by Apple in the
future, state prosecutors said.

"With this settlement, the technology company has pledged to
provide clear and conspicuous communication to consumers about
lithium-ion batteries, unexpected shutdowns and performance
management," Los Angeles County District Attorney Jackie Lacey said
in a statement.

The complaint by California alleges that Apple sold their iPhone 6
and 7 phones with batteries that could lead to unexpected shutdowns
of the phones.

Apple tried to solve the problem by providing software updates that
cut back on the phone's performance, according to the complaint.

The company also allegedly said the updates would improve power
management rather than reduce performance.

"Just like a patient needs to know the side effects before
swallowing a pill, a consumer needs to know what they're getting
before clicking on a software update, especially when it could
throttle their phone," Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff
Rosen said in a statement.

Alameda County will use the money for "future consumer protection
actions," said Teresa Drenick, spokeswoman for the county District
Attorney's Office.

Among other demands, the settlement calls for Apple to notify all
affected consumers when an operating system update substantially
changes iPhone processing performance.

Apple officials declined to comment but called attention to a part
of the agreement which says, "Apple has entered into this Judgment
solely for the purposes of settlement, and nothing contained herein
may be taken as or construed to be an admission or concession of
any violation of law, rule, or regulation, or of any other matter
of fact or law, or of any liability or wrongdoing, all of which
Apple expressly denies."

Separately, affected consumers who submitted a claim will get $500
million from Apple in a settlement in a private class action
lawsuit filed in federal court in San Jose, according to the Santa
Clara County District Attorney's Office. [GN]


APPLE INC: Judge Narrows iCloud Storage Subscribers' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Grzincic, writing for Reuters, reports that U.S. District
Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California has narrowed a proposed
class action against Apple Inc. by subscribers to the company's
iCloud paid storage plans, but allowed them to proceed with claims
for an injunction and damages for breach of contract.

Koh on Nov. 17 dismissed the plaintiffs' false-advertising and
unfair competition claims under California law, agreeing with Apple
that those counts duplicated the breach of contract claims. [GN]


APPLE INC: New Jersey to Get $3MM as Part of iPhone Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney General Gurbir S. Grewal announced that New Jersey will
receive over $3 million as part of a $113 multistate settlement
with Apple, Inc., that resolves a multi-state investigation into
allegations that Apple misrepresented and concealed from consumers
information about performance problems with millions of iPhones.

The investigation focused on whether Apple misrepresented and
concealed information about unexpected power-offs (UPOs), battery
health and performance issues, and software upgrades that slowed
down or "throttled" the device's performance.

The State filed its complaint and a consent judgment resolving the
matter in Superior Court in Mercer County. The complaint alleges
that Apple's misrepresentations and concealment of battery issues
and its throttling of iPhones' performance violated state consumer
protection laws.

According to the complaint, Apple pushed out software "fixes" that
intentionally throttled the performance of the iPhone Series 6, 7,
and SE (Special Edition) devices in an effort to quietly resolve
the UPO issues. Because the unexplained slow-downs resulted in many
consumers deciding that the only way to get improved performance
was to purchase a newer-model iPhone from Apple, the alleged fraud
resulted in more sales for Apple.

In New Jersey, nearly 3.5 million iPhones were affected by battery
performance issues and undisclosed throttling.

"Apple's treatment of iPhone consumers was rotten," said Attorney
General Grewal. "Not only did Apple try to conceal the iPhone's
shortcomings, but the company's supposed fix for those defects
created new problems that led consumers to shell out money for new
iPhones. The settlement should send a clear message that we will
never tolerate such abuse of New Jersey consumers."

"This settlement resolves an investigation into corporate conduct
that is deeply concerning on multiple levels," said Division of
Consumer Affairs Director Paul R. Rodríguez. "First, we allege
that Apple failed to disclose a product defect. Then that it
provided consumers what they claimed was a software 'fix' that
actually limited the performance of their phones. Finally, that
they delayed informing consumers until well after many had already
purchased new phones to replace ones they believed must be
obsolete. This settlement is not just about getting Apple to pay
for its alleged duplicity, but just as importantly requires the
company to abide by a variety of terms designed to ensure greater
transparency moving forward."

In addition to the monetary payment, the settlement contains a
variety of injunctive terms designed to prevent similar occurrences
in the future.

Those terms require that Apple will:

-- Maintain an easily accessible and prominent web page that
provides clear and conspicuous information to consumers about
lithium-ion batteries, unexpected shutdowns, maximizing battery
health, and other issues related to iPhone performance;

-- Notify consumers in a clear and conspicuous manner if a future
iOS update materially changes the performance of an iPhone when
downloaded and installed, with such notification to be contained in
the installation notes for the update;

-- Provide information to consumers in the iPhone user interface
(e.g., Settings, Battery, Battery Health) about the battery, such
as the battery's maximum capacity and information about its peak
performance capability, as well as notification of an option to
service the battery once its performance has become significantly
degraded.

In addition, Apple will implement procedures to ensure its
consumer-facing personnel and Apple-authorized retailers are
sufficiently familiar with the required new web page content and
iPhone user interface information, communicate that information to
consumers wherever relevant, and refer consumers to the web page or
interface when appropriate.

The State's investigation found that, by at least October 2016,
Apple was aware that its customers were experiencing UPOs as a
result of aging iPhone batteries that could no longer deliver
sufficient power to the devices at certain times, particularly
during high-performance tasks.

Apple did not disclose the UPO issues, however, nor did it allow
consumers to replace their iPhone batteries -- even at a full,
out-of-warranty cost -- unless the batteries failed Apple's own
diagnostic tests, which did not account for the very issue that was
causing the UPOs.

Instead, Apple implemented the iOS software update that caused
throttling.

The update essentially prevented the iPhones from ever reaching
performance levels that would require too much power from their
batteries.

Throughout 2017, Apple continued to sell tens of millions of
iPhones in the U.S. with known throttling issues, but never advised
consumers. Eventually, consumers discovered the problem for
themselves and, amidst public outcry, Apple apologized for the
situation in December 2017.

Apple briefly reduced the price on out-of-warranty replacement
batteries for affected iPhones and also released a new iOS update
in March 2018. The new update allowed consumers, for the first
time, to disable the throttling mechanism, and to have more
visibility into the health of their iPhone's battery. Under the
settlement, Apple admits to no violations of the law.

In addition to the settlement with 34 states announced on Nov. 21,
Apple also recently entered into a proposed settlement of class
action litigation related to the same conduct. Under that proposed
settlement, Apple will pay out up to $500 million in consumer
restitution.

Deputy Attorney General Monisha A. Kumar of the Consumer Fraud
Prosecution Section in the Division of Law's Affirmative Civil
Enforcement Practice Group handled the matter on behalf of the
State.

The mission of the Division of Consumer Affairs, within the
Department of Law and Public Safety, is to protect the public from
fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, and professional misconduct in
the sale of goods and services in New Jersey through education,
advocacy, regulation, and enforcement. The Division pursues its
mission through its 51 professional and occupational boards that
oversee 720,000 licensees in the state, its Regulated Business
section that oversees 60,000 NJ registered businesses, as well as
its Office of Consumer Protection, Bureau of Securities, Charities
Registration Section, Office of Weights and Measures, and Legalized
Games of Chance section. [GN]


APPLE INC: Settles Throttling Class Action for $113 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sean Hollister, writing for The Verge, reports that Apple doesn't
find itself apologizing often, but it's a big deal when it does --
like in 2017, after customers realized the company had been quietly
throttling the speed of older iPhones. Apple quickly explained it
was designed to protect those phones from aging batteries and
offered $29 battery replacements to smooth things over, but
lawsuits followed, with the company first agreeing to a $500
million class action settlement earlier this year.

Now, the company's agreed to a second settlement -- this time, with
34 US states -- that might see the company paying an additional
$113 million. The states attorneys general had sued Apple for
hiding both the throttling and battery degradation from iPhone
owners, arguing that Apple "fully understood" that by concealing
the issues, it could spend a year profiting off of people who
thought they needed to buy a new iPhone, when they only really
needed to replace their phone's battery to avoid throttling or
unexpected shutdowns.

Apple denied that, of course, and the settlement means a court
won't decide whether there was any actual wrongdoing.

The settlement hasn't been fully approved by a judge yet, but
there's a chance states might see their money sooner than actual
iPhone owners. If you applied for your $25 worth of the $500
million class-action settlement, you probably did so in July, but
the process is still underway. There's a fairness hearing on
December 4th that'll decide whether the settlement was handled
properly. Currently, Apple will pay a minimum of $310 million to
settle that earlier lawsuit and up to $500 million depending on the
number of claims. It's too late to submit new claims now, as the
deadline ended in October. [GN]


APPLE INC: To Pay $113M to U.S. States Over Battery Complaints
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apple has agreed to pay $113 million to settle litigation with more
than 30 US states over its slowdown in performance of older iPhones
to manage battery power.

The latest "batterygate" settlement will divide the settlement
among California and 33 other states, according to a statement by
state Attorney General Xavier Becerra.

The settlement resolves complaints that the tech giant made
misrepresentations about iPhone batteries and software updates that
throttled processing performance  to manage insufficient battery
power, according to the state official.

"Apple withheld information about their batteries that slowed down
iPhone performance, all while passing it off as an update," said
Becerra.

"This type of behavior hurts the pockets of consumers and limits
their ability to make informed purchases. Today's settlement
ensures consumers will have access to the information they need to
make a well-informed decision when purchasing and using Apple
products."

The settlement resolves complaints about Apple's iPhone 6 and 7
generation phones which according to the states' complaint were
susceptible to performance loss.

Apple had no immediate comment on the matter.

In the court documents, the iPhone maker said it agreed to the
payout "solely for the purposes of settlement," without any
admission of wrongdoing.

Earlier this year Apple agreed to pay up to $500 million to settle
a class-action lawsuit over the same issue.

In December 2017, Apple admitted that iOS software was tweaked to
slow performance of older iPhones whose battery life was
deteriorating to prevent handsets from spontaneously shutting
down.

Critics accused Apple of surreptitiously forcing users to buy
phones sooner than necessary, and the outcry forced Apple to
upgrade its software and offer steep discounts on battery
replacements.

Apple also settled a case with France's consumer watchdog to pay 25
million euros ($27.4 million) in a related case.

French prosecutors opened an inquiry in January 2018 at the request
of the Halt Planned Obsolescence (HOP) association. [GN]


ARMSTRONG FLOORING: Reaches $3.75MM Class Settlement in Chupa Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong Flooring on Nov. 30, 2020, according to an 8-K filing,
reached a settlement in principle to fully resolve the securities
class action suit, Chupa v. Armstrong Flooring, Inc. et al., Case
No. 2-19-cv-09840, initially filed on November 15, 2019, pending
against the company and certain of its former officers in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.

The agreement, which is subject to final documentation and court
approval, provides in part for a settlement payment of $3.75
million in exchange for the dismissal and a release of all claims
against the defendants in connection with the securities class
action suit. The $3.75 million settlement payment will be paid by
the company's insurance provider under its insurance policy.

Michel Vermette joined the company as president and CEO in
September 2019, and the lawsuit's alleged claims occured before he
joined the firm.  [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over Vickery Extension Project
------------------------------------------------------------
Tony J. Wassaf, Esq. -- twassaf@jonesday.com -- and Hugh A.
Montgomery, Esq. -- hmontgomery@jonesday.com -- of Jones Day, in an
article for Lexology, report that on September 8, 2020, the law
firm Equity Generation Lawyers filed a class action on behalf of
young people globally, seeking an injunction to restrain the
Australian Government's Minister for the Environment, Sussan Ley,
from giving approval to the Vickery Extension Project. The Vickery
Extension Project is an AUD $700 million proposal by Whitehaven
Coal Limited to construct an open-cut coal mine and associated
on-site infrastructure near Gunnedah, New South Wales, which
Whitehaven estimates will provide a net economic benefit to New
South Wales of AUD $1.2 billion and create 950 jobs during the
construction and operation of the mine. The injunction was filed in
the Federal Court of Australia and relies on a unique legal
argument that could create new legal precedent in Australia if
granted, as the class action is brought by eight young Australians
as representative members of a class consisting of every young
person in the world under the age of 18.

The Vickery Extension Project was initially approved in August 2020
by the New South Wales Independent Planning Commission under the
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), which
requires review of projects of a certain size, economic value, or
potential impact as "state significant developments." In its
statement of reasons, the Independent Planning Commission concluded
at paragraphs 222 and 223 that:

The Commission notes that between 60-70% of the coal proposed to be
extracted is likely to be metallurgical coal, with the remainder
being thermal coal . . . . The Commission notes that at this point
in time, metallurgical coals are essential inputs for the current
production of approximately 70% of all steel globally as stated by
the Applicant [Whitehaven] in paragraph 200 above. The Commission
is of the view that in the absence of a viable alternative to the
use of metallurgical coal in steel making and on balance, the
impacts associated with the emissions from the combustion of the
project's metallurgical coal are acceptable . . . .

[T]he Commission is of the view that the GHG [greenhouse gas]
emissions for the Project have been adequately considered. The
Commission finds that on balance, and when weighed against the
relevant climate change policy framework . . . the impacts
associated with the GHG emissions of the Project are acceptable and
consistent with the public interest.

Having received state approval under New South Wales law, the
Vickery Extension Project now requires approval from the federal
Minister for the Environment because the project is anticipated to
impact threatened species and water resources, both of which act as
"triggers" requiring approval under sections 18, 18A, 24D, and 24E
of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act
1999 (Cth). Whitehaven has made an application to the Minister
under those sections, and the Minister needs to decide whether to
approve or reject this application, taking into account:

   -- the principles of ecologically sustainable development;
   -- the impacts of the proposed development;
   -- any referrals or recommendations made with respect to the
development;
   -- any community or stakeholder inputs;
   -- relevant comments from other government members and members
of the public (such as information on social and economic aspects
of the proposed development); and
   -- any other relevant information on the impacts of the
development, including any advice obtained from the Independent
Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Mining
Development.

The class action was filed to enjoin the Minister for the
Environment from issuing an approval. The class action argues that
the Minister for the Environment owes the representative members
and every young person in the world under the age of 18 a duty to
exercise the powers under the Australian Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) with reasonable care not
to cause them harm. The representative members submit that if the
Minister for the Environment approves the Vickery Extension
Project, she will breach this duty of care because the project will
materially contribute to climate change and cause harm to every
young person in the world under the age of 18. In short, the class
action claims the Minister for the Environment cannot approve
projects or developments that will make climate change worse.

Equity Generation Lawyers argues that a precedent for this kind of
case was set in Australia in 2016, when an injunction stopped the
then-Minister for Immigration from moving a refugee to anywhere
besides Australia because he owed a duty of care to her. See
Plaintiff S99/2016 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection
[2016] FCA 483.

The law firm also argues on its website that if the Vickery
Extension Project is approved, the coal burned will result in 370
million tons of carbon emissions over the next 25 years, further
fueling climate change.

The hearing and determination of this injunction is expected to
occur toward the end of 2020, and until that time, the Minister for
the Environment has undertaken not to decide whether to approve the
Vickery Extension Project. [GN]


BAOZUN INC: Two Securities Class Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Baozun Inc. disclosed that on December 10, 2019 and December 26,
2019, purported securities class action complaints were filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company, its chief executive officer and its chief
financial officer. These suits were captioned Snyder, et. al. v.
Baozun Inc. et. al. (Case No.: 1: 19 cv-11290) and AUS, et. al. v.
Baozun Inc., et. al. (Case No.: 1: 19 cv-11812). On September 8,
2020, the court appointed the lead plaintiffs and the lead counsel
and consolidated the separate actions into a consolidated action.
On November 6, 2020, the lead counsel filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal with the court stating that the consolidated action is
voluntarily dismissed against all defendants, without prejudice,
and with each party agreeing to bear their own costs. On November
11, 2020, the court signed the notice of voluntary dismissal,
thereby adopting it as an order of the court.  The issuance of this
order resulted in the dismissal of the consolidated action. [GN]


BAYERISCHE MOTOREN: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of December 28 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on Nov. 3 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Bayerische Motoren Werke
Aktiengesellschaft ("BMW" or the "Company") (OTC: BMWYY) securities
between November 3, 2015 and September 24, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). BMW investors have until December 28, 2020 to file
a lead plaintiff motion.

The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz Announces the Filing of a
Securities Class Action on Behalf of Bayerische Motoren Werke
Aktiengesellschaft (BMWYY) Investors.
https://www.frankcruzlaw.com/cases/bayerische-motoren-werke-aktiengesellschaft/

On December 23, 2019, The Wall Street Journal reported that the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") was investigating
whether BMW engaged in "sales punching," a practice in which "a
company boosts sales figures by having dealers register cars as
sold when the vehicles actually are still standing on car lots."

On this news, the price of BMW's American Depositary Receipts
("ADRs") fell $1.33, or nearly 7%, to close at $18.02 per ADR on
December 23, 2019, thereby damaging investors.

On September 24, 2020, the SEC announced an $18 million settlement
agreement with BMW regarding the investigation. According to the
SEC's order, from January 2015 to March 2017, the Company had "used
its demonstrator and service loaner programs to boost reported
retail sales volume and meet internal targets." It also stated that
from 2015 to 2019, BMW kept a reserve of unreported retail vehicle
sales, which is used to meet internal monthly sales targets
regardless of when the actual sale occurred.

On this news, BMW's ADR price fell $0.51, or about 2%, to close at
$23.07 per ADR on September 25, 2020, thereby damaging investors
further.

The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) BMW kept a
"bank" of retail vehicle sales that it used to meet internal
monthly sales targets regardless of when the sales actually
occurred; (2) BMW artificially manipulated sales figures by having
dealers register cars as sold when the cars were still in
inventory; (3) as a result, BMW's key operating metrics were
inaccurate and misleading; and (4) as a result, Defendants'
statements about BMW's business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.

If you purchased BMW securities during the Class Period, you may
move the Court no later than December 28, 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 BMW securities, have information or would like to
learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank
R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles,
California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

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

Contacts:

The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN]


BAYERISCHE MOTOREN: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Dec. 28 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a leading national shareholder
rights law firm, disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft ("BMW" or the
"Company") (OTC: BMWYY) securities between November 3, 2015 and
September 24, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). BMW investors
have until December 28, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, a Leading Securities Fraud Law Firm,
Announces the Filing of a Securities Class Action on Behalf of
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMWYY) Investors

If you suffered a loss on your BMW investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at
https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/bayerische-motoren-werke-aktiengesellschaft/.
You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.

On December 23, 2019, The Wall Street Journal reported that the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") was investigating
whether BMW engaged in "sales punching," a practice in which "a
company boosts sales figures by having dealers register cars as
sold when the vehicles actually are still standing on car lots."

On this news, the price of BMW's American Depositary Receipts
("ADRs") fell $1.33, or nearly 7%, to close at $18.02 per ADR on
December 23, 2019, thereby damaging investors.

On September 24, 2020, the SEC announced an $18 million settlement
agreement with BMW regarding the investigation. According to the
SEC's order, from January 2015 to March 2017, the Company had "used
its demonstrator and service loaner programs to boost reported
retail sales volume and meet internal targets." It also stated that
from 2015 to 2019, BMW kept a reserve of unreported retail vehicle
sales, which is used to meet internal monthly sales targets
regardless of when the actual sale occurred.

On this news, BMW's ADR price fell $0.51, or about 2%, to close at
$23.07 per ADR on September 25, 2020, thereby damaging investors
further.

The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) BMW kept a
"bank" of retail vehicle sales that it used to meet internal
monthly sales targets regardless of when the sales actually
occurred; (2) BMW artificially manipulated sales figures by having
dealers register cars as sold when the cars were still in
inventory; (3) as a result, BMW's key operating metrics were
inaccurate and misleading; and (4) as a result, Defendants'
statements about BMW's business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired BMW securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than December 28,
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 wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit
our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.

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

Contacts:
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]


BERRY CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Jan. 21 Motion Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
securities of Berry Corporation ("Berry" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
BRY) (i) in connection with the Initial Public Offering ("IPO") on
July 26, 2018; and/or (ii) from July 26, 2018 through November 3,
2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas alleges
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

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

The complaint alleges that the Offering Documents, and, during the
Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Berry had materially overstated
its operational efficiency and stability; (2) Berry's operational
inefficiency and instability would foreseeably necessitate
operational improvements that would disrupt the Company's
productivity and increase costs; (3) the foregoing would
foreseeably negatively impact the Company's revenues; and (4) as a
result, the Offering Documents and the Company's public statements
were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state
information required to be stated therein.

On November 3, 2020, post-market, Berry reported its financial and
operating results for the third quarter of 2020. Among other
results, Berry reported non-GAAP EPS and revenue that both fell
short of estimates. In addition, Berry reported that during the
quarter, "the Company undertook certain operational improvements
that caused temporary reductions in our production. Notably we
performed some plugging and abandonment activity that resulted in
temporary shut-in of nearby wells. Additionally, improved steam
management reduced overall costs but temporarily increased water
disposal and well maintenance needs, resulting in a slight decrease
in production."

On this news, Berry's stock price fell $0.15 per share, or 5.28%,
to close at $2.69 per share on November 4, 2020, representing an
80.78% decline from the IPO price.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 21, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Berry securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/berrycorporation-bry-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-336/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

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

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


BERRY CORP: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Jan. 21 Motion Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Berry Corporation ("Berry" or
"the Company") (NASDAQ: BRY) and certain of its officers, on behalf
of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Berry
securities between July 26, 2018 and November 3, 2020, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to
join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/bry.

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Berry had materially overstated its operational
efficiency and stability; (2) Berry's operational inefficiency and
instability would foreseeably necessitate operational improvements
that would disrupt the Company's productivity and increase costs;
(3) the foregoing would foreseeably negatively impact the Company's
revenues; and (4) as a result, the Offering Documents and the
Company's public statements were materially false and/or misleading
and failed to state information required to be stated therein.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/bry or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Berry you
have until January 21, 2021 to request that the Court appoint you
as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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


BERRY CORP: Gross Law Announces Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in Berry Corporation.
Shareholders who purchased shares in the following companies during
the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding
possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff
is not required to partake in any recovery.

Berry Corporation (NASDAQ:BRY)

Lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased: (a) Berry common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public
offering conducted on or about July 26, 2018; or (b) Berry
securities between July 26, 2018 and November 3, 2020, both dates
inclusive

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Berry Corporation. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Berry had materially overstated its operational
efficiency and stability; (ii) Berry's operational inefficiency and
instability would foreseeably necessitate operational improvements
that would disrupt the Company's productivity and increase costs;
(iii) the foregoing would foreseeably negatively impact the
Company's revenues; and (iv) as a result, the Offering Documents
and the Company's public statements were materially false and/or
misleading and failed to state information required to be stated
therein.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/berry-corporation-loss-submission-form/?id=11230&from=1

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]


BERRY CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Jan. 21 Motion Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

Berry Corporation (NASDAQ:BRY)

Lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased: (a) Berry common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public
offering conducted on or about July 26, 2018; or (b) Berry
securities between July 26, 2018 and November 3, 2020, both dates
inclusive

Lead Plaintiff Deadline : January 21, 2021

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/berry-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=11343&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, (i) Berry had materially
overstated its operational efficiency and stability; (ii) Berry's
operational inefficiency and instability would foreseeably
necessitate operational improvements that would disrupt the
Company's productivity and increase costs; (iii) the foregoing
would foreseeably negatively impact the Company's revenues; and
(iv) as a result, the Offering Documents and the Company's public
statements were materially false and/or misleading and failed to
state information required to be stated therein.

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

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


BERRY CORP: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Jan. 21 Motion Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Berry Corporation ("Berry" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: BRY)
and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, and docketed under 20-cv-03464, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that
purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) Berry common stock pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering conducted
on or about July 26, 2018 (the "IPO" or "Offering"); or (b) Berry
securities between July 26, 2018 and November 3, 2020, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period").  Plaintiff pursues claims against
the Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities
Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Berry common stock pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering or Berry
securities during the Class Period, you have until January 21,
2021, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss this action, contact Robert S.
Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.

Berry purports to be an independent upstream energy company and
engages in the development and production of conventional oil
reserves located in the western United States.  The Company's
properties are located in the San Joaquin and Ventura basins,
California; Uinta basin, Utah; and Piceance basin, Colorado.  As of
December 31, 2019, Berry had a total of 3,541 net producing wells.

On June 29, 2018, the Company filed its Registration Statement on
Form S-l for the IPO, which, after an amendment, was declared
effective by the SEC on July 25, 2018 (the "Registration
Statement").  On or around July 26, 2018, Berry conducted the IPO,
upon which the Company began trading on the NASDAQ Global Select
market ("NASDAQ"), issuing 13 million shares of Berry common stock
at $14 per share, generating over $138 million in proceeds before
expenses.  On July 27, 2018 Berry filed its Prospectus on Form
424B4 with the SEC (the "Prospectus" and, collectively with the
Registration Statement, the "Offering Documents").

The complaint alleges that the Offering Documents were negligently
prepared, and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material
fact, omitted material facts necessary to make the statements
contained therein not misleading, and failed to make necessary
disclosures required under the rules and regulations governing
their preparation.  Additionally, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies.  Specifically, the Offering Documents and Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) Berry had materially overstated its operational efficiency and
stability; (ii) Berry's operational inefficiency and instability
would foreseeably necessitate operational improvements that would
disrupt the Company's productivity and increase costs; (iii) the
foregoing would foreseeably negatively impact the Company's
revenues; and (iv) as a result, the Offering Documents and the
Company's public statements were materially false and/or misleading
and failed to state information required to be stated therein.

On November 3, 2020, post-market, Berry reported its financial and
operating results for the third quarter of 2020.  Among other
results, Berry reported non-GAAP EPS and revenue that both fell
short of estimates.  In addition, Berry reported that during the
quarter, "the Company undertook certain operational improvements
that caused temporary reductions in our production.  Notably, we
performed some plugging and abandonment activity that resulted in
the temporary shut-in of nearby wells.  Additionally, improved
steam management reduced overall costs but temporarily increased
water disposal and well maintenance needs, resulting in a slight
decrease in production."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.15 per share, or
5.28%, to close at $2.69 per share on November 4, 2020,
representing an 80.78% decline from the IPO price.

As of the time this Complaint was filed, the price of Berry
securities continues to trade below the Offering price, damaging
investors.

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

CONTACT:

Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]


BIOGEN INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Jan. 12 Motion Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that class
action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of Biogen, Inc.
shareholders.  Investors have until the deadlines listed below to
file a lead plaintiff motion.

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

Biogen, Inc. (NASDAQ: BIIB)

Class Period: October 22, 2019 – November 6, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline:   January 12, 2021

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) the larger dataset did not provide necessary data
regarding aducanumab's effectiveness; (2) the EMERGE study did not
and would not provide necessary data regarding aducanumab's
effectiveness; (3) the PRIME study did not and would not provide
necessary data regarding aducanumab's effectiveness; (4) the data
provided by the Company to the FDA's Peripheral and Central Nervous
System Drugs Advisory Committee did not support finding efficacy of
aducanumab; and (5) as a result, Defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

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


BIOGEN INC: Gross Law Announces Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in Biogen Inc.
Shareholders who purchased shares in the following companies during
the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding
possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff
is not required to partake in any recovery.

Biogen Inc. (NASDAQ:BIIB)

Investors Affected : October 22, 2019 - November 6, 2019

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Biogen Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the larger dataset did not provide necessary
data regarding aducanumab's effectiveness; (2) the EMERGE study did
not and would not provide necessary data regarding the
effectiveness of aducanumab, Biogen's investigational human
monoclonal antibody studied for the treatment of early Alzheimer's
disease; (3) the PRIME study did not and would not provide
necessary data regarding aducanumab's effectiveness; (4) the data
provided by the Company to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's
Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee did
not support finding efficacy of aducanumab; and (5) as a result,
Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/biogen-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=11344&from=1

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]


BIOGEN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Jan. 12 Motion Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky LLP disclosed that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

Biogen Inc. (NASDAQ:BIIB)

BIIB Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased October 22, 2019
- November 6, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 12, 2021

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/biogen-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11026&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Biogen
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) the larger dataset did not provide
necessary data regarding aducanumab's effectiveness; (2) the EMERGE
study did not and would not provide necessary data regarding the
effectiveness of aducanumab, Biogen's investigational human
monoclonal antibody studied for the treatment of early Alzheimer's
disease; (3) the PRIME study did not and would not provide
necessary data regarding aducanumab's effectiveness; (4) the data
provided by the Company to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's
Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee did
not support finding efficacy of aducanumab; and (5) as a result,
Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

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

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

CONTACT:

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


BIOGEN INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Jan. 12 Motion Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Biogen Inc. (NASDAQ: BIIB), between
October 22, 2019 and November 6, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period") of the important January 12, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline
in the securities class action commenced by the Firm. The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Biogen investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the Biogen class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1981.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the larger dataset did not provide necessary data
regarding aducanumab's effectiveness; (2) the EMERGE study did not
and would not provide necessary data regarding aducanumab's
effectiveness; (3) the PRIME study did not and would not provide
necessary data regarding aducanumab's effectiveness; (4) the data
provided by the Company to the FDA's Peripheral and Central Nervous
System Drugs Advisory Committee did not support finding efficacy of
aducanumab; and (5) as a result, defendants' statements about
Biogen's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false
and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January
12, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1981.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Contact Information:

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]


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

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

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Biogen's larger dataset failed to provide
necessary information on aducanumab's effectiveness. The Company's
EMERGE study also failed to include necessary data on its
effectiveness. This failure extended to the Company's PRIME study
of aducanumab. The Company's submission to the FDA Peripheral and
Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee did not support the
efficacy of the drug. Based on these facts, the Company's public
statements were false and materially misleading throughout the
class period. When the market learned the truth about Biogen,
investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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


BIOGEN INC: Thornton Law Reminds of Jan. 12 Motion Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm on Nov. 22 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors of Biogen Inc.
(NADSAQ: BIIB). Investors who purchased BIIB stock or other
securities between October 22, 2019 and November 6, 2020 may
contact the Thornton Law Firm to obtain a copy of the complaint or
to discuss the lead plaintiff process. Interested investors are
encouraged to visit: www.tenlaw.com/cases/Biogen. Investors may
email investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917. Interested Biogen
investors have until January 12, 2021 to apply to be a lead
plaintiff.

Biogen purports to discover, develop, manufacture, and deliver
therapies for treating neurological and neurodegenerative diseases,
including aducanumab (BIIB037), an investigational human monoclonal
antibody being studied for use as a treatment for early Alzheimer's
disease. Studies assessing aducanumab included PRIME, EMERGE, and
ENGAGE.

On October 22, 2019, Biogen issued a press release announcing, in
relevant part, that it planned to pursue the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration's approval for aducanumab based on new analysis of a
larger dataset from Phase 3 studies.

The case alleges that Biogen and its senior executives made
misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (1)
the larger dataset did not provide necessary data regarding
aducanumab's effectiveness; (2) the EMERGE study did not and would
not provide necessary data regarding aducanumab's effectiveness;
(3) the PRIME study did not and would not provide necessary data
regarding aducanumab's effectiveness; and (4) the data provided by
Biogen to the FDA's Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs
Advisory Committee did not support a finding of efficacy for
aducanumab. When the public was made aware of this information,
Biogen's stock price fell 28%, allegedly damaging investors.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal securities laws. The
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 allows any
investor who purchased the securities at issue in the case during
the Class Period to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other investor
class members in managing theclass action and can select a law firm
of their choice to litigate the lawsuit. Serving as a lead
plaintiff does not impact an investor's share in any potential
recovery. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff to be a
member of the class. If investors choose to take no action, they
can remain an absent class member. Interested Biogen investors have
until January 12, 2021 to apply to be a lead plaintiff. The class
has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs, investors
are not represented by an attorney.

Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in
representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations
of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track
records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the
country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be
considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter.

CONTACT:

Thornton Law Firm LLP
1 Lincoln Street
State Street Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
www.tenlaw.com/cases/Biogen [GN]


BLACKBAUD: Faces Consumer Class Actions in U.S., Canada
-------------------------------------------------------
Sergiu Gatlan, writing for Bleeping Computer, reports that leading
cloud software provider Blackbaud has been sued in 23 proposed
consumer class action cases in the U.S. and Canada related to the
ransomware attack that the company suffered in May 2020.

Blackbaud has operations in countries around the world including
the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada.

The ransomware attack directly responsible for the software
provider being sued was disclosed by the company on July 16, 2020.

The organizations impacted by the ransomware attack on Blackbaud
include a long list of entities such as charities, non-profits,
foundations, and universities from the U.S., Canada, the U.K., and
the Netherlands.

The company said that it managed to block the attackers from
completely encrypting its systems but not before stealing "a copy
of a subset of data" from a self-hosted environment.

Blackbaud paid the ransom requested by the attackers after they
confirmed that the stolen data was destroyed.

Lawsuits and data regulator inquiries
Blackbaud on Nov. 3 confirmed that it has been named as a defendant
in 23 putative class suits linked to the May ransomware attack in
its 2020 Q3 Quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC).

"To date, we have been named as a defendant in 23 putative consumer
class action cases (17 in U.S. federal courts, 4 in U.S. state
courts and 2 in Canadian courts) alleging harm from the Security
Incident," Blackbaud said.

"The plaintiffs in these cases, who purport to represent various
classes of individual constituents of our customers, generally
claim to have been harmed by alleged actions and/or omissions by us
in connection with the Security Incident and assert a variety of
common law and statutory claims seeking monetary damages,
injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys' fees, and other related
relief."

The cloud software provider has also received roughly 160 claims
related to the ransomware attack from customers and/or their
attorneys in the U.S., U.K., and Canada.

Inquiries into the attack have also been made by government
agencies and data regulators including a multi-state, consolidated
Civil Investigative Demand issued on behalf of 43 state Attorneys
Generals and the District of Columbia.

Additionally, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, the Information
Commissioner's Office in the United Kingdom (ICO), the Office of
the Australian Information Commissioner, and the Office of the
Privacy Commissioner of Canada have also sent communications,
inquires and requests.

"We may be named as a party in additional lawsuits, other claims
may be asserted by or on behalf of our customers or their
constituents, and we may be subject to additional governmental
inquires, requests or investigations," Blackbaud added.

"Governmental authorities also may seek to impose undertakings,
injunctive relief, consent decrees, or other civil or criminal
penalties, which could, among other things, materially increase our
data security costs or otherwise require us to alter how we operate
our business."

Expenses, exposed data, and security risks
Blackbaud had to spend over $3 million to deal with the attack's
aftermath between July and September, and it also recorded almost
$3 million in accrued insurance recoveries during the same time
period.

The cloud software provider also expects to deal with increased
costs coming from the ongoing response following the attack and the
efforts to boost security defenses.

"In the three months ended September 30, 2020, we recorded $3.2
million of expenses and $2.9 million of accrued insurance
recoveries related to the Security Incident, and in the nine months
ended September 30, 2020, we recorded $3.6 million of expenses and
$2.9 million of accrued insurance recoveries related to the
Security Incident," the company said.

In October, Blackbaud also confirmed in an 8-K SEC filing that the
threat actors behind the May ransomware attack were able to gain
access to some customers' unencrypted banking information, login
credentials, and social security numbers.

Depending on what ransomware gang stole this data, its willingness
to actually destroy it as promised after receiving the ransom
money, and what it will do with it if it wasn't destroyed,
Blackbaud customers may have to deal with a large array of security
risks given the highly sensitive nature of the exposed
information.

Over 20 ransomware operations are known for stealing sensitive
documents from their victims' servers before encrypting network
systems.

Maze ransomware operators, who just announced on Nov. 2 that they
shut down operations, were the first ransomware gang known to
publish Allied Universal's stolen data for not paying the ransom in
November 2019. [GN]


BOILERMAKER-BLACKSMITH: Search Terms Can't Be Compelled in Phillips
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS ALLEN PHILLIPS, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
BOILERMAKER-BLACKSMITH NATIONAL PENSION TRUST, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 19-2402-DDC-KGG (D. Kan.), Magistrate Judge Kenneth G.
Gale of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas denied
the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel the Defendants to apply certain
search terms to electronically stored information in responding to
discovery requests.

The Plaintiffs and the putative class members in the class action
lawsuit are participants in the Boilermaker-Blacksmith National
Pension Trust.  The Plan is an employee benefit plan under the
Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").  The Plaintiffs
allege in their Amended Class Action Complaint that the Defendants
violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by denying
retirement benefits based on re-defined eligibility rules.  They
also allege violations of multiple provisions of ERISA including
breaches of fiduciary duty, violations of ERISA's prohibited
transaction prohibitions and violations of ERISA's anti-alienation
rules.  The Defendants generally deny the Plaintiffs' allegations.

The issue raised by the Plaintiffs in the present motion is the
alleged unwillingness of the Defendants and their agents to produce
or conduct searches of custodial ESI responsive to the Plaintiffs'
First Set of Requests for Production.  The Plaintiffs contend that
the agreed ESI protocol of the parties identifies several
custodians of ESI both from Defendant Fund and its agents whose
email accounts will be collected and searched, including the
Defendant Fund employees and employees of the administrator
Wilson-McShane, the Defendants' actuaries Segal Company, and the
Defendants' attorneys Blake & Uhlig.  The Defendants assert that
these third-parties conducted ESI searches without a subpoena "in
the spirit of cooperation," but they waived no objections that they
might have had to the Plaintiffs' demands.

The Plaintiffs continue that the parties now find themselves "at
loggerheads" on the issue of the appropriate ESI search terms.
According to them, the Defendants initially proposed only the term
"separation," then proposed using separate AND service, separation
AND service, separated AND service.  On Dec. 30, 2019, the
Plaintiffs submitted their initial list of search terms to the
Defendants, which they subsequently narrowed to 29 search terms
identified in the draft ESI Protocol submitted to the Defendants on
Jan. 15, 2020.

Following the discovery dispute conference on Jan. 28, 2020, the
parties engaged in further communications in February and March
regarding the ESI search terms, which were ultimately unsuccessful.
The Defendants generally complained that the Plaintiffs requested
search terms were overly broad and would result in too many hits,
leading the Plaintiffs to request that the Defendants provide
statistics regarding the "hits" within the system that each of the
search terms.  In March and April, the Defendants informed the
Plaintiffs that they were delayed in conducting ESI hit reports
because of the coronavirus.  Although the Defendants submitted
results of certain hit reports in April and May, the Plaintiffs
contends the reports were unsatisfactory.

The Plaintiffs complain that the Defendants' refusal to agree to
use the Plaintiffs' other proposed search terms is totally
unsupported and completely unjustified.  The search terms they
currently request are the following: disqualifying/5 employment AND
amend!; prohibited/5 employment AND amend!; suspend!/5 (benefits OR
pension OR retirement) AND amend!; Heinz; Central Laborers; Supreme
Court AND Benefit; Recoup!/5 benefit!; sever!/5 employment;
sever!/5 service; Terminat!/5 service2; PLR; IRS/5 regulation! AND
(comply OR retir! OR amend!); IRS General Counsel Memorandum 34912;
Voluntary compliance; Determination letter; 1.401!; 401(a)!; and
Inten*/5 retire!.

The Plaintiffs seek an order compelling the Defendants to perform
ESI searches of the relevant custodians at Defendant Fund and its
agents using designated search terms and to produce all discovery
responsive to their First Set of Requests for Production, including
the ESI containing their requested search terms.  The Plaintiffs
argue that the search terms are relevant to disputed issues.  The
Defendants respond that the proposed search terms are not targeted
to the issues in the case and are unduly burdensome.

Magistrate Judge Gale explains that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
34 permits a party to request documents and electronically-stored
information in discovery.  The document request issued must be
within the general scope of discovery under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1).
In the case, Plaintiffs issued a set of Rule 34 Requests for
Production.  These document requests were provided to the Court
after briefing on the instant motion upon request of the Court but
were not attached to the initial memoranda or motion.  Local Rules
require that discovery requests and responses which are the subject
of a motion to compel be attached to the motion.  The Magistrate
Judge surmises that the Plaintiffs' failure to attach the requests
indicates a belief that the original requests are irrelevant to the
present motion.  He disagrees.

Further, the underlying Requests for Production and responses
thereto are not discussed in the Motion to Compel or in the
Response.  Instead, the Plaintiffs attach and discuss a list of
search terms to be applied to e-mail archives and the parties argue
over whether the terms are relevant or burdensome.  There is no
effort to tie these search terms to any of the underlying Requests
for Production, no discussion of whether the original Rule 34
requests are within the scope of discovery or objectionable, and no
discussion by either party of whether the search terms directed to
specified ESI (e-mails) will access specific information or
documents described in the Requests for Production.

The present motion asks the Court to make a relevancy determination
about "disembodied" search terms and to determine whether the
requests are unduly burdensome.  The Magistrate Judge cannot make
that determination under Rules 26 and 34 concerning search terms
which are not tied to a Rule 34 Request for Production.  The issue
of whether a Rule 34 Request for Production could be composed
solely of search terms without a plain-language description of the
information being sought is not before the Court.

Finally, the Magistrate Judge is aware that his rationale for the
ruling is outside the parties' arguments.  He is also painfully
aware that the parties have spent a good deal of time and expense
on this issue concerning which, regrettably, he has provided no
assistance resolving.  However, the presented issue is not amenable
to analysis for relevance or proportionality when he cannot
determine, and the parties have not agreed upon, Requests for
Production which the word search is intended to facilitate.

Because the motion to compel does not tether the search terms
request to any of the Plaintiffs' particular Rule 34 Requests for
Production of Documents, Magistrate Judge Gale denied the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 22, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y68gkenh from Leagle.com.


BRACKETRON INC: Sanchez Alleges Violation under ADA
---------------------------------------------------
Bracketron, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Bracketron, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-10102 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 2, 2020).

Bracketron offers innovative mounts and accessories for all of
today's popular handheld technologies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


CABOT OIL: Gainey McKenna Reminds of Jan. 12 Motion Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation ("Cabot Oil" or the
"Company") (NYSE: COG) in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania on behalf of those who purchased or
acquired the securities of Cabot Oil between October 23, 2015 and
June 12, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for Cabot Oil investors under the federal
securities laws.

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

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

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

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Cabot Oil
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the
January 12, 2021 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members
in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com. [GN]


CANADA: Suit Alleges Discrimination Against Black Public Servants
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joanne Laucius at ottawacitizen.com reports that a class-action
lawsuit alleging that Black civil servants have been the victims of
systemic discrimination is seeking $900 million in compensation.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court, has not been not been
certified.

The statement of claim alleges that, while Canada has committed
itself to eradicating and preventing racism and inequality as a
matter of social policy, there has been "a de facto practice of
Black employee exclusion throughout the public service because of
the permeation of systemic discrimination through Canada's
institutional structure."

None of the allegations have been proven in court.

Twelve representative plaintiffs are named in the lawsuit, but it
has been filed on behalf of all Black federal public service
employees who have been subject to systemic discriminatory barriers
in hiring and promotion since 1970.

The lawsuit alleges that legislative action aimed at preventing
discrimination has masked the exclusion and marginalization of
Black Canadians from equal access to opportunities and benefits.

The Employment Equity Act fails to break down the category of
"visible minorities" and ignores the unique invisible and systemic
racism faced by Black employees relative to other disadvantaged
groups under the act, the lawsuit alleges.

Black Canadians are overwhelmingly underrepresented in the upper
echelons of the public service, Toronto lawyer Courtney Betty said
in a statement.

"This systemic practice of Black employee exclusion has for decades
turned the dreams of many Black employees into a lifetime of pain
and suffering."

Alain Babineau, a 28-year veteran of the RCMP, is one of the
representative plaintiffs.

Babineau, who worked for 10 years in narcotics investigations in
Toronto and in the security details of three prime ministers, said
he first applied to the RCMP in 1981. He was asked by the
recruiting officer, "What are you going to do if you are called a
(n-word)?"

He was rejected on that occasion and went on to work as a military
police officer. When Babineau reapplied to the RCMP in 1984, he
said he learned he had been "racially profiled" as a drug dealer in
his small Quebec hometown and was rejected again.

"He put that in my file because he could," Babineau said in an
interview. "He characterized me as something I was not."

Babineau obtained character references and filed a complaint with
the Canadian Human  Rights Commission. He was hired by the Ontario
Provincial Police in 1988 and was later hired by the RCMP, two
years after he filed his complaint.

But the barriers did not stop there, he said.

"We get to the academy and it's automatically assumed that the only
reason we're here is because we're Black. And it follows you
throughout your career," Babineau said.

"Is it still going on? One hundred per cent it is, but it's more
insidious."

Babineau retired in 2016 and has since been awarded two law degrees
from McGill University.

The RCMP declined to comment as the matter is before the courts.

Among other measures, the lawsuit calls for the federal government
to adopt a policy whereby the number of Black employees would
reflect, at a minimum, the percentage of Black people in the
general population and would include representation at all levels.

The lawsuit also asks for a compensation fund to address the
psychological, pain and suffering and financial losses of past and
present Black employees.

In a statement, the Treasury Board Secretariat acknowledged that
systemic racism and discrimination was a painful lived reality for
Black Canadians, racialized Canadians and Indigenous people.

"The government has taken steps to address anti-Black racism,
systemic discrimination and injustice across the country. Most
recently, the Fall Economic Statement committed $12 million over
three years towards a dedicated Centre on Diversity and Inclusion
in the Federal Public Service. This will accelerate the
government's commitment to achieving a representative and inclusive
public service."

The September Speech from the Throne announced an action plan to
increase representation and leadership development within the
public service, the statement added.

"Early in its mandate, the government also reflected its commitment
in mandate letters, in the establishment of an Anti-Racism Strategy
and Secretariat, in the appointment of a Minister of Diversity and
Inclusion and Youth, and in the creation of the Office for Public
Service Accessibility."

Treasury Board Secretariat declined to comment on the lawsuit
because it is before the courts. [GN]



CANOPY GROWTH: Cannabis Related Putative Class Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Canopy Growth 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,
together with other Canadian licensed cannabis producers continues
to defend as defendants in a proposed class action suit, pending
before in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

On July 22, 2020, the Company was served with a statement of claim
in which it was named, together with several other Canadian
licensed cannabis producers, as a defendant in a proposed class
action proceeding filed in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants, including the Company,
marketed and sold medicinal and recreational cannabis products with
an advertised content of THC and CBD that was inaccurate and that
the amount of the difference between the actual amount of THC
and/or CBD in the medicinal and recreational cannabis products and
the amounts of THC and/or CBD listed on the label was outside the
permissible variability limits.

The proposed class has not yet been certified.

The Company is currently evaluating the merits of the claim and has
not yet been required to respond.

Canopy Growth Corporation is a leading cannabis company with
operations in countries throughout the world. The company produces,
distributes and sells a diverse range of cannabis and hemp-based
products for both recreational and medical purposes under a
portfolio of distinct brands in Canada pursuant to the Cannabis
Act, SC 2018, c 16, and globally pursuant to applicable
international and Canadian legislation, regulations and permits.

CAPITAL ONE: Cohen Class Action Over Alleged Usury Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
BlackChronicle.com reports that in the latest improvement in Cohen
v. Capital One Funding LLC, a case in search of to certify a
category asserting that New York States usury legal guidelines can
apply to securitized bank card money owed, Capital One-affiliated
defendants have prevailed of their efforts to have the claims
dismissed. Plaintiffs sought to use New Yorks statutory caps on
curiosity expenses of 16 p.c (civil) and 25 p.c (felony) to
curiosity funds on bank cards issued by ex-New York banks (on this
case, Virginia) however bundled into asset-backed securities held
by New York trusts.

As BlackChronicle.com famous previously, the dispute activates the
appliance of a 2015 determination by the U.S. Courtroom of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, through which that Courtroom held {that a}
purchaser of a financial institution mortgage was ruled by the New
York limits as a result of it was neither a nationwide financial
institution itself nor performing on behalf of a nationwide
financial institution. Consequently, making use of New Yorks usury
limits didn't considerably intervene with the actions of a
nationwide financial institution, the vendor. The numerous
interference commonplace was first articulated by the Supreme
Courtroom in Marquette Nat. Financial institution v. First of Omaha
Svc. Corp. making use of the Nationwide Banking Act of 1864 (NBA),
which preempts state usury legal guidelines with respect to
nationwide banks.

Plaintiffs argued that as a result of defendants aren't nationwide
banks and don't train nationwide banking authority, Madden is
dispositive and New Yorks usury limits apply to their money owed.

The District Courtroom disagreed, holding Plaintiffs claims to be
preempted by the NBA, specializing in the excellence between the
function of the events in Cohen and Madden:

Though Defendants aren't nationwide banks, the Amended Criticism
and paperwork on which it depends clearly present that Defendants
had been both subsidiaries of Capital One or else finishing up
Capital Ones enterprise.

Analyzing Madden, the District Courtroom identified the excellence
that it discovered essential:

Capital Ones function as ABS sponsor and servicer, and retention of
possession and management over the underlying bank card loans just
isn't analogous to Madden, the place [the banks] severed their
contractual ties to plaintiffs debt.

The District Courtroom discovered help for this place in Madden
itself, the place the Second Circuit explicitly conditioned the
circumstances through which a non-bank can avail itself of NBA
protections:

The [Second Circuit] noticed that, though NBA preemption was
accessible to non-national financial institution entities the place
the appliance of state legislation risked considerably interfering
with a nationwide financial institutions powers, it had normally
been in circumstances the place the non-bank entity acted on behalf
of a nationwide financial institution in finishing up the
nationwide financial institutions enterprise. Madden, 786 F.3d at
251. That was not the case with Midland and its affiliate, which
had been performing solely on their very own behalves, because the
homeowners of the debt, and never on behalf of [banks].

The Second Circuit will possible have a possibility to revisit its
determination in Madden as Plaintiffs have appealed the District
Courtrooms dismissal. [GN]


CARNIVAL CORP: Bernstein, Kessler Named Counsel in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on Nov. 18 disclosed that the
firms have been appointed as Co-Lead Counsel in the consolidated
securities fraud class action lawsuit pending against Carnival
Corporation and Carnival plc (collectively, "Carnival"). This
action, captioned In Re Carnival Corp. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:20-cv-22202-KMM, is pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida and alleges violations
of federal securities laws on behalf of Carnival investors who
purchased or acquired Carnival's securities between September 26,
2019, and May 1, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").  Pursuant to
the Court's order, Co-Lead Counsel, on behalf of the
Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs represented by the firms, will file
a consolidated complaint on or before December 15, 2020.

Investors who have losses from their transactions in Carnival
securities, including common stock, American Depository Shares, and
stock options, during the Class Period may receive additional
information about this litigation by clicking
https://www.blbglaw.com/cases/in-re-carnival-corp-securities-litigation
or contacting Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (Jim
Harrod) at (212) 554-1502 or via email at jim.harrod@blbglaw.com or
by clicking
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/carnival-corporation-ccl-and-carnival-plc
cuk?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=Link&utm_campaign=Carnival or
contacting Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (James Maro, Jr.,
Esq. or Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (844) 887-9500 or (610) 667-7706,
or via e-mail at info@ktmc.com.

As alleged in the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants made materially false, and/or misleading statements, and
failed to disclose material adverse facts about Carnival's manifest
inability to address the spread of infectious disease on its ships
(including COVID-19) and the susceptibility of its ships to the
transmission of such diseases among its crew and passengers. As a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Carnival's
commitment to the health and safety of its passengers and crew
members as well as its assurances to safeguard passengers and crew
were false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

As a result of the revelation of the truth about Carnival's
inability and unwillingness to contain the spread of infectious
diseases on its ships, Carnival investors who purchased Carnival
securities on U.S. exchanges during the Class Period lost billions
of dollars when Carnival's shares declined following Carnival's
corrective revelations.

Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann is widely recognized as one
of the leading law firms worldwide advising institutional investors
on issues related to corporate governance, shareholder rights, and
securities litigation.  Since its founding in 1983, Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann has built an international reputation
for excellence and integrity and pioneered the use of the
litigation process to achieve precedent-setting governance reforms.
Unique among its peers, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann has
obtained several of the largest and most significant securities
recoveries in history, recovering over $33 billion on behalf of
defrauded investors.  More information about the firm can be found
online at www.blbglaw.com.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state and
federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and
federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force
behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of
dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from
the United States and around the world.  The firm represents
investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who
report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the
recovery of government dollars).  For more information about
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, please visit www.ktmc.com.

CONTACT:

Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
James Harrod, Esq.
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY  10020
(212) 554-1505
jim.harrod@blbglaw.com

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500
(610) 667-7706
info@ktmc.com [GN]


CARPARTS.COM: Monegro Files Suit under ADA in New York
------------------------------------------------------
Carparts.com, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Carparts.com, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-10075 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 1, 2020).

CarParts.com is an American online provider of aftermarket auto
parts, including collision parts, engine parts, and performance
parts and accessories. The company is headquartered in Torrance,
California and was founded in 1995 by Sol Khazani and Mehran Nia.
It is traded on NASDAQ as PRTS.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Wins Bid to Dismiss Amended Alexander Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ASHLY ALEXANDER and CEDRIC BISHOP, on behalf of
themselves individually and similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs
v. CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
RDB-20-2369 (D. Md.), Judge Richard D. Bennett of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland granted the Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss Amended Complaint.

Plaintiffs Alexander and Bishop bring the putative class action on
behalf of themselves individually and similarly situated persons
against their mortgage servicer, Defendant Carrington.  The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant improperly charged them a $5
fee to make their mortgage payments online, in violation of: (1)
the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act and the Maryland Consumer
Protection Act (Count I); (2) the prohibitions against usury found
in Md. Code Ann., Com. Law Section 12-105(d) (Count II); and, in
the alternative, (3) the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Count
III).

On Nov. 2, 2005, Plaintiff Alexander took out a residential
mortgage loan from America's Wholesale Lender to secure the
purchase of real property in Baltimore, Maryland.  To do so,
Alexander entered into a Deed of Trust and executed a Note
evidencing the loan.  The Lender may not charge fees that are
expressly prohibited by the Security Instrument or by Applicable
Law.  Alexander's Note requires Alexander to make all payments
under the Note in the form of cash, check or money order.

On Feb. 24, 2012, Alexander's loan was assigned to The Bank of New
York Mellon, formerly known as The Bank of New York as Trustee for
the Certificateholders of the CWABS Inc., Asset-Backed
Certificates, Series 2005-13.  On Aug. 16, 2017, CWABS retained
Defendant Carrington to service Alexander's loan and act as its
collector.  Alexander alleges that, at the time CWABS retained
Carrington, her loan was believed to be in default.

On May 22, 2010, Plaintiff Bishop took out a residential mortgage
loan from the Federal Housing Administration to refinance his real
property in Gaithersburg, Maryland.  To do so, Bishop entered into
a Deed of Trust and executed a Note refinancing his loan.  On Sept.
8, 2018, Carrington was retained to service and collect upon
Bishop's loan.  Bishop alleges that, at the time Carrington was
retained, his loan was believed to be in default.

When Alexander and Bishop made their monthly mortgage payments,
they had options with respect to their payment method.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs could make their mortgage payments
online to Carrington for which Carrington would charge them a
processing fee of $5.  Alexander alleges that she made online
mortgage payments to Carrington, each time incurring a $5 online
payment fee, on Oct. 2, 2018, Nov. 5, 2018, Dec. 3, 2018, Jan. 3,
2019, Feb. 4, 2019, March 4, 2019, April 8, 2019, June 3, 2019,
July 1, 2019, Aug. 30, 2019, and Sept. 16, 2019.  Bishop also
alleges that he made online mortgage payments to Carrington, each
time incurring a $5 online payment fee, on March 15, 2019, April
12, 2019, May 15, 2019, June 15, 2019, July 15, 2019, Aug. 16,
2019, Oct. 11, 2019, Nov. 16, 2019, and Dec. 16, 2019.  The
Plaintiffs allege that the practice of collecting a $5 "convenience
fee" was in violation of Counts I to III.

Plaintiff Alexander originally brought suit in the Circuit Court
for Baltimore County, Maryland on July 10, 2020.  On Aug. 17, 2020,
Defendant Carrington removed the action to the Court.  On Sept. 8,
2020, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, adding Bishop as a
Plaintiff and alleging an additional Count under the federal FDCPA.
On Oct. 6, 2020, the Defendant filed the presently pending Motion
to Dismiss Amended Complaint.

Judge Bennett opines that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for
violation of the MCDCA (Count I).  The Plaintiffs do not allege
that Carrington was attempting to recover on delinquent debts.  As
a result, Carrington's servicing of the Plaintiffs' loans is simply
not conduct regulated by MCDCA Section 14-202.  Even if they
adequately alleged that Carrington was engaged in debt collection,
their claims under Sections 14-202(8) and 14-202(11) still fail to
state plausible claims for relief.

The Plaintiffs also fail to state a claim under MCDCA Section
14-202(11), as they have not adequately alleged a violation of the
federal FDCPA.  Even if they adequately alleged that Carrington was
engaged in debt collection within the meaning of the MCDCA,
Carrington's conduct in this case falls squarely within the loan
servicing exemption of the FDCPA.  Without alleging a violation of
the FDCPA, the Plaintiff cannot allege a violation of Section
14-202(11) of the MCDCA.  Finally, even if Carrington did not
qualify for the exemption under Section 803 of the FDCPA, the
Plaintiffs' claim would still fail because the $5 convenience fees
were not incidental to their mortgage debt as required by the
FDCPA.

Judge Bennett also opines that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim
for violation of the MCPA Com. Law Section 13-301 (Count I).  They
have failed to allege any unfair practice or misrepresentation that
they relied upon.  Their sole allegation is that Carrington charged
them $5 convenience fees which were fully disclosed by Carrington
and agreed upon by the Plaintiffs.  Such fees do not constitute
"any sort of representation."  Nor could the Plaintiffs allege that
they "relied" upon any misrepresentation.  The Plaintiffs have not
alleged that they would have done anything differently nor how
Defendant induced them to make the decision to pay their mortgages
online.  Consequently, they have failed to state claims under both
the MCDCA and the MCPA and Count I must be dismissed with
prejudice.

The Judge then opines that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for
violation of the prohibitions against usury found in Md. Code Ann.,
Com. Law Section 12-105(d) (Count II).  They do not allege that
they prepaid their loans resulting in a prepayment penalty, but
instead allege that they incurred a $5 convenience fee for paying
their monthly mortgage amount online.  This fee is simply not a
prepayment penalty.  Finally, Section 12-105 limits the fees that a
"lender" may charge.  Accordingly, because there is no question
that Carrington was not the originator of the loan, the Plaintiff's
claim under Section 12-105(d) must fail and Count II will be
dismissed with prejudice.

The Judge further opines that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim
for violation of the federal FDCPA (Count III).  The Defendant is
not a debt collector under the FDCPA.  Even if Carrington were a
debt collector, its provision of mortgage statements that include
the fees in question is not prohibited by the FDCPA.  Further, even
if Carrington were using the mortgage statements to collect fees,
which they were not, their effort to collect an authorized fee
would not violate the FDCPA.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have
failed to state a claim under the FDCPA and Count III will be
dismissed with prejudice.

For the reasons stated, Judge Bennett granted the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint.  He dismissed with prejudice
the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.  A separate Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 11, 2020 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7p4jdaa from Leagle.com.


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

To join the Celsion class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1978.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) defendants had significantly overstated the efficacy of
ThermoDox; (2) the foregoing significantly diminished the approval
and commercialization prospects for ThermoDox; (3) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December
29, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1978.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
[GN]


CELSION CORP: Schall Law Firm Reminds of December 29 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Nov. 3 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Celsion Corporation ("Celsion" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: CLSN) for
violations of Secs. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between November
2, 2015 and July 10, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before December 29, 2020.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Celsion considerably overstated the
efficacy of its ThermoDox product. This lack of efficacy negatively
impacted the Company's likelihood of gaining approval for
ThermoDox. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements
were false and materially misleading throughout the class period.
When the market learned the truth about Celsion, investors suffered
damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

Contacts:

The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]


CGU INSURANCE: Lawyers Urge Affected People to Join Bushfire Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elliot Williams at Canberra Times reports that a class action
against an insurance giant following the devastating Carwoola
bushfires in 2017 has progressed with lawyers calling on anyone
impacted to join the suit.

A group of about 70 residents and landowners have registered with
Maddens Lawyers to progress a class action against CGU Insurance
Australia.

Maddens Lawyers principal Kathryn Emeny said there were important
developments occurring in the class action which meant it was a
good time for people to register their interest if they had not
already done so.

"In the coming weeks there will be experts in the Carwoola area
meeting with members of the class action to assist them in
recording and quantifying the loss and damage they suffered as a
result of the fire," Ms Emeny said.

"This is a really important step for each group member in advancing
their claim.

"We are aware there are others that were impacted by the fire but
have not yet been in contact with us. I'd encourage those people to
act promptly and let us know of their circumstances."

Maddens Lawyers were given the green light to start the case in
August last year when the NSW Supreme Court found against CGU, who
had denied all liability.

The fire, which began when a plumbing company employee used steel
cutting equipment during a total fire ban and sparks ignited nearby
grass, burned about 3500 hectares and destroyed 11 homes. [GN]


CHEGG INC: Monegro Alleges Violation under ADA
----------------------------------------------
Chegg, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Frankie
Monegro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Chegg, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-10077 (S.D.
N.Y., Dec. 1, 2020).

Chegg, Inc., is an American education technology company based in
Santa Clara, California. It provides digital and physical textbook
rentals, online tutoring, and other student services. The company
was launched in 2005, and began trading publicly on the New York
Stock Exchange in November 2013.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



CHICAGO, IL: Santiago's Towing Lawsuit Granted Class Action Status
------------------------------------------------------------------
Manny Ramos, writing for Chicago Sun Times, reports that a
Northwest Side woman's lawsuit that accuses Chicago of "towing
without telling" could grow to cover thousands of Chicago motorists
whose vehicles were impounded, crushed and later sold for scrap.

At the forefront of the allegations is 69-year-old Andrea Santiago,
whose 1998 GMC Savana 1500 van was towed and impounded in June
2018. Her lawsuit was recently granted class-action status,
attorney Jacie Zolna said Nov. 18.

Under Chicago's abandoned vehicle policy, the city has the
discretion of towing vehicles that have not been moved or used for
more than seven days and seem deserted. Cars, vans or SUVs are then
impounded and if not redeemed by the owner can be sold for scrap.

Kathleen Fieweger, a spokeswoman for the city's Law Department,
denied any wrongdoing.

"The city provides ample notice concerning the towing of these
vehicles," Fieweger said. "Specifically, a notice sticker is placed
on the vehicle before it is towed, and the city sends two notice
letters in the mail after it is towed."

Santiago, who has multiple sclerosis and uses a wheelchair, relied
on her van and its $10,000 wheelchair lift to get to and from
medical appointments. Her daughter, Lisandra Velez, was the primary
driver because Santiago can't drive.

Since the van was mostly used for Santiago's appointments, it often
sat parked in front of her house for weeks. Velez said she had
handicap stickers plastered all over the van. At one point, she
wrote "This van is not abandoned" on the side of the vehicle.

"They took it, then they crushed it. There was no notice or nothing
at all," Velez said Nov. 18. "Basically, they crushed her legs,
that's what [the city] did, they crushed her legs and didn't give
her a chance to fight for it."

Velez said an owner must to be present to claim an impounded
vehicle, but Santiago's only mode of transportation was sitting in
the impound lot. The van was later crushed and sold for scrap
without notifying Santiago.

Zolna said the lawsuit focuses on the city's failure to notify
Santiago, which sets it apart from other lawsuits filed over the
city's towing practices.

"Before the government can take your property, they have to give
you notice and an opportunity to be heard -- that is just the basic
tenet of law," Zolna said. "Here they didn't do that; they
literally took Ms. Santiago's car without any notice." [GN]


CHIPOTLE: Workers Want S.C. to Deny Review of Wage Class Cert.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a group of Chipotle managers asked the U.S.
Supreme Court to not review an appeals court's decision to certify
their wage and hour collective action against the fast food chain,
arguing that just because they performed different tasks and worked
in different locations doesn't mean they're ineligible together.
[GN]




CITIGROUP INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Dec. 29 Motion Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Citigroup, Inc. (NYSE: C).
Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff.  Additional information about each case
can be found at the link provided.

Citigroup, Inc. (NYSE: C)

Class Period: January 15, 2016 to October 12, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 29, 2020

The Class Period begins on February 25, 2017, following the
Company's submission of its 2016 Annual Report to the SEC. In that
filing, and throughout the Class Period, Citi assured investors
that there were no significant deficiencies or material weaknesses
in the Company's internal controls. When faced with periodic
regulatory penalties for noncompliance, the Company continued to
assure investors that the specific deficiencies at issue were being
remediated promptly and that internal controls and regulatory
compliance were a top priority at Citi. In particular, Citi assured
investors that it satisfied all regulatory requirements and
maintained adequate internal controls, data governance, compliance
risk management, and enterprise risk management.

In reality, during the Class Period and unbeknownst to investors,
Citi's internal controls and risk management capabilities suffered
from "serious" and "longstanding" inadequacies that exposed the
Company to massive regulatory penalties and will cost significantly
more than $1 billion to remediate. Specific control failures about
which Citi executives were warned remained unresolved for years and
the Company's culture of non-compliance was so widespread that
Citi's CEO, Defendant Michael Corbat, exhorted employees in an
internal memo that regulatory compliance required more than
"checking boxes."

The truth began to emerge on September 14, 2020, when reports
surfaced that regulators were preparing to reprimand Citi for
failing to improve its risk-management systems.

That disclosure caused the price of Citi's stock to decline $2.85
per share, from $51.00 to $48.15, erasing $5.91 billion in
shareholder value.

After the market closed on September 14, 2020, an internal memo
sent to Citi employees revealed for the first time the Company's
disregard for adequate internal controls and regulatory
compliance.

As a result, the price of Citi's stock declined an additional $3.34
per share, from $48.15 to $44.81, erasing $6.93 billion in
shareholder value.

Then, on October 13, 2020, Citi reported earnings for the third
quarter of 2020, and disclosed that the Company's expenses
increased during the third quarter by 5%, to $11 billion, due to an
increase in costs including a $400 million fine, investments in
infrastructure, and other remediation costs related to control
deficiencies.

These disclosures caused Citi's stock price to decline by $2.20 per
share, from $45.88 to $43.68, erasing $4.57 billion in shareholder
value.

For more information on the Citigroup class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/C

                 About Bragar Eagel & Squire

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


CITIGROUP INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of December 29 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Citigroup
Inc. ("Citigroup" or "the Company") (NYSE: C) for violations of
Secs. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between February
25, 2017 and October 12, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before December 29, 2020.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Citigroup suffered from longstanding
weaknesses in its internal controls, data governance, and risk
management. The Company engaged in a scheme to deceive the market,
which artificially inflated the Company's share price. When the
Company's deceit became public, the share price fell steeply. Based
on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and
materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market
learned the truth about Citigroup, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

Contacts:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]


CLYDESDALE BANK: Class Action Over TBLs Enters Final Phase
----------------------------------------------------------
thenational.scot reports that a claims management company has
announced the final phase of its group (or class) action against
Clydesdale Bank, including Yorkshire Bank and the National
Australia Bank, over their selling of tailored business loans
(TBLs) and fixed rate loans.

All Square Finance said that new data had identified which business
types and sectors are particularly affected from the thousands who
took out the loans.

They said their analysis showed these included customers involved
in the property investment, hospitality, farming, construction,
retail and manufacturing sectors.

Their action is due to be heard at the High Court in London next
month, in partnership with specialist litigation firm RGL
Management and Michelmores LLP.

All Square - which has opened the case on a no-win-no-fee basis -
said the largest eligible businesses are now estimated to be owed
millions of pounds by the bank, although it anticipated average
claim sizes in the hundreds of thousands bracket.

The company alleges that the banks behaved fraudulently and
dishonestly in the sale of these loans, and said many thousands of
customers may still be unaware that they have a valid claim.

Anybody in Scotland, Wales or England who took out a TBL or fixed
rate loan from Clydesdale Bank or Yorkshire Bank is eligible to
sign up for this group action claim.

It is believed that more than 6500 business customers took out such
loans from Clydesdale Bank between December 2001 and July 2012.

However, All Square said that with the hearing due next month, time
was running out for potentially thousands of businesses to join the
action.

The firm's managing director, Daniel Hall, said: "Clydesdale and
Yorkshire Bank's institutional dishonesty when selling TBLs led to
the destruction of countless lives and livelihoods - but any
customer who was sold a fixed rate business loan or TBL is eligible
to join this compensation claim, which is expected to run into the
hundreds of millions of pounds.

"In the current business climate, we are particularly keen to reach
people facing difficult circumstances who may not realise they are
owed thousands, and in many cases six or seven figures, by the
bank.

"The data we have analysed y allows us to reach out to those
sectors that we know were particularly affected and bring this to
their attention."

A spokesperson for Clydesdale Bank said: "There continues to be
absolutely no substance or merit in the allegations made in RGL's
claim and we have made this clear in our defence.

"Over recent years we have worked hard to investigate all historic
SME conduct issues and we are confident we have done the right
thing for those customers involved. We will continue to defend our
position robustly throughout any legal process." [GN]


CMG CIT: Shortchanges Workers' Wages, Erguera Says
--------------------------------------------------
Margarita Erguera, an individual on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CMG CIT Acquisition, LLC,
Circharo Acquisition LLC; and Does 1 to 10 inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 20-at-00994 (E.D. Cal., December 8, 2020) seeks to recover
all remuneration in the regular rate of pay all wages owing at
termination of employment under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
California state law.

CMG CIT Acquisition, LLC and Circharo Acquisition LLC operate as
Core Medical Group. They are staffing companies that employ hourly
healthcare professionals for short-term travel assignments at
healthcare providers throughout the United States. They allegedly
failed to include the value of housing and meal and incidental
benefits in the regular rate of pay when calculating overtime wages
and failed to pay all wages owing at the termination of employment.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew B. Hayes, Esq.
     Kye D. Pawlenko, Esq.
     HAYES PAWLENKO LLP
     595 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 303
     Pasadena, CA 91101
     Tel: (626) 808-4357
     Fax: (626) 921-4932
     Email: mhayes@helpcounsel.com
            kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com


COLLECTION AGENCY: Conde et al. Sue Over Illegal Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRITTANY CONDE and ROCKY WAMSLEY, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE COLLECTION AGENCY, LLC
d/b/a COLLECTION ASSOCIATES, a Registered Tradename, ANDREW C.
MASCHMAN and JOHN DOES, Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-BCB-MDN (D.
Neb., December 7, 2020) brings this complaint as a class action
against the Defendants for their alleged confusing an misleading
collection complaints in violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act and the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were sued by the
Defendants on two occasions with their standard county court debt
collection complaint. The first complaint was filed on March 26,
2020 and the second collection lawsuit was filed on or about
October 12, 2020. However, both complaints failed to identify the
patient, date of service, and include an itemization of amounts
and/or account numbers which created confusion for the Plaintiffs.


Moreover, the Defendants made false or misleading statements in
connection with the attempted collection of sad debt,
misrepresented the character, amount or legal status of the alleged
debt as well as the compensation received for collection of the
alleged debts, and attempted to collect amounts not expressly
authorized by the agreements creating the alleged debts or
permitted by law.

The complaint asserts that the Plaintiffs suffered concrete and
particularized harm because their legally-protected consumer rights
under the FDCPA and the NCPA were violated by the Defendants.

The Collection Agency is a collection agency engaged in the
business of collecting consumer debt. It is owned, operated and
managed by Andrew C. Maschman. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Pamela A. Car, Esq.
          William L. Reinbrecht, Esq.
          CAR & REINBRECHT, P.C., LLO
          2120 S. 72nd St., Suite 1125
          Omaha, NE 68124
          Telephone: (402) 391-8484
          E-mail: pacar@cox.net

                - and –

          O. Randolph Bragg, Esq.
          HORWITZ, HORWITZ & ASSOCIATES
          25 East Washington St., Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 372-8822
          Facsimile: (312) 372-1673
          E-mail: rand@horwitzlaw.com


CONNECTICUT: Diaz Files Prisoner Civil Rights Suit
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the warden of
Connecticut and other officials. The case is styled as Noel Diaz,
Unnamed Members of the class, all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Bowles, Warden, Vicki Kilham, Baymon, Deputy Warden,
Rick Furey, Washington, Deputy Warden, Blackstock Captain, Colleen
Gallagher and John Doe, Commissioner, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-01793-VAB (D. Conn., Dec. 2, 2020).

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

The Defendants are government representatives.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.



DANIEL RAINN FASHION: Kiler Files Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------
Daniel Rainn Fashion Corp. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Marion Kiler, individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Daniel Rainn Fashion
Corp. and ZZ Fashion Corp. doing business as: Daniel Rainn,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05796 (E.D. N.Y., Dec. 1, 2020).

DANIELRAINN is a trademark of ZZ Fashion Corp. Zz Fashion Corp. was
founded in 2012. The company's line of business includes the
wholesale distribution of women's, children's, and infants'
clothing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
   Scarsdale, NY 10583
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com

DELL: Hit With Class-Action After Data Breach Led to Scam Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carly Page at forbes reports that PC maker Dell has been hit with a
proposed class-action lawsuit after exposing the personal
information of thousands of Canadians in a 2017 data breach.

According to a claim filed in a Nova Scotia court, the suit's
proposed representative plaintiff is seeking compensation for years
of scam calls and emails he received after a 2017 data breach
exposed information about him and more than 7,000 other Dell
customers.

Following the breach, which occurred at a call centre in India that
provided customer support services for Dell, the plaintiff
"received five to 10 scam calls per day, seven days a week, at all
hours (from January 2018 to early 2020)," the suit alleges.

"The calls would wake (him) from sleep, and constantly interrupt
his life. (He) was eventually left with no option but to change his
work phone number used by countless clients, work contacts and
employers."

After changing his phone number, the plaintiff alleges he began to
get numerous emails per day requesting that he call a number to
resolve a Dell computer issue.

"(He) continues to suffer anxiety and distress over the materially
increased risk of identity theft, being the target of additional
scams, and further cybercrime," the claim says.

The Wagners law firm in Halifax said that Dell Canada and its
parent company were negligent and didn't sufficiently protect the
privacy of its customers.

In a statement, Dell said it "places the highest priority on the
protection of customer data.

"The Office of the Privacy Commissioner's related investigation
found that we improved our 'security safeguards along with (our)
complaint handling and breach investigation practices." the company
added.

The suit doesn't specify how much money the plaintiffs should get,
but asks the court to award damages for breach of privacy and
negligence and other compensation. [GN]


DHM RESEARCH: McKay Suit Won't Be Stayed Pending Facebook Outcome
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Melanie McKay, Plaintiff v. DHM Research, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 6:20-CV-01249-MC (D. Ore.), Judge Michael
McShane of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon
denied the Defendant's motion to stay proceedings, pending the
outcome of Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Plaintiff McKay brings the putative class action alleging that the
Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA")
by sending her an unsolicited marketing text message.

The Defendant now moves to stay the proceedings, pending the
outcome of Facebook.  The Defendant argues that the outcome of
Facebook bears directly on the present litigation.  At the same
time, the Defendant also claims that the equipment it used to place
the text message to the Plaintiff's phone is not an automatic
telephone dialing system at all.  Rather, the Defendant argues it
is a peer-to-peer system that does not have the capacity to store
or produce numbers, cannot dial random or sequential numbers, or be
used to dial any number without human intervention.

Because the Defendant contends that the equipment is not an ATDS,
Judge McShane finds that it is not clear how the outcome of
Facebook would simplify any questions in the case.  Facebook
narrowly focuses on whether an ATDS is a system that uses a random
or sequential number generator to store numbers or whether it is
one that simply stores numbers, using no type of number generator.
The Defendant asserts that its system does neither. Eventually, the
Defendant will have to submit to discovery to show that, regardless
of Facebook's outcome.

Defending itself now may exacerbate the Defendant's
pandemic-related financial strain, but being required to defend a
suit, without more, does not constitute a clear case of hardship or
inequity, Judge McShane says. Nor does the Defendant suggest that
its financial situation will change appreciably in the coming
months.  The Defendant has not shown that Facebook will simplify
the matter or that the Defendant will suffer a hardship that a stay
could remedy.

Because the Defendant has not met its burden of proof, any delay in
resolution presents a fair possibility of damage to the Plaintiff,
Judge McShane notes.  A stay is, therefore, inappropriate.  For
these reasons, Judge McShane denied the Defendant's motion to stay
the action.  The parties are to confer and file a joint status
report with new deadlines within 14 days of the Opinion and Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 11, 2020 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yb7x8wn7 from Leagle.com.


DIAMOND DOLLS: Dancers Class in Harris FLSA Suit Cond. Certified
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CLARISSA HARRIS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DIAMOND DOLLS OF NEVADA, LLC, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-CV-00598-RCJ-CLB (D. Nev.), Judge
Robert C. Jones of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada granted in part and modified in part the Plaintiff's Motion
for Conditional Certification and Approval of Notice and Consent
Form.

According to the complaint, the Defendants employed the Plaintiff
as an exotic dancer from 2003 to May 2017.  The Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendants intentionally failed to pay minimum wage and
pooled tips in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  She
further alleges that their unlawful practices extended to all
employees similarly situated to herself and continues to the
present day.

Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that she and other dancers were
employees, that they were not paid minimum wage, and that their
tips were pooled with employees who do not ordinarily and
customarily receive tips.  Accordingly, Harris brought the
collective action on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
based on the alleged conduct from Sept. 25, 2016 to present.

The Plaintiff moves for preliminary certification of the proposed
class and approval of the proposed Notice and Consent forms.  The
Defendants do not oppose preliminary certification or notice to the
potential class members but argue that the Plaintiff's proposed
notice should be modified to reduce its scope and delete certain
phrases that improperly suggest the Court's endorsement of the
merits of the Plaintiff's case.

The Defendants request modification of the Plaintiff's proposed
notice in three ways:  First, they request the notice clearly and
plainly indicate that a dancer could only opt-in to the action if
the dancer had not signed an arbitration agreement containing a
class action waiver.  Second, they request the phrases "COURT
AUTHORIZED NOTICE TO POTENTIAL CLASS MEMBERS" and "THIS IS A COURT
APPROVED NOTICE" be removed from the proposed notice.  Third, they
request the phrase "I agree to be represented by Don Foty, counsel
for the named Plaintiff" in the consent form be modified to correct
the discrepancy between the proposed notice and the consent form as
to the identity of the Plaintiff's counsel.

The Defendants argue that issuing notice to those potential class
members who have signed arbitration agreements would be both
misleading and futile.  However, they cite only a single case from
outside the Circuit in support of that proposition, Lanqing Lin v.
Everyday Beauty Amore Inc., No. 18-cv-729 (BMC), (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 10,
2018).  Such support is insufficient in light of the overwhelming
weight of authority from within the Circuit holding that issues of
arbitration are to be addressed either in a motion to compel
arbitration or in the second stage of the certification process.
Judge Jones agrees with that weight of authority and therefore
declines to limit the scope of the notice only to those potential
class members who have not signed arbitration agreements.

Keeping in mind its duty to ensure that notices are "timely,
accurate, and informative," the Judge also declines to omit the
objected-to phrases completely but does require certain
modifications.  First, the sentence -- "The Court has not yet
decided whether the Defendants have done anything wrong or whether
this case will proceed to trial." -- will be moved to the end of
the paragraph beginning with "This Notice is to inform you." and
will be placed in all-caps and bolded so as to match the font of
the header.  Second, the caption at the bottom of the notice will
be replaced by the caption, "* * * DISTRIBUTION OF THIS NOTICE HAS
BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT FROM A
LAWYER. * * *" in all-caps and bolded.

Finally, while there is no inherent discrepancy between listing one
attorney as the point of contact in the notice and another as
designated counsel in the consent form, the Judge notes that Mr.
Foty is not listed as named counsel in the docket of the instant
case.  Should Mr. Foty wish to appear before the Court, he must
comply with the requirements of LR IA 11-2 and LR IC 2-1.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Jones granted in part and modified in
part the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification and
Approval of Notice and Consent Form.  The Judge conditionally
certified the matter as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b) with respect to all current and former exotic dancers who
worked at the Spice House establishment operated by the Defendants
at any time from Sept. 25, 2016 up to the present.

The Defendants will provide the Plaintiff's counsel the names of
all the potential Class Members, as well as all known addresses,
phone numbers (home, mobile, etc.), dates of birth, email addresses
(work and personal), driver's license numbers, social security
numbers, and dates of employment for all the potential Class
Members.  The Defendants will provide such information in a
computer-readable format.

The Plaintiff's counsel will mail a copy of the "Notice" and
"Consent Form" attached to the Plaintiff's Motion as Exhibit B and
Exhibit C, respectively, and modified as described in the Order,
via regular U.S. Mail and via electronic mail to all persons
contained on the Class List no later than seven days from the date
on which the Plaintiff receives the list from the Defendants.  The
Plaintiff's counsel will also include a self-addressed stamped
envelope in the mailing.  The Plaintiff's counsel may hire a
third-party class action administrative company to oversee the
mailing of the Notice and Consent Forms.

The Defendants will prominently post the Notice inside their
dressing room no later than 10 days from the date of the Order.

The Judge further ordered that the Class Members will also be given
the option to execute their Consent Forms electronically.  In the
body of the email notice, the Plaintiff's counsel will provide a
link to DocuSign for execution of the Consent Form.  All consent
forms will be returned to the Plaintiff's counsel who in turn will
be responsible for filing them with the Court.  In filing with the
Court, the Plaintiff's counsel will ensure that all personal
information, aside from the Class Member's name and the city and
state in which that Class Member currently resides, will be either
redacted or omitted from the filings.

The Class Members will have 60 days from the date of the mailing of
the Notice and Consent Form to file their signed Consent Form
opting-in to the lawsuit as Plaintiffs, unless good cause can be
shown as to why the consent was not postmarked prior to the
deadline.

The Plaintiff's counsel will send a second copy of the Notice and
Consent Form to those potential class members who have not yet
joined the lawsuit in the same manner described above no later than
thirty days before the deadline to opt-in.

The Defendants are prohibited from communicating, directly or
indirectly, with any potential class member about any matters which
touch or concern the settlement of any outstanding wage claims or
other matters related to the suit during the opt-in period.  They
will so instruct all of its club managers.  The Order does not
restrict the Defendants from discussing with any potential class
member matters that arise in the normal course of business.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 22, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y55e2y67 from Leagle.com.


DIAMOND RESORTS INC: Zwicky Suit Transferred to Arizona Dist. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Norman Zwicky for himself and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Diamond Resorts
Incorporated, a Nevada Corporation, ILX Acquisition Incorporated, a
Delaware Corporation, Diamond Resorts Management Incorporated, an
Arizona Corporation, Stephen J Cloobeck, David F Palmer, C Alan
Bentley, Troy Magdos, Kathy Wheeler, Linda Riddle, Unknown Parties
John & Jane Does 1-10 and Does 1-10, Defendants, was transferred
from the Maricopa County Superior Court with the assigned Case No.
20-010141 to the U.S. District Court District for the District of
Arizona on Dec. 1, 2020, and assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-02322-JJT.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other Statutes:
Racketeer/Corrupt Organization filed pursuant to the Racketeering
(RICO) Act.

Diamond Resorts International, Inc. sells vacation ownership. The
Company provides membership and explores vacation destinations, as
well as offers concerts, relaxation, sightseeing, hiking, and
beaches and experiences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Edward Louis Barry, Esq.
   Law Office of Edward L. Barry
   2120 Company Street, Third Floor
   Christiansted, VI 00820
   Tel: (340) 690-7208
   Email: ed@AttorneyEdBarry.com

     - and -

   Phelps & Moore PLC
   7430 E Butherus Dr., Ste. A
   Scottsdale, AZ 85260

     - and -

   Jon Laurence Phelps, Esq.
   Phelps Law Group
   4045 E Union Hills Dr., Ste. 104A
   Phoenix, AZ 85050
   Tel: (602) 788-2089
   Fax: (480) 247-5456
   Email: jon@phelpsandmoore.com

     - and -

   Robert Martin Moore, Esq.
   Law Offices of Phelps & Moore PLC
   4045 E Union Hills Rd., Ste. A102
   Phoenix, AZ 85050
   Tel: (602) 788-2089
   Email: rob@phelpsandmoore.com

The Defendants are represented by:

   Brandon T Crossland, Esq.
   Baker & Hostetler LLP - Orlando, FL
   200 S Orange Ave., Ste. 2300
   Orlando, FL 32801
   Tel: (407) 649-4000

     - and -

   Julie Singer Brady, Esq.
   Baker & Hostetler LLP - Orlando, FL
   200 S Orange Ave., Ste. 2300
   Orlando, FL 32801
   Tel: (407) 649-4000

     - and -

   Mark Andrew Fuller, Esq.
   Gallagher & Kennedy PA
   2575 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 1100
   Phoenix, AZ 85016-9225
   Tel: (602) 530-8000
   Email: maf@gknet.com

     - and -

   Yameel L Mercado Robles, Esq.
   Baker & Hostetler LLP - Orlando, FL
   200 S Orange Ave., Ste. 2300
   Orlando, FL 32801
   Tel: (407) 649-4000


DIRECT HOLDINGS AMERICAS: Kiler Files Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------
Direct Holdings Americas LLC doing business as: Time Life is facing
a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Marion Kiler, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. Direct Holdings Americas LLC, doing business as: Time
Life, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05799 (E.D. N.Y., Dec. 1, 2020).

Direct Holdings Americas Inc is engaged in music and video
products. The Company specializes in distinctive multi-media
collections.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
   Scarsdale, NY 10583
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


DOMINION COURTYARD: Class Certification Denial in Cardamon Flipped
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TERESE CARDAMON et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants v.
DOMINION COURTYARD VILLAS et al., Defendants and Respondents, Case
No. F076760 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the
Fifth District reversed the Fresno County Superior Court's Oct. 13,
2017 order denying Terese and Nicholas Cardamon's motion for class
certification.

Between March 27, 2015, and March 25, 2016, the Plaintiffs rented
an apartment at Dominion, one of nine residential complexes in or
around Fresno County operated and/or managed by the Defendants.
Thereafter, the Defendants assessed various charges against the
Plaintiffs' security deposit to restore the apartment unit, such as
$104.30 for cleaning material and labor, $174.52 for painting labor
and material, and $1,782.80 for pad and carpet replacement pet
damage, inter alia.  The costs were detailed in a "Resident Request
Form," a standardized three-page document.  Each charge included a
40% administrative fee.

In the operative complaint filed on July 28, 2016, the Plaintiffs
alleged the Defendants violated Business and Professions Code
section 17200, et seq. and Civil Code section 1950.5 by imposing
the 40% administrative fee.  They sought to represent themselves
and all other individuals who have rented, or were renting,
apartment units managed or owned by the Defendants, in which the
Defendants applied said fee on costs being deducted from security
deposits when these individuals vacated the units, at any time
during the four years preceding the filing of the action, and
continuing while the action is pending.

On May 15, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  The class was defined as all tenants who rented
residential units through and/or from the Defendants from June 15,
2012, through the effective date determined by the superior court,
from whom a 40% administrative fee or markup was charged on costs
deducted from the security deposit.

The Plaintiffs asserted the class was ascertainable via the
Defendants' internal records, e.g., the Resident Request Form, and
clearly large enough to warrant class action treatment in view of
certain deposition testimony.  They also asserted the principal
questions of law and of fact are common to the class members given
the uniformity of the Defendants' practices and the Defendants' use
of standardized documents showing the deductions from tenants'
security deposits for administrative fees; their claims were
typical of those of the class because they had the 40%
administrative fee assessed against costs deducted from their
security deposits; and their attorney was qualified to conduct
class litigation.

In support of their motion, the Plaintiffs provided the Oct. 26,
2016 deposition testimony of Scott Ellis, Jr., the general manager
of Scott Ellis Enterprises, LLC.

In their opposition to the Plaintiffs' class certification motion
filed on May 31, 2017, the Defendants insisted the class definition
was vague and ambiguous, pointing out various tenants were
completely unaffected by their policy as their security deposits
were fully returned.  They further argued the Plaintiffs failed to
prove the existence of a uniform policy or practice that resulted
in a violation of the law.  In support of their opposition, the
Defendants submitted several declarations.

In a tentative ruling issued on Sept. 26, 2017, the superior court
indicated it would deny the Plaintiffs' class certification motion.
Following a Sept. 28, 2017 hearing, the court adopted its
tentative ruling as its final order on Oct. 13, 2017.  It denied
the Plaintiffs' class certification motion on the grounds they
failed to establish (1) size of the class; and (2) typicality.

The Court of Appeals rejects the superior court's rationale.

First, based on the information provided by the Defendants, the
putative class members who vacated a Dominion apartment between
2012 and 2015 alone would number in the hundreds.  This sum can
only increase when the move-outs at the other complexes over the
relevant period are taken into account.  General knowledge and
common sense indicate the class is too large to make joinder
practicable.  Hence, the prerequisite of numerosity is discharged.
The court's conclusion to the contrary rested on improper criteria
and/or erroneous legal assumptions.

Second, the class was defined as all tenants who rented residential
units through and/or from the Defendants from whom a 40%
"administrative fee" or "markup" was charged on costs deducted from
the security deposit.  The record shows the Plaintiffs were former
Dominion tenants; various charges were assessed against their
security deposit; and said charges included the 40% administrative
fee.

In its ruling, the superior court focused on the lack of
declarations from the putative class members regarding similar
damages.  However, the record demonstrated the administrative fee
was not imposed on the Plaintiffs alone: Ellis' deposition
testimony and the Defendants' declarations revealed this was a
uniform policy or practice applied to all the putative class
members.  The court's apparent belief that only declarations from
the putative class members could satisfy the typicality requirement
rested on improper criteria and/or erroneous legal assumptions.

Finally, the record contains competent evidence supporting findings
of numerosity and typicality, e.g., Ellis' deposition testimony and
the Defendants' declarations.  Also, unlike the defendants in
Bauman v. Islay Investments (1975), 45 Cal. App., the Defendants in
the instant case asserted that damages would be an issue with each
member of the proposed class, which--as the court correctly
maintained in its ruling--did not weigh against class
certification.  Hence, Bauman is inapposite.

For these reasons, the order denying class certification is
reversed and the matter is remanded with directions to grant the
motion for class certification.  The costs on appeal are awarded to
Plaintiffs Terese and Nicholas Cardamon.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 11, 2020 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yd966gfn from Leagle.com.

Gilmore, Magness Janisse and Tyler H. Lester --
tlester@lesterlegal.net; Law Offices of Mark Schallert and Mark
Schallert -- mark@schallertlaw.com; Law Offices of David Douglas
Doyle and David Douglas Doyle -- doyle@ddmslaw.com -- for the
Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Sagaser, Watkins & Wieland, Howard Alan Sagaser -- has@sw2law.com
-- Ian B. Wieland -- ian@sw2law.com -- and Allie E. Wieland --
allie@sw2law.com -- for the Defendants and Respondents.


DONALD TRUMP: Tenants Sue Over Scheme That Drove Up Rents
---------------------------------------------------------
Russ Buettner at The New York Times reports that President Trump
will face a raft of potential legal challenges when he leaves
office - from, among others, the Manhattan district attorney, the
New York attorney general and perhaps the United States Justice
Department.

Now add to that Leonie Green of the Westminster Apartments in
Brooklyn.

Ms. Green is among a group of tenants in rent-regulated apartments
once owned by Mr. Trump's father who have filed a lawsuit against
the president and his siblings, accusing the Trumps of a
decade-long fraud to win artificially high rent increases through
an invoice-padding scheme.

The scheme, first revealed in a 2018 investigation by The New York
Times, involved tacking at least 20 percent onto the cost of
materials purchased for the apartments, with Mr. Trump, his
siblings and a cousin splitting the extra proceeds. The maneuver
generated millions of dollars for each sibling, with no work
required. While the siblings were still liable for income taxes,
the maneuver allowed them to evade far-higher gift and estate taxes
on part of the fortune they received from their father.

But the tenants paid a price. New York laws governing
rent-regulated apartments allow owners to increase rents based on
the costs of major capital improvements. The Trumps based their
applications for rent hikes on the artificially increased invoices,
so a boiler that actually cost $50,000 would generate a rent
increase as if it had cost $60,000.

The new lawsuit, filed in State Supreme Court in Brooklyn, seeks
the extra rent paid, plus interest and triple damages, for current
and former tenants in more than 30 apartment complexes that
belonged to the president's father, Fred C. Trump. The mostly
austere red brick buildings - with names like Beach Haven, Shore
Haven and Park Briar - are spread across Brooklyn, Queens and
Staten Island. The invoice-padding scheme ran from 1992 until the
Trumps sold their father's buildings in 2004, but the artificially
increased rents remained in place.

The lawsuit could pose a significant financial threat to Mr. Trump
and his family. If the plaintiffs' lawyers win approval of
class-action status, any potential judgment would encompass every
person who paid rent in more than 14,000 rent-regulated apartments
since 1992.

Ms. Green, 54, said she had moved into the Westminster Apartments,
in the Ditmas Park neighborhood, 22 years ago. Paying the rent on
her salary as an executive assistant has been a struggle, she said,
and she has fought off several eviction actions after falling
behind. She was shocked to learn that her difficulties might have
been made worse by a rich family "stealing from me."

"You try so hard, and to hear something like this, it breaks my
heart, because I believe they are just taking advantage of poor
people," Ms. Green said.

The lawsuit was filed just before midnight on Oct. 2, moments
before the expiration of the two-year statute of limitations for
any fraud discovered through The Times's 2018 investigation. An
amended complaint was filed.

A spokeswoman for the Trump family described the lawsuit as
"completely frivolous."

"Not only are the allegations completely unsupported by any
evidence, but they relate to events which go back nearly 30 years
— yet were never once raised by anyone at any time only to be
conveniently filed just one month before the 2020 presidential
election," the spokeswoman, Kimberly Benza, said in a statement.

Mr. Trump is already facing two New York investigations into his
business activities and related tax issues - a criminal inquiry by
the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus Vance Jr., and a civil one
by the state attorney general, Letitia James.

At least two significant civil lawsuits also remain active. The
writer E. Jean Carroll claims that Mr. Trump defamed her in denying
that he had raped her. And a class-action lawsuit asserts Mr.
Trump's promotion of a company that promised people they could get
rich selling video conference phones led them to lose money
peddling an obsolete product.

Mr. Trump could also face charges in matters not fully resolved
during his presidency, including whether he obstructed justice in
the Russia investigation or violated campaign finance laws in
directing his lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, to make hush-money payments
to two women who threatened to go public with their claims of past
affairs with Mr. Trump.

Jerrold S. Parker, a founding partner of Parker Waichman, a
national law firm based in Port Washington, N.Y., said his firm
began considering a legal remedy for the tenants after the article
in The Times. The firm sought tenants this year through television
and internet advertisements. The amended complaint lists 20
plaintiffs.

"A massive fraud spanning 28 years, victimizing several hundred
thousand tenants in Trump regulated apartments, needed to be
addressed," Mr. Parker said.

The tenants, he said, "must be made whole as a result of the money
that was unlawfully and unknowingly taken from them by the Trump
family for their own personal gain."

In addition to the president, the defendants in the lawsuit are his
sister Maryanne Trump Barry, a former federal judge, the estate of
their brother Robert, who died this year, and the estate of John
Walter, a favorite nephew and longtime employee of Fred Trump's.
Mr. Walter died in 2018.

The scheme began in 1992, after the Trumps realized that the
family's aging patriarch was sitting on mountains of cash that
could face a 55 percent estate tax. Part of the solution came with
the creation of a business they named All County Building Supply &
Maintenance, which had no offices or employees and listed its
address at Mr. Walter's home on Long Island.

Little changed in how goods were purchased for the buildings. Fred
Trump, who died in 1999, or one of his executives continued to
negotiate prices, but for each purchase, Mr. Walter would generate
an invoice showing that All County had bought the items, and a
second invoice marked up 20 to 50 percent showing what All County
had billed to Fred Trump's properties. The siblings and Mr. Walter
pocketed the difference.

Former prosecutors told The Times that filing padded invoices with
state rent regulators could have led to criminal charges at the
time, but that the statute of limitations had long since expired.

Mr. Trump's federal income tax records for some of those years,
which were revealed in an investigation published by The Times this
September, show that he received $1.38 million from All County
during the four years ending in 2003. Thanks to losses on his own
endeavors, he paid federal income taxes in only one of those years,
a total of $39,117 in 2003.

Ms. Barry filed a financial disclosure form for 1998 showing that
she collected more than $1 million that year from All County. She
retired last year as a federal appellate judge, ending an inquiry
into complaints, spurred by The Times's investigation, that she had
violated judicial conduct rules by participating in fraudulent tax
maneuvers, including the invoice-padding scheme.

The amended complaint filed notes that while Fred Trump's empire
was sold nearly two decades ago, the Trumps only dissolved All
County shortly after the Times article was published in 2018.

One vendor from the All County years, Leon Eastmond, once told The
Times that he was surprised when, after selling 60 boilers to Fred
Trump, he opened his mail to find a $100,000 check from All
County.

"I didn't recognize the company," Mr. Eastmond said. "I didn't know
who the hell they were." [GN]


DR. JAMES HEAPS: $73MM Settlement Reached in Sex Abuse Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Neil Vigdor at New York Times reports that the University of
California system has agreed to pay $73 million to more than 5,500
women who were patients of a former U.C.L.A. gynecologist who has
been charged with 20 felony counts of sexual assault.

The settlement terms were made public in a class-action lawsuit
against the university system and the physician, Dr. James Heaps.
The suit was initiated by seven women who say Dr. Heaps sexually
abused them during medical examinations.   

In the settlement, the university system and Dr. Heaps do not admit
wrongdoing, which is not uncommon. The settlement in the lawsuit,
which was approved by the university system's Board of Regents,
still needs a judge's approval.

The civil suit, which was filed in October 2019, is separate from
the criminal case against Dr. Heaps, who was employed at the
student health center at the University of California, Los Angeles,
from 1983 to 2010. Dr. Heaps, 64, worked at U.C.L.A. Health from
2014 to 2018. He was initially charged in June 2019 and has pleaded
not guilty to all charges.

Elizabeth A. Kramer, a lawyer for the women who filed the lawsuit,
said in an email that the sexual abuse was pervasive.

"The settlement, if approved, will provide real and immediate
compensation to thousands of women - no less than $2,500 and up to
$250,000, or more in extraordinary circumstances," Ms. Kramer
wrote. "In a case involving widespread sexual misconduct, a class
settlement compensates survivors who otherwise would not have come
forward to seek relief from the courts, through a respectful and
confidential process."

Under the terms of the settlement, the University of California
system will pay the entire amount.

"The incidents described in the lawsuit reflect alleged conduct
that is contrary to our values," U.C.L.A. Health said in a
statement. "We thank the individuals who came forward and hope that
this settlement —  which is still subject to court approval —
is one small step forward for the patients involved."

A lawyer for Dr. Heaps did not immediately respond to a request for
comment.

U.C.L.A. Health said that an independent review of how the
university responds to allegations of sexual misconduct by medical
professionals — commissioned by the Board of Regents — was
completed this year.

"U.C.L.A. is committed to policies and procedures to protect
patients," the university system said.

One of the women who filed the lawsuit said that Dr. Heaps made
sexual comments about her during an exam while he inserted his
fingers into her vagina. The woman said that Dr. Heaps
inappropriately touched her genitalia and thighs, and asked her if
she was dating anyone and how often she had sex, according to the
lawsuit.

Another former patient said that Dr. Heaps had "fondled, cupped,
and jiggled her breasts in a sexual manner, as if for his own
sexual gratification or in an attempt to sexually stimulate her."

The $73 million settlement shared some parallels with a $215
million settlement that the University of Southern California
reached with former patients of Dr. George Tyndall, the campus
gynecologist accused of sexual misconduct involving hundreds of
patients during his decades-long tenure. That settlement was
approved by a judge in February. [GN]


E.L.F. COSMETICS: Flaherty Sues Over Mislabeled Skincare Product
----------------------------------------------------------------
Norah Flaherty, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. E.L.F. Cosmetics, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-07251 (N.D. Ill., December 8, 2020), seeks damages,
injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies, for violations of Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Businesses Practices Act and unjust enrichment resulting from the
mislabeling of E.L.F. Cosmetics' skincare products claiming that
they are oil-free despite containing certain oils.

E.L.F. Cosmetics manufactures, advertises, markets, sells, and
distributes skincare products throughout Illinois and the United
States under the brand name "Elf." It was advertised as oil-free
when they in fact contained, dimethicone, isododecane and tridecyl
trimellitate oils, asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
     21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Phone: (323) 306-4234
     Fax: (866) 633-0228
     Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com

            - and -

     David B. Levin, Esq.
     Steven G. Perry, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
     333 Skokie Blvd., Suite 103
     Northbrook, IL 60062
     Phone: (224) 218-0882, (224) 218-0875
     Fax: (866) 633-0228
     Email: dlevin@toddflaw.com
            steven.perry@toddflaw.com


EL AZTECA: Resto Staff Seeks Overtime Pay, Withheld Tips
--------------------------------------------------------
Marcos Hernandez (a/k/a Palencia), individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. El Azteca y El Guanaco
Rest Corp., Nuevo Tulcingo Azteca Corp., Gilberto Molina and Teresa
Doe (a/k/a Rosa), Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-10316 (S.D. N.Y.,
December 8, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime
wages and spread-of-hours pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control two Mexican restaurants,
located at 4195 Broadway, New York, NY 10033 under the name "El
Azteca and El Guanaco" and at 134 E 170th St., Bronx, New York
10452 under the name "El Nuevo Azteca" where Hernandez was employed
as a kitchen worker, dishwasher, food preparer and delivery worker.
He claims to have generally worked in excess of 40 hours a week
without overtime for hours in excess of 40 hours per workweek and
denied spread-of-hours premium for workdays exceeding 10 hours.
Defendants claimed tip credit for all hours worked despite
requiring Plaintiff to work non-tipped duties for hours exceeding
20% of the total hours worked each workweek. Plaintiff also claim
to have never received wage statements, asserts the complaint.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Fasken Attorneys Discuss Loot Box Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Karam Bayrakal, Esq., Mark W. Hughes, Esq., and Michael Shortt,
Esq., of Fasken, in an article for Lexology, report that on
September 30, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in the Supreme
Court of British Columbia seeking reimbursement of "loot box"
payments (the "Claim") made by class members to Electronic Arts
Inc. and Electronic Arts (Canada) Inc. (collectively, the
"Defendants"). While it was filed in British Columbia, the Claim is
national in scope. The Claim was brought on behalf of joint
plaintiffs (a British Columbia resident and an Ontario Resident),
as well as all other Canadians who purchased loot boxes in any of
over 60 of the Defendants' video game titles, between 2008 and
2020.

A "loot box" is defined in the Claim as a consumable virtual item
that can be redeemed to receive a randomized selection of further
virtual items. In the modern videogame industry, the items granted
by loot boxes range from simple cosmetic options for a player's
in-game avatar, to game-changing items that alter how the game is
played (potentially giving players an edge in competition with
other players). The Claim states that the random chance aspects of
loot boxes are central to their appeal to developers and
publishers, and that loot boxes are considered part of the
"compulsion loop" of game design, used to keep players invested in
games. The Claim asserts that loot boxes function similar to slot
machines doling out prizes, and that the items in loot boxes have
intrinsic value as they can often be purchased directly with real
money, or sold/traded in-game.

The Claim states that loot boxes are a form of unlawful gambling
under the Criminal Code of Canada, and the Defendants have breached
gambling laws in Canada by selling loot boxes. Further, the Claim
asserts that the Defendants and their executives were at all times
fully aware of the unlawful nature of loot boxes and took active
steps to sell them regardless, or alternatively, were reckless or
willfully blind to the unlawful nature of loot boxes.

The legal basis for the Claim is the Defendants' unjust enrichment
from profits obtained by selling Loot Boxes, which constitutes an
alleged scheme for advancing games of chance, betting, or similar
behaviours, or a lottery scheme contrary to the Criminal Code.
Additionally, the Claim states that the Defendants breached the
provincial Gaming Control Act, because offering loot boxes to the
public constitutes "gaming services" and the Defendants are
therefore unlicensed "gaming services providers." Some older
Canadian laws refer to gambling as "gaming", with the obvious
possibility of confusion when discussing the video game industry.
The Claim also alleges that the Defendants have breached the BC
Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act ("BCPA") and the
Ontario Consumer Protection Act ("OCPA") by:

   * concealing the odds of loot boxes in affected titles;
   * failing to have safeguards in place to prevent minors from
consuming loot boxes; and
   * making high-value items that affect gameplay available
exclusively from loot boxes, thereby forcing players to obtain loot
boxes.

The Claim asserts that the Defendants breached the BCPA and OCPA by
taking advantage of consumers' inability to understand the nature
of loot boxes, or alternatively the terms and conditions within the
Defendants' video games were too adverse to consumers to be
equitable. The Claim also states that the Defendants breached the
Competition Act, by offering loot boxes for sale, advertising an
internet gaming site, failing to disclose loot box odds, failing to
promote responsible gaming and failing to protect minors as
required by advertising regulations. Finally, the Claim identifies
that the Defendants collected money from players who are under the
age of legal majority ("infants") and therefore are entitled to
compensation under the Infants Act.

The Claimants have thrown a wide variety of legal claims at the
Defendants in the apparent hope that the BC Supreme court will
agree that at least one of the allegations will apply.

Loot Boxes in Other Jurisdictions

Loot boxes are utilized by numerous developers and publishers, and
are prevalent in many of the most popular video games in the world.
However, most jurisdictions have not imposed regulations on loot
boxes, or issued binding determinations of their legality within
existing regulatory frameworks for gambling and consumer
protection.

In May 2019, an American Senator introduced a bill to federally
regulate the sale of loot boxes in the United States, but no such
regulation has yet been passed. Some individual states have taken
action with regards to the sale of loot boxes, for example:
Washington State has indicated that it is investigating loot boxes,
and Minnesota has introduced a law prohibiting the sale of games
that offer loot boxes for real money to anyone under the age of 18.
Perhaps coincidentally, a class action lawsuit against Electronic
Arts Inc. very similar to one discussed herein, was filed on August
13, 2020 in California. This lawsuit alleges that Electronic Arts
"relies on creating addictive behaviors in consumers to generate
huge revenues" and singles out loot boxes in the Defendants' FIFA
and Madden NFL game series as being "predatory and designed to
entice gamers to gamble."[13] California courts may well be the
first American tribunals to issue binding rulings on the legality
of loot boxes under general anti-gambling or consumer protection
laws.

Most European countries have yet to take a stance on loot boxes,
with a few notable exceptions. In Belgium, it has been determined
that some loot boxes violate existing gambling laws (although no
loot box-specific regulations have been passed). While in France, a
gambling regulating body determined that loot boxes were not
legally a form of gambling. In mid-October of this year, the Court
of The Hague in the Netherlands authorized the Netherlands Gambling
Authority ("KSA") to enforce a fine of up to €5m against
Electronic Arts Inc. for violating the Netherlands Gambling Act
through its use of loot boxes in FIFA. KSA has declared loot boxes
illegal "games of chance" which, under Dutch law can only be
provided to the public if a relevant licence has been granted. This
is one of the first outright declarations that loot boxes are
illegal, and Electronic Arts Inc. has already indicated that it
plans to appeal this ruling.

While the discussion on loot box legality appears to be heating up,
in some jurisdictions the focus lately has been on informing
consumers about loot boxes, rather than banning them outright. For
example in China and South Korea, developers selling loot boxes in
their games must disclose the probability of receiving any given
reward. Voluntary industry self-regulation has also taken steps in
this direction, with both the Entertainment Software Rating Board
("ESRB") and Pan European Game Information ("PEGI") introducing new
labelling requirements for videogames containing loot boxes. We
covered this loot box disclosure issue in an article published
earlier this year titled "Loot Boxes May Still Be Random, but Games
that Offer Loot Boxes Will Be Clearly Labelled."

The Future of Loot Boxes in Canada

Traditional legal frameworks have trouble accommodating loot boxes.
The Claim against the Defendants marks one of the first times that
loot boxes have been placed under the scrutiny of a Canadian court,
and may provide stakeholders in the videogame industry with
much-needed guidance on the legality of these types of video game
mechanics.

Both developers and publishers should pay close attention to this
lawsuit. Depending on the Claimants' success, this Claim is a
potential springboard for similar loot box-related lawsuits both in
Canada and abroad. In the absence of industry-specific regulations
that clearly define legal and illegal practices, class actions like
this one may end up shaping how videogame publishers and developers
do business in Canada for many years to come. [GN]


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Skvarla Files Suit under FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enhanced Recovery
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Brian Skvarla, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Enhanced
Recovery Company, LLC, doing business as: ERC and John and Jane
Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-10089 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 2,
2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC provides debt collection and asset
recovery and reporting services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.



ENV SERVICES: Misclassifies Field Service Technicians, Kain Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ROBERT KAIN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENV SERVICES INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-00988-TSB (S.D. Ohio, December 8, 2020) is brought by
the Plaintiff as a collective action complaint against the
Defendant to challenge its alleged unlawful policies and practices
that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio laws.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from approximately
August to November 2020 as a field service technician.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated field service technicians regularly worked over 40 hours
in a workweek but without receiving overtime compensation. Because
the Defendant allegedly misclassified them as exempt from overtime,
the Defendant did not compensate them for the hours they worked in
excess of 40 in a workweek at one and one-half times their regular
rates of pay.

Moreover, the Defendant failed to make, keep, and preserve records
of all time that the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees have worked, the Plaintiff alleges.

ENV Services tests, certifies, and maintains controlled-environment
equipment designed to control contamination across a wide range of
industries. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          34 N. High St., Ste. 502
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 824-5770
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com

                - and –

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D
          Massillon, OH 44646
          Telephone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                  sdraher@olaborlaw.com


EVOLUTION HEALTH: Carr Seeks OT Pay for Hours Worked Over 40/Week
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Carr, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Evolution Health, LLC, Care Connection of
Cincinnati, LLC, OHERBST, Inc., Guardian Healthcare, LLC and Gem
City Home Care, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-06292, (S.D. Ohio,
December 8, 2020), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt
Pay Act.

Carr worked for the Defendants as an occupational therapist. He
claims to be unpaid one and one-half times his regular rate of pay
for all hours worked over 40. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
     Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
     COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
     1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126
     Columbus, OH 43207
     Phone: (614) 949-1181
     Fax: (614) 386-9964
     Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
            agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com


EXPANSION CAPITAL: Fabricant et al. Sue Over Unsolicited Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT and DALTON HUEGERICH, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EXPANSION CAPITAL
GROUP, LLC and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-11132 (C.D. Cal., December 8, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged negligent
and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant placed numerous calls to
the Plaintiffs' cellular telephone number in an attempt to promote
its services although the Plaintiffs are not customers of the
Defendant and they never provided any personal information to the
Defendant. Plaintiff Fabricant started receiving calls from the
Defendant in or around January 2018 on his cellular number ending
in -1083, while Plaintiff Huegerich received calls from the
Defendant beginning in or around June 20, 2019 on his cellular
telephone number ending in -8188.

The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant used an "automatic
telephone dialing system" (ATDS) in placing its calls to their
cellular telephone numbers without obtaining their "prior express
consent' to receive such calls using an ATDS or an artificial or
rerecorded voice on their cellular telephone.

Because of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiffs and
members of the Class were harmed causing them to incur certain
charges or reduced telephone time for which they had previously
paid. The unsolicited calls of the Defendant have invaded the
privacy of the Plaintiff and Class members.

Expansion Capital Group, LLC provides loans to small business in
the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


FABFITFUN INC: Bunting Files ADA Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------
FabFitFun, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Rasheta
Bunting, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. FabFitFun, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05803 (E.D. N.Y., Dec. 1, 2020).

FabFitFun, Inc. retails curated boxes of health and beauty products
to its customers through an online subscription service. The
Company offers daily e-mail services that gives readers tips on
beauty, wellness, diet, fitness, and fashion.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
   Scarsdale, NY 10583
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com



FCA US: Anderson Suit Transferred From W.D. Wis. to E.D. Mich.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Dennis Anderson, Kwaterski Construction, Inc.,
on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated v. FCA
U.S., L.L.C. formerly known as: Chrysler Group LLC, Case No.
3:20-cv-00959, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan on Dec. 14, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:20-cv-13294-JEL-APP to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act.

FCA US LLC -- https://www.fcagroup.com/ -- is a North American
automaker based in Auburn Hills, Michigan. It designs,
manufactures, and sells or distributes vehicles under the Chrysler,
Dodge, Jeep, Ram, FIAT and Alfa Romeo brands, as well as the SRT
performance designation.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Allison W. Reimann, Esq.
          GODFREY AND KAHN, S.C.
          One East Main Street, Suite 500
          Madison, WI 53703
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: (608) 257-3911
          Fax: (608) 257-0609
          Email: areimann@gklaw.com

               - and -

          William B. Monahan, Esq.
          SULLIVAN AND CROMWELL LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 558-7375
          Fax: (212) 558-3588
          Email: monahanw@sullcrom.com


FEDERAL INSURANCE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Amended Abramson TCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEWART ABRAMSON, Plaintiff v. FEDERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, BAY AREA HEALTH, LLC, and 0995316 B.C. LTD., d/b/a
XENCALL, Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-2523-T-60AAS (M.D. Fla.),
Judge Tom Barber of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida, Tampa Division, denied Federal Insurance's Supplemental
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Class Action Complaint Based
on Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Incorporated Memorandum
of Law filed on Nov. 10, 2020.

On Aug. 1, 2019, the Plaintiff received a telephone call from
Defendant Bay Area.  When he answered the phone, a pre-recorded
message played that advertised health insurance.  After the
Plaintiff clicked through the prompts, he was connected with Bay
Area employee Brian Park, who indicated that Bay Area was selling
insurance policies provided by Federal Insurance.  He was neither a
customer of Bay Area nor Federal Insurance and had not consented to
receive telemarketing calls prior to receiving the call.

On Oct. 10, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a class-action lawsuit
against Federal Insurance and Bay Area alleging they violated
Section 227(b) of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by
initiating illegal telemarketing calls to him and the other
non-consenting individuals.  On April 22, 2020, the Plaintiff filed
an amended complaint adding XenCall as a Defendant, alleging
XenCall also violated the TCPA by providing Bay Area the technology
to make these calls.

XenCall now moves to dismiss the amended complaint.  In its motion,
XenCall argues the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the
matter.  Its argument rests solely on its interpretation of a
recent Supreme Court case decided in July 2020: Barr v. Am. Ass'n
of Pol. Consultants, Inc., 140 S.Ct. 2335 (2020) ("AAPC").

In AAPC, the Supreme Court held that Section 227(b) of the TCPA,
which permitted robocalls solely to collect a debt owed to or
guaranteed by the United States, while leaving robocalls involving
other types of content subject to the TCPA's prohibitions, resulted
in an unconstitutional content-based restriction on free speech.
It also held, however, that the invalid section could be severed
from the statute.  XenCall contends that the holding precludes the
Plaintiff from bringing claims under the remainder of Section
227(b).

Judge Barber finds the argument unpersuasive.  Although XenCall
cites two cases supporting its arguments, the vast majority of
cases the Court has reviewed conclude that parties may continue to
bring claims under the portions of Section 227(b) unaltered by
AAPC.  The Judge finds these decisions persuasive and adopts their
reasoning and analysis.  XenCall's motion to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction is denied.

Accordingly, the Judge denied Federal Insurance's Supplemental
Motion to Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 11, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ycfe7eo2 from Leagle.com.


FINISAR CORP: February 11 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
To all persons and entities who purchased or acquired the publicly
traded common stock of Finisar Corporation during the period from
December 2, 2010 through March 8, 2011, inclusive.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.  YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, in accordance with Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, that the
above-captioned securities litigation (the "Action") has been
certified as a class action for settlement purposes on behalf of
the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and entities who
are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition as stated in
the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and
Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for
an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation
Expenses (the "Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiff in the Action have
reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $6,800,000 in cash
(the "Settlement"), which, if approved, will resolve all claims in
the Action.

A hearing will be held on February 11, 2021, at 9:00 a.m., before
the Honorable Edward J. Davila of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, in Courtroom 4, 5th Floor,
Robert F. Peckham Federal Building & United States Courthouse, 280
South 1st Street, San Jose, CA 95113, to determine (i) whether the
proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with
prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and
described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement filed on
July 14, 2020 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether
the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and
reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an
award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses
should be approved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund.  If you have not yet
received the Notice and the Proof of Claim and Release Form (the
"Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of these documents by
contacting the Claims Administrator at: (833) 935-2722 or by email
at info@finisarsecuritieslitigation.com.  Copies of the Notice and
Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website maintained by
the Claims Administrator, at www.FinisarSecuritiesLitigation.com.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than February 26,
2021.  If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a
proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will
nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the
Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than January 7, 2021,
in accordance with the instructions in the Notice.  If you properly
exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound
by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action, and
you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the
Settlement.

Any objection to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses must be mailed to or filed with the Court
such that it is received no later than January 21, 2021, in
accordance with the instructions in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Defendants, or
Defendants' counsel regarding this notice.  All questions about
this notice, the proposed Settlement, your eligibility to
participate in the Settlement, or the claims process, should be
directed to the Claims Administrator or Lead Counsel.

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:
Finisar Securities Litigation
c/o Claims Admin
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(833) 935-2722
info@finisarsecuritieslitigation.com
www.FinisarSecuritiesLitigation.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:

Ian D. Berg, Esq.
Takeo A. Kellar, Esq.
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP
11622 El Camino Real, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92130
Tel: (858) 764-2580
iberg@aftlaw.com
tkellar@aftlaw.com
To learn more about Lead Counsel, go to its website at
www.aftlaw.com.

By Order of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California [GN]


FIRST AMERICAN: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of Dec. 24 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadline in the following securities class
action lawsuit:

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

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

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

About ClaimsFiler

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


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

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

First American investors who wish to learn more about the
litigation and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should
click here or contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at
1-800-541-7358.

  Background on the First American Securities Class Litigation

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

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

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

                       About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San
Francisco, New York, Nashville, and Munich, is a nationally
recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors
and promoting corporate responsibility.

The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of
the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In
compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent
verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the
best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual
dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as
one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting
our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds
itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest
defense law firms in the world." Benchmark Litigation has named
Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America."

For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's
representation of investors, please visit
https://www.lieffcabraser.com/. [GN]


FIRST AMERICAN: Rosen Law Reminds of Dec. 24 Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of First American Financial Corp.
(NYSE: FAF) between February 17, 2017 and October 22, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important December 24, 2020
lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action commenced by
the firm. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for First American
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the First American class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1662.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) First American failed to implement basic security
standards to protect its customers' sensitive personal information
and data; (2) First American faced a heightened risk of
cybersecurity failure due to its automation and efficiency
initiatives; and (3) as a result, defendants' public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When
the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December
24, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1662.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Contact Information:

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]


FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Shtroks Files Suit under FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Firstsource
Advantage, LLC. The case is styled as Nohum Shtroks, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Firstsource
Advantage, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05817 (E.D. Fla., Dec.
1, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Firstsource Advantage is a global collections service provider and
has been delivering results in the collections arena since
1995.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West
   12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


FORD: Ecoboost Problems Lead to Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
carcomplaints.com reports that Ford EcoBoost problems have caused a
class action lawsuit that alleges 1.5-liter, 1.6-liter and 2-liter
EcoBoost engines allow coolant to leak into the cylinders.

According to the lawsuit, these Ford and Lincoln vehicles allegedly
suffer from cracked cylinder heads, inadequate seals and total
EcoBoost engine failures.

2013-2019 Ford Escape
2013-2019 Ford Fusion
2015-2018 Ford Edge
2017-2019 Lincoln MKC
2017-2019 Lincoln MKZ

One of the plaintiffs who sued says he purchased a used 2016 Ford
Edge in March 2018 when the SUV had 36,376 miles on the odometer.
But in November 2020 and with about 65,000 miles on the vehicle,
the plaintiff says the EcoBoost engine warning light illuminated
and convinced the owner to take the Edge to a Colorado repair
shop.

The technician "SCAN[NED] COMPUTER FOR TROUBLE CODESP0303, P0316
(MISFIRES)" and said the "ENGINE COOLANT WAS ALSO LOW."

  "Test fuel and ignition systems for misfires. Perform block
  test, and pressure test cooling system to inspect for possible
  coolant in cylinders. Coolant is leaking into cylinder #3 and
  block test indicates combustion gases in cooling system. Long
  block assembly may need to be replaced per Ford service
  bulletin." - Ford Edge repair order

The plaintiff says he was advised to take the SUV to a Ford
dealership and was charged $189.00 for the diagnostic work.

The EcoBoost lawsuit says a Ford technician determined the engine
needed to be replaced for $10,000, then decreased the replacement
cost to $7,178.62.

The plaintiff allegedly contacted Ford's corporate customer service
department and requested reimbursement or a discount for the
replacement of the EcoBoost engine, but Ford allegedly refused to
cover any of the cost. The Ford EcoBoost problems allegedly have
never been repaired.

Owners who report Ford EcoBoost problems claim the coolant enters
the cylinders and causes corrosion, oil dilution and contamination,
leading to engine damage and expensive repairs.

The alleged defects have existed since the vehicles were first
sold, something Ford allegedly knew but concealed from consumers
since 2010. The automaker has allegedly failed to provide EcoBoost
owners with proper solutions and only offers "temporary stop-gap
remedies such as installing coolant level sensors."

According to the class action, the sensors allegedly alert drivers
when the coolant is gone, but the sensors allegedly do nothing to
prevent coolant from leaking into the EcoBoost engine cylinders.

Ford EcoBoost problems also allegedly cause owners thousands of
dollars for repairs and replacements that must be performed to
drive the vehicles.

Service Bulletins About Ford EcoBoost Problems

Ford issued multiple technical service bulletins (TSBs) and other
service messages for vehicles equipped with EcoBoost engines,
something the plaintiffs claim proves the automaker knows about the
alleged Lincoln and Ford EcoBoost problems.

SSM 47204 - 2015-2018 Fusion/MKZ/MKC/Escape/Edge
SSM 47462 - 2015-2018 Edge, Fusion, Focus, MKZ, MKC, Escape
SSM 47625 - 2014-2019 Fusion and 2017-2019 Escape
SSM 47849 - 2014-2019 Fusion and 2017-2019 Escape
TSB 19-2375 - 2017-2019 Escape; 2014-2019 Fusion
TSB 19-2346 - 2015-2018 Edge; 2017-2019 Escape, Fusion;
  2017-2019 MKC, MKZ
TSB 19B37-S1 - 2017-2019 Escape, Fusion
TSB 20-2100 - 2014-2019 Fusion, 2017-2019 Escape
TSB 19B37-S3 - 2017-2019 Fusion, Escape
SSM 48991 - 2015-2020 F-150/Edge/Fusion, 2016-2018 MKX,
  2019-2020 Nautilus, 2017-2020 Continental

According to the Ford EcoBoost class action lawsuit, the engines
have inadequate seals on the cylinder heads and grooves where the
cylinder heads attach to the engine blocks. Coolant allegedly
enters through the grooves where it pools and degrades the gasket
seals and causes coolant to leak into the cylinders.

The Ford EcoBoost class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware: Reed, et al., v. Ford
Motor Company.

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


FORTRESS BIOTECH: Rosen Law Reminds of Jan. 26 Motion Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Fortress Biotech, Inc. (NASDAQ: FBIO) between
December 11, 2019 to October 9, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Fortress
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Fortress class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1997.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) intravenous ("IV") Tramadol was not safe for the intended
patient population; (2) as a result, it was foreseeable that the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration would not approve the New Drug
Application for IV Tramadol; and (3) as a result, defendants'
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January
26, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1997.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
[GN]


FRIEND FAMILY HEALTH: Smith Files PI Suit in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Friend Family Health
Center, Inc. The case is styled as Terri Smith, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Friend Family
Health Center, Inc. d/b/a Friend Health, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-07134 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 2, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as P.I.: Other
filed pursuant to a Diversity-Personal Injury.

Friend Family Health Center, Inc. operates as a non-profit
organization.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Syed Haseeb Hussain, Esq.
   440 N. McClurg Ct. #803
   Chicago, IL 60611
   Tel: (818) 600-5535
   Email: syed@pricelawgroup.com




FUNKO INC: Officers and Directors Under Probe Over Fiduciary Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., Esq., a
partner at the law firm of Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF"),
announces that KSF has commenced an investigation into Funko, Inc.
(NasdaqGS: FNKO).  

On February 5, 2020 the Company disclosed disappointing preliminary
Q4 2019 results, including an 8% year-over-year decrease in net
sales of $214 million, which the Company blamed in part on a $16.8
million charge to write down slow-moving inventory. Then, on March
5, 2020, the Company released its Q4 2019 and full year 2019
financial results, confirming that net sales for fourth quarter had
decreased to $213.6 million due to, among other things, "softness
at retail during the holiday season which led to a decrease in
orders."

Thereafter, the Company and certain of its executives were sued in
a securities class action lawsuit, charging them with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

KSF's investigation is focusing on whether Funko's officers and/or
directors breached their fiduciary duties to its shareholders or
otherwise violated state or federal laws.

If you have information that would assist KSF in its investigation,
or have been a long-term holder of Funko shares and would like to
discuss your legal rights, you may, without obligation or cost to
you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or email KSF Managing Partner
Lewis Kahn (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-fnko/ to learn more.

About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

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

G8 EDUCATION: Slater and Gordon Files Shareholder Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Business News Australia reports that Australia's largest childcare
centre operator G8 Education (ASX: GEM) has been hit with a class
action lawsuit by Slater and Gordon (ASX: SGH) on behalf of
shareholders on Nov. 23.

The firm alleges G8 contravened its continuous disclosure
obligations, leading shareholders who acquired G8 shares between 23
May 2017 and 23 February to suffer losses.

Slater and Gordon practice group leader Andrew Paull said
investigations indicated that at the time G8 made its May 2017
forecast it knew it faced an increase in costs as a result of
regulatory changes affecting staffing levels.

As such, the firm alleges G8 knew it was unlikely to increase its
occupancy rate to the level required to meet the May 2017 forecast
and did not alert shareholders to that fact.

"We are alleging G8 contravened its continuous disclosure
obligations by failing to disclose to the market information
relevant to its Full Year 2017 financial performance," Paull said.

"We also allege G8 engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct."

The class action has been commenced on a no win-no fee basis and
group members will not be exposed to any out of pocket costs as a
result of their participation in the claim.

G8 Education says it has not yet received any correspondence nor
service of the proceedings from Slater and Gordon.

"Any such proceedings, if served, will be vigorously defended,"
says G8 Education.

The shareholder class action comes after G8's former chair Jenny
Hutson was told she would face 29 charges at the Queensland
District Court in Brisbane.

Among the charges, the Australian Securities and Investment
Commission (ASIC) alleges Hutson used $928,500 of G8 Education
funds to acquire shares in ANZ Bank for Crossborder Investments Pty
Ltd, in which she is a director.

Hutson is also accused of allegedly giving false information and
attempting to mislead ASIC as part of its investigation, while
there are also charges relating to her involvement in West Bridge's
acquisition of Affinity shares.

Shares in GEM are down 3.63 per cent to $1.20 per share at 10.56am
AEDT. [GN]


G8 EDUCATION: To Vigorously Defend Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Liam Walsh, writing for Australia Financial Review, reports that
childcare giant G8 Education botched earnings forecasts by failing
to account for an industry-wide glut of centres squeezing revenues,
class action lawyers allege.

Gold Coast-based G8 is also accused of not properly incorporating
the cost of having to have more staff in some states due to
regulation changes around breaks.

The claims were made in a class action lawsuit filed in Victoria's
Supreme Court.

G8, the largest private-sector childcare operator, with 475 centres
trading under brands including Jellybeans and Pelican, on Nov. 23
pledged to "vigorously defend" the lawsuit. It declined interview
requests but had not yet been served as of Nov. 23 any court papers
by law firm Slater and Gordon.

The new lawsuit follows recent setbacks in two class action
judgments.

The Federal Court in October dismissed a class action against
Worley that alleged the engineering group misled investors when it
slashed profit forecasts in 2013. Another Federal Court case last
year found that although retail giant Myer had misled shareholders,
the investors had not suffered any financial loss because of "the
hard-edged scepticism" of analysts.

This latest case focuses on G8's forecasts between May 2017 and
February 2018.

G8 had initially anticipated that underlying earnings before
interest and tax would be within market consensus of mid $170
million to high $170 million for the 2017 calendar year. That was
when the company raised $100 million via an institutional
placement, underwritten by UBS and Ord Minnett.

At the time, the company warned of pressures on occupancy levels
due to factors such as an increase of new centres in the industry.

Yet in August that year, G8 largely stuck by the guidance --
predicting earnings in the mid $170 million range. But come
December, G8 dropped that forecast to $160 million, partly blaming
supply of centres and changes to regulations surrounding
carer-child ratios.

The end result, released in February 2018, was $156 million, with
G8 also saying higher discounting was a factor.

The case uses investor Paul Allen as the representative, saying he
pumped $29,900 into G8 in July 2017 by buying 7810 shares at $3.83
each. They closed at $2.90 on the day the full-year results were
released in February.

The lawsuit homes in on key profit drivers for childcare centres:
staffing ratios and occupancy levels.

The case argues that in 2017 new regulations were brought in that
altered previous guidance that centres did not have to cover for
educators when off the floor on a small break. The new federal
regulation meant that the carer-to-child ratio had to be maintained
at all times through what is called backfilling, although some
states had specific guidance overriding those requirements.

Still, the lawsuit claims that by May 2017 G8 should have been
aware of the risk to earnings associated with the impact of the new
requirements on centres in states including NSW and Victoria. It
was likely that the centres would have needed to hire more staff to
backfill, leading to higher operating costs, the lawsuit alleges.

The case also claims that since May 2017 there was a risk that G8's
earnings would be "materially adversely impacted" by lower
occupancy levels, given the influx of new centres.

The lawsuit points to analysts that year being "concerned about the
oversupply of childcare centres and G8's declining occupancy rates
to 78 per cent as at the end of April 2017".

G8 shares were up 1.5¢ at $1.26 on Nov. 23. [GN]


GENERAL MOTORS: Bolt Battery Recall Too Late, Alleges Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
carcomplaints.com reports that a Chevy Bolt battery recall was
allegedly announced too late to help owners who have watched their
cars burn. According to a class action lawsuit, a Bolt battery
recall offers only an interim repair that will cause the cars to
lose 10% of their mileage range.

The lawsuit also claims General Motors held off on a formal recall
even though the batteries are allegedly unsafe and unable to be
fully charged without catching fire.

The 2017-2019 Chevrolet Bolt electric vehicles were allegedly sold
with specific mileage claims that don't match real-world driving.

Customers will receive decreased travel range while driving because
the Chevy Bolt battery recall will limit the battery's range to
approximately 214 miles on a single battery charge, at least 10%
less than advertised.

California plaintiff Michelle Pankow purchased a new 2017 Chevrolet
Bolt with a window sticker that said the car could travel 238 miles
on a single battery charge. However, the Bolt lawsuit alleges the
car would only show a projected range of 170 miles when the battery
was fully charged.

The plaintiff took the Bolt to a dealership where technicians said
there was nothing wrong with the battery but the computer system
had been updated.

The plaintiff says the Bolt continued to show a range of 170 miles
fully charged, so the car was again brought to the dealership where
technicians said nothing could be done. The class action lawsuit
alleges the plaintiff was told diagnostics had already been
performed without any errors and nothing could be done about the
battery.

The plaintiff says she was told the decrease in range was likely
caused by degradation of the battery's ability to "hold a charge
combined with then-prevailing weather conditions."

Upset, the plaintiff says she contacted GM customer service and was
allegedly told "the battery's depreciation was supposedly 'normal,'
and that it could lose 40% of its range over time and GM would
consider it to be operating normally."

According to the Bolt lawsuit, the plaintiff was in bed directly
above the garage where the Bolt was parked and being charged. She
says she heard a "whoosh" sound coming from the garage and got up
to check things out. She opened the door and smoke entered into the
house from the garage.

The plaintiff says she opened the garage door to vent the smoke and
then unplugged the Bolt battery charger. She ran upstairs to get
her daughter and the family dog and finally exited the house where
she watched the fire from the street.

The plaintiff also alleges she heard an explosion coming from the
garage which caused the garage door to close.

The lawsuit says everything in the garage was destroyed, including
the car. The house is almost a total loss because of the smoke,
fire and water damage, and fire officials allegedly traced the fire
to the floorboard of the Bolt. The location is under the rear seats
and in the same location as the battery pack.

"Michelle suffered smoke inhalation and both her and her daughter
have severe post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from the
incident. E.G.P. [her daughter] continues to express fear and is
afraid to return to the home. As a result of the fire, the Pankows
filed a report with NHTSA and a formal complaint with Defendant. GM
has not responded to her complaint." - Chevy Bolt battery fire
lawsuit

The Chevrolet Bolt lawsuit alleges the lithium-ion batteries and
the management systems are defective and inadequate to prevent
battery fires that consume the cars and surrounding structures.

In November, General Motors recalled about 50,000 model year
2017-2019 Bolt EV cars after reports of battery fires in cars that
were parked and unattended. The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration says it seems the fires occurred when the batteries
were nearly or fully charged.

General Motors says the recall repairs include an interim software
update to limit the battery charge. However, that move also
decreases the range of the car by about 10%.

The Chevy Bolt battery fire lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California: Pankow, et al., v.
General Motors, LLC, et al.

The plaintiffs are represented by McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP. [GN]


GENERAL MOTORS: Class Action Filed Over Chevy Bolt EV Battery Pack
------------------------------------------------------------------
gmauthority.com reports that a class-action lawsuit has been filed
against General Motors over the problems some owners are
experiencing with the Chevy Bolt EV battery pack.

Lawfirm Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith filed the
nationwide class-action lawsuit on behalf of plaintiff Andres
Torres. The law firm claims that when the lithium-ion battery pack
in the Chevy Bolt EV is "charged to full, or very close to full,"
it can pose a risk of fire. It also says that GM's only fix for the
problem is a software update that limits the maximum state of
charge to approximately 90% battery capacity, thereby reducing the
amount of mileage that these vehicles can otherwise travel on a
full charge.

The complaint accuses GM of violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Practices Act and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,
along with fraudulent concealment/fraud by omission. It also
accuses GM of breaching its express and implied warranties on its
vehicles. The plaintiff is seeking restitution and punitive damages
as a result of "GM knowingly introducing defective vehicles into
the marketplace and defrauding consumers across the country, and
also an award for costs and fees and other relief," the law firm
says.

GM issued a recall for almost 69,000 units of the Chevy Bolt EV
worldwide in November after it received five separate complaints of
the battery packs in the vehicles catching fire. GM has not yet
identified the root cause of the fires and has instructed dealers
to install a software patch that limits the battery capacity to 90
percent of its limit as a sort of stop-gap measure. A more
permanent fix for the problem is expected to arrive sometime in the
New Year.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has also
launched an investigation into the Chevy Bolt EV battery fires. The
safety watchdog has received three complaints from owners
pertaining to the issue thus far and says all the fires started
under the rear seat of the vehicle while it was parked.

Chevy Bolt Executive Chief Engineer Jesse Ortega said previously
that the battery fires can be traced back to defective cells
manufactured by GM supplier LG Chem in South Korea between May 2016
and May 2019. Only certain 2017, 2018 and 2019 model year Chevy
Bolt EV models are believed to be affected by this problem.

We'll be following this Chevy Bolt EV battery fire situation
closely, so be sure to subscribe to GM Authority for more Chevrolet
Bolt EV news, Chevrolet news, and around-the-clock GM news
coverage. [GN]


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Brake Vacuum Pump Issues
----------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a GM
brake vacuum pump lawsuit has been dismissed after a Chevrolet
Tahoe owner alleged her SUV suffered from hard brake pedals and
brake failures several times.

Included in the class action lawsuit are these GM models:

   * 2015 to present Cadillac Escalade
   * 2014 to present Chevrolet Silverado
   * 2015 to present Chevrolet Suburban
   * 2015 to present Chevrolet Tahoe
   * 2014 to present GMC Sierra
   * 2015 to present GMC Yukon / Yukon XL

According to the brake vacuum pump lawsuit, plaintiff Amber Quitno
purchased a new 2015 Chevrolet Tahoe which had brake problems in
the summer of 2018.

The first incident occurred when she applied the brakes as the
wheel was turned while backing out of her driveway. The plaintiff
says the brakes felt "hard and wouldn't slow the vehicle" and the
Tahoe hit another car parked near her driveway.

She says she paid the owner of the other car $50 and her Tahoe had
a broken rear tail light, a bent bumper and a bent side fender.

The GM brake vacuum pump class action also alleges the Tahoe brakes
failed a few months later while the plaintiff was reversing out of
a parking space. The plaintiff claims she got the Tahoe stopped by
standing on the brake pedal with her full weight. She says she
shifted into PARK and turned off the engine which reactivated the
brakes.

According to the lawsuit, she again tried to back up but the brakes
allegedly failed and the plaintiff had to use her weight to stop
the Tahoe. She later tested the brakes and they worked, allowing
her to drive home and park the Tahoe.

She says she tried to take the Tahoe to a dealer the next day but
the brakes failed again, so she called the dealership but was told
the warranty expired four days before.

A dealership employee did pick up vehicle for a diagnostic check
and the plaintiff allegedly asked the dealership to check the brake
vacuum.

"That separate test did reveal a brake pressure problem: the
dealership stated that brake pressure should be -13, but the brake
pressure on plaintiff's car was -9 sitting and -3 on depression.
The dealership subsequently ordered and installed a replacement,
costing around four hundred dollars." - GM brake vacuum pump
lawsuit

According to the vacuum pump lawsuit, General Motors allegedly knew
about the pump problems before the plaintiff purchased her 2015
Tahoe. But the automaker allegedly concealed the defects from her
and all affected customers.

GM Files Motion to Dismiss the Brake Vacuum Pump Lawsuit
In its motion to dismiss, GM argued the plaintiff failed to plead a
valid claim based on alleged deceptive conduct or unfair practices
under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices
Act.

The judge agreed and ruled the plaintiff's claims were too vague
and generalized concerning alleged statements GM made about the
Tahoe. The judge also found the plaintiff failed to explain
language in the warranty that deceived her, falling short of
pleading "with particularity a misrepresentation attributable to
Defendant."

In the motion to dismiss the brake vacuum pump lawsuit, GM also
argued a breach of state law implied warranty claim failed because
under Illinois law, to recover under a breach of implied warranty
claim the plaintiff must show privity of contract between herself
and GM.

But the judge ruled the brake vacuum pump lawsuit specifically says
she was not in privity with General Motors, causing the judge to
dismiss the implied warranty claim. And because the warranty claim
failed, her Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim necessarily failed.

This left just one unjust enrichment claim for the judge to
consider. The judge said to establish an unjust enrichment claim,
"a plaintiff must allege that the defendant has unjustly retained a
benefit to the plaintiff's detriment, and that defendant's
retention of the benefit violates the fundamental principles of
justice, equity, and good conscience."

However, her claim was based upon the same allegedly deceptive
conduct as her Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act claim, a claim which was dismissed by the judge.

Therefore the judge dismissed the entire lawsuit, and according to
court documents, "this matter has resolved on an individual
basis."

The GM brake vacuum pump lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division:
Quitno, et al., v. General Motors, LLC.

The plaintiff is represented by Stephan Zouras, LLP, and Cuneo
Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP. [GN]


GERMACK PISTACHIO CO: Sanchez Alleges Violation under ADA
---------------------------------------------------------
Germack Pistachio Company is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Germack Pistachio Company, Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-10107 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 2, 2020).

Germack Pistachio Company is a Distribution service in Detroit,
Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal



GIANT EAGLE: Order on Performance Reviews of TLs in Jones Entered
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, JORDAN JONES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHERS SIMILIARLY SITUATED; Plaintiff, v. GIANT EAGLE, INC.,
Defendant. ANDREW FITCH, Plaintiff, v. GIANT EAGLE INC., Defendant,
Case Nos. 2:18-CV-00282-DSC-CRE, 2:18-CV-01534-DSC-CRE (W.D. Pa.),
Chief Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy of the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, has issued an
order regarding the Plaintiffs' motion for protective order which
seeks to bar Defendant Giant Eagle from using an Executive
Exemption Acknowledgment ("EEA") form with its employees who are
current and potential collective and class members to these
overtime wage violation lawsuits.

The cases were filed on March 6, 2018 and Nov. 15, 2018
respectively against Giant Eagle alleging that it is in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and multiple state laws
for failing to pay overtime by improperly classifying certain
employees as exempt under the Act.  The Plaintiffs seek to certify
a collective/class under the FLSA and a class under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23.

Specifically, the putative class alleges that Giant Eagle
misclassified Team Leaders and Senior Team Leaders ("S/TLs") as
exempt from overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of
40 in a work week, including during the period they were required
to complete mandatory training.  Giant Eagle maintains that some
S/TLs are paid by the hour and are eligible for overtime pay, while
some but not all others that qualify under applicable law are paid
a salary.

Turning to the discovery dispute presently at issue, Giant Eagle
engages in bi-annual performance reviews of its S/TLs to, inter
alia, praise S/TLs for successes, identify and improve on
weaknesses, address questions or concerns raised by S/TLs and as an
opportunity for it to have a conversation with S/TLs to confirm
that they are properly compensated.  Historically during these
reviews, store and regional leaders evaluated, and S/TLs
self-evaluated, the S/TLs' management skills and assessed whether
S/TLs met expectations with respect to management duties.  If there
was any discrepancy between an S/TL's expected and actual duties
which would affect the S/TL's exemption status, Giant Eagle would
make appropriate adjustments to the S/TL's training or exemption
status.

Beginning in February 2018, Giant Eagle started using the EEA form
as part of their semi-annual employee performance review.  The form
only includes job duties that correspond with an exempt status.
The EEA form is sent to every store with instructions for Store
Leaders to administer the form as "one component" of the S/TL's
bi-annual review.  The reviews generally occur in February and
August.  Giant Eagle emphasizes that no attorneys are involved in
the review process, the litigation is not discussed, and the form
is introduced to the S/TLs in a "neutral manner."  Nine hundred
eighteen S/TLs completed the form.

The Plaintiffs contend that through its counsel, it contacted Giant
Eagle about these claims as early as October 2017 prior to filing
suit and therefore Giant Eagle was on notice of the overtime wage
violations.  They contend that the form requires a lay person to
come to a legal conclusion concerning the legal status of their
employment and has a propensity for chilling participation in the
class.  

The present motion followed.  The motion is fully briefed, and an
evidentiary hearing was held on the matter.

It is undisputed that the present iteration of the EEA form is no
longer used by Giant Eagle to conduct performance reviews and that
the new form employed by Giant Eagle removed the language requiring
the employee to confirm that she was properly an exempt employee.
While Giant Eagle maintains that it will not use the old form in
the future, Magistrate Judge Eddy must still address whether the
old form has the potential for abuse and potential interference
with the rights of the over-900 employees who completed it.  The
EEA form must be limited because it has a great potential for
misleading, confusing and chilling participation in the matter for
potential collective and class members.

While Giant Eagle largely contends that it has done nothing
improper, the Magistrate Judge is not so much concerned with Giant
Eagle's intent in utilizing the EEA form, but rather, what effect
using the form had on S/TLs.  The Judge agrees with Giant Eagle
that there is nothing inappropriate with it reviewing and
discussing with its employees expected and actual job duties with
the intent of gaining information to determine whether the
employee's classification as exempt is proper under federal or
state law.  Moreover, it must be noted that Giant Eagle only began
using the form after the counsel for the Plaintiffs notified Giant
Eagle of the claims alleged in these cases.

The chilling effect of the form is real; because notice of the
lawsuit has not yet gone out to any potential member, a potential
member may wrongfully believe that because they indicated in the
form that they meet the requirements for a salaried, exempt leader,
she is not entitled to join the action.  The employee also may feel
that if they fail to acknowledge that they are a salaried employee,
that their performance review or job would be in jeopardy.
Essentially, the form requires an employee to make a legal
conclusion as to the proper classification of their job.  While an
employer absolutely can review with its employees whether its
employees are properly classified as exempt by virtue of discussing
the employee's expected and actual job requirements, it is not
proper for an employer to place the onus on the employee to
determine whether her job is properly exempt.  The employee is an
unsophisticated employee without a legal department or any legal
knowledge and cannot be expected to make that decision by executing
an acknowledgment form during the course of a performance review.

The Plaintiff also takes issue that the form only includes duties
of a salaried, exempt employee and potentially ignores other actual
job duties performed by S/TLs, which has the potential for improper
classification.  While it may not be best practices for an employer
to include only exempt duties in a review form, the Magistrate
Judge does not find that it has the propensity to chill
participation in the class and has a greater potential to infringe
upon the employer's First Amendment rights.

Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Eddy ruled that Giant Eagle may not
require S/TLs, as part of its performance review process or
otherwise, to sign an acknowledgement that the S/TL must take a
position of whether the S/TL believes she meets the requirements
for a salaried, exempt leader.  It will send a curative notice
approved by the Court to all S/TLs who signed the Acknowledgment as
part of their August 2019 review that their completion and
execution of the EEA form does not prevent them from joining the
lawsuit.  

The Order does not prevent Giant Eagle from engaging in
communications, including asking questions related to the substance
of the EEA or using a form which includes only exempt duties, with
its employees concerning their duties of employment and whether the
employee meets the requirements for a salaried, exempt leader.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 22, 2020 Memorandum
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4dvbpjy from
Leagle.com.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Gender Discrimination Class Action Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Bob Van Voris, writing for Bloomberg, reports that women suing
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. for gender discrimination are going after
any internal documents with words like "babe," "bimbo" or worse
that they say would show bias by executives who administered the
bank's promotion and evaluation policies.

The women sued Goldman in 2010, in one of the biggest employment
discrimination cases in Wall Street history, claiming it made
biased compensation decisions and denied women opportunities they
had earned. Goldman has denied the allegations.

The plaintiffs told U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert Lehrburger that
Goldman should be required to turn over any such documents before
executives who have served on its management committee are
questioned under oath.

Goldman spokeswoman Leslie Shribman declined to comment on the
request.

In a letter filed shortly after midnight on Nov. 2, the bank said
it had conducted "extensive searches" earlier to identify any such
documents and turned over emails. The plaintiffs' proposal for new
searches would be costly and take an estimated 17 months, according
to Goldman.

The lawsuit was granted class action status in 2018, allowing four
women who worked for the bank to represent more than 2,000.

At one point, a different judge ruled that the plaintiffs couldn't
go forward with the "boys' club" allegations of disparate treatment
as part of their class action case. Lehrburger later ruled that
such evidence could be relevant if it showed that executives in
charge of hiring and performance evaluation policies harbored a
bias against women.

In March, Lehrburger dealt the plaintiffs a blow, ruling that the
bank could force more than 1,000 of the women into arbitration, one
of corporate America's most powerful weapons for fending off
discrimination claims.

In October, he denied Goldman's bid to block the depositions of
former chief executive officer Lloyd Blankfein and former president
Gary Cohn. He said he would decide after their depositions are
taken whether the women can also take testimony from CEO David
Solomon.

The case is Chen-Oster v. Goldman Sachs & Co., 10-cv-06950, U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan). [GN]


GRUMA CORP: Citywide Consultants Suit Settlement Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CITYWIDE CONSULTANTS & FOOD MANAGEMENT, LCC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. GRUMA CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation, dba MISSION
FOODS CORPORATION; SMART & FINAL STORES, INC.; STATER BROS.
MARKETS; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-CV-04724-DSF (AFMx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Dale S. Fischer of the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted
(i) the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of the Class Action
Settlement, and (ii) the Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of
Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Class Representative Enhancement.

The Plaintiff Class and Defendant Gruma have entered into an
agreement to settle the class action, subject to the Court's
approval.  After a Preliminary Approval Hearing, the Court
preliminarily approved the Settlement, finding it fair, reasonable,
and adequate; provisionally certified the class and appointed the
representatives and the class counsel; and approved the notice
plan.  In compliance with the March 5, 2020, Preliminary Approval
Order, the notice plan was timely completed.  A supplemental notice
was sent allowing the Class Members to object to the motion for
attorneys' fees, costs, and the Plaintiffs' service payment.

The Class Definition is: All persons or entities who/that are or
were signatories to an agreement with the Defendant for the
distribution of the Defendant's Product within California between
March 26, 2015, through the Preliminary Approval Date [March 5,
2020], in addition to their owners, proprietors, partners, and/or
members.

The Notice distributed to the Class Members fully and accurately
informed the Class Members of all material elements of the proposed
settlement and of their opportunity to object, opt out, or comment.
The following four Class Members timely opted out of the
settlement: Claudia E Maciel Gil, La Cuestita LLC, Guillermo Lopez,
and Koala Coin Op LLC (c/o Bernard Fung).

The matter is now before the Court on the Final Approval Motion.
The Court has read, heard, and considered the pleadings and
documents submitted and the presentations made in connection with
the March 2, 2020, Preliminary Approval Motion and the Final
Approval Motion.  Considering the present circumstances facing the
nation and Los Angeles in particular, and having received no
objections to the settlement or opposition to the motion, Judge
Fischer finds that the settlement was entered into in good faith,
was the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations,
has no obvious deficiencies, and does not improperly grant
preferential treatment to any individuals.

The attorneys' fees sought are in line with the Ninth Circuit's 25%
benchmark for a reasonable fee award.  Additionally, the fees are
supported by the lodestar cross-check.  The counsel is qualified
considering their experience litigating against Defendant Gruma in
previous matters and their familiarity with antitrust law, wage and
hour law, and complex class action litigation, enabling them to
have obtained this settlement despite the class action waiver and
arbitration provisions agreed to by every Class Member.  The Class
Counsel's declaration, which includes supporting documents,
supports the costs requested as reimbursement for funds expended on
the Class' behalf.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Fischer granted final approval to the
settlement.  He directed that the Parties perform in accordance
with the Stipulation of Class Action and PAGA Settlement and
Release filed in the action.

California Interpreting & Translation will be paid $793.05 from the
common fund for translating the Class Notice from English to
Spanish.

Atticus Administration, LLC, will be paid $17,755 from the common
fund for administering the settlement, providing notice,
distributing the settlement funds, and resolving any disputes
raised by any Settlement Class Member.

The California Labor and Workforce Development Agency will be paid
$30,000 from the common fund.  The Class counsel be awarded fees of
$1,243,256.531 and $26,973.87 in costs of litigation, and are to be
paid from the common fund.  The Settlement Administrator will pay
90% of the stated attorney's fees (and 100% of the costs) to the
Class Counsel as provided in the Stipulation.  The remaining 10%
will be paid when the Class Counsel provides a declaration stating
that all other terms of the settlement have been implemented, as
well as a proposed order releasing the remainder of the fee award.

A single Class Representative Enhancement of $15,000 for the Class
Representatives Citywide Consultants & Food Management, LLC, and
Randy H. Evans, is to be paid from the common fund.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 1, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/VYvm4i from Leagle.com.


HAMMEL & KAPLAN: Harvey Settlement Wins Final Court Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NANCY HARVEY, on behalf of
Herself and all others similarly situated, v. THE HAMMEL & KAPLAN
COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-00640-TJC-JRK (M.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge Timothy J. Corrigan entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Final
      Approval of Class Action Settlement in all respects except
      as to Plaintiff's service award or statutory award, which
      is deferred. No later than January 7, 2021, the Defendant
      shall deposit $1,500 in the registry of the Court;

   2. finally certifying Settlement Class for settlement
      purposes, as it fully satisfies all the applicable
      requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a), (b)(3) and due
      process, defined as:

      "all persons in the State of Florida who, within four
      years prior to the filing of the initial Complaint in this
      Lawsuit: (1) received medical care from a Florida hospital
      and subsequently had a hospital lien filed by Defendant
      beyond the applicable time period for perfection of liens
      in the municipality in which the care was provided; (2)
      the amount of Defendant's hospital lien was more than the
      amount of the hospital bill provided to that person
      (including applicable discounts); and (3) paid Defendant
      an amount more than the amount of the hospital bill
      provided to that person (including applicable discounts)."

   4. finally approving the terms of the Settlement as being a
      fair, reasonable, and adequate resolution of the dispute
      between the Parties. The Parties are hereby directed to
      implement and consummate the Settlement according to its
      terms and provisions.;

   5. appointing the Plaintiff's Counsel as Class Counsel;

   6. granting the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Approval of
      Attorneys' Fees and Incorporated Memorandum of Law in all
      respects except as to the issue of Plaintiff's service
      award, which is deferred;

   7. finally approving the agreed attorneys' fees and
      litigation costs award to Class Counsel in the amount of
      $35,741;

   8. dismissing action (including all individual and class
      claims presented) with prejudice, and without any
      other past or future fees, expenses, or costs to any Party
      or Settlement Class Member; and

   9. directing the clerk to terminate all pending motions,
      including Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, and close the
      file.

A copy of the Court's order final approval order and judgment dated
Dec. 7, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2JT29yx at no extra charge.[CC]

HARTFORD, CT: Faces Housing Discrimination Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hamad, writing for Hartford Courant, reports that residents
of subsidized housing in Hartford sued the federal Department of
Housing and Urban Development on Nov. 18 for violating the Fair
Housing Act when it failed to move families to less racially
concentrated communities outside of the city.

"Although HUD has a duty to counteract segregation in Hartford, it
has instead perpetuated segregation there," the suit alleges.
"Rather than making subsidized housing available to low-income
families in places like Farmington or Glastonbury, HUD has
disproportionately placed developments in North Hartford and other
racially concentrated areas."

The lawsuit comes two years after residents of a subsidized housing
complex in Hartford won a prolonged battle against a notorious New
York City landlord and HUD was required to assist residents and
move them to new homes. But the new complaint alleges that HUD
failed to develop a plan "that would have helped those families
move to less racially concentrated, higher-opportunity areas
outside of Hartford."

Instead, the suit alleges that HUD and other housing authorities
relocated tenants quickly and without mobility counseling services
that could help them to move to higher-opportunity areas. As a
result, the vast majority of families "stayed in Hartford or moved
to other low-opportunity areas."

The Center for Leadership and Justice, a nonprofit organization
located in Hartford, filed the class action complaint to the U.S.
District Court in conjunction with eight individual plaintiffs who
lived in three North Hartford developments at the heart of the
lawsuit: Clay Arsenal Renaissance Apartments, Barbour Gardens
Apartments and Infill I.

The defendants also include HUD Secretary Ben Carson, the Housing
Authority of the City of Hartford and Imagineers, LLC, a
Connecticut-based housing services company.

"This is not a lawsuit that aims to move people out of Hartford to
the suburbs," said Rev. AJ Johnson, organizer for the Center for
Leadership and Justice. "It's not a lawsuit that encourages people
of color to move to racist communities. It's not a lawsuit that
gives up on this city that we love and that I love. It's a lawsuit,
plain and simple, that says people who are low income, people who
are Black and brown deserve choice and options, all protected under
fair housing law."

The three North Hartford properties named in the complaint have
been the focus of lawsuits and HUD attention for years.

In 2018, after years of neglect, HUD terminated its
million-dollar-a-year contract with Clay Arsenal Renaissance
Apartments owner Emmanuel Ku, stating that the 26 apartments were
said to pose "major threats to health and safety" and vowing also
to move approximately 250 tenants into new properties.

"I want you to imagine staying up all night in your infant's room
so you could stomp your feet on the floor as rats approached the
bathroom," Cori Mackey, executive director of the Center for
Leadership and Justice, said at a press conference on Nov. 18.

"Thousands of residents in this city don't have to imagine these
conditions because they live and are living this nightmare," Mackey
said. "They've lived this nightmare while HUD turned a blind eye,
giving lucrative contracts to slumlords who pocketed millions and
traumatized so many families and children."

HUD later canceled subsidy contracts with Barbour Gardens, an
84-unit development, and Infill I, which consists of 52 separate
units in the North End.

Howard Rifkin, corporation counsel for the City of Hartford,
responded to the lawsuit on behalf of Bronin in a statement.

"We have to admit that we're puzzled by the fact that the city is
named in this lawsuit, since the city worked hand in hand with the
Center for Leadership and Justice at every stage of the process to
get rid of these slumlord owners and to relocate residents both in
and outside of Hartford," Rifkin said. "In January of this year,
Senators Blumenthal and Murphy, Congressman Larson, and Mayor
Bronin sent a letter to HUD Secretary Carson asking that he take
immediate action to address underlying, systemic issues that HUD
failed to address at several housing projects in the North End of
Hartford."

Ashley Matos, 29, a named plaintiff, lived in Infill for 11 years,
where she experienced mice infestations, constant water leaks,
electrical issues and what she said was an "assassination-style
murder" across the street. She was unable to find housing outside
of Hartford.

"I dreamed of moving out of Hartford, along with my kids, into a
clean apartment where my infant could crawl all over the floor and
we wouldn't have to worry about mold or [electrical] circuits
turning up on fire," Matos said. "But that just turned into a
dream."

Matos felt hopeful upon receiving her voucher from the Hartford
Housing Authority nearly two years ago. Though she was out of work
and had credit problems, Matos thought the voucher would help her
land an apartment in West Hartford, Windsor Locks, Enfield, Windsor
or Bloomfield.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs include Jerome N. Frank Legal Services
Organization, Open Communities Alliance, Lawyers' Committee for
Civil Rights Under Law, and Covington & Burling LLP.

Erin Boggs, executive director of the Open Communities Alliance,
said she hopes the lawsuit will grant a redo to the North End
families who were displaced.

"They were living in an unacceptable housing conditions and units
that were funded by the government and they were forced to
relocate," said Boggs, "and we would really like to see a do-over
because they didn't have their fair housing rights vindicated
during that relocation process." [GN]


HEART OF TEXAS: Faces Dragon Suit Over Unreimbursed Expenses
------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID DRAGON, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. HEART OF TEXAS PIZZA LP d/b/a PIZZA HUT,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-03583-M (N.D. Tex., December 7, 2020)
is a collective action complaint against the Defendant for its
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from approximately
November 2017 to March 2019 as a delivery driver at the Defendant's
Pizza Hut stores located in Marble Falls, Texas and within the
District.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant of failure to adequately
reimburse automobile expenses incurred by its delivery drivers,
including the Plaintiff, while performing duties for the Defendant.
The Defendant allegedly employed a reimbursement policy which
reimburses delivery drivers on a per-delivery basis that is below
the IRS business mileage reimbursement rate or much less than a
reasonable approximation of its delivery drivers' automobile
expenses. As a result of the Defendant's flawed reimbursement
policy, the Defendant failed to pay the federal minimum wage to its
delivery drivers.

Heart of Texas Pizza LP d/b/a Pizza Hut operates numerous Pizza Hut
franchise stores. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jay Forester, Esq.
          Meredith Mathews, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          400 N. St. Paul St., Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Tel: (214) 210-2100
          Fax: (214) 346-5909
          E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com
                  mmatthews@foresterhaynie.com

                - and –

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


HILLSTONE RESTAURANT: Faces Lawsuit Over 15% Takeout Fee
--------------------------------------------------------
Garrett Snyder at Latin Times reports that Hillstone Restaurant
Group, the national dining chain behind restaurants such as
Houston's, Honor Bar and R+D Kitchen, has been hit with a class
action lawsuit alleging the company unlawfully hiked prices in
California during the coronavirus pandemic.

The suit, filed by Pasadena law firm Bezdik Kassab, claims that
Hillstone charged customers a "service or packaging fee" of 15% on
takeout orders despite "no change in the quality or quantity of the
food sold or the packaging being offered," a move that it argues
violates price-gouging laws put in place after Gov. Gavin Newsom
declared a state of emergency in March.

According to California penal code 396, it is unlawful for any
business to sell food for a price higher than 10% of its immediate
prior cost during a declared state of emergency. An exception
applies only if the seller can prove that the price increase is
related to additional costs related to labor or materials.

"It's our position that Hillstone implemented this fee in July as a
disguised end run around California's price-gouging statute,"
Bezdik Kassab attorney Raffi Kassabian said. "I don't believe they
will be able to show that food and packaging costs have gone up
enough since the pandemic began to justify this large of a fee."

Hillstone currently notes on its menus and website that "a 10%
packaging charge is added to all take home orders."

Kassabian said he does not know exactly when the fee was reduced
from 15% to 10%, but that until last month the group's website
stated that the packing and service fee functioned "in lieu of
gratuity" and was "shared amongst the culinary and take home
support staff."

Although many restaurant employees have expressed concerns over
reduced tipping during the pandemic, it's legally unclear whether
the inclusion of a mandatory gratuity charge would fall under
California's definition of price-gouging.

"Throughout the pandemic, Hillstone has maintained the highest
standards for safety and quality, without compromising its fair
treatment of guests and staff members alike," Hillstone vice
president W. Glenn Viers said in a statement. "The complaint's
allegations are singularly without merit and will be defeated in
court." [GN]


HILTON WORLDWIDE: Faces Class Action Over Automatic Gratuity Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zack Needles, writing for Law.com, reports that Hilton Worldwide
Holdings is the latest hospitality company to face a class action
over automatic gratuity fees for guests. The company was sued on
Nov. 2 in Florida Southern District Court by SmithMarco P.C.,
Francis & Mailman, and Lewis Saul & Associates on behalf of hotel
restaurant and bar patrons who were allegedly charged an automatic
gratuity fee. Counsel have not yet appeared for the defendants. The
case is 1:20-cv-24511, Germak v. Hilton Worldwide Holdings, Inc. et
al. Michael Mora reported earlier in November that Hyatt Corp. and
its subsidiaries were hit with a similar lawsuit in Florida as part
of a larger trend stemming from a recent Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeal ruling that established standing for plaintiffs in these
cases. [GN]



HMG INC: Thorne Alleges Violation under ADA
-------------------------------------------
HMG, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Braulio
Thorne, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HMG, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-10082
(S.D. N.Y., Dec. 1, 2020).

HMG is an employment agency in New York City. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
   Gottlieb & Associates
   150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr 10003
   New York, NY 10003
   Tel: (212) 228-9795
   Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


HP INC: Gross Law Firm Announces Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following
publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in the
following companies during the dates listed are encouraged to
contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment.
Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any
recovery.

HP Inc. (NYSE:HPQ)

Investors Affected : November 6, 2015 - June 21, 2016

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

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/hp-inc-loss-submission-form-2/?id=11344&from=1

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]


HYUNDAI: Faces Class Action in South Korea Over Kona EV Fires
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gustavo Henrique Ruffo, writing for INSIDEEVs, reports that Hyundai
faces class action lawsuit in South Korea due to Kona EV fires.
The affected parties want depreciation compensations and a new
battery pack.

GM's supplier for the Chevrolet Bolt battery pack is LG Energy
Solution. This happens to be the same company Hyundai chose to
supply the Kona Electric battery pack. Both cars are currently
facing large recalls, but Hyundai has another hurdle to overcome: a
class-action lawsuit from affected customers in South Korea.

According to Reuters, 200 of them have joined this lawsuit
demanding depreciation compensations due to the battery fires that
happened mostly in South Korea, but not only there. There were
cases in Canada and Austria as well, but only one in each of these
countries as far as we know. In South Korea, there were 11 reported
fires.

The lawsuit wants to prove that this issue made used Kona Electric
prices fall sharply because of the reputation damage it caused. To
compensate for that, each plaintiff demands 8 million won -- or the
equivalent of $7,200. But there is more.

Hyundai proposed to solve the problem with a software update, but
these customers do not think that will be enough. Apart from the
monetary compensation, they also want the battery packs to be
replaced.

Hyundai and LG Energy Solution said they did not know the fires'
cause, something that GM also claimed with the recall for the Chevy
Bolt. In both cases, the remedy is the same: the software upgrade,
which GM has phrased as "re-flashing" the battery management code.

What is different is that GM revealed the purpose for this change:
limiting the maximum charging to 90 percent of the battery's
capacity. That may also raise legal concerns because the cars would
get less range than when the vehicles were bought.

This is not the only case involving South Korean battery suppliers.
Samsung SDI faced a similar situation with the battery packs it
sells both to Ford's and BMW's plug-in hybrid cars. After InsideEVs
contacted the company to ask for an explanation, it said the
automakers were the ones able to provide it, possibly due to
non-disclosure agreements in place. [GN]


IHS MARKIT: Monteverde & Associates Probes Firm Over Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner at Monteverde &
Associates PC, a national securities firm headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating IHS Markit
Ltd. ("INFO" or the "Company") (INFO) relating to its proposed
merger with S&P Global, Inc. ("S&P"). Under the terms of the
agreement, IHS Markit's shareholders will receive 0.2838 shares of
S&P common stock per share.

The investigation focuses on whether IHS Markit Ltd. and its Board
of Directors violated securities laws and/or breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company by 1) failing to conduct a fair
process, and 2) whether and by how much this proposed transaction
undervalues the Company.

Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/ihs-markit-ltd. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.

About Monteverde & Associates PC

We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that
has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting
shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. Our lawyers have
significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and
Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is recognized by Super
Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013,
2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of attorneys in a
particular field. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell
as a 2017-2019 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes
include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the
standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in
the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this
victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as
improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex
Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, in 2019 we
recovered money for shareholders in 6 mergers & acquisitions class
action cases.

If you own common stock in IHS Markit Ltd.. and wish to obtain
additional information and protect your investments free of charge,
please visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either
via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at
(212) 971-1341.

Contact:
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341

Attorney Advertising. (C) 2020 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law
firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates
PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter.[GN]


ILLXILL CLOTHING LLC: Rodriguez Files Suit Under ADA in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
ILLxILL Clothing LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Angel Rodriguez, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. ILLxILL Clothing
LLC, doing business as: The Gold Gods, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-05802 (E.D. N.Y., Dec. 1, 2020).

The Gold Gods are creators of unique designer gold jewelry and
accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
   Scarsdale, NY 10583
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com



INNATE PHARMA: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Dec. 22 Motion Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Innate Pharma S.A. (NASDAQ:
IPHA), JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM), First American Financial
Corporation (NYSE: FAF), and Bayerische Motoren Werke AG ("BMW")
(Other OTC: BMWYY, BAMXF). Stockholders have until the deadlines
below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional
information about each case can be found at the link provided.

Innate Pharma S.A. (NASDAQ: IPHA)

Class Period: March 10, 2020 to September 8, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 22, 2020

On September 8, 2020, the Company submitted to the SEC a Form 6-K
containing a press release summarizing the results of the first
half of 2020, ended June 30, 2020 (the "1H2020 Results"). In the
1H2020 Results, defendants abruptly announced a change in the
long-touted payment scheme with AstraZeneca.

On this news, Innate's American Depositary Share ("ADS") prices
dropped $1.62, or over 26.6%, from closing at $6.07 on September 4,
2020, the previous trading day, to open at $4.82 on September 8,
2020, and declined throughout the trading day to close at $4.45.

The complaint, filed on October 23, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Innate touted the results of
their various Phase 2 trials as being within expectations; (2)
Innate continued to reassure investors that they were eligible for
the $100 million payment upon first dosing of Phase 3 trials; (3)
Innate failed to timely disclose their renegotiations with
AstraZeneca to split the $100 million payment into two $50 million
payments, to be partially contingent on performance during the
Phase 3 trials; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about
its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

For more information on the Innate Pharma class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/IPHA

JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM)

Class Period: February 23, 2016 to September 23, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 23, 2020

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

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

On September 23, 2020, Bloomberg reported that the Company was
nearing a settlement to resolve the spoofing charges.

On this news, shares of JPMorgan stock fell $2.04 per share, or 2%,
to close at $92.74 per share on September 23, 2020.

On September 29, 2020, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
("CFTC") formally announced that it had ordered JPMorgan to pay
$920 million to settle the spoofing and manipulation charges.
According to the order, the Company failed to monitor its employees
and ignored multiple red flags. The Company also provided the CFTC
with misleading information.

The complaint, filed on October 24, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) traders at the Company, with
the knowledge and consent of their superiors, manipulated the
precious metals market by "spoofing," or placing fake orders to
generate the appearance of market demand; (2) the Company had
insufficient controls and compliance protocols to enable it to
identify and stop the misconduct; (3) the Company's earnings in the
physical commodity market were, at least in part, ill-gotten; (4)
such conduct would result in enhanced regulatory scrutiny; (5) the
Company provided misleading information to CFTC investigators at
early stages of the investigation into the misconduct; (6)
resolution of the governmental investigation into the Company would
result in a record-breaking $920 million fine; and (7) as a result,
defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

For more information on the JPMorgan securities class action case
go to: https://bespc.com/cases/JPM

First American Financial Corporation (NYSE: FAF)

Class Period: February 17, 2017 to October 22, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 24, 2020

On May 24, 2019, KrebsOnSecurity.com ("KrebsOnSecurity"), a noted
cybersecurity blog, reported a massive data exposure by First
American in which approximately 885 million customer files were
exposed by First American.

On this news, shares of First American fell $3.46, or over 6%, to
close at $51.80 per share on May 25, 2019.

On October 22, 2020, First American filed a quarterly report on
Form 10-Q with the SEC, announcing that the Company had received a
Wells Notice regarding its massive security breach.

On this news the price of First American shares fell approximately
$4.83 per share, or 9%, to close at $46.75 per share on October 22,
2020.

The complaint, filed on October 25, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company failed to implement
basic security standards to protect its customers' sensitive
personal information and data; (2) the Company faced a heightened
risk of cybersecurity failure due to its automation and efficiency
initiatives; and (3) as a result, defendants' public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the First American Financial class action
go to: https://bespc.com/cases/FAF

Bayerische Motoren Werke AG ("BMW") (Other OTC: BMWYY, BAMXF)

Class Period: November 3, 2015 to September 24, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 28, 2020

On December 23, 2019, the Wall Street Journal reported that the SEC
was probing BMW's sales practices.

On this news, BMWYY ADRs fell $1.33 per ADR, or nearly 6.87%, to
close at $18.02 per ADR on December 23, 2019. The same day, BAMXF
ADRs fell $1.25, or 1.5%, to close at $80.60.

On September 24, 2020, the SEC announced a settlement agreement
with BMW regarding the investigation. According to the SEC's order,
from January 2015 to March 2017, BMW US "used its demonstrator and
service loaner programs to boost reported retail sales volume and
meet internal targets, resulting in demonstrator and loaner
vehicles accounting for over one quarter of BMW [US]'s reported
retail sales in this period." Additionally, the order found that
BMW US, from 2015 to 2019, maintained a reserve of unreported
retail vehicles sales – referred to internally as the "bank" –
that it used to meet internal monthly sales targets regardless of
when the actual sale occurred. The order also found that BMW
improperly designated vehicles as demonstrators or loaners so they
would be counted as sold when in actuality they were not. Without
admitting to or denying the order's findings, BMW agreed to a
settlement to pay $18 million and cease and desist from future
violations.

On this news, BMWYY ADRs fell $0.51 per ADR, or approximately 2.2%,
to close at $23.07 per ADR on September 25, 2020. The same day,
BAMXF ADRs fell $2.54, or about 3.5%, to close at $68.91.

The complaint, filed on October 27, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) BMW kept a "bank" of retail
vehicle sales that it used to meet internal monthly sales targets
regardless of when the sales actually occurred; (2) BMW
artificially manipulated sales figures by having dealers register
cars as sold when the cars were still in inventory; (3) as a
result, BMW's key operating metrics were inaccurate and misleading;
and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about BMW's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

For more information on the BMW class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/BMW

               About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

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

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


INNATE PHARMA: Glancy Prongay Reminds of December 22 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming December 22, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Innate Pharma SA ("Innate" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: IPHA) securities between March 10, 2020 and September 8,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Glancy Prongay & Murray Reminds Investors of Looming Deadline in
the Class Action Lawsuit Against Innate Pharma SA (IPHA).

If you suffered a loss on your Innate investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/innate-pharma-sa/.
You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.

On October 23, 2018, Innate and AstraZeneca plc ("AstraZeneca")
announced an expansion of a pre-existing collaboration agreement,
whereby AstraZeneca acquired 9.8% equity stake in Innate and
obtained full oncology rights to monalizumab, a first-in-class
humanized anti-NKG2A antibody. As part of this agreement, Innate
would receive $100 million in milestone payments at the start of
the first Phase 3 clinical trial for monalizumab.

On September 8, 2020, Innate announced that it had amended its
collaboration agreement with AstraZeneca. Innate "will now receive
a $50 million payment upon AstraZeneca's dosing of the first
patient in the Phase 3 trial, and a $50 million payment after the
interim analysis demonstrates the combination meets a pre-defined
threshold of clinical activity."

On this news, the Company's American Depositary Share ("ADS") price
fell $1.62 per share, or 26.6%, to close at $4.45 per ADS on
September 8, 2020.

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

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Innate securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than December 22,
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 wish to learn more about
this action, or if you have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at
310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.

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

Contacts:
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]


INNATE PHARMA: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Dec. 22 Bid Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that class action
lawsuits have been filed on behalf of Innate Pharma SA
shareholders. Investors have until the deadlines listed below to
file a lead plaintiff motion.

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

Innate Pharma SA. (NASDAQ: IPHA)

Class Period: March 10, 2020 - September 8, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 22, 2020

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

To be a member of these class actions, you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish
to learn more about these class actions, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith,
Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike,
Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215)
638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.

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


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

To join the Innate class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1763.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Innate touted the results of its various Phase 2 trials
as being within expectations; (2) Innate continued to reassure
investors that it was eligible for the $100 million payment upon
first dosing of Phase 3 trials; (3) Innate failed to timely
disclose its renegotiations with AstraZeneca to split the $100
million payment into two $50 million payments, to be partially
contingent on performance during the Phase 3 trials; and (4) as a
result, defendants' statements about Innate's business, operations,
and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December
22, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1763.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Contact Information:

        Laurence Rosen, Esq.
        Phillip Kim, Esq.
        The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
        275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
        New York, NY 10016
        Tel: (212) 686-1060
        Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
        Fax: (212) 202-3827
        lrosen@rosenlegal.com
        pkim@rosenlegal.com
        cases@rosenlegal.com
        www.rosenlegal.com [GN]


INTELSAT: Class Action Complaints Underway
------------------------------------------
Chris Forrester at advanced-television.com reports that a trio of
complaints against how Intelsat handled the sale of shares prior to
its entry into Chapter 11 bankruptcy reconstruction, and which is
being heard in a California federal court, has seen the complaints
consolidated.

The cases are said to involve "the same factual allegations, the
same defendants, and the same legal claims," and the suing
investors "uniformly agree that the cases should be consolidated,"
the US District Court for the Northern District of California
said.

Investors filed three would-be class suits against BC Partners LLP
and Silver Lake Group LLC, who "have long had significant control
over" the Luxembourg-based satellite business.

The Intelsat securities class action lawsuit was commenced on April
7, 2020 in the Northern District of California and is captioned
Hill v. Silver Lake Group, L.L.C., No. 20-cv-02341.

The case revolves around allegations of insider trading and that
Intelsat gave non-public information to certain major
shareholders.

A report in the New York Post in March contained allegations that
that two important investors in Intelsat "partly escaped" the
devastating collapse in Intelsat's share price. The newspaper
states that BC Partners and Silver Lake Partners, the two largest
holders of Intelsat stock, "managed to sell a big chunk of Intelsat
shares before the company's hopes began to unravel". [GN]


INTERCEPT PHARMA: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Jan. 4 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
Intercept Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Intercept" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: ICPT) from September 28, 2019, through October 7, 2020
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) Defendants downplayed the true scope and severity of
safety concerns associated with Ocaliva's use in treating PBC; (ii)
the foregoing increased the likelihood of an FDA investigation into
Ocaliva's development, thereby jeopardizing Ocaliva's continued
marketability and the sustainability of its sales; (iii) any
purported benefits associated with OCA's efficacy in treating NASH
were outweighed by the risks of its use; (iv) as a result, the FDA
was unlikely to approve the Company's NDA for OCA in treating
patients with liver fibrosis due to NASH; and (v) as a result of
all the foregoing, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On May 22, 2020, Intercept reported that the FDA "has notified
Intercept that its tentatively scheduled June 9, 2020 advisory
committee meeting (AdCom) relating to the company's [NDA] for [OCA]
for the treatment of liver fibrosis due to [NASH] has been
postponed" to "accommodate the review of additional data requested
by the FDA that the company intends to submit within the next
week." On this news, Intercept's stock price fell $11.18 per share,
or 12.19%, to close at $80.51 per share on May 22, 2020.

On June 29, 2020, Intercept issued a press release announcing that
the FDA had issued a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") rejecting the
Company's NDA for Ocaliva for the treatment of liver fibrosis due
to NASH. According to that press release, "[t]he CRL indicated
that, based on the data the FDA has reviewed to date," the FDA "has
determined that the predicted benefit of OCA based on a surrogate
histopathologic endpoint remains uncertain and does not
sufficiently outweigh the potential risks to support accelerated
approval for the treatment of patients with liver fibrosis due to
NASH." The press release further advised, among other things, that
the "[t]he FDA recommends that Intercept submit additional
post-interim analysis efficacy and safety data from the ongoing
REGENERATE study in support of potential accelerated approval and
that the long-term outcomes phase of the study should continue." On
this news, Intercept's stock price fell $30.79 per share, or
39.73%, to close at $46.70 per share on June 29, 2020.

Then, on October 8, 2020, news outlets reported that Intercept was
"facing an investigation from the [FDA] over the potential risk of
liver injury in patients taking Ocaliva, [Intercept's] treatment
for primary biliary cholangitis, a rare, chronic liver disease." On
this news, Intercept's stock price fell $3.30 per share, or 8.05%,
to close at $37.69 per share on October 8, 2020.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 4, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Intercept securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/interceptpharmaceuticalsinc-icpt-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-331/apply/
or contact Joseph R. Seidman Jr. toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
Seidman@bernlieb.com.

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

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


INTERCEPT PHARMA: Bragar Eagel Reminds of January 4 Motion Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Intercept Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. (NASDAQ: ICPT), Neovasc, Inc. (NASDAQ: NVCN), Interface, Inc.
(NASDAQ: TILE), and Biogen, Inc. (NASDAQ: BIIB). Stockholders have
until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead
plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at
the link provided.

Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: ICPT)

Class Period: September 28, 2019 to October 7, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 4, 2021

Intercept's lead product candidate is Ocaliva (obeticholic acid
("OCA")), a farnesoid X receptor agonist used for the treatment of
primary biliary cholangitis ("PBC"), a rare and chronic liver
disease, in combination with ursodeoxycholic acid in adults. The
Company is also developing OCA for various other indications,
including nonalcoholic steatohepatitis ("NASH").

On May 22, 2020, Intercept reported that the FDA "has notified
Intercept that its tentatively scheduled June 9, 2020 advisory
committee meeting (AdCom) relating to the company's [NDA] for [OCA]
for the treatment of liver fibrosis due to [NASH] has been
postponed" to "accommodate the review of additional data requested
by the FDA that the company intends to submit."

On this news, Intercept's stock price fell $11.18 per share, or
12.19%, to close at $80.51 per share on May 22, 2020.

On June 29, 2020, Intercept issued a press release announcing that
the FDA had issued a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") rejecting the
Company's NDA for Ocaliva for the treatment of liver fibrosis due
to NASH.

On this news, Intercept's stock price fell $30.79 per share, or
39.73%, to close at $46.70 per share on June 29, 2020.

Then, on October 8, 2020, news outlets reported that Intercept was
"facing an investigation from the [FDA] over the potential risk of
liver injury in patients taking Ocaliva, [Intercept's] treatment
for primary biliary cholangitis, a rare, chronic liver disease."

On this news, Intercept's stock price fell $3.30 per share, or
8.05%, to close at $37.69 per share on October 8, 2020.

The complaint, filed on November 5, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies. Specifically defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
Defendants downplayed the true scope and severity of safety
concerns associated with Ocaliva's use in treating PBC; (ii) the
foregoing increased the likelihood of an FDA investigation into
Ocaliva's development, thereby jeopardizing Ocaliva's continued
marketability and the sustainability of its sales; (iii) any
purported benefits associated with OCA's efficacy in treating NASH
were outweighed by the risks of its use; (iv) as a result, the FDA
was unlikely to approve the Company's NDA for OCA in treating
patients with liver fibrosis due to NASH; and (v) as a result of
all the foregoing, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the Intercept class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/ICPT-2

Neovasc, Inc. (NASDAQ: NVCN)

Class Period: November 1, 2019 to October 27, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 4, 2021

Neovasc is a specialty medical device company that develops,
manufactures and markets products for cardiovascular diseases,
including the Tiara technology and the Reducer. The Company's
Reducer is a medical device that treats refractory angina by
altering blood flow in the heart's circulatory system.

On October 28, 2020, before the market opened, the Company
announced that an FDA advisory panel voted overwhelmingly against
the safety and effectiveness of the Reducer. The panel noted
concerns with the Company's clinical data, including "that the lack
of blinding assessment made the primary endpoint difficult to
interpret." As a result, the panel reached a consensus "that
additional premarket randomized clinical data was necessary."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.77, or 42%, to
close at $1.06 per share on October 28, 2020.

The complaint, filed on November 5, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
the results of COSIRA, Neovasc's clinical study for the Reducer,
contained imbalances in missing information present in the control
group versus the treatment group, including significant missing
information for secondary endpoints but none for the primary
endpoint; (2) that the imbalance in missing information indicated
that control subjects were aware of their treatment assignment (not
blinded) and less inclined to participate in additional data
collection; (3) that blinding is critical when studying a
placebo-responsive condition such as angina; (4) that the lack of
blinding assessment made the primary endpoint difficult to
interpret; (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the FDA was
reasonably likely to require additional premarket clinical data;
(6) that, as a result, the Company's PMA for Reducer was unlikely
to be approved without additional clinical data; and (7) that, as a
result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

For more information on the Neovasc class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/NVCN

Interface, Inc. (NASDAQ: TILE)

Class Period: March 2, 2018 to September 28, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 11, 2021

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

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

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

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

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

For more information on the Nikola class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/TILE

Biogen, Inc. (NASDAQ: BIIB)

Class Period: October 22, 2019 to November 6, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 12, 2021

On November 6, 2020, Reuters published an article entitled "FDA
advisory panel convenes to discuss whether Biogen Alzheimer's drug
should be approved" which stated that "Biogen shares were halted
ahead of the advisory panel meeting." Later on November 6, 2020,
Reuters published an article entitled "U.S. FDA panel votes cannot
ignore unsuccessful trial data on Biogen Alzheimer's drug."

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

The complaint, filed on November 13, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the larger dataset did not
provide necessary data regarding aducanumab's effectiveness; (2)
the EMERGE study did not and would not provide necessary data
regarding aducanumab's effectiveness; (3) the PRIME study did not
and would not provide necessary data regarding aducanumab's
effectiveness; (4) the data provided by the Company to the FDA's
Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee did
not support finding efficacy of aducanumab; and (5) as a result,
defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

For more information on the Biogen securities class action case go
to: https://bespc.com/cases/BIIB

                 About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

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

Contact Information:

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


INTERCEPT PHARMA: Gross Law Announces Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
shareholders. Shareholders who purchased shares in the following
companies during the dates listed are encouraged to contact the
firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as
Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery.

Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:ICPT)

Investors Affected : September 28, 2019 - October 7, 2020

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

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/intercept-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=11337&from=1

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]


INTERCEPT PHARMA: Klein Law Reminds of Jan. 4 Motion Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on Nov. 19 disclosed that class action
complaints have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the
following companies. There is no cost to participate in the suit.
If you suffered a loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline
to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Throughout the class period, Pintec Technology Holdings Limited
allegedly made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) the Company erroneously recorded
revenue earned from certain technical service fee on a net basis,
rather than a gross basis; (2) there were material weaknesses in
Pintec's internal control over financial reporting related to cash
advances outside the normal course of business to Jimu Group, a
related party, and to a non-routine loan financing transaction with
a third-party entity, Plutux Labs; (3) as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's financial results for fiscal 2017 and 2018
had been misstated; and (4) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:ICPT)
Class Period: September 28, 2019 - October 7, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 4, 2021

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

Learn about your recoverable losses in ICPT:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/intercept-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-submission-form?id=11035&from=1

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

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

CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]


INTERCEPT PHARMA: Pomerantz Alerts of Jan. 4 Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Nov. 18 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Intercept" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ:ICPT) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, and docketed under 20-cv-05377, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise, acquired Intercept securities between
September 28, 2019 and October 7, 2020, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Intercept securities during
the class period, you have until January 4, 2021, to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Intercept is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the
development and commercialization of therapeutics to treat
progressive non-viral liver diseases in the U.S.

Intercept's lead product candidate is Ocaliva (obeticholic acid
("OCA")), a farnesoid X receptor agonist used for the treatment of
primary biliary cholangitis ("PBC"), a rare and chronic liver
disease, in combination with ursodeoxycholic acid in adults. The
Company is also developing OCA for various other indications,
including nonalcoholic steatohepatitis ("NASH").

In 2016, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") granted
accelerated approval of Ocaliva for treating PBC.

Then, in late 2017, both Intercept and the FDA issued warnings
concerning the risk of overdosing patients with the drug, and
multiple reports of severe liver injuries and deaths linked with
its use.

Despite these concerns, Defendants continued to tout Ocaliva sales
and purported benefits, and its potential indication for treating
various other medical conditions. For example, just two years
later, in September 2019, Intercept submitted a New Drug
Application ("NDA") to the FDA for OCA to treat patients with liver
fibrosis due to NASH.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Defendants downplayed the true
scope and severity of safety concerns associated with Ocaliva's use
in treating PBC; (ii) the foregoing increased the likelihood of an
FDA investigation into Ocaliva's development, thereby jeopardizing
Ocaliva's continued marketability and the sustainability of its
sales; (iii) any purported benefits associated with OCA's efficacy
in treating NASH were outweighed by the risks of its use; (iv) as a
result, the FDA was unlikely to approve the Company's NDA for OCA
in treating patients with liver fibrosis due to NASH; and (v) as a
result of all the foregoing, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On May 22, 2020, Intercept reported that the FDA "has notified
Intercept that its tentatively scheduled June 9, 2020 advisory
committee meeting (AdCom) relating to the company's [NDA] for [OCA]
for the treatment of liver fibrosis due to [NASH] has been
postponed" to "accommodate the review of additional data requested
by the FDA that the company intends to submit."

On this news, Intercept's stock price fell $11.18 per share, or
12.19%, to close at $80.51 per share on May 22, 2020.

On June 29, 2020, Intercept issued a press release announcing that
the FDA had issued a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") rejecting the
Company's NDA for Ocaliva for the treatment of liver fibrosis due
to NASH. According to that press release, "[t]he CRL indicated
that, based on the data the FDA has reviewed to date," the FDA "has
determined that the predicted benefit of OCA based on a surrogate
histopathologic endpoint remains uncertain and does not
sufficiently outweigh the potential risks to support accelerated
approval for the treatment of patients with liver fibrosis due to
NASH." The press release further advised, among other things, that
the "[t]he FDA recommends that Intercept submit additional
post-interim analysis efficacy and safety data from the ongoing
REGENERATE study in support of potential accelerated approval and
that the long-term outcomes phase of the study should continue."

On this news, Intercept's stock price fell $30.79 per share, or
39.73%, to close at $46.70 per share on June 29, 2020.

Then, on October 8, 2020, news outlets reported that Intercept was
"facing an investigation from the [FDA] over the potential risk of
liver injury in patients taking Ocaliva, [Intercept's] treatment
for primary biliary cholangitis, a rare, chronic liver disease."

On this news, Intercept's stock price fell $3.30 per share, or
8.05%, to close at $37.69 per share on October 8, 2020.

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


INTERCEPT PHARMA: Robbins Geller Reminds of Jan. 4 Motion Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the Eastern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(NASDAQ:ICPT) securities between September 28, 2019 and October 7,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case is captioned Chauhan
v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 20-cv-05377, and is
assigned to Judge Sandra Feuerstein. The Intercept class action
lawsuit charges Intercept and certain of its executives with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Intercept securities during the Class Period
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Intercept class action
lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest
financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who
is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead
plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing
the Intercept class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a
law firm of its choice to litigate the Intercept class action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery of the Intercept class action lawsuit is not dependent
upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Intercept class action lawsuit or have questions
concerning your rights regarding the Intercept class action
lawsuit, please provide your information here or contact counsel,
J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or
via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the
Intercept class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no
later than January 4, 2021.

Intercept is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the
development and commercialization of therapeutics to treat
progressive non-viral liver diseases in the United States.
Intercept's lead product candidate is Ocaliva (obeticholic acid
("OCA")), a farnesoid X receptor agonist used in combination with
ursodeoxycholic acid in adults for the treatment of primary biliary
cholangitis ("PBC"), a rare and chronic liver disease. Intercept is
also developing OCA for various other indications, including
nonalcoholic steatohepatitis ("NASH"). In 2016, the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration ("FDA") granted accelerated approval of Ocaliva
for treating PBC. Then, in late 2017, both Intercept and the FDA
issued warnings concerning the risk of overdosing patients with the
drug, and multiple reports linked severe liver injuries and deaths
to its use.

Despite these concerns, the Intercept class action lawsuit alleges
that defendants continued to tout Ocaliva sales and the drug's
purported benefits, including its potential indication for treating
various other medical conditions. For example, just two years
later, in September 2019, Intercept submitted a New Drug
Application ("NDA") to the FDA for OCA to treat patients with liver
fibrosis due to NASH.

The Intercept class action lawsuit further alleges that during the
Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) defendants had downplayed the
true scope and severity of safety concerns associated with
Ocaliva's use in treating PBC; (ii) the foregoing increased the
likelihood of an FDA investigation into Ocaliva's development,
thereby jeopardizing Ocaliva's continued marketability and the
sustainability of its sales; (iii) any purported benefits
associated with OCA's efficacy in treating NASH were outweighed by
the risks of its use; (iv) as a result, the FDA was unlikely to
approve Intercept's NDA for OCA in treating patients with liver
fibrosis due to NASH; and (v) as a result of the foregoing,
Intercept's public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.

On May 22, 2020, Intercept reported that the FDA "ha[d] notified
Intercept that its tentatively scheduled June 9, 2020 advisory
committee meeting (AdCom) relating to the company's [NDA] for [OCA]
for the treatment of liver fibrosis due to [NASH] has been
postponed" to "accommodate the review of additional data requested
by the FDA that the company intends to submit soon." On this news,
Intercept's stock price fell more than 12%.

Then, on June 29, 2020, Intercept issued a release announcing that
the FDA had issued a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") rejecting
Intercept's NDA for Ocaliva for the treatment of liver fibrosis due
to NASH. According to Intercept, "[t]he CRL indicated that, based
on the data the FDA has reviewed to date," the FDA "has determined
that the predicted benefit of OCA based on a surrogate
histopathologic endpoint remains uncertain and does not
sufficiently outweigh the potential risks to support accelerated
approval for the treatment of patients with liver fibrosis due to
NASH." The release further advised, among other things, that the
"[t]he FDA recommends that Intercept submit additional post-interim
analysis efficacy and safety data from the ongoing REGENERATE study
in support of potential accelerated approval and that the long-term
outcomes phase of the study should continue." On this news,
Intercept's stock price fell nearly 40%.

Finally, on October 8, 2020, news outlets reported that Intercept
was "facing an investigation from the [FDA] over the potential risk
of liver injury in patients taking Ocaliva, [Intercept's] treatment
for primary biliary cholangitis, a rare, chronic liver disease." On
this news, Intercept's stock price fell an additional 8%, further
damaging investors.

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


INTERCEPT PHARMA: Rosen Law Reminds of January 4 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(NASDAQ: ICPT) between September 28, 2019 and October 7, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important January 4, 2021
lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Intercept investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the Intercept class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1973.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) defendants downplayed the true scope and severity of
safety concerns associated with Ocaliva's (obeticholic acid
("OCA")) use in treating primary biliary cholangitis; (2) the
foregoing increased the likelihood of an FDA investigation into
Ocaliva's development, thereby jeopardizing Ocaliva's continued
marketability and the sustainability of its sales; (3) any
purported benefits associated with OCA's efficacy in treating
nonalcoholic steatohepatitis ("NASH") were outweighed by the risks
of its use; (4) as a result, the FDA was unlikely to approve
Intercept's New Drug Application for OCA in treating patients with
liver fibrosis due to NASH; and (5) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' positive statements about Intercept's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 4,
2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1973.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

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

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
[GN]


INTERCEPT PHARMA: Schall Law Reminds of Jan. 4 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Nov. 8 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Intercept" or "the Company")
(NASDAQ: ICPT) for violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between September
28, 2019 and October 7, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before January 4, 2021.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Intercept downplayed the seriousness of
safety concerns about Ocaliva's use in treating PBC. This increased
the chance of an FDA investigation of the product, which would
threaten its marketing and sales. Based on these facts, the
Company's public statements were false and materially misleading.
When the market learned the truth about Intercept, investors
suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

Contacts:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]


INTERFACE INC: Brualdi Law Reminds of Jan. 11 Motion Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. announces that a lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Interface, Inc.
("Interface") (NASDAQ: TILE) stock during the period between March
2, 2018 and September 28, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), for
violations of the federal securities laws.

No class has yet been certified in that action. Until a class is
certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain
one. If you purchased Interface common stock during the Class
Period and wish to move the court for appointment as lead
plaintiff, you must do so by January 11, 2021. A lead plaintiff is
a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff will be selected from
among applicants claiming the largest loss from investment in
Interface during the Class Period. You do not need to seek
appointment as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery.

To be a member of the class you do not need to take any action at
this time. You may retain counsel of your choice. If you wish to
discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or
your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact David Titus at The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C., 29 Broadway,
Suite 2400, New York, New York 10006, by telephone at (212)
952-0602, or by email to dtitus@brualdilawfirm.com.

The complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding Interface's business, operational
and compliance policies. The complaint further alleges that as a
result of the defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of Interface's securities,
investors during the Class Period have suffered significant losses
and damages.

The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. is a New York City-based law firm
dedicated to vigorous representation of investors in litigation
nationwide, with an emphasis on sophisticated class actions in the
securities and antitrust areas, along with corporate derivative
suits. More information about the firm is available at
www.brualdilawfirm.com, and upon request. [GN]


INTERFACE INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Jan. 11 Motion Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that class
action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of Interface, Inc.
shareholders.  Investors have until the deadlines listed below to
file a lead plaintiff motion.

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

Interface, Inc. (NASDAQ: TILE)

Class Period:   March 2, 2018 – September 28, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 11, 2021

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.

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


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

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

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

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

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

Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]


INTERFACE INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Jan. 11 Motion Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Interface, Inc. (NASDAQ: TILE) between March 2, 2018
and September 28, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Interface investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the Interface class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1788.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Interface had inadequate disclosure controls and
procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (2)
consequently, Interface, among other things, reported artificially
inflated income and earnings per share (EPS) in 2015 and 2016; (3)
Interface and certain of its employees were under investigation by
the SEC with respect to the foregoing since at least November 2017,
had impeded the SEC's investigation, and downplayed the true scope
of Interface's wrongdoing and liability with respect to the SEC
investigation; and (4) as a result, defendants' public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When
the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January
11, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1788.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
[GN]


INTERFACE INC: Thornton Law Reminds of Jan. 11 Motion Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm on Nov. 23 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors of Interface, Inc.
(NASDAQ: TILE). Investors who purchased TILE stock or other
securities between March 2, 2018 and September 28, 2020 may contact
the Thornton Law Firm to obtain a copy of the complaint or to
discuss the lead plaintiff process. Interested investors are
encouraged to visit: www.tenlaw.com/cases/Interface. Investors may
email investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917. Interested
Interface investors have until January 11, 2021 to apply to be a
lead plaintiff.

The case alleges that Interface and its senior executives made
misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (i)
Interface had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and
internal control over financial reporting; (ii) consequently,
Interface, among other things, reported artificially inflated
income and earnings per share in 2015 and 2016; and (iii) Interface
and certain of its employees were under investigation by the SEC
with respect to the foregoing issues since at least November 2017,
had impeded the SEC's investigation, and had downplayed the true
scope of Interface's wrongdoing and liability with respect to the
investigation. When the public was made aware of the SEC's
investigation, Interface's stock price declined more than 8%,
allegedly damaging investors.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: www.tenlaw.com/cases/Interface

The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal securities laws. The
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 allows any
investor who purchased the securities at issue in the case during
the Class Period to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other investor
class members in managing the class action and can select a law
firm of their choice to litigate the lawsuit. Serving as a lead
plaintiff does not impact an investor's share in any potential
recovery. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff to be a
member of the class. If investors choose to take no action, they
can remain an absent class member. Interested Interface investors
have until January 11, 2021 to apply to be a lead plaintiff. The
class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs,
investors are not represented by an attorney.

Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in
representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations
of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track
records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the
country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be
considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter.

CONTACT:

Thornton Law Firm LLP
1 Lincoln Street
State Street Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
www.tenlaw.com/cases/Interface [GN]


INTUIT INC: Settles Class Action for $40 Million
------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that the financial
software company Intuit Inc reached a proposed $40 million
settlement with millions of consumers who claim they were steered
into paying for Intuit tax preparation services instead of
receiving free services. Class counsel from Girard Sharp and Stueve
Siegel Hanson told U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer of San
Francisco in their motion for preliminary approval that the
proposed class action will deliver substantial refunds to class
members who file claims and, as importantly, will notify millions
of people that they're entitled to use a free Intuit product to
file their taxes.

But the mass arbitration plaintiffs firm Keller Lenkner is
determined to keep 125,000 Intuit customers out of the class -- and
to keep Intuit on the hook for tens of millions of dollars in
arbitration fees. Keller Lenkner's Warren Postman told Judge Breyer
at a hearing on Nov. 12 that it wants a say on the proposed
settlement because the deal would temporarily block Keller Lenkner
clients from proceeding with arbitration against Intuit.

The mass arbitration firm has also moved in Los Angeles Superior
Court for an injunction to bar Intuit from including Keller Lenkner
clients in the class action settlement. Its motion contends that
Intuit is trying to force Keller Lenkner clients to participate in
the "burdensome process" of opting out of the proposed settlement.
Intuit's own contract, Keller Lenker said, requires customers to
waive their right to bring a class action, yet now that the company
is facing mass arbitration, it wants to use that very device to
block customers from asserting claims in the forum Intuit specified
contractually. L.A. judge Terry Green was scheduled to hear Keller
Lenkner's motion on Nov. 20.

Intuit, meanwhile, contends Keller Lenkner is trying to undermine
the class action settlement to protect its own financial interests,
not those of its clients. Intuit's brief opposing the state-court
injunction argued that Keller Lenkner has invested $8 million in a
mass arbitration campaign against Intuit in the expectation that
Intuit will agree to a settlement with the firm's clients to avoid
paying tens of millions of dollars in arbitration fees. (Intuit
said it has already paid $13 million to AAA and is looking at
exposure of "potentially hundreds of millions more" in fees.)
Intuit asserted that Keller Lenkner's attempt to keep its clients
out of the class action raises "serious ethical concerns" about
whether the firm is truly looking out for the people it purports to
represent.

Postman of Keller Lenkner told me Intuit's thesis is plain wrong.
"Every lawyer who represents a client on a contingency basis will
make more money if the client recovers more money," he said. "There
is nothing unethical about that or our representation of our
clients. Intuit's claims to the contrary are desperate and
irresponsible."

Nor has Keller Lenkner filed "frivolous" demands, Postman said. "We
have consistently been willing to confer with Intuit where it has
evidence that claims should not go forward, and we have paused or
withdrawn certain claims to allow for that process to take place
without Intuit incurring additional arbitration fees. There is
nothing improper about that process, which shows that we have
always approached these claims in good faith."

Intuit lawyers from Fenwick & West and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
and Dorr referred my request for comment to an Intuit spokesman who
did not immediately respond. Intuit has denied consumers'
allegations of improper charges, emphasizing that the company "has
a long-standing commitment to free tax preparation, including more
than 70 million completely free tax returns filed over the last six
years."

Class counsel Daniel Girard of Girard Sharp said by email that
Keller Lenkner's clients can simply opt out of the proposed
settlement before Judge Breyer. Once they're no longer in the
class, he said, the injunction ends and their arbitration can
resume (or begin, if it's not already launched). Girard also said
that the proposed requirements for opting out, such as class
membership ID numbers and signatures of individual class members,
rather than their lawyers, have been approved in hundreds of other
cases. "The settlement achieves the objectives of the litigation
and we look forward to presenting it to Judge Breyer on December
17," Girard said.

The background of the Intuit class action dispute is complicated,
as is usual in these mass arbitration cases. The class action was
first filed in May 2019 before Judge Breyer. Intuit moved to compel
arbitration. Judge Breyer denied the motion last March but was
overturned by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in August.
Plaintiffs in the class still had a live classwide claim under
California's Private Attorney General Act. They filed for AAA
arbitration of the classwide PAGA claim. At the same time, class
counsel and Intuit held settlement talks with a mediator. Those
talks produced the proposed class settlement.

As the class action was under way, Keller Lenkner was signing up
tens of thousands of Intuit customers to bring individual claims in
arbitration. The firm paid their clients' share of the AAA fees in
an initial wave of 40,000 cases – thus the $8 million
"investment" referenced in Intuit's brief before Judge Green –
and has filed arbitration demands for more than 80,000 additional
clients.

Intuit, like many other companies targeted in Keller Lenkner mass
arbitration campaigns, has cast doubt on the legitimacy of the
firm's client relationships. It argued, for instance, that after
Intuit paid AAA fees in the first wave of Keller Lenkner cases, the
plaintiffs' firm withdrew more than 8,000 "patently frivolous"
demands.

Intuit also attempted to short-circuit the mass arbitration by
invoking an AAA rule that allows either side to send consumer cases
to small claims court. As I've reported, that's an increasingly
common tactic for mass arbitration defendants. It didn't work for
Intuit. In October, Judge Green in L.A. Superior Court ruled that
Intuit's consumer contract gives only its customers, not the
company, the right to opt for small claims court. Intuit has
appealed that decision, which put it on the hook for about $30
million in arbitration fees.

Keller Lenkner was aware in October that Intuit was negotiating a
class action settlement with Girard Sharp and Stueve Siegel. It
actually filed its motion for a preliminary injunction to keep its
clients out of the settlement on Oct. 28, two weeks before class
counsel notified Judge Breyer that they had reached a deal with
Intuit. Almost as soon as the motion for preliminary approval hit
the class action docket, Postman filed a letter to Judge Breyer,
arguing that the proposed settlement's injunction
-- which would apparently halt ongoing arbitrations and bar new
ones -- impacted his clients' due process rights. He also told
Judge Breyer that the company agreed to the class action settlement
because it's hoping his clients get sucked into the deal.

Intuit counsel Rodger Cole of Fenwick seemed to confirm Keller
Lenkner's suspicion at the hearing before Judge Breyer. If Judge
Green, the L.A. Superior Court judge, grants Keller Lenkner's
motion to exclude its clients from the class action deal, Cole
said, "then we are unlikely to have a settlement."

Judge Breyer has called for briefs on whether Keller Lenkner should
be permitted to intervene in the class action on behalf of its
clients. Judge Breyer also said he's waiting to see what Judge
Green has to say about Keller Lenkner's request in state court to
exclude its clients from the class settlement. [GN]


JENNIFER ADAMS BRANDS: Thorne Files ADA Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Adams Brands, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jennifer Adams Brands, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-10080 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 1, 2020).

Jennifer Adams Brands, Inc. offers linens, including bed sheets,
blankets, duvet covers, located in Scottsdale.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
   Gottlieb & Associates
   150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr 10003
   New York, NY 10003
   Tel: (212) 228-9795
   Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


JNH FOOD: Faces Cornelson Suit Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------
FELECIA CORNELSON, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. JNH FOOD, LLC d/b/a PIZZA HUT, Defendant,
Case No. 3:20-cv-03585-N (N.D. Tex., December 8, 2020) is brought
by the Plaintiff as a collective action complaint against the
Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act seeking to recover
unpaid minimum wages and owed to herself and similarly situated
delivery drivers.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from approximately 2018 to
2019 as a delivery driver at the Defendant's Pizza Hut stores
located in Arlington, Texas and within the District delivering
pizza and other food items to the Defendant's customers.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to adequately
reimburse automobile expenses of its delivery drivers because of
its reimbursement policy which reimburses drivers on a per-delivery
basis that is below the IRS business mileage reimbursement rate or
much less than a reasonable approximation of its driver's
automobile expenses. As a result of the Defendant's reimbursement
policy, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated delivery
drivers' net wages are diminished beneath the federal minimum wage
requirements. The Defendant thereby willfully failed to pay the
federal minimum wage to its delivery drivers.

JNH Food, LLC operates numerous Pizza Hut franchise stores. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jay Forester, Esq.
          Meredith Mathews, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          400 N. St. Paul St., Suite 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


JOYY INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Jan. 19 Motion Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
JOYY Inc. ("JOYY" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: YY) from April 28,
2016, through November 18, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

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

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) JOYY dramatically overstated its revenues from live
streaming sources; (2) the majority of users at any given time were
bots; (2) the Company utilized these bots to effect a roundtripping
scheme that manufactured the false appearance of revenues; (3) the
Company overstated its cash reserves; (4) the Company's acquisition
of Bigo was largely contrived to benefit corporate insiders; and
(5) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially
false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true
details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

On November 18, 2020, Muddy Waters Research, an equity research
firm, published a report about JOYY titled: "YY: You Can't Make
This Stuff Up.  Well... Actually You Can."   The Muddy Waters
Research Report detailed a series of problems with JOYY.
Specifically, the report stated that the Company is a
multibillion-dollar fraud" whose component business are a "fraction
of the size it reports."  The Muddy waters report also noted that
JOYY's "reported user metrics, revenues and cash balances are
predominantly fraudulent."

On this news, JOYY American depositary shares ("ADSs") price fell
$26.53 per ADS, or 26% to close at $73.66 per ADS on November 18,
2020.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 19, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased JOYY securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/joyyinc-yy-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-334/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

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

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


JOYY INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of Jan. 19 Motion Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP released a press release for purchases of JOYY
Inc. stock:

If you suffered losses exceeding $50,000 investing in JOYY stock or
options between April 28, 2016 and November 18, 2020 and would like
to discuss your legal rights, click here: www.faruqilaw.com/YY or
call Faruqi & Faruqi partner James Wilson directly at 877-247-4292
or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310).

There is no cost or obligation to you.

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading minority and certified woman-owned
national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims
against JOYY Inc. ("JOYY" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:YY) and reminds
investors of the January 19, 2021 deadline to seek the role of lead
plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed
against the Company.

As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and
its executives violated federal securities laws by making false
and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1)
JOYY dramatically overstated its revenues from live streaming
sources; (2) the majority of users at any given time were bots; (3)
the Company utilized these bots to effect a roundtripping scheme
that manufactured the false appearance of revenues; (4) the Company
overstated its cash reserves; (5) the Company's acquisition of BIGO
was largely contrived to benefit corporate insiders; (6) as a
result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.

On November 18, 2020, while the market was open, Muddy Waters
Research published a report alleging that JOYY, among other things,
had: (1) reported fraudulent revenue; (2) component businesses that
were a fraction of the size that it reports; and (3) acquired BIGO
as part of a scam that benefitted corporate insiders.

On this news, JOYY's ADRs fell $26.53 per share, or 26.4%, to close
at $73.66 per share on November 18, 2020, damaging investors.

The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding JOYY's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.

Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this
advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your
particular case. All communications will be treated in a
confidential manner.

To view the source version of this press release, please visit
https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/69494 [GN]



JOYY INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Nov. 21
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of JOYY Inc. (NASDAQ: YY), between
April 28, 2016 and November 18, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for JOYY investors
under the federal securities laws.

To join the JOYY class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1988.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) JOYY dramatically overstated its revenues from live
streaming sources; (2) the majority of users at any given time were
bots; (2) the Company utilized these bots to effect a roundtripping
scheme that manufactured the false appearance of revenues; (3) the
Company overstated its cash reserves; (4) the Company's acquisition
of Bigo was largely contrived to benefit corporate insiders; and
(5) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially
false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true
details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January
19, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1988.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Contact Information:

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]


JPMORGAN CHASE: Howard G. Smith Remind of December 23 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
December 23, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
case filed on behalf of investors who purchased JP Morgan Chase &
Co. ("JPMorgan" or the "Company") (NYSE: JPM) securities between
February 23, 2016 and September 23, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Deadline Reminder: Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Reminds Investors
of Looming Deadline in the Class Action Lawsuit Against JPMorgan
Chase & Co. (JPM)

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

On November 6, 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ")
announced in a press release that former JPMorgan precious metals
trader John Edmonds had pled guilty to commodities fraud and
spoofing conspiracy—i.e., placing larger orders with no intention
of executing, thereby creating an artificial impression of high
demand or supply of the commodity in question.

On August 20, 2019, the DOJ then announced that another JPMorgan
employee, Christian Trunz, pled guilty to spoofing charges,
admitting that he had learned to spoof from more senior traders and
had engaged in spoofing with the knowledge and consent of his
supervisors.

On September 23, 2020, Bloomberg reported that the Company was
nearing a settlement to resolve the spoofing charges, stating that
JPMorgan was "poised to pay close to $1 billion."

On this news, JPMorgan's stock price fell $2.04 per share, or
2.15%, to close at $92.74 per share on September 23, 2020.

On September 29, 2020, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
formally announced that it had ordered JPMorgan to pay $920 million
to settle spoofing and market manipulation charges.

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

If you purchased or otherwise acquired JPMorgan securities, you may
move the Court no later than December 23, 2020 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal
requirements. To be a member of the class action you need not take
any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or
take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If
you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith,
Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike,
Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215)
638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.

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

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


JPMORGAN CHASE: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Dec. 23 Motion Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that class action
lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Investors have until the deadlines
listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion.

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

JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM)

Class Period: February 23, 2016 - September 23, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 23, 2020

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

To be a member of these class actions, you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish
to learn more about these class actions, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith,
Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike,
Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215)
638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com. [GN]


JPMORGAN CHASE: Zhang Investor Reminds of Dec. 23 Motion Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who bought shares of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE:JPM)
between February 23, 2016 and September 23, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

To join the class action, go to
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=jpmorgan-chase-co&id=2449
or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.

http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=jpmorgan-chase-co&id=2449

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
before the December 23, 2020 DEADLINE.   A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.

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

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

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


K12 INC: Bernstein Liebhard Remind of Jan. 19 Motion Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action has been filed on
behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of
K12 Inc., ("K12" or the "Company") (NYSE: LRN) between  April 27,
2020 and September 18, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

If you purchased K12 securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit K12  Shareholder Lawsuit or
contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

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

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

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

Later the Miami-Dade County Public School's Board voted to
terminate their contract with K12.  On this news, the price of K12
common shares once again fell drastically, by 11.5% to close at
$30.55 on September 10, 2020.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 19, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased K12 securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/k12inc-lrn-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-333/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

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

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


K12 INC: Levi & Korsinsky Remind of Jan. 19 Motion Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

LRN Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/k12inc-information-request-form?prid=11343&wire=1

K12 Inc. (NYSE:LRN)

LRN Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 27, 2020 -
September 18, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline : January 19, 2021

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/k12inc-information-request-form?prid=11343&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, K12 Inc.
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose 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.

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

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


K12 INC: Lowey Dannenberg Reminds of Jan. 19 Motion Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Lowey Dannenberg P.C., a preeminent law firm in obtaining redress
for consumers and investors, has filed a federal securities class
action in the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of its client
and all similarly situated investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired common stock of K12 Inc. ("K12" or the "Company") (NYSE:
LRN) from April 27, 2020 to September 18, 2020, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period").  The class action alleges
violations of the federal securities laws.

Headquartered in Herndon, Virginia, K12 is a technology-based
education company that provides proprietary and third-party
educational curriculum, teacher training, administrative support,
information technology support, software systems and services.

Due to the global pandemic, school districts across the country
were forced to cancel in-person classes and shift to online and
blended learning.   K12 stood to benefit from this shift and
embarked on a campaign to portray itself as technologically capable
and well-positioned to take advantage of this massive transfer to
online instruction.

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

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

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

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

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

If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must file
a motion with the Court no later than January 19, 2021.  Any member
of the proposed Class may move to serve as the Lead Plaintiff
through counsel of their choice.

If you have suffered a net loss from investment in K12's common
stock from April 27, 2020 to September 18, 2020, you may obtain
additional information about this lawsuit and your ability to
become a Lead Plaintiff, by contacting Christian Levis at
clevis@lowey.com or by calling 914-733-7220 or Andrea Farah at
afarah@lowey.com or by calling 914-733-7256. The class action is
titled Lee v. K12 Inc., No. 20-cv-01419 (E.D. Va.). [GN]


K12 INC: Pomerantz LLP Investigates on Behalf of Investors
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of K12
Inc. ("K12" or the "Company") (NYSE: LRN).   Such investors are
advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at  newaction@pomlaw.com or
888-476-6529, ext. 7980.

The investigation concerns whether K12 and certain of its officers
and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful
business practices.

K12 operates virtual learning systems.  As a consequence of the
COVID-19 pandemic, school districts across the U.S. have
increasingly shifted learning activities to online and blended
instruction, creating a unique opportunity for K12 to acquire a
significant stake in the rapidly growing market for online
education.  On August 26, 2020, reports began to surface that
teachers in the Miami-Dade County school system were extremely
unprepared for the new school year because they were unfamiliar
with K12's learning platform, and lacked "hands-on experience" and
"adequate training for [K12's online learning platform]."  The
United Teachers of Dade President Karla Hernandez-Mats issued a
statement, in which she disclosed that the "the training for K12
has been ineffective and the time allotted to learn it has been
unacceptable."

On this news, K12's stock price fell $5.87 per share, or 13.5%,
over the following two trading days, to close at $37.70 per share
on August 27, 2020.

After classes began, K12 experienced major technical issues and
disruptions, with teachers and students of Miami-Dade County being
unable to even log into the platform and utilize its contents,
which prompted local officials to publicly scold K12 for being "not
ready" for the opening of the school year.  By the third day of
classes, September 2, 2020, Miami-Dade County students and teachers
reported numerous additional technical issues and a total of twelve
intermittent cyberattacks that led to K12's learning platform
effectively being dysfunctional.  In response to the ensuing
complaints by parents, the Miami-Dade County School District called
a Board meeting to discuss K12's many failures.  During the
meeting, Miami-Dade County Public Schools Superintendent Alberto
Carvalho disclosed that he never signed the $15.3 million no-bid
contract with K12 and the school district had never paid K12 for
the provision of its services and products.

On this news, K12's stock price fell $3.96 per share, or 10.2%,
over the following two trading days, to close at $34.89 per share
on September 3, 2020.

The following week, after another Board meeting, the Miami-Date
Public Schools Board voted to terminate its $15.3 million contract
with K12 on September 10, 2020.  On this news, K12's stock price
fell $3.21 per share, or 9.5%, to close at $30.55 per share on
September 10, 2020.  Meanwhile, the Beaufort County School District
in South Carolina engaged K12 to provide virtual learning programs
for their students.  However, the introduction of the program had
to be delayed until the second week of instruction.  Shortly
thereafter, a member of the Beaufort County School District board
John Dowling stated that he had lost confidence in K12's ability to
provide educational solutions for the district and moved to
terminate the contract, which was duly terminated two days later.

On this news, K12's stock price fell $1.09 per share, or 3.9%, to
close at $27.21 per share on September 18, 2020.

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


K12 INC: Zhang Investor Alerts of Class Action Filing
-----------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who bought shares of K12 Inc. (NYSE: LRN) between
April 27, 2020 and September 18, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

To join the class action, go to
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=k12-inc&id=2489
or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.

http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=k12-inc&id=2489

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
before the January 29, 2021 DEADLINE.   A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.

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

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

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


KALISPELL HEALTHCARE: Jan. 5 Hearing Set for Deal in Henderson Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan & Morgan LLP issued a class action settlement notice on the
Kalispell Healthcare data breach:

MONTANA EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

CASCADE COUNTY

WILLIAM HENDERSON, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated
individuals,

Plaintiff,

v.

KALISPELL REGIONAL HEALTHCARE,
Defendant.

No. CDV 19-0761

This notice affects all persons who received notice from Kalispell
Regional Healthcare that your personal information was or may have
been compromised in the data breach initially disclosed by
Kalispell on or about October 2019.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Montana Rules
of Civil Procedure that a hearing will be held on January 5, 2021,
at 9:30 am, before the Honorable Judge Elizabeth A. Best, via Zoom,
for the purposes of determining, among other things, whether: (i)
this matter should be finally certified as a class action for
settlement purposes pursuant to rule 23(a) and (b)(3); (ii) the
Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate, and
finally approved pursuant to rule 23(e); (iii) this consolidated
action should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the terms of
the Settlement Agreement; (iv) Settlement Class Members should be
bound by the releases set forth in the Settlement Agreement; (v)
the application of Class Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees,
costs, and expenses should be approved pursuant to rule 23(h); and
(vi) the application of the Settlement Class Representatives for
service awards should be approved.  This notice incorporates by
reference the definitions in the Stipulation and Settlement, and
all capitalized terms used, but not defined herein, shall have the
same meaning as in the Settlement. A copy of the Settlement can be
obtained at www.KalispellDataBreachSettlement.com.

If you received notice from Kalispell that your personal
information was or may have been compromised in the data breach
your rights may be affected by the settlement of this Consolidated
Action. You may be entitled to share in the distribution of the
Settlement Fund if you submit a Claim Form postmarked or submitted
online no later than February 25, 2021, and if the information and
documentation you provide in that Claim Form establishes that you
are entitled to recovery.  All Settlement Class Members in the
United States will be eligible to access identity restoration
services and minor monitoring services offered through Experian.

This Summary Notice provides only a summary of matters regarding
the Consolidated Action and the Settlement. A detailed Notice of
Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the "Notice")
describing the Consolidated Action, the proposed Settlement, and
the rights of Settlement Class Members to appear in Court at the
Final Approval Hearing, to request to be excluded from the
Settlement Class, and/or to object to the Settlement, the Plan of
Allocation and/or the request by Legal Counsel for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses is
available at www.KalispellDataBreqachSettlement.com.. If you have
not received the Notice and a copy of the Claim Form, you may
obtain them free of charge by visiting
www.KalispellDataBreachSettlement.com or by contacting the Claims
Administrator by mail at: Kalispell Data Breach Settlement, c/o
Verus LLC, P.O. Box 6535, Lawrenceville, NJ 08648.

As further described in the Notice, if you are a Settlement Class
Member, you will be bound by any Judgment entered in the
Consolidated Action, regardless of whether you submit a Claim Form,
unless you exclude yourself from the Class, in accordance with the
procedures set forth in the Notice, postmarked no later than
December 11, 2020. Any objections to the Settlement, Plan of
Allocation, application for attorneys' fees and expenses, or
applications for compensatory awards must be filed and served, in
accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice, postmarked
no later than December 11, 2020. [GN]


KALISPELL REGIONAL: Agrees to $4.2M Fund for Security Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Kianna Gardner at Daily Inter Lake reports that Kalispell Regional
Healthcare has agreed to establish a $4.2 million settlement fund
to provide relief for individuals who allege they were impacted by
a data breach of the hospital's internal systems that was announced
in October 2019.

The class-action lawsuit was filed against Kalispell Regional in
the Montana Eighth Judicial District Court in Cascade County on
Nov. 22, 2019. The case is expected to go before Judge Elizabeth
Best for a final approval hearing on Jan. 5 at 9:30 a.m.

The lawsuit was proposed in 2019 shortly after the hospital
disclosed people's names, addresses, medical record numbers, dates
of birth, telephone information, medical histories, health
insurance information and more may have been compromised during the
breach.

Kalispell Regional said the breach stemmed from a "phishing" scheme
in which hackers used emails to bait employees into providing their
hospital login credentials. The attack resulted in a data security
event that was estimated to have involved the personal information
of nearly 130,000 patients.

Since the incident, hospital officials have stated that cyber
attacks are common and hackers are becoming increasingly
sophisticated. According to hospital documents, a top-ranked
cybersecurity consulting firm identified Kalispell Regional as
being within the top 9% of organizations in the health-care
industry for cyber-security compliance at the time of the event,
but "even with that level of readiness, we are not immune to these
incidents."

According to the settlement document, Kalispell Regional has denied
any wrongdoing. In a statement released, the company emphasized it
is not unusual to settle these types of cases.

"The letter references a class action settlement that has been
proposed in litigation relating to the cybersecurity event KRH
experienced in October, 2019. Settlements are common with events
such as these and we will work with the court through the
settlement process," the statement reads.

John Heenen with Heenan and Cook law firm in Billings, one of the
law firms representing the plaintiffs in the case, said he is
pleased Kalispell Regional chose to settle instead of drawing out
the litigation, which can be time-consuming and costly.

Under the terms of the settlement, the fund will be used to pay for
various forms of relief benefits. Those who may be entitled to
benefits can submit a claim for one or more of those benefits,
though no payments of any kind will be made until after the court
grants final approval of the settlement and all the appeals.

According to the settlement, possible benefits include
reimbursement for out-of-pocket losses, reimbursement for attested
time, identification restoration services and three bureau
credit-monitoring services, which would allow class members to
enroll in three years of Experien's credit monitoring services at
no cost.

Some of these benefits were outlined in a settlement notice that
was sent out via mail to those possibly impacted by the breach.

According to the notice, there are deadlines for those seeking
certain benefits. For example, those interested in pursuing
reimbursements for out-of-pocket losses, alternative cash payments
and/or the three years of bureau credit will must submit their
claims online at www.kalispelldatabreachsettlement.com by Feb. 25,
2021.

Although Heenan said he believes Judge Best will grant final
approval to the settlement in early January, he said individuals
looking to submit claims should wait until that decision is made
and then file online afterward. All documents and information
associated with the class action can be found on that website as
well. [GN]


KELLOGG: Judge Dismisses First Amended Class Action Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Keller and Heckman LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that a
California federal judge dismissed a proposed class action on June
22, 2020 alleging that Kellogg Sales Company falsely and
misleadingly labeled and advertised Bear Naked Granola V'nilla
Almond as being flavored "with vanilla flavoring derived
exclusively from vanilla beans when the ingredient list reveals
otherwise." U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez found the lead
plaintiff's argument that Kellogg's listing of "natural flavors" in
the ingredient list, as opposed to "vanilla flavor" or "vanilla
extract," is acknowledgement that vanilla flavor or extract is not
an ingredient in the product amounts to speculation rather than an
allegation of sufficient facts.

On October 29, 2020, the California federal judge dismissed the
case a second time, again finding an insufficient factual basis
that the granola product was mislabeled. While the judge agreed
that a picture on the product label of a vanilla plant and the word
"vanilla," with no qualifier, would be deceptive if the product
does not contain enough vanilla from vanilla beans to independently
characterize the product as "vanilla," the judge found the
plaintiff has offered no proof that the flavoring in the product is
not from vanilla beans, rejecting the argument that because vanilla
is expensive, Kellogg would have included it in the ingredient
statement if it were actually present. Citing a recent decision in
Sonner v. Premier Nutrition 971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020), the judge
also dismissed the complaint, which seeks equitable relief, on the
basis that the plaintiff failed to plead he lacks an adequate
remedy at law.

Because the proposed class action was dismissed without prejudice,
the plaintiff may amend the complaint a second time to cure the
equitable pleading issue and attempt somehow to provide factual
evidence of an inadequate level of vanilla from vanilla beans.
[GN]


KENOSHA, WI: Kenosha Teachers Union Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Jackson Danbeck, writing for WTMJ-TV Milwaukee, reports that the
Kenosha Unified School District Board has voted to move classes to
100 percent virtual instruction, in face of surging coronavirus
cases.

TMJ4's Tom Durian reports that virtual learning will be held Nov.
30 - Jan. 8. Teachers will be allowed to work from home.

Winter Sports is also suspended through Jan. 3.

The vote comes after a Kenosha teachers union filed a class action
grievance against the Kenosha Unified School District, alleging the
district has not done enough to keep people safe from the COVID-19
pandemic and further demanding the district switch to 100 percent
virtual learning over the holiday season.

The Kenosha Education Association argued in a statement on Nov. 17
that the school district has not issued or enforced adequate
COVID-19 safety protocols. KEA cites 300 reported violations and
concerns regarding COVID-19 safety in the district. The union adds
over 200 educators have signed the grievance against the school
district.

A class action grievance is a complaint alleging a union's
collective bargaining agreement has been violated, and that the
violation impacts a large number of the union's members.

The union says it filed an official complaint with the Kenosha
County Health Department in October, calling inspectors to
investigate current health and safety conditions of school
buildings. KEA alleges the school district then recently issued a
statement "that ignores the recommendations of KCHD to close
schools until January."

On Nov. 10, Kenosha County's health director, Dr. Jen Freiheit,
urged but did not require that the school district move all classes
online during the holiday season. School district officials
released their 'Return 2020' plan, signaling its position that
classes will be taught both in-person and virtually for the time
being.

The Kenosha Unified School District board planned to discuss their
'Return 2020' plan at a meeting on Nov. 17. The KEA said its
members attended the meeting to testify in favor of the health
department's recommendation that all classes switch to virtual
learning.

The KEA continued in its statement on Nov. 17 that last July,
school district board president, Tom Duncan, said he was not in
favor of returning to in-person teaching, citing the surge in
coronavirus cases. But Duncan and the school board later rescinded
the decision in August, and voted to approve a hybrid model
beginning in mid-September, according to the KEA.

A Kenosha school district spokesperson released the following in an
email to TMJ4 News on Nov. 17, before the vote: "The district has
heard from an abundance of individuals since the letter was sent,
both supporting and opposing what was shared. It is extremely
evident from the feedback received that we have divided views among
our staff, parents/guardians, and community. As a result, the
Return 2020 plan is on tonight's agenda not only for Board
discussion, but also possible action."

According to the 'Return 2020' plan, the following indicators may
trigger a transition to 100 percent virtual learning for the school
district:

  * Positive cases increase 3 percent in a span of 14 days. This
    percentage is based on the cumulative total of in-person staff
    and student COVID-19 positive cases, divided by the total
    in-person staff and student population.

  * Community outbreak: A significant community outbreak is
    occurring or has recently occurred (large community event or
    local employer) and is impacting multiple staff, students,
    and families served by the community such that the KCDH
    directs KUSD to close buildings.

  * Staff absences: Staff absences, due to individuals personally
    testing positive or being required to self-quarantine as a
    close contact, reach a level that has the potential to
    compromise the safety or fidelity of the learning
    environment.

But the KEA argues the time for full virtual learning has already
arrived.

"We can debate the merits of virtual versus in-person instruction,
but this is about people's lives and KUSD has an obligation to
provide educators and students with a safe teaching and learning
environment," said Tanya Kitts-Lewinski, President of the Kenosha
Education Association, in the statement.

"Based on safety reports submitted by educators, the District is
unwilling and/or incapable of implementing procedures to limit
spread in Kenosha schools, and consequently, the community.
Flagrantly ignoring the recommendations of the Kenosha County
Health Department is reckless, irresponsible, and puts our entire
community in danger," according to Kitts-Lewinski. [GN]


KIMBERLY-CLARK: Faces Class Action After Cottonelle Wipes Recall
----------------------------------------------------------------
courthousenews.com reports that customers who say that now-recalled
bathroom wipes made them "violently ill" dropped a class action
lawsuit on the wipes' manufacturer.

Last month, Cottonelle wipes maker Kimberly-Clark recalled products
made between February and September of this year. The wipes were
contaminated with bacteria that can irritate skin and cause
infections.

According to the company, the damage to users was mild.

"At this time there is a low rate of non-serious complaints, such
as irritation and minor infection, reported from the affected
wipes," reads a statement on the Cottonelle website.

The customers suing the company, however, say the wipes made them
seriously sick. They now bring product liability and false
advertising claims under New York's General Business Law.

Dawn Rothfeld, the named plaintiff in the case, says she suffered
from urinary tract infections and bladder issues, required
antibiotics and a bladder ultrasound.

The complaint alleges that thousands of other women reported UTIs
after using the wipes.

"It's ruined my life," reads one comment posted on social media,
according to the complaint, which says it represents New Yorkers
from across the state.

Others describe "daily diarrhea for well over a month" and "an
insanely overwhelmingly frustrating itch that will absolutely not
go away unless I sit on the business end of a belt sander."

One account says their illness from the wipes caused "a summer of
misery, nonstop vomiting and diarrhea."

The 18-page complaint, filed in New York's Eastern District, says
Kimberly-Clark's lack of proper safeguards allowed the
contamination to continue for seven months, "despite ample warnings
that something was wrong with the Cottonelle Wipes."

Throughout the period that now-recalled wipes were manufactured,
some had dark brown spots on the surface and smelled like mildew,
the suit claims, yet the company only began to test for the
bacteria after customers came forward.

When Kimberly-Clark did recall the wipes on Oct. 9, its handling
was "inadequate, ineffective, and seemingly insincere," the
complaint argues, and downplayed the true health risks of the
bacterial contamination, saying the bacteria "naturally occurs" and
is only risky to those with weakened immune systems.

The strain of bacteria, Pluralibacter gergoviae, has been found in
soil, water and sewage. It also shows up in cosmetics, shampoo and
baby wipes.

The pathogen is often resistant to antibiotics, which makes it more
difficult to treat.

The FDA has issued a handful of warning letters to cosmetic
companies whose products contained Pluralibacter gergoviae, among
other bacterial strains.

Bathroom wipes, specifically those advertised as flushable, have
also been under scrutiny for clogging up New York City's plumbing.
The wipes contribute to "fatbergs," or masses of grease and debris
that the city's Department of Environmental Protection says are
wrecking pipes.

"When a product is labeled ‘flushable,' it generally means that
it will clear your toilet bowl," the city's DEP website explains.
"It does not mean it will definitely clear your pipes or break down
in the sewer system or at a wastewater treatment plant. Water and
wastewater utilities around the world have found a significant
increase of wipes in their sewer pipes and at their plants."

Lawsuits against companies selling "flushable" wipes have shown up
for years: in San Francisco, Baltimore and the same district in
Brooklyn that will now hear the contaminated wipe suit.

Attorneys for the wipe companies have called the complaints
"fundamentally flawed" and suggested plaintiffs will continue to
"try the cases until they get a win."

As for the latest bathroom wipes suit in Brooklyn, contaminated
wipe users are asking the court for statutory damages of $500 per
unit purchased, in addition to monetary damages and permanent
injunctive relief against Kimberly-Clark.

Neither Kimberly-Clark nor lawyers for the plaintiffs immediately
responded to emails requesting comment. [GN]


KIMBRELL'S OF NORTH: Miller Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHEDRICK MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KIMBERLY'S OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. CACE-20-020424 (Fla. Cir., December 7, 2020) is
a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant engages in unsolicited
text messaging to promote its furniture business and associated
financing services. On or about December 2, 2020, the Plaintiff
received unsolicited text messages from the Defendant on his
cellular telephone number ending in 7649. The Defendant allegedly
used an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) in transmitting
unsolicited text messages without obtaining prior express consent
from the Plaintiff.

As a result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and
the other members of the putative Class were harmed. Thus, they
seek an injunction prohibiting the Defendant from using an ATDS to
call and text message telephone numbers assigned to cellular
telephones with the prior express consent of the called party, as
well as an award of actual, statutory damages, and/or trebled
statutory damages.

Kimberly's of North Carolina, Inc. sells furniture and provides
financing services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 400-4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

                - and –

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th St., Suite 1744
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 628-5793
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com



KING SOOPERS: Prelim. OK of Class Settlement in Powell Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Karlik, writing for Colorado Politics, reports that a
federal court on Nov. 17 recommended preliminary approval for a
class action lawsuit against King Soopers by assistant store
managers alleging their compensation violated federal labor law.

"Plaintiffs have set forth substantial allegations," wrote U.S.
Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter, that assistant managers are
"similarly situated as the victims of King Soopers' common policy,
practice, or plan of misclassifying them as exempt and not paying
them overtime compensation."

The parties will have 14 days from the Nov. 17 order to file
objections before U.S. District Judge Raymond P. Moore will decide
whether to adopt the recommendation.

In July, William Powell filed the federal complaint against The
Kroger Company on behalf of all assistant store managers in
Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, where Kroger operates
approximately 150 King Soopers stores, including a handful of City
Market locations.

Powell alleged that assistant store managers are exempt from
overtime pay, despite doing largely the same work as nonexempt
hourly employees -- including moving freight, stocking shelves and
working as cashiers. Two other assistant managers who worked at
several stores joined the lawsuit to demonstrate that policies were
similar across locations. They estimated they spent upward of 90%
of their time doing non-managerial activities.

Conway Legal, LLC, based in Philadelphia, brought this lawsuit as
well as a virtually identical one against Lakewood-based Natural
Grocers. Earlier in November, a federal magistrate judge gave
preliminary class action certification to that lawsuit. In both
instances, plaintiffs alleged a violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act by being required to work in excess of 40 hours.

"Defendants are aware or should have been aware that federal law
required it to pay Plaintiff and the members of the ASM Collective
overtime premiums for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek,"
argued Powell, who worked as an assistant store manager in multiple
Colorado stores from June 2016 to December 2019.

Carol Funk, who was formerly a department manager at a Douglas
County King Soopers, agreed with the plaintiffs' characterization
of the assistant manager job.

"They do work long hours and perform many of the same tasks and
duties as hourly employees," she said. "But unfortunately when
you're salaried that's what happens in my past experience."

King Soopers pointed to inconsistencies between the plaintiffs'
accounts of their duties, indicating that some were left in charge
of the store, interviewed employees, trained others or had direct
reports -- but others did not.

"These critical disparities in actual job duties and the job duties
of each other and the ASMs they seek to represent make collective
treatment of their claims impossible," the company wrote in
opposing class action status.

"None of King Soopers' arguments are persuasive," wrote Neureiter
in his recommendation, adding that the burden on the plaintiffs was
lower at this stage. The magistrate judge explained the court had
"broad discretion" about the notice to be sent to assistant store
managers who could potentially join the litigation as plaintiffs.
King Soopers objected to a request to send notice via text message
and to post materials in stores.

Neureiter turned aside both concerns, recommending that "notice
should be posted in King Soopers employee breakrooms or other,
non-public locations, as this will reach a wider audience than
mailing, especially given the COVID-19 pandemic's disproportionate
effects on grocery store workers."

Attorneys for The Kroger Company did not immediately respond to a
request seeking comment.

The case is Powell v. The Kroger Company et al. [GN]


KUCOIN: Restores Services, Class Action in U.S. Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Rachel McIntosh, writing for Finance Magnates, reports that
following a $275 million hack in September, cryptocurrency
exchange, KuCoin announced on Nov. 22 that it has "restored the
deposit and withdrawal services of all tokens." After a partial
reopening that took place in October, this restoration of services
is the exchange's latest step towards a full recovery.

Indeed, in October, users on the Seychelles-based exchange were
allowed to move their Bitcoin, Ether, and Tether Dollars on and off
of the exchange; however, now users can move the full variety of
tokens on and off the exchange even though certain tokens may have
some withdrawal restrictions due to "ongoing judicial
proceedings."

A Devastating Hack

Still, the exchange may have a way to go before full functionality
is restored. When KuCoin was hacked on September 26th, the original
sum of stolen coins was reported at around $150 million. However,
crypto analytics firm Chainalysis said that the number was closer
to $275 million.

At the time, KuCoin said that the incident was being investigated
by law enforcement and that users would not lose their funds: "rest
assured, if any user fund is affected by this incident, it will be
covered completely by KuCoin and our insurance fund," a statement
by the exchange said.

In a live stream that followed the hack, KuCoin Chief Executive,
Johnny Lyu said that the heist was pulled off by hackers who had
managed to obtain the private keys of the exchange's hot wallets.
However, as soon as the exchange saw that the withdrawals were
happening, the remaining funds were transferred into new hot
wallets and the old ones were abandoned.

CoinTelegraph reported that the hack "mobilized a massive response
across the cryptocurrency world:" after news of the hack went live,
a number of projects chose to freeze their tokens or reclaim them
from the hackers; some even initiated hard forks to help KuCoin
retrieve stolen funds.

Life after the Hack: Challenges and Opportunities

While KuCoin appears to be on the road to recovery, the exchange is
still dealing with several other challenges: KuCoin's web domain is
currently locked in Singapore. In the United States, KuCoin is
embroiled in a class-action lawsuit.

Still, the company is moving forward on other fronts. Finance
Magnates reported that KuCoin is planning the launch of a
non-fungible token (NFT) exchange. NFTs are unique, 'collectable'
tokens that have use cases in areas that include 'artwork and
GameFi'.

According to an announcement published by KuCoin, the NFT exchange
platform will be fully operational within "the next few months."
[GN]


KUSHNER COMPANIES: Tenants' Lawsuit Granted Class Action Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia Kromrei, writing for The Real Deal, reports that a judge
granted class-action status to tenants in a lawsuit alleging
Kushner Companies improperly deregulated a Brooklyn rental
building.

The ruling could open Kushner up to damages for any rent
overcharges -- plus interest -- for the six named plaintiffs, 46
additional tenants and any others the court finds were charged too
much by the company. The court gave Kushner 45 days to provide
names and contact information for all previous residents of the
building.

The lawsuit, filed in 2017, alleges that when Kushner bought a
former dorm from the Brooklyn Law School in 2014, it was obligated
to offer tenants rent-stabilized leases because the building had
been rent-stabilized before it was converted to dorms in 1991, but
failed to do so.

Kushner purchased the former dorm at 18 Sidney Place along with
another one at 144 Willow Street for a combined $7.6 million. In
2017 the company marketed the Brooklyn Heights buildings for three
times that figure, the New York Post reported.

That same year a one-bedroom unit rented for $3,800 a month. Now, a
two-bedroom, two-bathroom apartment in the six-story brownstone
goes for $5,400, according to StreetEasy.

The plaintiffs allege that only two of the Sidney Place building's
19 units were subsequently registered as rent-stabilized. They have
asked the court to rule that the rest of the units should be
rent-stabilized, determine a legal rent for each unit, and assess
damages for rent overcharges.

Kushner has called the lawsuit meritless from the outset.

"All of the units at 18 Sidney were rented at appropriate rates and
in accordance with applicable law — including every facet of New
York's rent stabilization laws and rent stabilization code," said
general counsel Christopher Smith. "The plaintiffs and their
politically motivated enablers have intentionally misrepresented
and misinterpreted governing law in an effort to convert lawful
market-rate units into rent-regulated units."

The case stems from an investigation by tenant rights group Housing
Rights Initiative, which has partnered with law firm Newman Ferrara
on a number of rent-stabilization lawsuits targeting large
landlords including Blackstone and the Scharfman Organization. The
group has filed dozens of similar lawsuits in recent years,
alleging landlord schemes to increase rent above what is legally
permitted.

Aaron Carr, executive director of Housing Rights Initiative, said
he hoped the class-action motion would put every "predatory
landlord" in New York City on notice that "if we catch you cheating
tenants, you will be summarily crushed with the iron fist of the
law."

Lucas Ferrara, an attorney at New York-based Newman Ferrara, is
representing the plaintiffs. [GN]


LAS VEGAS SANDS: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Dec. 21 Motion Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that class action
lawsuits have been filed on behalf of Las Vegas Sands Corp.
shareholders.  Investors have until the deadlines listed below to
file a lead plaintiff motion.

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

Las Vegas Sands Corp. (NYSE: LVS)

Class Period: February 27, 2016 – September 15, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 21, 2020

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that weaknesses existed in Marina Bay Sands'
casino control measures pertaining to fund transfers; (2) that the
Marina Bay Sands' casino was consequently prone to illicit fund
transfers that implicated, among other issues, the transfer of
customer funds to unauthorized persons and potential breaches in
the Company's anti-money laundering procedures; (3) that the
foregoing foreseeably increased the risk of litigation against the
Company, as well as investigation and increased oversight by
regulatory authorities; (4) that Las Vegas Sands had inadequate
disclosure controls and procedures; (5) that, consequently, all the
foregoing issues were untimely disclosed; and (6) that, as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

To be a member of these class actions, you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish
to learn more about these class actions, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith,
Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike,
Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215)
638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.

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


LAS VEGAS: Zhang Investor Law Reminds of Dec. 21 Motion Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who bought shares of Las Vegas Sands Corp. (NYSE: LVS)
between February 27, 2016 and September 15, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

To join the class action, go to
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=las-vegas-sands-corp&id=2452
or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.

http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=las-vegas-sands-corp&id=2452

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
before the December 21, 2020 DEADLINE.   A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.

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

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

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


LES SCHWAB: Employees Set to Get Class Action Settlement Payout
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Rogoway, writing for The Oregonian/OregonLive, reports that
more than 3,700 Les Schwab Tire Centers employees in Oregon were
due to receive $2,500 checks in November as part of a settlement
over a 2017 class-action lawsuit that alleged the chain hadn't
given workers enough time for lunch.

The suit alleged the Schwab employees hadn't received the full,
30-minute lunch breaks that Oregon law requires for hourly
employees going back to 2011. The Bend-based company continues to
maintain that it provides the requisite lunch breaks but agreed to
pay $16 million to settle the case anyway.

The two plaintiffs who brought the case will receive $15,000 each
and 25 others who submitted declarations in support of the lawsuit
will receive a $1,000, in addition to the regular $2,500 payment.
The plaintiffs' attorneys will receive $3.9 million.

"At Les Schwab, we believe in treating our employees fairly and
providing opportunities for them to not just have a job, but also
to build a career with our company. Our employees are at the center
of what we do and the reputation we have built," Dale Thompson,
Schwab's chief marketing officer, said in a written statement. "If
you live in a town with a Les Schwab Tire Center, or you've been to
one of our stores, you know we don't just sell tires and brakes. We
take pride in doing the right thing."

Les Schwab is one of Oregon's biggest companies, with annual sales
of $1.8 billion. It has nearly 500 stores in 10 western states. In
September, the family-owned company announced plans to sell to a
California investment firm.

Settlement documents indicate the court will mail the payments
directly to eligible employees and former employees, and that
recipients don't need to do anything to receive their checks --
though some may need to file a change of address request. Details
are available online.

Checks that aren't cashed within 90 days will be redirected to a
legal services fund run by the Oregon State Bar. [GN]


LEXISNEXIS RISK: Settles Drivers' Class Action for About $5 Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that LexisNexis Risk Solutions has agreed to pay
about $5 million to settle a class action in North Carolina federal
court by drivers who say it illegally sold state department of
motor vehicles crash reports to law firms that then used their
personal information to drum up business. [GN]




LIBERTY HEALTH: Reaches $1.8 Million Deal to Settle Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Health Sciences Inc., a provider of high-quality cannabis,
announced that it has signed a memorandum of understanding
regarding settlement of the securities class action that was
commenced against it in the United States in 2019. The Company has
agreed that $1.8 million US will be paid to settle all claims. The
settlement is made without any admission or finding of liability
and is subject to court approval. There is no assurance that the
settlement agreement will receive court approval.

                       About Liberty Health

Liberty Health Sciences Inc. is the cannabis provider committed to
providing a high-quality cannabis experience based on its genuine
care for all cannabis users and a focus on operational excellence
from seed to sale. [GN]


LLR INC: Ninth Circuit Flips Dismissal of Van Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KATIE VAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LLR, INC., DBA LuLaRoe;
LULAROE, LLC, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 19-35242 (9th Cir.),
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the
district court's dismissal of the action for lack of standing and
remand for further proceedings.

The Defendants-Appellees improperly charged sales tax to customers
residing in jurisdictions that do not impose such taxes.  Later,
after a related lawsuit was filed, LLR refunded the charges to
affected customers, but LLR did not pay interest to account for the
customers' loss of use of their money.

Plaintiff-Appellant Van filed the putative class action lawsuit on
behalf of LLR customers in Alaska who were improperly charged sales
taxes.  The operative complaint alleges, inter alia, that LLR
failed to compensate Van and putative class members for the full
amount of their damages, including interest.  The complaint asserts
claims for conversion, and misappropriation and for violation of
the Alaska Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act.

LLR moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of Article III
standing, arguing that Van could not establish an injury in fact,
because LLR had fully refunded the tax charges and her claim for
interest alone was insufficient to establish standing.  The record
shows that Van was refunded $531.25 for sales tax charges, but Van
contends that she is owed at least $3.76 in interest on that sum to
account for her lost use of the money.  The district court granted
the motion to dismiss, albeit on a ground that LLR had not argued
and that LLR does not defend on appeal -- that $3.76 "is too little
to support Article III standing."  Van timely appealed.

The case requires the Court to address whether the temporary
deprivation of money gives rise to an injury in fact for purposes
of Article III standing.

Although LLR does not defend the district court's reasoning, it
argues that Van lacks standing because she received a full refund,
less interest, on the money she was wrongfully charged.  In LLR's
view, the lost time value of money standing alone is too
speculative an injury to support Article III standing.  Other
circuits, however, have held to the contrary.  

The Court finds the reasoning of these cases persuasive.  It agrees
with other circuits, particularly in MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. Tenet
Fla., Inc., that the inability to have and use money to which a
party is entitled is a concrete injury.  It is so because every day
that a sum of money is wrongfully withheld, its rightful owner
loses the time value of the money.

These decisions reflect the firmly established principle that tort
victims should be compensated for loss of use of money -- through
either an award of damages or the payment of prejudgment interest.
Under the common law tort remedies of replevin and conversion,
damages for loss of use are the norm.  Alternatively, loss of use
may be addressed through the payment of prejudgment interest.  In
sum, the Court holds that the temporary loss of use of one's money
constitutes an injury in fact for purposes of Article III.

Though not raised before the district court, the Court closes by
addressing what would otherwise likely arise as an issue on remand:
LLR's fallback argument that Van has failed to adequately allege
injury because, to have standing based on the time value of money,
"a plaintiff must make specific allegations regarding how it would
have earned interest on the money but for the defendant's wrongful
conduct."  

The Court holds that the argument misstates Van's claimed injury.
Van does not assert that she is injured because she lost interest
income. She asserts that she is injured because she lost the use of
her money.  Consistent with the Court's opinion, although the
former injury may be speculative, the latter injury is actual,
concrete, and particularized.  Interest is simply a way of
measuring and remedying Van's injury, not the injury itself.  To
the extent the Eleventh Circuit's decision in Kawa Orthodontics,
LLP v. Secretary, U.S. Department of the Treasury, suggests that a
plaintiff must allege specific plans to invest its money into an
interest-bearing asset to establish standing based on a temporary
deprivation of money, the Court respectfully declines to follow it.
It notes that the Eleventh Circuit did not mention those types of
allegations in its subsequent decision in MSPA Claims 1, which
recognized standing based on the lost use of money.

Based on the foregoing, the Court reversed the judgment of the
district court dismissing the action for lack of Article III
standing, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its
Opinion.  Costs of appeal are awarded to Plaintiff-Appellant Van.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 24, 2020 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/VCp1bf from Leagle.com.

Katie Van, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by James J. Davis, Jr., Northern
Justice Project, Goriune Dudukgian, Northern Justice Project,
Kelly
K. Iverson, Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP, pro hac
vice, Kevin W. Tucker, Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter,
LLP, pro hac vice & R. Bruce Carlson, Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela
&
Carpenter, LLP, pro hac vice.

LLR, Inc., doing business as LuLaRoe & LuLaRoe, LLC, Defendants,
represented by Brewster H. Jamieson, Lane Powell LLC, Michael
Bruce
Baylous, Lane Powell LLC, Randolph T. Moore, Snell & Wilmer,
L.L.P., pro hac vice & Steven T. Graham, Snell & Wilmer, L.L.P.,
pro hac vice.


LOUISVILLE GAS: Denial of Class Certification in Little Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KATHY LITTLE; DEBRA WALKER; GREG WALKER; AND RICHARD
EVANS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Appellants v. LOUISVILLE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, Appellee, Case
No. 2020-CA-0137-ME (Ky. App.), the Court of Appeals of Kentucky
affirmed the Jan. 8, 2020 Opinion and Order of the Jefferson
Circuit Court denying certification of a class action against
LG&E.

On June 15, 2017, Little, Evans, and the Walkers filed a class
action complaint against LG&E in the Jefferson Circuit Court.  In
the complaint, it was alleged that LG&E operated a coal-fired power
plant, known as the Cane Run Plant, in Jefferson County, Kentucky.
The Cane Run Plant was located adjacent to a residential area,
where Little, Evans, and the Walkers resided.

According to the complaint, the Cane Run Plant emitted coal dust,
fly ash, bottom ash, and other coal combustion byproducts upon
Little's, Evans', and the Walkers' properties and upon a class of
homeowners located within an "Exposure Area."  The Exposure Area
consisted of 9,807 properties located up to three miles from the
Cane Run Plant.  In particular, it was claimed that between 2008
and 2015, coal dust, coal ash, and other combustion byproducts were
deposited upon the named Plaintiffs' and the class members' homes,
vehicles, and yards, thereby causing their properties to be
contaminated with toxic materials.

The Plaintiffs bring the action pursuant to CR 23 of the Kentucky
Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the following Class: All
current owners of residential real property located in Kentucky
within the Exposure Area.

In the complaint, the causes of action alleged against LG&E were
temporary nuisance, trespass, gross negligence, and willful or
wanton misconduct.  The following categories of monetary damages
sought are common to the Plaintiffs and the Class members: (i)
monetary damages reflecting the cost to remediate the Plaintiffs'
and the Class members' properties of the contamination caused by
the Defendant's conduct; (ii) monetary damages to compensate the
Plaintiffs and the class members for the loss of the use and
enjoyment of their properties caused by the Defendant's conduct;
and (iii) any other measures of property damages permitted by
Kentucky law.  And, the main components of property damage were
costs of removing the toxic contamination from the homes of the
class members.

LG&E filed an answer.  Thereafter, Little, Evans, and the Walkers
filed a motion to certify the class action, and LG&E filed a
response opposing same.  The circuit court conducted a hearing, and
by Opinion and Order entered Jan. 8, 2020, the circuit court denied
the motion to certify the class action.  The circuit court
concluded that the requirements of Kentucky Rules of Civil
Procedure (CR) 23.01(d) and of CR 23.02 were not satisfied.  The
appeal follows.

The Appellants contend that the circuit court erroneously denied
their motion to certify the class action against LG&E.
Specifically, they argue that the circuit court erred by concluding
that the adequacy requirement set forth in CR 23.01(d) was not
satisfied.  They maintain that any potential personal injury claims
arising from exposure to toxic materials emitted by Cane Run Plant
are purely speculative, hypothetical, and barred by the statute of
limitations.  The Appellants also claim that the claim-splitting
defense is inapplicable because a court presiding over a class
action lacks the ability to provide relief for absent class
members' uncertified claims.

The Court of Appeals finds that the circuit court's thorough
analysis determined the Appellants did not adequately represent the
interests of all the proposed class members.  As a basis therefore,
the circuit court pointed to the decision of the Appellants not to
pursue any personal injury claims of the class members against
LG&E.  The circuit court was troubled by the res judicata
implications, including the potential of precluding the absent
class members from later pursuing personal injury claims against
LG&E.

Despite the Appellants' allegations to the contrary, the absent
class members' possible personal injury claims are neither
speculative nor hypothetical.  In the complaint, the Appellants
repeatedly claimed that the fly ash, bottom ash, and other
combustion byproducts were toxic, with some constituents thereof
being classified as carcinogenic.  In fact, the property damages
claimed by them are based upon the toxicity of the fly ash, bottom
ash, and other combustion byproducts emitted by the Cane Run Plant
that settled upon each class member's property.

As to the class action, the principals of res judicata are
applicable, and the doctrine of claim preclusion would bar a party
from relitigating any claim that was or could have been raised in
the previous action, according to the Appellate Court's Opinion.
As no personal injury claims were raised in the complaint by the
Appellants, the circuit court believed that issues concerning res
judicata raised grave concerns as to whether the named Plaintiffs
could fairly and adequately protect interests of the proposed class
members.

In the end, the circuit court determined that the named Plaintiffs
could not adequately represent the interests of the proposed class
and that the adequacy requirement of CR 23.01(d) was not satisfied.
The Appellate Court agrees.  Considering the particular facts
alleged in the complaint and the interdependency between the class
members' property claims and potential personal injury claims, it
is simply unable to conclude the circuit court's reasoning strayed
from the parameters of the requirement for class certification per
CR 23.01(d).  As the Appellants failed to satisfy CR 23.01(d), the
Appellate Court is of the opinion the circuit court properly denied
class certification.

Given the Appellants have failed to qualify for class certification
under CR 23.01, the Court views any remaining contentions of error
to be moot or without merit.

For the foregoing reasons, the Opinion and Order of the Jefferson
Circuit Court is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 11, 2020 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/y9pte5oe from Leagle.com.

Justin A. Sanders -- jsanders@sandersroberts.com -- Covington,
Kentucky, Tad Thomas -- tad@thomaslawoffices.com -- Louisville,
Kentucky, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Barbara Mahoney,
Seattle, Washington, Briefs for Appellants.

J. Gregory Cornett, Travis A. Crump, Louisville, Kentucky.

Sheryl G. Snyder -- ssnyder@fbtlaw.com -- Theresa A. Canady --
tcanaday@fbtlaw.com -- Jason P. Renzelmann --
jrenzelmann@fbtlaw.com -- Louisville, Kentucky, Brief for
Appellee.


LYFT: Judge Bewildered by Objection to ADA Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 report that U.S. District Judge William Alsup expressed
bewilderment on Nov. 18 at Lyft's opposition to wheelchair users'
bid for class certification in their disability discrimination
suit, saying that if the ride-hailing giant wins a trial with no
certified class, "everyone else in the world has the right to use
you all over again." [GN]


MAYBELLINE LLC: Flaherty Sues Over Mislabeled Skincare Product
--------------------------------------------------------------
Norah Flaherty, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Maybelline LLC, and L'Oreal USA Products,
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-07244 (N.D. Ill., December 8,
2020), seeks damages, injunctive relief, and any other available
legal or equitable remedies, for violations of Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Businesses Practices Act and unjust enrichment
resulting from the mislabeling of E.L.F. Cosmetics' skincare
products claiming that they are oil-free despite containing certain
oils.

Maybelline and L'Oreal manufactures, advertises, markets, sells,
and distributes skincare products that were advertised as oil-free
despite the fact that Maybelline's Fit Me Matte + Poreless
foundation contains tocopherol and isododecane; Fit Me Concealer
contains tocopherol and hydrogenated polysiobutene while L'Oreal's
Infallible Pro-Matte contains tocopherol acetate, all of which are
oils, asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
     21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Phone: (323) 306-4234
     Fax: (866) 633-0228
     Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com

            - and -

     David B. Levin, Esq.
     Steven G. Perry, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
     333 Skokie Blvd., Suite 103
     Northbrook, IL 60062
     Phone: (224) 218-0882, (224) 218-0875
     Fax: (866) 633-0228
     Email: dlevin@toddflaw.com
            steven.perry@toddflaw.com


MDL 2262: $45+MM Awarded to EBP Counsel in Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, In re: LIBOR-Based Financial
Instruments Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:11-cv-02613-NRB
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald entered an order
granting, in part, and denying, in part, the application for
attorney's fees by the counsel for the Exchange-Based Plaintiffs
Class in connection with a September 17, 2020 settlement order.

The order provides that:

   --  The Court awards Exchange-Based Plaintiffs (EBP) Class
       Counsel $45,346,605.29 in attorney's fees, equal to 25%
       of the remainder of the $187,000,000 settlement fund
       after deducting $5,613,578.86 in expenses.

   --  The fee award shall be paid pro rata across the
       settlement funds created by the settlements between
       Exchange-Based Plaintiffs and Settling Defendants. That
       fee shall be paid to EBP Class Counsel pursuant to the
       terms, conditions, and obligations of the settlement
       agreements.

   --  Consistent with Pretrial Order No. 1, the EBP Class
       Counsel may distribute those fees to other counsel
       in their discretion.

    -- Approves the EBP request for $5,613,578.86 in litigation
       cost and expenses and for $25,000 service awards for each
       of the six named plaintiffs.

   --  The expenses and service awards shall be paid pro rata
       across between the settlement Exchange-Based funds
       created.

On September 17, 2020, the Court granted final approval to
settlements between the Exchange-Based Plaintiffs (EBP) and Bank of
America, Barclays, Citi, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, JP Morgan Chase, and
Societe Generale defendants, worth a combined $187 million.

A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Nov. 24, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39VJXiu at no
extra charge.[CC]

MDL 2332: Creation of California Subclass Denied in Lipitor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
MDL 2332: Bid for Relief From CMO-1 in Lipitor Antitrust Suit
Nixed
In the case, IN RE LIPITOR ANTITRUST LITIGATION. This Document
Relates To: ALL END-PAYOR CLASS ACTIONS, MDL No. 2332, Master
Docket No. 3:12-cv-2389 (PGS/DEA) (D. N.J.), Judge Peter G.
Sheridan of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
denied the California Consumers' motion for relief from part of
Case Management Order No. 1 ("CMO-1") to create a subclass of
California consumers and to appoint Interim Lead Class Counsel for
the subclass.

In 2012, certain direct and indirect purchaser actions were
initiated against Pfizer, Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals,
Warner-Lambert Co., Warner-Lambert Co., LLC, Ranbaxy, Inc., and
other Defendants in connection with an alleged anticompetitive
scheme to delay market entry of generic versions of the popular
cholesterol drug Lipitor.  On April 20, 2012, the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized before the Court four
direct purchaser actions, which alleged similar anticompetitive
schemes to delay market entry of generic Lipitor.  Thereafter, the
Panel issued seven Conditional Transfer Orders, which transferred
to the District several additional "tag-along" direct and indirect
purchaser actions.

On June 7, 2012, the Court ordered Cecchi and Pearlman to jointly
convene a meeting of all the Plaintiffs' counsel, in both the
direct and indirect purchaser actions, to confer about the
appointment of counsel and leadership structure issues.  

In accordance with the Superseding Order, all direct purchasers and
end-payor Plaintiffs agreed on appointments of counsel and
leadership structures, which is memorialized in CMO-1.  CMO-1
applied to all of the civil actions centralized before the Court at
that time (Aug. 10, 2012), as well as all subsequent tag-along
actions and other related cases that have been filed in, removed
to, or transferred to the Court for consolidation with the
litigation.  CMO-1 addresses separately: (i) direct purchaser class
organization; and (ii) end-payor class organization.  Only the
end-payor class organizational structure is implicated with respect
to the instant motion.  

CMO-1 appoints four Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel for the proposed
class of end-payors: Buchman, Esades, Richards and Wexler.  In
addition, the Court appointed Rodriguez as Interim Liaison Counsel.
In addition to the four Co-Lead Class Counsel members, CMO-1
created an executive committee delegating significant and
meaningful participation in the prosecution of the End-Payor Class
Actions.  According to CMO-1, the executive committee consists of
Goldstein, Stranch, Dugan, Scolnick, Papale and Sauder.

Pursuant to CMO-1, the Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel maintains the
sole authority over the following matters, inter alia, on behalf of
plaintiffs in the End-Payor Class Actions: (i) the timing and
substance of any settlement negotiations with the defendants, and
decisions regarding acceptance of settlement proposals; (ii) the
allocation of any Court awarded fees and costs among counsel in the
end-payor class actions; and (iii) any and all other matters
concerning the prosecution or resolution of the end-payor class
actions.

On March 12, 2020, at the request of all parties, the Court
appointed Faith Hochberg, U.S.D.J. (ret.) as mediator to facilitate
a possible resolution of all direct and indirect purchaser actions.
To date, there have been at least two mediation sessions conducted
by video conference, due to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19).

For context, even though the litigation has been pending for more
than eight years, the present motion seeking the creation of a new
subclass of California consumers was only filed on May 22, 2020, or
two months after mediation commenced.  California Consumers
Hellgren and Cox move for relief from part of CMO-1 to create a
subclass of California consumers and to appoint Interim Lead Class
Counsel for the subclass.  

The gravamen of Hellgren's and Cox's argument is that a subclass is
needed to subvert a purported "imminent and fundamental conflict of
interest between the California consumer and the other end-payors"
that exists because of the affirmative "pass-on" defenses asserted
by the Defendants.  

Judge Sheridan holds that it is unlikely that the Defendants can
successfully assert a pass-on defense against the other California
end-payors.  Hellgren and Cox have not adequately demonstrated that
the purported availability of a pass-on defense will create a
conflict of interest in the End-Payor Class such that the creation
of a new subclass is warranted

In addition, Hellgren and Cox argue, in a single sentence, that the
creation of a California consumer subclass is warranted because the
other California end-payors named in the end-payor Complaint (the
cities of Baltimore and Providence and BCBSLA) may not have
standing to sue under California's antitrust laws because they
suffered no damages or did not purchase Lipitor or any generics in
the state.  

Judge Sheridan holds that it would be inappropriate for him to
rule, in speculative fashion, on whether the Defendants could
successfully challenge certain end-payors' standing to sue in a
California court.  The Defendants have previously chosen not to
move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims on the grounds that the
Plaintiffs' lacked standing to pursue claims for California
consumers; and no such motions to dismiss for lack of standing are
currently pending.  Accordingly, the Judge will not decide the
issue or adjudicate the rights of certain California end-payors
absent a proper motion because it is not ripe.  As such, Hellgren
and Cox have not adequately demonstrated that the standing issue
warrants the creation of a new subclass.  Separately, the Judge
sees no practical reasons for creating Hellgren's and Cox's
proposed subclass.

Finally, it was represented to the Court that, during the mediation
before Judge Hochberg, the end-payors have attempted to negotiate
settlements with Pfizer and Ranbaxy based on aggregate, class-wide
damages.  Since there are no conflicts of interest within the
End-Payor Class, any issues concerning the apportionment of damages
among the various end-payor Plaintiffs may be addressed at a later
time through mediation, if necessary.

For all of the foregoing reasons, Judge Sheridan denied Hellgren's
and Cox's motion.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 22, 2020 Memorandum
& Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxlz2h3b from
Leagle.com.


MDL 2818: Leave to File Second Amended GM AC Consolidated Suit OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: GENERAL MOTORS AIR CONDITIONING MARKETING AND
SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION. ALL CASES, Case No. 18-md-02818 Cases
(E.D. Mich.), Judge Matthew F. Leitman of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted
the Plaintiffs leave to file a Second Amended Consolidated Master
Class Action Complaint.

In the putative consolidated class action, the Plaintiffs allege
that the air conditioning systems of vehicles manufactured by
Defendant GM are defective.  In the First Amended Consolidated
Master Class Action Complaint ("CMAC") -- the currently operative
Complaint -- the Plaintiffs asserted several different claims
against GM, including a claim under the federal Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act on behalf of a nationwide class (Count I), a breach of
implied warranty claim under Michigan law on behalf of a nationwide
class (Count II), a fraudulent concealment claim on behalf of a
nationwide class (Count III), an unjust enrichment claim on behalf
of a nationwide class (Count IV), and several state-law claims on
behalf of state-specific classes (Counts V-XLIII).

The named Plaintiffs come from many different states, including
Michigan, California, Alabama, Arizona, and Florida.  Two of the
named Plaintiffs are relevant to the issue now before the Court:
Corey Steketee and Carl Williams. Steketee is a Michigan resident;
in the CMAC, he brought, among other things, a claim of breach of
implied warranty under Michigan law on behalf of a Michigan-only
class (Count XXVII).  Williams is a California resident; in the
CMAC, he brought, among other things, two breach of implied
warranty claims under California law on behalf of a California-only
class (Counts XII and XIV).

GM moved to dismiss most of the claims in the CMAC on Nov. 13,
2018, but it did not move to dismiss the breach of implied warranty
claim under Michigan law that the Plaintiffs brought on behalf of a
nationwide class (Count II).  Following a hearing, the Court
granted the motion in part and denied it in part.

Relevant in the matter, the Court dismissed Steketee's claim that
GM breached his implied warranty under Michigan law.  It also
dismissed all of the other state-law breach of implied warranty
claims except those brought by Williams.  In light of the Court's
ruling on GM's motion to dismiss, there is currently no named
Plaintiff in the action with a live breach of implied warranty
claim under Michigan law.  The only named Plaintiff with live
breach of implied warranty claims is Williams, and his claims are
brought under California law.

On Jan. 31, 2020, GM filed a motion to dismiss the breach of
implied warranty claim under Michigan law that the Plaintiffs bring
on behalf of a nationwide class (Count II).  It argues that the
only named Plaintiff who has live breach of implied warranty claims
- Williams -- does not have standing to assert a claim under
Michigan law or to represent a class asserting claims under
Michigan law.  GM therefore insists that because there is no named
Plaintiff with standing to assert a breach of implied warranty
claim under Michigan law, the Court "must" dismiss Count II of the
CMAC.

The Plaintiffs respond that (1) GM's motion is premature at this
stage and is more appropriately decided at the class certification
stage," and, in any event, (2) Williams undisputedly has standing
"and can bring an implied warranty claim under Michigan law.

On May 28, 2020, the Court held a hearing on GM's motion to dismiss
Count II of the CMAC.  At the conclusion of the hearing, the
counsel for the Plaintiffs said that if the Court was inclined to
dismiss that claim on the ground that no named Plaintiff has
standing to pursue the claim under Michigan law, then the
Plaintiffs would want to substitute in a class representative that
could support that claim.

The Court then ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefs.
GM filed the first supplemental brief and argued, among other
things, that the Court should deny leave to amend to add a new
Plaintiff with standing to bring a breach of implied warranty claim
under Michigan law.  In the Plaintiffs' supplemental brief, they
again argued that if the Court was going to dismiss the nationwide
breach of implied warranty claim under Michigan law for lack of
standing, then the Court should grant them leave to amend to add a
new a new plaintiff with standing to bring that claim.

Judge Leitman concludes that the best course of action is to (1)
defer a ruling on GM's currently pending motion to dismiss and (2)
give the Plaintiffs an opportunity to amend the CMAC to add a
Plaintiff with standing to assert a breach of implied warranty
claim under Michigan law.  Je chooses this path for two reasons.
First, it is consistent with the requirement in Rule 15(a)(2) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that leave to amend be freely
given when justice so requires.  Second, allowing the Plaintiffs to
amend now will enhance efficiency because even if the Court were to
grant GM's motion to dismiss, the Court would then permit the
Plaintiffs to amend to add a new plaintiff with standing to bring a
breach of implied warranty claim under Michigan law.

GM objects to allowing the Plaintiffs to amend on only one ground,
insisting that these MDL Plaintiffs cannot simply amend to add new
Plaintiffs, a new class, or a new cause of action where the
original Plaintiffs never had standing to assert count 2 against
GM.  The problem with the argument is that at least one of the
Plaintiffs -- Corey Steketee -- did have standing to bring a breach
of implied warranty claim against GM under Michigan law.  While the
Court ultimately determined that Steketee's breach of implied
warranty claim failed on the merits, that merits ruling does not
suggest that he lacked standing to bring the claim in the first
place.  Thus, the Plaintiffs' proposed amendment adding a new named
Plaintiff is a common and normally an unexceptionable feature of
class action litigation in federal courts.

Accordingly, for all of the reasons he stated, Judge Leitman
granted the Plaintiffs leave to file a Second Amended Consolidated
Master Class Action Complaint.  The Plaintiffs will file that
pleading by no later than Aug. 14, 2020.  The sole amendment that
they may include in that pleading is the addition of a new named
Plaintiff who has standing to assert a breach of implied warranty
claim under Michigan law and who will serve as the named Plaintiff
for purposes of that nationwide class claim.  If the Plaintiffs
file a Second Amended Consolidated Master Class Action Complaint by
the deadline above, the Court will terminate GM's currently pending
motion to dismiss as moot.  If the Plaintiffs do not do so, the
Court will proceed to decide the motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 1, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/A5pbBK from Leagle.com.


MERCEDES: 1,000 Drives Launch Emissions Compensation Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Jeffay, writing for The Times, reports that more than 1,000
drivers have launched claims for compensation from Mercedes over
the "dieselgate" scandal, in what could become Scotland's biggest
class action.

Lawyers say they have had as many claims against the marque in
three months as they had against Volkswagen (VW) in five years.

Transport authorities in Germany found that Mercedes installed a
cheating software in engines that limited emission readings during
testing. It follows similar cases involving VW.

As a result of the latest development, Mercedes owners may be able
to claim for compensation if their car or van is a diesel and was
made between 2008 and 2018. [GN]


MICHAEL SCHNELL: FLSA Collective Action Conditionally Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAUL GONZALEZ and AARON
TOWNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. MICHAEL SCHNELL and CHRIS CHALLIS, Case No.
1:20-cv-00303-CMA-SKC (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Christine M.
Arguello entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiffs' Motion to Conditionally
      Certify Fair Labor Standards Act Collective or, in the
      Alternative, to Permit Joinder, and Motion for Judicial
      Notice to Potential Members of Collective;

   2. conditionally certifying FLSA collective action of the
      following individuals:

      "all persons who performed hourly services as workers for
      the Defendant Schnell for their regular and overtime hours
      during the months of September and October 2019 at Legion
      Rig but who were not paid for such work";

   3. approving the Plaintiffs' proposed Notice of Collective
      Action Lawsuit;

   4. authorizing the Plaintiffs to send notice to the
      individuals during a period of 75 days; and

   5. directing the Defendant Schnell to provide the Plaintiffs
      with a list of contact information for said individuals
      within 10 days of the date of entry of this Order.

The Court finds that the allegations in the Plaintiffs' Amended
Complaint, in combination with the emails from Mr. Schnell and the
Declarations of Mr. Chris Challis and Mr. Eric Tornquist,
constitute "substantial allegations that the putative class members
were together the victims of a single decision, policy, or plan."
Therefore, conditional certification of a FLSA collective action is
appropriate in this case, says the Court."

The Plaintiffs allege Mr. Schnell operated and controlled Legion
Rig starting in July of 2019, at which time he "announced to all
that he was in control of the workers and the payment of their
wages" and required that all spending be approved by him.

Legion Rig was an oil and gas rig services company that operated
out of Lucerne, Colorado.  Schnell was a 75% owner of Legion Rig,
and the Defendant Chris Challis was a 25% owner.

A copy of the Court's order granting plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification dated Nov. 25, 2020, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2VRhCSa at no extra charge.[CC]


MOBILELINK ARKANSAS: Plough Files FLSA Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Kirsten Errick, writing for Law Street, reports that on Nov. 18 in
the Western District of Arkansas, plaintiff Dana Plough filed a
class and collective-action complaint against telecommunications
companies MobileLink Arkansas, LLC and S&S Infinite Mobile, Inc.
for violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act (AMWA).

Plough averred that the suit arises from the defendants' "failure
to pay Plaintiff and all others similarly situated overtime
compensation for all hours worked (per week) in excess of forty
(40) while participating in job-related training." Thus, the
plaintiff alleged that the defendants have violated the FLSA and
AMWA. Furthermore, the plaintiff claimed that upon information and
belief, the defendants have allegedly violated the FLSA and AMWA
for three years prior to this suit.

The plaintiff was employed as a Territory Manager for S&S Infinite
Mobile, which operates retail stores for Cricket Wireless; S&S and
was later bought by MobileLink and the plaintiff subsequently was
employed by MobileLink as a Territory Manager for several retail
store locations in northern and western Arkansas. Moreover, the
plaintiff stated that she was classified by the defendants "as
exempt from overtime wages and was paid a salary." The plaintiff
worked for the defendants from approximately November 2017 to
October 2019. The plaintiff proffered that at all times she "has
been entitled to the rights, protections, and benefits provided
under the Fair Labor Standards Act."

The collective-action is brought forth for all similarly situated
persons as "District (‘Territory') Managers and who were or are
employed by Defendant S&S or Defendant MobileLink and who are
entitled to payment for all of their overtime wages which
Defendants failed to pay from three years prior to the date of the
filing of this lawsuit, through the time of the trial of this
case."

The plaintiff contended that she and the putative class worked more
than 40 hours per week while attending required job-related
training. Moreover, plaintiff Plough asserted that the defendants
failed to pay her and the putative class "an overtime rate of one
and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked"
over 40 hours per week, while the plaintiff and putative class
participated in job-related training. Accordingly, "Defendant paid
Plaintiff and members of the class a salary with no overtime
premium." However, the FLSA "requires employers to pay employees
one and a one-half times the employee's regular rate for all hours
that the employee works in excess of forty (40) per week." Thus,
the plaintiff claimed defendants also failed to pay overtime
compensation in violation of the FLSA. Specifically, the plaintiff
asserted that the defendants "intentionally" misclassified her and
the putative class as exempt employees under the FLSA. The
plaintiff also alleged that the defendants "showed reckless
disregard" for their purported FLSA violations. Moreover, the
plaintiff claimed that the defendants "failed to pay Plaintiff
overtime wages owed, as required under the AMWA." Plaintiff Plough
averred that the aforementioned violations were "willful,
intentional, unreasonable, arbitrary, and in bad faith."

The plaintiff has sought declaratory judgment, an award for
damages, an award for costs and fees, pre- and post-judgment
interest, and other relief.

The plaintiff is represented by WH Law, PLLC. [GN]


NEOVASC INC: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investor rights law
firm, continues its investigation on behalf of Neovasc, Inc.
("Neovasc" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NVCN) investors concerning
the Company's possible violations of the federal securities laws.

If you suffered a loss on your Neovasc investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/neovasc-inc/. You
can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.

Neovasc's Reducer is a medical device that treats refractory angina
by altering blood flow in the heart's circulatory system. In
December 2018, the Company filed a Q-Sub submission to the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") that contained safety and
efficacy results from Neovasc's clinical studies, as well as
supporting data from peer-reviewed journals.

On February 20, 2019, Neovasc announced that, despite "Breakthrough
Device Designation," the FDA review team recommended collection of
further pre-market blinded data prior to Pre-Market Approval
("PMA") submission.

On November 1, 2019, the Company announced that it would submit a
PMA application for the Reducer without gathering further evidence,
against the FDA's recommendation. Neovasc claimed that "the
clinical evidence already available will be sufficient to not
further delay the availability of this Breakthrough medical device
for the treatment of U.S. patients."

On October 28, 2020, before the market opened, the Company
announced that an FDA advisory committee voted overwhelmingly
against issuing a reasonable assurance of effectiveness and on
whether the relative benefits outweighed the relative risks. The
panel echoed concerns previously raised by the FDA about the lack
of sufficient data.

On this news, Neovasc's share price fell $0.77, or 42%, to close at
$1.06 per share on October 28, 2020, thereby injuring investors.

Whistleblower Notice: Persons with non-public information regarding
Neovasc should consider their options to aid the investigation or
take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower Program. Under the program,
whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards
totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the
SEC. For more information, call Charles H. Linehan at 310-201-9150
or 888-773-9224 or email shareholders@glancylaw.com.

                           About GPM

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP is a premier law firm representing
investors and consumers in securities litigation and other complex
class action litigation. ISS Securities Class Action Services has
consistently ranked GPM in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report. In 2018,
GPM was ranked a top five law firm in number of securities class
action settlements, and a top six law firm for total dollar size of
settlements. With four offices across the country, GPM's nearly 40
attorneys have won groundbreaking rulings and recovered billions of
dollars for investors and consumers in securities, antitrust,
consumer, and employment class actions. GPM's lawyers have handled
cases covering a wide spectrum of corporate misconduct including
cases involving financial restatements, internal control
weaknesses, earnings management, fraudulent earnings guidance and
forward looking statements, auditor misconduct, insider trading,
violations of FDA regulations, actions resulting in FDA and DOJ
investigations, and many other forms of corporate misconduct. GPM's
attorneys have worked on securities cases relating to nearly all
industries and sectors in the financial markets, including, energy,
consumer discretionary, consumer staples, real estate and REITs,
financial, insurance, information technology, health care, biotech,
cryptocurrency, medical devices, and many more. GPM's past
successes have been widely covered by leading news and industry
publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times,
Bloomberg Businessweek, Reuters, the Associated Press, Barron's,
Investor's Business Daily, Forbes, and Money.

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

Contacts:
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]


NEOVASC INC: Zhang Investor Reminds of Jan. 5 Motion Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who bought shares of Neovasc Inc. (NASDAQ: NVCN)
between November 1, 2019 and October 27, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

To join the class action, go to
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=neovasc-inc&id=2476
or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.

http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=neovasc-inc&id=2476

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
before January 5, 2021 DEADLINE.   A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose,
among other things: the results of COSIRA, Neovasc's clinical study
for the Reducer, contained imbalances in missing information
present in the control group versus the treatment group, including
significant missing information for secondary endpoints but none
for the primary endpoint; the imbalance in missing information
indicated that control subjects were aware of their treatment
assignment (not blinded) and less inclined to participate in
additional data collection; blinding is critical when studying a
placebo-responsive condition such as angina; the lack of blinding
assessment made the primary endpoint difficult to interpret; as a
result of the foregoing, the FDA was reasonably likely to require
additional premarket clinical data; as a result, the Company's
Premarket Approval application (PMA) for Reducer was unlikely to be
approved without additional clinical data; and as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
Lead plaintiff status is not required to seek compensation.  You
may retain counsel of your choice.  You may remain an absent class
member and take no action at this time.

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


NEW MEXICO: Plaintiffs to Take COVID-19 Class Suit to High Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Lyman, writing for NM Political Report, reports that as the
number of COVID-19 cases and related deaths in New Mexico continue
to increase throughout the state and the state is halfway through a
two week stay-at-home order, criminal justice advocates continue to
push Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham to do more to reduce prison
populations.

There have been two attempts to get the courts involved, but the
latest legal challenge, a class-action lawsuit, was dismissed in
October. The judge in that case ruled that the court did not have
jurisdiction to weigh-in because the inmate plaintiffs did not show
that they had exhausted other remedies like an appeal through the
New Mexico Department of Corrections.   

Now, the plaintiffs -- two advocacy groups and nearly a dozen
inmates -- are taking the issue to the Supreme Court for a second
time, albeit with a different ask of the justices.

In the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, the New Mexico Law
Offices of the Public Defender, the American Civil Liberties Union
and the New Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers Association asked the
state Supreme Court to intervene and compel Lujan Grisham and her
corrections department to broaden their scope of how to limit
prison populations in light of COVID-19. Those two groups
ultimately failed to convince the New Mexico Supreme Court that
inmates were subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, a violation
of the U.S. Constitution, and to compel Lujan Grisham and the
Department of Corrections to do more than release inmates 30 days
early.

For her part, Lujan Grisham signed an executive order that
essentially expanded an already existing provision and allowed some
inmates out 30 days before their scheduled release date. The
qualifications for early release under Lujan Grisham's executive
order are narrow and prompted groups like the public defender's
office, the New Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers Association and the
ACLU to call for things like expedited parole for certain inmates
and allowing some inmates to finish their sentence at home.

'Getting really tricky to figure out where people can go'

Faegre Drinker, an international law firm, joined with
Albuquerque-based attorney Ryan Villa to represent the plaintiffs
in the class action suit that may be heard by the state's high
court.

The question before the court will not be whether or not the
inmates are subjected to cruel and unusual punishment or even if
the state has done enough to limit prison populations. Instead,
justices would decide whether a district court judge can hear a
case before all other options have been exhausted.

In a statement, Faegre Drinker attorney Chris Casolaro said time is
running out for inmates facing the risk of COVID-19 as infection
rates in prisons are rising, nearly every day.

"Coronavirus cases continue to surge in New Mexico, putting
incarcerated people in far greater danger than they already were,"
Casolaro said. "Time is of the absolute essence. If the Court does
not order the state to immediately take action, including to reduce
the number of people incarcerated in New Mexico prisons and
establish adequate protections, the death toll will continue to
rise. That's why we are bringing every resource we have to bear."

During a news conference on Nov. 19, Lujan Grisham said she
believes the state has done a lot to try and get geriatric inmates
on parole early and work towards detainees finishing their
sentences at home. But, she said, there have been some cases where
parolees did not have a safe place to shelter in place once out of
prison. All parolees, even outside of a pandemic, have to provide a
parole plan that includes, among other things, a place to live.

"It's getting really tricky to figure out where people can go,"
Lujan Grisham said. "So, it's not just whether or not we would
allow that and have policies to adjust in that situation.
Absolutely. It's that the effort on the other side of that
equation, isn't so easy."

The sentiment that there are not enough safe places for inmates to
go was also shared by some of the state Supreme Court justices and
was an argument used by the governor's legal counsel in the first
case, this past spring.

During the Nov. 19 news conference, New Mexico Health and Human
Services Secretary Dr. David Scrase, using a flood analogy, said
there is only so much the state can do to mitigate infection spread
in prisons and that "there's a point at which the water gets high
enough you can't pile those sandbags up anymore."

Scrase said he has learned from his COVID-19 modeling team that
spread in communities directly impacts infection levels in
surrounding schools, nursing homes and detention centers. Criminal
justice reform advocates have argued the opposite since the
pandemic started. Many of those advocates have argued that prison
staff and outside vendors or contractors could cause an outbreak
inside a prison to spread outside the walls into local communities
that may not have enough hospital beds to accommodate a dramatic
spike in cases.   

Regardless, Scrase, continuing with the flood analogy, said there
is not a lot the state can do right now.

"That ambient level which is extremely high, very high water level
here in New Mexico with Coronavirus, makes it extremely difficult
and almost inevitable that anything you do, you're going to see
some leakage," Scrase said. "You're going to see these outbreaks,
like we're seeing now in [prisons and nursing homes].

But while Scrase and Lujan Grisham both said the proverbial
sandbags are stacked as high as they can go, Paul Haidle, the
director of the New Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers Association
said the state was notified early on that things could get bad in
prisons.

"The Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, along with ACLU and the
public defenders, we started putting the governor on notice early
this spring that this was going to happen," Haidle said. "It's
unfortunate now that our predictions have come true, but here we
are."

'Busting at the seams'
On April 14, the same day the ACLU, the public defender's office
and the Criminal Defense Lawyers Association filed their petition
with the state Supreme Court, state health officials reported 16
new cases of COVID-19, which brought the total number of cases to
1,407, and 36 total related deaths. At that time there had been no
reported cases or related deaths in any state prisons. According to
state officials, there have been a total of 1,335 positive cases in
prisons statewide this year and there are currently nearly 800
active cases, as of Nov. 20. With 21,523 total tests administered,
the positivity rate within prisons is roughly six percent. So far
there have been 11 inmate deaths related to COVID-19.

Tom Murray, who is at the Penitentiary of New Mexico in Santa Fe
for possession of burglary tools, possession of a stolen vehicle
and failing to register as a sex offender, said he's seen an
increase of inmates being sent to quarantine in the past several
weeks. The Santa Fe prison managed to keep COVID numbers down for
longer than other prisons. Even now, the 77 current cases at the
Santa Fe prison pale in comparison to the 477 cases the Otero
County Prison Facility has seen this year, or the 158 active cases
at the Central New Mexico Correctional Facility in Los Lunas.

But Murray said his low-security unit is "busting at the seams"
with inmates and that social distancing is all but impossible.

"We're piled on top of each other over here," Murray said in a
phone interview. "We're on bunk beds and if I were to lay on my
bunk and put my hand out, I can touch the bunk next to me."

Murray said he mainly works in the prison's kitchen and that he
witnessed a cook get pulled out of the kitchen for quarantine. That
inmate, Murray said, was allowed to return to the kitchen only to
be pulled out again for quarantine. Murray said he is concerned
that the cook may have been able to rapidly spread COVID-19 before
prison officials took him off kitchen duty.

"You're looking at almost 700 inmates for this whole facility that
possibly could have just got infected just because this guy was
cooking," Murray said.

With a 2024 release date, Murray has no chance to qualify for the
governor's executive order for early releases, but he said he'd
like to see others get released for his own safety.

"Even just getting some of the people that do qualify for this
would definitely decrease the chance of spreading, I mean we'd have
social distancing," Murray said.

NM Political Report has previously written about Stanley Ingram,
another inmate at the Santa Fe prison. Ingram has numerous health
conditions and told NM Political Report a few weeks ago that he
tested positive for COVID-19. He was released after struggling to
get corrections officials to recognize his earned early release
time. And it seems Ingram is not the only one trying to navigate
the maze of paperwork and bureaucracy to get out 30 days early.

Sen. Jacob Candelaria, D-Albuquerque, is also a lawyer who has
lately been taking on expungement cases and recently took on a
client who is also trying to get out 30 days early.  

Candelaria declined to offer specifics about his client or the
case, but said, speaking as both an attorney and a state Senator
that the Department of Corrections is not doing enough to ensure
inmates' safety.

"From a public policy perspective, I get that we have to be
balanced here, I get that the decision of whether or not an
individual is released, is an individual case by case
determination," Candelaria said. "But I think what we're seeing
here is that the corrections department is not acting with any
sense of urgency, or in my view, in a way that is consistent with
the governor's public health orders."

'A humanitarian crisis'

Some inmates, Haidle with the Criminal Defense Lawyers Association
said, are in prison for violating their parole. A parole violation
can range from getting arrested for committing a crime to failing a
drug test. Haidle said the corrections department has more control
that most think over which parole violations constitute going back
to prison.

"On a technical violation, it's [a parole officer's] word to a
judge that this person should get violated," Haidle said. "And so a
PO can actually get somebody put into custody in a jail, just on
their word alone. Then they go to a hearing eventually before the
court and then only the court can send them back to prison."

Haidle said the corrections department can and should make a
concerted effort to make sure some of those technical violations
don't result in another inmate in a facility rife with COVID-19.

"Nobody on these sorts of violation sentences is sentenced to
death, which is essentially what could happen here," Haidle said.
"I don't think that's hyperbole anymore, now that we're seeing the
spread."

Lalita Moskowitz, a staff attorney with the ACLU of New Mexico said
she could not speculate what sort of lawsuits from inmates or their
families the state might face in the future or what the ACLU's
involvement might be in a hypothetical suit. But she said wouldn't
blame families for holding state officials responsible for injuries
or death.

"Right now what's going on in the prison is a humanitarian crisis
and this administration will be responsible for lives lost if they
don't make some changes," Moskowitz said.

Moskowitz said she is also disappointed in the disparity between
the governor's message to New Mexicans to stay home, mask up and
social distance and the trickle of inmate releases.

"I've been really looking at the difference between the governor's
really nuanced response to the pandemic in the general community
and the actions that the administration is taking to protect people
in the general community, and seeing none of that nuance or
thoughtfulness reflected in the actions to protect our incarcerated
community," Moskowitz said. "That feels like a really stark
contrast for me right now."

The state Supreme Court has not decided whether it will consider
the case. [GN]


NEW YORK LIFE: Rejects Job Seekers With Arrest Records, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinekwu Osakwe at Reuters reports that a job applicant spurned by
New York Life Insurance Company has filed a proposed class action
lawsuit alleging that the company discriminated against applicants
who had previously been arrested, even if no charges stemmed from
the arrests.

Aliea Hughes-Phillips and her lawyers at Outten & Golden alleged in
a Manhattan federal court complaint that even though she was
qualified for a customer service position, her job offer was
revoked due to arrests in 2010 and 2017. She said she was not
charged after either arrest. [GN]


NEW YORK: Caballero Files Prisoner Rights Suit
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Firstsource
Advantage, LLC. The case is styled as Jonas Caballero, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. New York
State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and
Anthony J. Annucci, Defendants, Case No. 9:20-cv-01470-DNH-CFH
(N.D. N.Y, Dec. 2, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Prisoner: Civil
Rights filed pursuant to the Prisoner Civil Rights.

The New York State Department of Corrections and Community
Supervision is the department of the New York State government
responsible for the care, confinement, and rehabilitation of
inmates..[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas Edward Lieb, Esq.
   Kaufman Lieb Lebowitz & Frick LLP
   10 East 40th Street, Suite 3307
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: (212) 660-2332
   Email: dlieb@kllflaw.com



NEW YORK: Councilman, Parents File Suit to Reopen Schools
---------------------------------------------------------
WCBS 880 reports that council member Joe Borelli and Staten Island
parents are suing in federal court to reopen public schools
shuttered by the city amid a spike in the COVID positivity rate.

Borelli said on Nov. 21 that he and the parents were seeking an
emergency injunction to reopen schools, which pivoted to all-remote
learning on Nov. 19 after the city's seven-day positivity rate hit
a 3% threshold.

"Mayor de Blasio and Chancellor (Richard) Carranza have continued
to fail our children time and time again. Even though they had six
months to prepare for this school year, they failed to do so and
our children are forced to pay the price," Borelli said in a
statement announcing the lawsuit.

"Remote learning has proven to be a failure and now they have taken
the extra step of closing the schools completely. This is utterly
irresponsible and unacceptable," the Republican councilman said.

The lawsuit, filed in Manhattan federal court on Nov. 20, is the
second lawsuit by Borelli and parents.  In October, they filed a
class action lawsuit against the Department of Education in
Richmond County Supreme Court in a bid to bring back in-person
learning full-time.

Borelli told WCBS 880 that science shows schools should stay open.

"The consensus amongst the CDC, the World Health Organization,
UNICEF, a dozen peer-reviewed academic journal articles and most
health departments of foreign states and foreign governments -- all
agree that schools are safe," he said. "If you are still closing
schools down, you are acting outside of science, and the harm that
you're doing on children is not worth the risk of getting
coronavirus."

Borelli said he sees the new lawsuit as opening another front in an
otherwise long battle to get students back to in-person learning.

"DOE is actually doing a fantastic job keeping children safe in
school by their own metrics and their own studies and their own
contact tracing. And it is a shame that they put that all aside
just to appease a few 'corona Karens' who want to keep schools
closed," the councilman said.

Borelli said the closure of schools will only exacerbate
disparities among students within the school system.

"It's going to be the children who are not well-off who are the
ones who suffer and who are delayed and who see their reading and
education levels suffer," Borelli said. "The system is going to be
perpetuated by a chancellor who made his whole career here based on
restoring equity to public school students."

De Blasio has said he hopes to reopen schools as soon as possible
with new safety protocols in place but that the city had an
obligation to stick with the 3% positivity benchmark it set for
temporarily closing schools. [GN]


NISSAN NORTH: Faces Class Action Over Faulty AEB System
-------------------------------------------------------
Auto Spies reports that the U.S. District Court judge will allow a
class-action lawsuit to proceed against Nissan North America over
what owners claim is a faulty Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB)
system, reports CarComplaints.com. The lawsuit includes all
2017-2019 Nissans with AEB systems and alleges that the systems
sometimes brake for things that don't exist.

AEB systems are there to alert drivers of a possible imminent
frontal collision, braking if the driver doesn't respond to the
warning by putting on the brakes themselves. Nissan's AEB systems
use radar to determine pedestrians, other vehicles and other
potential obstacles ahead of a car, and owners have complained of
it malfunctioning while driving the car. [GN]


NORTHERN DYNASTY: Kehoe Law Reminds Investors of Dec. 21 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating potential securities claims
on behalf of investors of Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. ("Northern
Dynasty" or the "Company") (NYSE: NAK) to determine whether the
Company engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business
practices.

INVESTORS WHO PURCHASED, OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED, THE SECURITIES OF
NORTHERN DYNASTY MINERALS BETWEEN DECEMBER 21, 2017 AND NOVEMBER
25, 2020, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"), AND SUFFERED
LOSSES GREATER THAN $250,000 ARE ENCOURAGED TO COMPLETE KEHOE LAW
FIRM'S SECURITIES CLASS ACTION QUESTIONNAIRE OR CONTACT KEVIN
CAULEY, DIRECTOR, BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, (215) 792-6676, EXT. 802,
KCAULEY@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM, SECURITIES@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM, TO DISCUSS
THE SECURITIES INVESTIGATION OR POTENTIAL LEGAL CLAIMS.

On December 4, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Northern Dynasty in United States District Court, Eastern District
of New York.

According to class action complaint, throughout the Class Period,
the Northern Dynasty defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that the Company's Pebble
Project was contrary to Clean Water Act guidelines and to the
public interest; Northern Dynasty planned that the Pebble Project
would be larger in duration and scope than conveyed to the public;
(3) as a result, the Company's permit applications for the Pebble
Project would be denied by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and
(4) as a result, the Northern Dynasty Defendants' public statements
were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When
the true details entered the market, the lawsuit alleges that
investors suffered damages.

On November 25, 2020, Northern Dynasty stated that ". . . its
100%-owned, US-based subsidiary Pebble Limited Partnership . . .
received formal notification from the US Army Corps of Engineers .
. . that its application for permits under the Clean Water Act and
other federal statutes has been denied. The lead federal regulator
found Pebble's 'compensatory mitigation plan' as submitted earlier
this month to be 'non-compliant', and that the project is 'not in
the public interest'."

On this news, Northern Dynasty's stock price fell $0.40 per share,
or 50%, to close at $0.40 per share on November 25, 2020.

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

This press release may constitute attorney advertising. [GN]


NORTHERN DYNASTY: Rosen Law Reminds of December 21 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (NYSE: NAK) between
December 21, 2017 through November 25, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Northern Dynasty
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Northern Dynasty class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1996.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company's Pebble Project was contrary to Clean Water
Act guidelines and to the public interest; (2) the Company planned
that the Pebble Project would be larger in duration and scope than
conveyed to the public; (3) as a result, the Company's permit
applications for the Pebble Project would be denied by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers; and (4) as a result, Defendants' public
statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February
2, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1996.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

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

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Contact Information:

        Laurence Rosen, Esq.
        Phillip Kim, Esq.
        The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
        275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
        New York, NY 10016
        Tel: (212) 686-1060
        Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
        Fax: (212) 202-3827
        lrosen@rosenlegal.com
        pkim@rosenlegal.com
        cases@rosenlegal.com
        www.rosenlegal.com [GN]

OLD DOMINION: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Hopkins Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, CHARLES HOPKINS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-06268-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio, December 7,
2020) arises from the Defendant's alleged willful violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant from in or around March
2005 until approximately 2018 as a dock worker to perform loading,
unloading, and moving freight on and off the Defendant's trucks.

According to the complaint, the Defendant misclassified the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated workers as exempt from
overtime compensation. Although the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated workers regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week
for the Defendant, they were not paid overtime compensation by the
Defendant at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of
pay for all hours they worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
Instead, the Defendant paid them a flat hourly rate regardless of
how many hours they actually worked.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action on
behalf of himself and all similarly situated current and former
dock workers, laborers, or those who worked in similar positions
for the Defendant to recover unpaid minimum wages and unpaid
overtime wages and an additional equal amount as liquidated
damages.

Old Dominion Freight Line Inc. is a freight shipping company that
operates throughout the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris P. Wido, Esq.
          Samuel B. Robb, Esq.
          THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
          25200 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 200
          Beachwood, OH 44122
          Tel: (216) 291-4744
          Fax: (216) 291-5744
          E-mail: chris.wido@spitzlawfirm.com
                  sam.robb@spitzlawfirm.com


OMNI: Diamondhead Property Owners File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
David Showers, writing for The Sentinel-Record, reports that the
Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) proposed a
$9,850 civil penalty for the Colorado developer whose logging
activities in Diamondhead violated the Arkansas Water and Air
Pollution Control Act, according to a letter the agency sent Omni
Home Builders earlier in November.

The fine is part of the consent administrative order ADEQ proposed
for Omni, which acquired more than 1,600 lots in Diamondhead in
2018. ADEQ has received more than a dozen complaints about Omni,
explaining in its report from a July inspection of Omni property
that the developer isn't using best management practices for soil
stabilization.

"Very little effort is being made to employ any structural best
management practices and begin stabilization in the construction
areas," the report said. "These areas are within areas of steep
terrain where the drainage flows to Lake Catherine. . . . The only
stabilization mechanism is to allow natural vegetation to grow back
in place."

Property owners who filed a class-action lawsuit against Omni and
logging companies it hired to clear the lots have said in court
pleadings that Omni has no plans to develop its property, asserting
that lots are being clear cut at the expense of the community's
property values.

"We're not clear-cutting anything," Omni owner Mark Lane said Nov.
20. "We're select cutting so that builders can see the terrain of
the land and make a purchase. The residents and POA board are
ignoring the facts. They try to make things look the way they want
them to look. They're not developers. We are. We are the developers
at Diamondhead, and we have a right to select cut the land.

"There is no commercial cutting or commercial logging. It's just a
developer select cutting enough trees on a lot so a builder can
come in and make a purchase decision. That's pure and simple what
it is."

ADEQ said the CAO is not subject to the state's open records law
until both parties sign it. The mutually agreed order will
stipulate what Omni has to do to comply with state law.

"The CAO has not been entered into and is only proposed," ADEQ said
in an email. "Once the CAO is signed by both the respondent and the
director, it will be a public document. Therefore, we do not have
any records responsive to your request at this time. As to any
communication or response from Omni Home Builders regarding the
CAO, we do not have any responsive records."

Lane said he's working with the state to resolve its concerns.

"It's in the hands of Omni's attorneys," he said. "There's some
misunderstanding about what they think Omni is doing. Our
consulting engineers and attorneys are working with them to wipe
out that charge and to go in a new direction."

The letter ADEQ sent Omni earlier in November said failure to reply
to its proposal constitutes rejection of the settlement offer and
will result in unilateral enforcement action. Omni has 20 days from
receipt of the letter to reply.

Omni began logging months before ADEQ issued it a stormwater
construction permit in February. An email Omni's engineer sent ADEQ
earlier that month said Omni was told by the agency it didn't need
a permit until it began moving dirt.

ADEQ said in September that logging that occurred prior to the
permit being issued was done with the understanding no construction
was planned for the sites, explaining that logging is exempt from
the permitting process required by the Clean Water Act.

The permit is for lots in Hot Spring County, but the report from
ADEQ's July inspection said unpermitted lot clearing had occurred
in the Mystic Heights area of Garland County. Omni told ADEQ the
activity is exempt from the stormwater permitting process as a
result of Mystic Heights being outside Diamondhead's platted
subdivision.

The Garland County Environmental Inspections Department said
earlier this year that because the area isn't part of a subdivision
it falls beyond the scope of the county's stormwater and drainage
ordinance. Any land-disturbing activity inside a subdivision
requires a stormwater permit, the department said. [GN]


OREGON EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT: Responds to Class Action Details
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriel Perry at corvallisadvocate.com reports that Oregon
Employment Department Communications Officer Patty Jo Angelini took
exception to the semantics of a Nov. 6 article in The Advocate on
benefits adjudication.  

The article reported that claims are moved into adjudication when
there stands a discrepancy in payment reporting. However, Angelini
said a claim is moved into adjudication when a person's eligibility
for benefits is unclear. Scenarios that may cause such confusion
include when a person quits their job, is fired, declines a work
opportunity, or in myriad other situations.  

According to the report, there was a discrepancy of roughly 50,000
claimants stuck in adjudication in reports from separate employment
offices. Angelini clarified that "The adjudication numbers in the
legal case recently reported on are an answer to a specific (and
broader) request, looking at a specific (and broader) timeframe. It
includes claims that may need adjudication and many that will not
need to be adjudicated."

She said 41,000 of the 96,000 are being tracked through
adjudication — the rest of the claims are made up of about 18,000
recipients of the Benefits While You Wait program and those who
have one or more weeks of benefits in suspense, meaning eligibility
requirements must be verified.

"Adjudication is a complex and very individualized and
case-specific process required by the U.S. Department of Labor,"
Angelini said. "Timeframes are dependent on the complexity of the
facts in case that need to be resolved. Some cases can be resolved
rather quickly once they are assigned, while others require more
experienced adjudicators to do a more thorough review to ensure an
accurate decision is made."

Angelini said the department is doing everything in its power to
speed-up payment to Oregonians in need. [GN]


OREGON: Employment Department Picks Anew Modernization Vendor
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Davidson at opb.org reports that the state still wants Fast
Enterprises to upgrade its archaic unemployment benefits system.

The Oregon Employment Department has again chosen Fast Enterprises
as the vendor to modernize its outdated unemployment benefits
system. The move comes 11 years after the agency received almost
$86 million in federal funds to upgrade its antiquated technology.

The agency first picked the Colorado company in September and
planned to enter contract negotiations. Those plans were rolled
back when a competing vendor protested Fast's selection. The
Employment Department did not name the protesting company, but the
other finalist was Deloitte Consulting.

Officials conducted virtual site visits with other states that had
worked with the vendors. After further evaluation, they chose Fast
once again. Contract negotiations can begin in one week, barring
further protest.

The Employment Department's outdated technology has caused
countless problems delivering unemployment benefits to Oregonians
during the coronavirus pandemic. At one point, acting director
David Gerstenfeld described the system as a "spiderweb of programs"
built on innumerable lines of code in a decades-old programming
language. Shaking that spider web too much, he said, had unintended
consequences.

The system's technological rigidity contributed to out-of-work
Oregonians waiting weeks or months for relief during the worst of
the recession. Those delays prompted a class action lawsuit.

Fast Enterprises has built unemployment systems for other states.
It also performed major upgrades for the Oregon Department of
Revenue and the DMV. The Oregonian reported that Fast's
unemployment benefits systems ran into problems with fraud
detection in Washington and Michigan.

The Employment Department has said that known issues can be
addressed as Oregon's new system is negotiated and designed.

The system's long-awaited modernization won't help Oregonians
during this pandemic. The agency still expects the modernization
program to take until 2025 to wrap up, though parts of it could
begin earlier. [GN]


OTTAWA: Civil Servants Allege Discrimination in Proposed Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
cbc.ca reports that a group of current and former Black civil
servants has issued a proposed class-action lawsuit against the
federal government alleging it discriminated against Black
employees for decades.

They claim the government has excluded Black federal employees from
being promoted.

"Our exclusion at the top levels of the public service, in my view,
has really disenfranchised Canada from that talent and that ability
and the culture that Black workers bring to the table and that
different perspective," said Nicholas Marcus Thompson.

Thompson is one of 12 former or current employees from multiple
government departments who are representative plaintiffs in the
class action. Lawyers representing them say the suit could
ultimately cover tens of thousands of people who have worked in the
federal public service since 1970.

The lawsuit comes at a time of heightened awareness about systemic
and anti-Black racism.

In June, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said systemic racism "is an
issue across the country, in all our institutions."

The plaintiffs in the proposed class action are asking for $900
million in damages, a declaration from the government that it
infringed on the group's charter rights and a plan going forward to
promote more Black employees.

It was filed in the Federal Court of Canada and is awaiting
certification. The government is expected to be served in the
coming days.

Lack of representation

The lawyers representing the civil servants say the suit is likely
the first of its kind in Canada involving Black public servants at
the federal level. The statement of claim names more than 50
departments and agencies as comprising the public service.

Last year, two Black Ontario government employees sued the Ontario
Public Service, among others, alleging discrimination because they
were Black women.

In an interview in Toronto with CBC News, Thompson said that when
he joined the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) six years ago, something
felt off to him.

"When I became a Canadian citizen many years ago, I remember the
citizenship judge saying that Canada is a place where freedom
abounds and opportunities are endless. But when I joined the CRA,
that was my expectation that I could join, start at any position
and climb the ranks. And my goal was really to serve Canadians," he
said.

"I quickly realized that the agency was not, you know, as I thought
it would be: all inclusive and diverse."

Thompson, who was a collections officer, said a lack of Black
representation in the agency caused his morale and confidence to
suffer. He also said the work environment was toxic and led to
illness.

When his doctor gave him a prescription for a "workplace
accommodation," Thompson said he was told to clean closets because
no other work was available.

The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, which is the employer of
the federal public service, said it could not comment on the
allegations in the suit because it was before the courts.

"Systemic racism and discrimination is a painful lived reality for
Black Canadians, racialized Canadians and Indigenous people," said
spokesperson Bianca Healy in a statement.

"The government has taken steps to address anti-Black racism,
systemic discrimination and injustice across the country."

She said that includes a recently announced $12 million for "a
dedicated Centre on Diversity and Inclusion in the Federal Public
Service."

The CRA referred CBC News to the Treasury Board statement.

Complaints in multiple departments and agencies
Bernadeth Betchi is another representative plaintiff who also
worked for the CRA off and on for several years.

In a Skype interview, she described a toxic workplace where she
said she experienced microaggressions and had to go on sick leave.
She had to work twice as hard as her non-Black colleagues to get
noticed, she said.

Betchi ended up leaving the CRA and eventually found work at the
Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) — a federal organization
that handles complaints about discrimination.

"Everything that they are about was everything that I am about, you
know, it resonated with my values. It's there to help Canadians —
Canadians who have been discriminated against, you know, on
different grounds. And so I knew that this is where I needed to
be," said Betchi, who's on a maternity leave from the CHRC.

But her views quickly changed.

"When I started working there, I saw that, unfortunately, what the
mandate says and what's being done inside of the organization is
completely different. Black folks within the Canadian Human Rights
Commission, my Black colleagues, are suffering. They're being —
there's a lot of adverse differential treatment."

When asked to comment on the allegations, CHRC said it "is
committed to meeting the highest standards of equality, inclusion
and representation" and that it has been "examining how racism may
manifest itself within our organization and what steps might be
needed to address it."

"We know that Indigenous, Black and other racialized people face
many societal, institutional and structural barriers to equality,"
said spokesperson Jeff Meldrum in an email.

"That is why work is underway to ensure that the views and
perspectives of Indigenous, Black and other racialized employees on
barriers that may exist within the Commission are heard and
addressed. "

Proposing solutions

"There is a grave injustice that's taking place," said Courtney
Betty, a Toronto lawyer involved in the class action.

"I think every Canadian should be troubled."

Betty and his colleague, Hugh Scher, decided the lawsuit's time
frame would start in 1970, the year Canada ratified the United
Nations international convention on the elimination of all forms of
racial discrimination.

In a joint interview, Betty and Scher spoke about possible
solutions they hope will stem from the lawsuit if it's certified.

"There needs to be a third-party audit undertaken by an independent
body, whether that's a former Supreme Court justice, whether that's
a Black equity commission," Scher said.

That third party should do a thorough review "to see what are the
barriers to true equality and access and inclusion for Black
employees, and what can be done about them," he said.

Scher said another key element would be amending the federal
Employment Equity Act.

Its stated goal is "to achieve equality in the workplace so that no
person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for
reasons unrelated to ability."

The legislation is also designed "to correct the conditions of
disadvantage in employment experienced by women, Aboriginal
peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible
minorities."

But the lawyers argue that because Black employees are grouped
together with all non-white and non-Indigenous people as "visible
minorities" under the act, they've suffered by not moving up in the
public service — and the unique racism they have to deal with has
been ignored.

Betchi agrees. "There's not a lot of Black women or Black men at
the executive level," she said. "Our experience has been completely
invisible and put aside."

The Treasury Board has data that breaks down the "visible minority"
category in the public service based on self-reporting by
employees. It shows that in 2019, Black workers made up a smaller
proportion of those in top-level executive positions than those
doing administrative support.

Thompson said he's optimistic the lawsuit will spark change.

"I'm very hopeful that this issue will be addressed in a forthright
manner by the government of Canada," he said. "The government has
shown signs that it is prepared. It has done the first major part
by acknowledging that this issue exists." [GN]


PACIFIC MARKET: Monegro Suit Alleges Violation under ADA
--------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Market International, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Pacific Market International, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-10103 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 2, 2020).

Pacific Market International, LLC provides containers. The Company
offers collapsible bowls, outdoor mugs, one-handed vacuum mugs,
water bottles, and tumblers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PHI AIR: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik Files Wage Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Sacramento employment law attorneys, at Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed a class action complaint alleging that
PHI Air Medical, LLC failed to provide their California employees
with correct minimum and overtime wages. The PHI Air Medical, LLC,
class action lawsuit, Case No. 62973, is currently pending in the
Lassen County Superior Court of the State of California.

The complaint alleges PHI Air Medical, LLC committed acts of unfair
competition in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law,
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. (the "UCL"), by engaging
in a company-wide policy and procedure which failed to accurately
calculate and record the correct overtime rate for the overtime
worked by PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members. As a result
of DEFENDANT's intentional disregard of the obligation to meet this
burden, DEFENDANT allegedly failed to properly calculate and/or pay
all required compensation for work performed by the members of the
CALIFORNIA CLASS and violated the California Labor Code.

Additionally, DEFENDANT allegedly failed to reimburse and indemnify
PLAINTIFFS and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for required business
expenses incurred by them in direct consequence of discharging
their duties on behalf of DEFENDANT. Cal. Lab. Code § 2802
expressly states that "an employer shall indemnify his or her
employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the
employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her
duties . . ."

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

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


PINTEREST INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Jan. 22 Bid Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
Pinterest Inc. ("Pinterest" or the "Company") (NYSE: PINS) from May
16, 2019 through November 1, 2019 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

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

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) Pinterest's addressable market in the U.S. was reaching its
maximum capacity; (2) which significantly decelerated Pinterest's
future ability to monetize on U.S. average revenue per user; (3)
Pinterest was at an increased risk of losing advertising revenue;
and (4) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times or lacked a reasonable
basis and omitted material facts.

On October 31, 2019, post-market, Pinterest reported its financial
results for the third quarter of 2019. The Company reported
disappointing financial results, including 8% growth in U.S. MAUs
year-over-year, which reached 87 million, only 8 million more than
the same period of the previous year. Pinterest also missed
expected US advertising revenue targets. Pinterest only marginally
increased its guidance, implying further deceleration in future
quarters.

On this news, Pinterest's stock price fell approximately 17% to
close at $20.86 per share on November 1, 2019, on unusually high
trading value.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 22, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Pinterest securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/pinterestinc-pins-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-335/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

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

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


PINTEREST INC: Gross Law Announces Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in Pinterest Inc.
Shareholders who purchased shares in the following companies during
the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding
possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff
is not required to partake in any recovery.

Pinterest, Inc. (NYSE:PINS)

Investors Affected : May 16, 2019 - November 1, 2019

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Pinterest, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the Company's addressable market in the U.S. was
reaching its maximum capacity; (ii) which significantly decelerated
Pinterest's future ability to monetize on U.S. average revenue per
user; (iii) Pinterest was at an increased risk of losing
advertising revenue; (iv) and as a result, Defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted material facts.

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]


PINTEREST INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of January 22 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of Pinterest, Inc shareholders. Shareholders
interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadline
listed to petition the court. Further details about the case can be
found at the link provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

PINS Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/pinterest-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11360&wire=1

PINS Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased May 16, 2019 -
November 1, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : January 22, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/pinterest-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11360&wire=1

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

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

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



PINTEREST INC: Portnoy Law Announces Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Pinterest, Inc. ("Pinterest" or "the
Company") (NYSE: PINS) investors that acquired securities between
May 16, 2019 through November 1, 2019.  

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

It is alleged in the complaint that during the Class Period,
Pinterest made misleading and/or false statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Pinterest's addressable market in the U.S. was
approaching its maximum capacity; (2) which significantly
decelerated Pinterest's future ability to monetize on U.S. average
revenue per user; (3) Pinterest's risk of losing advertising
revenue was increasing; and (4) at all relevant times, Pinterest's
public statements were materially misleading and false, or lacked a
reasonable basis and omitted material facts, as a result.

On October 31, 2019, post-market, Pinterest reported its third
quarter financial results for 2019. Pinterest reported
disappointing financial results, including 8% growth in the U.S.
year-over-year MAUs, which had reached 87 million, only 8 million
more than the same period of the previous year. Pinterest also
missed their expected US advertising revenue targets. Pinterest's
guidance was only marginally increased, which implied further
deceleration in future quarters.

Pinterest's stock price fell approximately 17% on this news, to
close at $20.86 per share on November 1, 2019, on unusually high
trading value.

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

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


PINTEREST INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Jan. 22 Motion Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Pinterest, Inc. (NYSE: PINS) between May 16, 2019 to
November 1, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks
to recover damages for Pinterest investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the Pinterest class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1995.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

The Complaint alleges that Pinterest made false and misleading
statements to the public throughout the Class Period and failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company's addressable market in the U.S. was
reaching its maximum capacity; (2) which significantly decelerated
Pinterest's future ability to monetize on U.S. average revenue per
user; (3) Pinterest was at an increased risk of losing advertising
revenue; (4) and as a result, Defendants' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times or lacked a
reasonable basis and omitted material facts.

On October 31, 2019, the Company announced its financial results
for the quarter ended September 30, 2019. The Company reported
disappointing financial results, including 8% growth in the U.S.
MAUs year over year, reaching 87 million, only 8 million more than
the same period of the previous year. Pinterest also missed its
consensus projections and reported lower than expected U.S.
advertising revenue. The Company only marginally increased its full
year 2019 guidance, implying further deceleration in the future
quarters. On this news, the price of the Company's shares steeply
declined by 17%, to close at $20.86, on November 1, 2019, on
unusually high trading volume.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January
22, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1995.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
[GN]


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND: Class Certification Appeal Dismissed in King
------------------------------------------------------------------
Zena Olijnyk at canadianlawyermag.com reports that in dismissing a
government appeal of a lower court order to certify a class action
suit, Prince Edward Island's highest court wrote that it is time
the province's legislature enact laws that offer better access to
justice using this legal option.

"That P.E.I. is the only province without such legislation is not
only telling, it is compelling," Court of Appeal Justice Michele
Murphy wrote in a decision in early November on King & Dawson v.
Government of P.E.I., 2020. "P.E.I. residents should not be denied
a "modern comprehensive legislative scheme in which to litigate
their claims.'

"The large number of class action proceedings across Canada is
validation of the various provincial class proceedings regimes
established across the country," she wrote. "Without treading on
the legislative branch, it needs to be expressed that the time has
come for the government to enact legislation which would provide
better access to justice for individuals who might benefit from
such class proceedings.

This would be the first class action to go forward in P.E.I., says
Michael Dull, a Halifax-based lawyer with class action expertise.
It has been made a bit more difficult to grapple with given there
is no legislation, he says, "so the courts are trying to come up
with common law principles in a jurisdiction without any precedence
when it comes to class action proceedings."

Whether the province enacts class proceedings legislation is
"something to watch for," Dull says, but until then, the appeal
court ruling on the motions judge's decision will provide a
precedent and roadmap for certifying a class proceeding in the
province.

Still, Dull says it will likely take a long time before the case's
actual merits get dealt with in the courtroom, but we're "getting
there" slowly.

The three-member Court of Appeal panel upheld a 2019 Supreme Court
of P.E.I. ruling in which Justice Gregory Cann considered a motion
for a proposed class action in P.E.I. The plaintiffs claimed that
their equality rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms were violated by the government of P.E.I.'s policy of
excluding people with disabilities caused by mental illness from
qualification for benefits through the Disability Supports
Program.

Justice Cann was satisfied that the plaintiffs fulfilled the
certification requirements and ordered the certification of the
proposed class action against the government. He also said the
absence of class proceeding legislation was not a bar to
certification of this case.

However, while Murphy wrote the main decision, Chief Justice David
Jenkins also weighed in, writing "the inaction by the legislative
and executive branches of government" to have class action
legislation. He noted that "for two decades, spanning a number of
administrations, the courts and judiciary have sought, without
success, the creation of class action legislation."

Chief Justice Jenkins added that class action legislation would
have facilitated the court proceedings in the King & Dawson v.
Government of P.E.I. case. "For the parties, the Supreme Court, and
the Court of Appeal, it would have reduced the issues and
consequently the expense and costs on the motion."

The Chief Justice also said such legislation would be "an easy fix
that would provide residents of this province a needed tool for
meaningful access to justice.

"The absence of class action legislation is a significant lacuna in
our Island system of civil justice. Unfortunately, the citizens
most denied are those who, due to limited financial means or the
small size of their individual claim compared to the large cost of
litigation, cannot afford to pursue their grievances against a
corporation or government for harm done."

In determining when it is appropriate to proceed with a class
action, Cann referred to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in
Western Shopping Centres Inc v Dutton, 2001 S.C.C. 46. In that
case, the Supreme Court of Canada established four conditions
necessary to certify a class action:

The Supreme Court of Canada, in Hollick v Toronto (City), 2001
S.C.C. 68, added additional criteria - that the pleadings disclose
a cause of action.

The nine provinces with class proceedings legislation have codified
these five requirements in one form or another to create a
certification test that can be used whether a particular suit
qualifies.

Justice Cann drafted an appendix in the King & Dawson ruling that
sets out a "roadmap" for how certification of class actions in
P.E.I. might look like, borrowing heavily from the language in
Newfoundland and Labrador's Class Proceedings Act.

Cann had proposed a test that includes: pleadings that disclose a
cause of action; an identifiable class of two or more persons;
claims of the class members raising a common issue; evidence that a
class proceeding is the preferable procedure for the fair and
efficient resolution of the dispute; and, a representative party
who would fairly and adequately represent the interests of the
class.

The latter would involve producing a plan for the class proceeding
that sets out a workable method of advancing the proceeding on
behalf of the class. [GN]


PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Court Denies Bid to Remand Ciccone Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Christopher C. Conner of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania denied the Plaintiff's motion to
remand the case, CHERYL CICCONE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY and PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants,
Case No. 3:20-CV-981 (M.D. Pa.), to the Pike County Court of Common
Pleas.

On May 18, 2020, Ciccone filed a putative class-action complaint
against Progressive in the Pike County Court of Common Pleas.
Ciccone alleges violations of Section 1796 of Pennsylvania's Motor
Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law in Counts I and III; breach of
contract in Count II; and violations of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL") in Count IV.

Ms. Ciccone carried auto insurance through Progressive, which
provided her "medical benefit coverage" for injuries from a motor
vehicle accident.  Her policy allowed "up to $100,000 in
first-party medical benefits coverage."  After a motor vehicle
accident in November 2017, Ciccone received treatment for her
injuries and sought coverage for that medical treatment under her
insurance policy.

Progressive ordered Ciccone to submit to a "medical benefits" exam
in September 2018 and denied medical-benefits coverage when she
refused to attend.  The back-and-forth is borne out by a series of
explanation-of-benefit documents ("EOBs") from Progressive, wherein
Progressive uses "Code 6663" to deny benefits based upon Ciccone's
failure to cooperate.  The EOBs each contain the same stock
language: "Explanation Code: 6663-According to the policy a person
seeking coverage must cooperate with us in any matter concerning a
claim or lawsuit.  As the individual seeking coverage has not
cooperated with our investigation, we must respectfully deny
payment for this service."

Ms. Ciccone avers that she and other Pennsylvania drivers insured
by Progressive were wrongfully denied insurance benefits for
refusing Progressive's demands for medical exams.  Individually,
she requests declaratory relief on Count I and compensatory damages
of "$3,484.04 and other amounts which represent the sum of all
medical bills the Defendants did not pay" on Counts II, III, and
IV.

On behalf of the putative class, the complaint seeks declaratory
relief on Count I; "an amount which represents the sum of all
medical bills the Defendants did not pay as to each member of the
class" on Counts II and III; and "the amount of actual damages
sustained or the sum of $100, whichever is greater" on Count IV.
Both the individual claims and the putative-class claims also
include requests for treble damages under the UTPCPL, attorneys'
fees, statutory interest of 12 percent, expert fees, and costs.

Progressive timely removed the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1441, asserting federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(a) and the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").
Ciccone now moves to remand the action to the Pike County Court of
Common Pleas.  She asserts that the Court lacks diversity
jurisdiction over both her individual claims under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(a) and her class-wide claims under the CAFA.

With respect to Ciccone's individual claims, Progressive invokes
the Court's diversity jurisdiction.  To establish diversity
jurisdiction, Progressive must demonstrate that the matter is
between citizens of different states and that the amount in
controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds $75,000.

Judge Conner finds that a preponderance of the evidence supports an
amount in controversy above the minimum jurisdictional threshold.
Based on his independent review of both the original and
reconsidered EOBs, Progressive denied Ciccone $32,633.65 in
benefits from May 2018 through August 2019, but would have paid
those benefits if Code 6663 did not exist.  Thus, Progressive has
submitted competent evidence that, but for Code 6663, Ciccone would
have been paid over $32,600 in benefits under her policy.  Ciccone
fails to explain or rebut the original EOBs that Progressive
submitted.  She also fails to adequately explain why those EOBs
should not count toward the amount in controversy.  Thus, the Judge
is left to guess why Ciccone did not include copies of these EOBs
with her complaint.

With a treble-damages estimate of three times the compensatory
award, Ciccone's total individual damages would reach nearly
$98,000.  Because attorneys' fees are available by statute,
Ciccone's individual award could top $125,000, exclusive of
interest and costs, after adding a reasonable fee of approximately
30 percent.  The Judge, therefore, finds that Progressive has
carried its burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence
that Ciccone's individual claims satisfy the amount-in-controversy
requirement of 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a).

For Ciccone's putative class claims, Progressive endeavors to
invoke jurisdiction under CAFA.  To establish CAFA jurisdiction,
Progressive must demonstrate (1) the matter in controversy exceeds
the sum or value of $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs,
(2) the proposed class contains at least 100 members, and (3) any
class member is a citizen of a state different from any defendant.

The Judge holds that the Court lacks sufficient information from
Progressive to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the
amount in controversy exceeds the minimum jurisdictional threshold
of $5 million.  Progressive is drawing inferences from the limited
papers the parties have submitted in the case for its CAFA
calculation.  He requires additional jurisdictional facts to make a
determination on putative class damages, and he presently lacks
evidence from Progressive on the issue.  Although Progressive has
not presently proven that jurisdiction is proper under CAFA, the
Judge defers a final ruling on the issue and will allow a brief
period of time for jurisdictional discovery.

For reasons set forth in the Memorandum, Judge Conner denied
Ciccone's motion to remand because the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction over her individual claim.  Judge Conner deferred
ruling on the motion as to the CAFA amount in controversy pending a
period of jurisdictional discovery.  An appropriate order will be
issued.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 11, 2020 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybcu7pmd from Leagle.com.


PROMPT NURSING: 2nd Cir. Upholds Injunction Order in Paguirigan
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the
district court's declaratory judgment and injunction orders in the
case, Rose Paguirigan, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee, v. Prompt
Nursing Employment Agency, LLC, DBA Sentosa Services, Sentosacare,
LLC, Sentosa Nursing Recruitment Agency, Benjamin Landa, Bent
Philipson, Berish Rubenstein, AKA Barry Rubenstein, Francis Luyun,
Golden Gate Rehabilitation & Health Care Center LLC, Spring Creek
Rehabilitation and Nursing Center,
Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellants, Case No. 19-3494 (2d
Cir.).

Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellants Prompt Nursing,
SentosaCare, LLC, Sentosa Nursing Recruitment Agency, Benjamin
Landa, Bent Philipson, Berish Rubenstein, Francis Luyun, Golden
Gate, and Spring Creek appeal a judgment of the district court,
granting partial summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff class.

The Defendants are a collection of companies (and their owners)
that both recruit Filipino nurses to come to the United States and
employ them in New York-based nursing homes once they immigrate.
Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee Paguirigan was one of those
nurses.  After starting the visa process in 2007, Paguirigan
finally began working at Spring Creek nursing home in June 2015.
But just nine months later, she quit.  

The following year, Paguirigan filed a class action suit against
the Defendants, alleging that they underpaid their nurses and, more
troublingly, violated federal human trafficking laws.
Specifically, she alleged that the Defendants inserted an illegal
liquidated damages clause into each of the nurses' contracts that
would be triggered if a nurse failed to work for the Defendants for
at least three years.  That clause, Paguirigan says, was to act as
an economic cudgel, designed to coerce nurses into finishing out
their terms of employment.

In 2018, the district court certified a class of similarly situated
nurses and appointed Paguirigan's counsel as the class counsel.
Then, one year later, the district court granted partial summary
judgment in favor of that class, determining, among other things,
that (i) the nurses were paid below their contractually guaranteed
amount, (ii) the liquidated damages provision in the nurses'
contracts was an unenforceable penalty, and (iii) the use of that
liquidated damages provision violated federal anti-trafficking
laws.  In addition, the district court entered a declaratory
judgment that the liquidated damages clause was unenforceable and
an injunction preventing Defendants from enforcing or threatening
to enforce the liquidated damages clause against any class member.


The Defendants have appealed each of those decisions.  In the
meantime, the parties have forged ahead in the district court on
the remaining issues, chief among them damages.

To start, the Second Circuit finds that Paguirigan's federal
trafficking claim is neither inextricably intertwined with, nor
necessary to decide, the liquidated damages issue.  The Defendants
are, of course, correct that the topics are related, since the
illegality of the liquidated damages provision was the catalyst for
the district court's decision that several of the Defendants had
violated anti-trafficking laws.  A determination that the
liquidated damages provision was in fact lawful, then, would no
doubt have at least some impact on the trafficking claim.  But the
relationship between the two issues is the inverse of what would
need to exist for the Court to take pendent jurisdiction.

Compared to the human trafficking issue, the wage underpayment
claim and the class certification decision present even weaker
cases for pendent appellate jurisdiction.  As to the former, the
Defendants do not argue that the liquidated damages provision is
bound up with the underpayment issue; instead, they argue that the
underpayment claim is related to the trafficking claim.  Since the
Court has already decided not to take jurisdiction over that claim,
however, the Defendants' attempt at jurisdictional bootstrapping
fails.  And as for the class certification issue, whether the case
is amenable to class-wide determination has very little to do with
whether the liquidated damages clause is enforceable as a matter of
law.  Accordingly, the Second Circuit grants Paguirigan's motion to
dismiss all issues raised on appeal other than the Defendants'
challenge to the district court's decisions concerning the
liquidated damages provision.

The Defendants the argues that although a precise figure was
difficult if not impossible to estimate ahead of time, the $25,000
liquidated amount was a reasonable prediction of the damages that
Golden Gate, the contractual counterparty, would suffer if
Paguirigan (or any of the other nurses in the class) left her
position before her three-year term was up.

First, the Second Circuit finds that the immigration costs incurred
by the Defendants were ascertainable, and in fact were already
calculated, at the time of contracting.  Second, while the
Defendants say that the cost of training Paguirigan was not
knowable ahead of time, the parties' contract again says otherwise.


Third, Paguirigan was guaranteed rent-free housing for the first
two months after her arrival.  But even if that were not the case,
these housing costs would still not be grounds for declaring the
liquidated damages provision enforceable.  Fourth, the cost of
recruiting Paguirigan had already been incurred by the time the
parties signed the contract.  Finally, the Defendants' assertion
that cost of replacing nurses should they leave their position
early fall within the scope of the parties' liquidated damages
provision is again contradicted by the plain language of the
contract.  In sum, then, the Second Circuit agrees with the
district court that the liquidated damages provision is an
unenforceable penalty.

The Second Circuit has considered all of the Defendants' remaining
arguments and finds them to be without merit.  Accordingly, the
Second Circuit affirmed the district court's declaratory judgment
and injunction orders, and otherwise dismissed the appeal.

A full-text copy of the Second Circuit's Sept. 22, 2020 Summary
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6gufmlq from
Leagle.com.

JOSEPH ZELMANOVITZ, Stahl & Zelmanovitz, New York, NY; Elliot Hahn,
on the brief, Hahn Eisenberger PLLC, Brooklyn, NY, for Appellants.

JOHN J.P. HOWLEY -- jhowley@johnhowleyesq.com -- The Howley Law
Firm P.C., New York, NY, for Appellee.

Tracy L. Cole -- tcole@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP, New
York, NY; Caroline M. Landt -- clandt@bakerlaw.com -- Baker &
Hostetler LLP, Orlando, FL, for Amicus Curiae American Association
of International Healthcare Recruitment.


PULTE HOME: Faces Class Action Over Cemetery Flooding
-----------------------------------------------------
Fox35 Orlando reports that Morgan & Morgan has filed a class-action
lawsuit stemming from the flooding of graves in the historic
Oakland Tildenville Cemetery in Orange County.

Morgan & Morgan filed suit against Pulte Home Company and S&ME,
Inc. on behalf of the families who buried loved ones at the
cemetery.

The suit alleges that Pulte and S&ME built a second drive into a
nearby luxury home development and, because this new drive would
flood, they built a culvert to divert all of the runoff water,
forcing the water into the cemetery.

The area was hit with heavy rain in September 2020, which prompted
flooding at the cemetery, causing caskets to rise out of the
ground.

"It's really sad and we're heartbroken," said Cheryl Bouler
Postell, who has several family members buried at the cemetery.
"It's really sad and we're heartbroken."

The Oakland Tildenville Cemetery is historic and is home to several
generations of African-Americans from the community.

"For generations, families have been paying final respects to their
loved ones by laying their remains to rest in peace with dignity at
Oakland Tildenville Cemetery. These families were shocked and
horrified to see that sacred ground decorated and deluged with
runoff water as if it was nothing more than a sewer or dump," read
a statement from Morgan & Morgan. "We will fight to hold everyone
responsible for this disgrace accountable – and to make sure no
other families ever have to go through something like this again."

The families are represented by Morgan & Morgan attorneys John
Morgan, Kathryn Barnett, Tyler Kobylinski, and Max Karrick. [GN]


QUINCY BIOSCIENCE: Judge Strikes Objection to Prevagen Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that it was only in
November that Steven Helfand, a disbarred lawyer who frequently
objects to class action settlements, was featured as a champion of
public access in his stories about a troubling document in a class
action against Walmart.

Walmart and class counsel from Morgan & Morgan wanted to seal a
declaration in which the lead plaintiff renounced the proposed $9.5
million settlement. (The plaintiff has since rescinded the
declaration.) Helfand pushed for U.S. District Judge Jose Martinez
of Miami to unseal the declaration. And though Judge Martinez
criticized Helfand's tactics, he did end up deciding that the
controversial declaration must be a part of the public record.

It has gone less well for Helfand, to put it mildly. On Nov. 16,
U.S. Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman of Miami struck Helfand's
objection to a proposed $36 million settlement to resolve
nationwide class action claims that the memory supplement Prevagen
is falsely advertised. Judge Goodman reviewed the transcript of
Helfand's Nov. 5 deposition by class counsel Jack Scarola of
Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley. The deposition failed
to establish that Helfand even bought Prevagen, or, if he had, that
he could claim to have been deceived by ads for the product since
Helfand testified that he could "vouch for" it. Helfand, the judge
said, claimed not to understand straightforward questions about his
employment history, living arrangements and disbarment earlier this
year by the California state bar. He said he didn't know what a W-2
tax form was, Judge Goodman said. He claimed not to know the
definition of "income."

Judge Goodman's conclusion: "Helfand demonstrated that he is one of
the most uncooperative, evasive, vague, confrontational, difficult,
inconsistent, rude, threatening, and problematic deponents I have
ever encountered in more than 37 years of practicing law." (The
magistrate was authorized by U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke to
oversee the Prevagen case.)

Helfand responded to the Nov. 16 order from Judge Goodman with a
flurry of phone calls and emails, some of which have been entered
in the case docket. "Your conduct is highly inappropriate, and I
want you to know this," he said in one email to the judge. In
another, Helfand vowed, "If I have a valid objection; I shall
tender it, without your unlawful threats of contempt, without
having heard from me. Your attempt to vitiate due process is an
outrage; and I take exception to it."

Judge Goodman's response, via an order in the docket: "Mr. Helfand
may not speak at the hearing at all. Period. End of discussion."

The judge granted final approval to the settlement on Nov. 12.

Helfand told me by email that he decided not even to appear at the
Nov. 18 Zoom hearing because he wasn't sure if he would be held in
contempt for just showing up. Helfand said Judge Goodman had denied
him due process by refusing to allow him an opportunity to respond
to class counsel's motion to strike his objection. Class counsel,
Helfand said, had asked him "improper and harassing" questions in
his deposition, including questions about his physical and mental
health. The transcript, he said, shows him attempting to cooperate.
On Nov. 18, Helfand moved to unseal an unredacted transcript of the
deposition, which would make public the questions he was asked
about his health, because he said the full transcript will show he
was not evasive.

"Judge Goodman's commentary was unfounded and wrong," Helfand said
in an email. "Judge Goodman has done a disservice to the class; and
has forced me to appeal his decision, potentially tying up this
settlement and final judgment."

Helfand also said in an email that the judge was wrong about his
use of Prevagen, which Helfand said he took to offset the side
effects of prescribed medication. He said he stopped taking the
supplement more than a year ago so no longer has packaging for it.
"And even if I were not aggrieved, why refuse (me) the opportunity
to speak?" he said. "The procedural irregularities by Judge Goodman
are glaring."

Class counsel Adam Moskowitz of The Moskowitz Firm, meanwhile, said
he's trying to make sure that Helfand can't keep filing objections.
Moskowitz's motion to strike Helfand's objection in the Prevagen
case alleged that Helfand has a long history of falsely claiming to
have bought products at issue in consumer class actions, only to
fall short when he's asked to provide proof. His whole purpose, the
brief said, is to file baseless objections and then appeal rulings
against him, delaying recovery for class members until class
counsel either defeat him in the appellate court or pay Helfand to
drop his appeal. (As you know, recent amendments to Rule 23 were
intended to curb such payments to objectors.)

"I want to put Steve Helfand out of business," said Moskowitz, who
called Helfand's deposition testimony "illogical and concerning."
Moskowitz said he's hoping that Judge Goodman's order is filed in
every case in which Helfand objects to a proposed settlement.

Defense counsel for Quincy Bioscience, the company that sells
Prevagen, did not respond to my email request for comment on the
Helfand objection or the underlying case. Quincy's lawyers from
Kelley Drye & Warren argued in a summary judgment motion last May
(2020 WL 6688452) that the allegedly deceptive marketing statements
were, in fact, backed by "a double-blinded, placebo controlled,
randomized clinical trial."

No class member other than Helfand objected to the deal, which
includes a $36 million cash fund for class members and attorneys'
fees and costs of $4.2 million. A non-profit group called Truth in
Advertising filed an amicus brief opposing the settlement, arguing
that it provided inadequate notice to 3 million class members and
will not end Quincy's allegedly deceptive marketing, but the group
did not make an appearance at the final approval hearing, Moskowitz
said.

Quincy has faced years of litigation over its Prevagen marketing,
including consumer class actions in California, New York, New
Jersey, Texas and Missouri. The company is also defending a
Prevagen marketing enforcement action by the Federal Trade
Commission and the New York Attorney General in Manhattan federal
court. [GN]


R.C. BIGELOW: Seeks Dismissal of False Advertising Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Keller and Heckman LLP, in an article for National Law Review,
reports that on November 16, 2020, R.C. Bigelow Inc. argued before
a California federal judge in support of its motion to dismiss a
proposed class action that alleges its teas are falsely advertised
as being made in the United States.  The suit, filed July 13, 2020,
alleges that several Bigelow Tea products made with solely with
black, green, and oolong tea leaves sourced and processed outside
the US are misleading because they carry the claims "MANUFACTURED
IN THE USA 100% AMERICAN FAMILY OWNED" and "AMERICA'S CLASSIC" on
the label.  Plaintiffs argue that these claims violate California
law and would lead reasonable consumers to believe that the
products are made and manufactured in the US, when none of the
products contain American-grown or processed tea leaves.

Bigelow asserted reasonable consumers know that very little tea is
grown in the US and that most consumers would read "manufactured in
the USA" as encompassing Bigelow's blending, packaging, labeling,
and formulating, most of which is done in the US.  Plaintiff
consumers opposed dismissal by showing that the tea leaves in the
products identified come from the Camellia sinesis plant, which is
grown and processed only in foreign nations such as Sri Lanka and
India, and that consumers would understand the claims as meaning
the tea itself originates in the USA.

At the phone hearing, the judge expressed doubt that consumers
would take "manufactured in the USA" to mean the packaging,
labeling, and tea bags are made in the US rather than the tea
product itself, indicating that some jury-triable issues may
survive the motion.  The judge has not yet ruled on the motion.

As a reminder, in July 2020, the FTC published a notice of proposed
rulemaking announcing its intention to codify its enforcement
policy on unqualified "Made in the USA" (MUSA) claims.  As our
readers know, the FTC requires products labeled with unqualified
MUSA claims, including representations that a product is
manufactured in the USA, to be "all or virtually all" made in the
US, meaning that the final assembly and processing of the product
occurs in the US and all or virtually all ingredients or components
of the product are made and sourced in the US.  Keller and Heckman
will continue to monitor and report on enforcement actions and
other litigation concerning MUSA claims. [GN]


RAYTHEON TECH: ClaimsFiler Reminds of December 29 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadline in the following securities class
action lawsuit:

Raytheon Technologies Corporation f/k/a Raytheon Company (RTX,
RTN)
Class Period: 2/10/2016 - 10/27/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 29, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-raytheon-technologies-corporation-securities-litigation


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

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

About ClaimsFiler

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

RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Dec. 29 Bid Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Zosano Pharma Corporation
(NASDAQ: ZSAN), C. Stockholders have until the deadlines below to
petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional
information about each case can be found at the link provided.

Raytheon Technologies Corporation (NYSE: RTX)

Class Period: February 10, 2016 to October 27, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 29, 2020

On October 27, 2020, after market hours, Raytheon filed its
quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the SEC for the quarter ended
September 30, 2020 (the "3Q20 Report"). The 3Q20 Report announced
the DOJ Investigation, stating in pertinent part: "On October 8,
2020, the Company received a criminal subpoena from the DOJ seeking
information and documents in connection with an investigation
relating to financial accounting, internal controls over financial
reporting, and cost reporting regarding Raytheon Company's Missiles
& Defense business since 2009."

On this news, the price of Raytheon shares fell $4.19 per share, or
7%, to close at $52.34 per share on October 28, 2020, on unusually
heavy trading volume, damaging investors.

The complaint, filed on October 30, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Raytheon had inadequate
disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over
financial reporting; (2) Raytheon had faulty financial accounting;
(3) as a result, Raytheon misreported its costs regarding
Raytheon's Missiles & Defense business since 2009; (4) as a result
of the foregoing, Raytheon was at risk of increased scrutiny from
the government; (5) as a result of the foregoing, Raytheon would
face a criminal investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice
("DOJ"); and (6) as a result, defendants' public statements were
materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

For more information on the Raytheon class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/RTX

                                  About Bragar Eagel & Squire

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


RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Gainey McKenna Reminds of Dec. 29 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Raytheon Technologies Corporation f/k/a Raytheon
Company ("Raytheon" or the "Company") (NYSE: RTX, RTN) in the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf
of those who purchased or acquired the securities of Raytheon
between February 10, 2016 and October 27, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Raytheon
investors under the federal securities laws.

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

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

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

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Raytheon
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the
December 29, 2020 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members
in directing the litigation.  If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com.

Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]


RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Hagens Berman Reminds of Dec. 29 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Raytheon Technologies Corporation (NYSE: RTX)
investors with significant losses to submit your losses now. A
securities fraud class action has been filed and certain investors
may have valuable claims.

Class Period: Feb. 10, 2016 - Oct. 27, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Dec. 29, 2020

Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/RTX

Contact An Attorney Now:  RTX@hbsslaw.com  
                          844-916-0895

Raytheon Technologies (RTX) Securities Fraud Class Action:

The lawsuit challenges the accuracy of Raytheon's financial
statements pertaining to its missile defense business and
compliance with applicable accounting rules and criminal laws.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants misled
investors about Raytheon's disclosure and financial reporting
controls over the company's core missiles and defense business
segment.  According to the complaint, as a result of Raytheon's
faulty financial accounting, the company misreported the segment's
costs since 2009.  This in turn exposed Raytheon to increased
scrutiny from regulators, including potential criminal liability.

Investors allegedly began to learn the truth after the markets
closed on Oct. 27, 2020, when Raytheon announced it received a
criminal subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice.  The company
disclosed the DOJ seeks information and documents relating to
financial accounting, internal controls over financial reporting,
and cost reporting by the missiles and defense business segment.

This news drove the price of Raytheon shares sharply lower.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Raytheon
intentionally misrepresented its financial results over the last
several years," said Hagens Berman partner Reed Kathrein.

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

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

                      About Hagens Berman

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contacts

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 877-9500 (toll free)
(610) 667-7706
info@ktmc.com [GN]


RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Dec. 29 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against Raytheon
Technologies Corporation (NYSE: RTX) ("Raytheon" or "the Company")
for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between February
10, 2016 and October 27, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before December 29, 2020.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Raytheon failed to maintain adequate
controls over financial reporting. The Company suffered from
improper financial accounting. The Company misreported costs from
its Missiles & Defense business since 2009. The Company fell under
investigation by the DOJ based on its improper accounting. Based on
these facts, the Company's public statements were false and
materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market
learned the truth about Raytheon, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

CONTACT:

The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]


RCMP: Media Statement on Bastarache Report on Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian National Federation Police issued a statement from
Brian Sauve, President of the National Police Federation, regarding
Honourable Michel Bastarache's final report released on the Merlo
Davidson settlement:

"We welcome the end of this legal chapter for the survivors, whose
claims have now been settled, and we hope they find some healing
and closure. The report contains details of unacceptable and
unbearable actions and attitudes, and those responsible should be
held accountable. We fully condemn this type of conduct and any
type of sexual violence, harassment, or discrimination.

While the world has changed and evolved since this action was
settled in 2016, there is still much work to do to achieve equality
and respect for everyone. Regrettably, workplace harassment is an
issue that permeates across too many sectors and organizations, no
matter their size, their composition, or their location.

Employees in all organizations deserve a safe and inclusive
workplace that enables people of all genders, races, backgrounds,
and abilities to feel respected and empowered to succeed in their
careers. And they deserve to feel confident that their organization
will take all the steps necessary to establish an inclusive
culture, make expectations clear, provide appropriate training and
create an open, respectful, and fair environment and process to
thoroughly review and address inevitable complaints.

The RCMP is taking positive proactive steps to address these
issues, and we support this modernization. All forms of harassment
and discrimination are issues that we are committed to address
through our current collective bargaining process and other
measures, as part of our mandate to provide strong, fair and
progressive representation and enhanced rights to all front-line
Members."

             About the National Police Federation

The National Police Federation (NPF) was certified to represent
~20,000 front-line RCMP members serving across Canada and
internationally in the summer of 2019. The NPF is the largest
police labour relations organization in Canada, the second largest
in North America and is the first independent national association
to represent RCMP members. The NPF is focused on improving public
safety in Canada by negotiating the first-ever Collective Agreement
for front-line RCMP officers, and on increasing resources,
equipment, training and supports for our members who have been
under-funded for far too long. Better resourcing and support for
the RCMP will enhance community safety and livability in the
communities we serve, large and small, across Canada. [GN]


RCMP: Sexual Abuse Victims Come Forward as Claims Deadline Looms
----------------------------------------------------------------
Meghan Grant, writing for CBC.ca, reports that with a January
deadline looming, only a fraction of the women expected to register
claims have come forward to be part of the $100-million class
action sexual harassment lawsuit against the RCMP, but according to
a law firm involved in registering claimants, the stories emerging
are "horrifying."

The lawsuit will compensate former civilian RCMP employees,
volunteers and even students who faced gender-based discrimination,
harassment and assault between 1974 and 2019.

Although it was estimated that about 3,500 claims would be
registered, only 168 women have come forward, and with a Jan. 12
deadline, time is running out.

But the experiences of the women who have thus far come forward are
extreme — they include grooming, stalking and rape.

Eligible women may not be aware of deadline

The federal court approved the class action suit on March 11, the
same day the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global
pandemic.

The media attention devoted to the worldwide crisis means some of
the eligible women might not have heard about the lawsuit, says
Jill Taylor, a lawyer with Higgerty Law, which along with
Vancouver-based Klein Lawyers LLP, is one of two firms representing
the bulk of the plaintiffs.

"They may not be aware that this class action is occurring and
they're certainly not aware that there's a timeline to it, so
that's a concern that I have," said Taylor.

In 1999, Joyce was 30 years old and in an unhappy marriage. She
wanted out but needed to line up a job first so she and her son
could be self-sufficient.

Joyce, not her real name, still lives in the same East Coast town
where she worked for the RCMP in 1999.

'Who's going to believe me?'

Though it was a volunteer position, Joyce felt working for the RCMP
would look great on her resume. She saw working for the Mounties as
"prestigious."

But it wasn't long before an officer, 15 years her senior, began
targeting her. First, it was comments about her appearance, sexual
advances and unwanted touching.

One day, the officer showed up in uniform at Joyce's apartment. He
forced his way inside and raped her.

"I knew I'd get it sooner or later from you," he said. "I'll see
you later. I'll be in touch."

After that, the officer began showing up at Joyce's new job,
stalking her.

Joyce says she felt fearful and powerless. Her attacker was a
police officer. He knew everyone in town.

"I had nowhere to go," she said in a phone interview. "Who's going
to believe me?"

Grooming

That's a common thread the all-female team working with claimants
hears.

Violet is a social worker and a primary claims advocate (PCA)
working with claimants, gathering their stories and supporting
them.

"There's so much careful thought and precision put into the
grooming of these women," said Violet, who doesn't want to be
identified by her real name because of the sensitive nature of the
work.

"It's very clear that these members, the perpetrators, were quite
practised in what they've done. Whenever I hear a story I can't
help but think this person has done this to someone else before."

'I'll always carry the scars'

Cara Fall, who also has a background in social work and is
overseeing the PCAs, says the level of fear the claimants come to
the table with is significant but not surprising.

"If this is the RCMP and what they're capable of, who do you turn
to?"

"There is no safe place to go when the place that we're taught as
children as the safe place to go becomes the place of danger and
abuse."

Now, 20 years later, Joyce is still terrified to be alone. She
calls her new husband her "security blanket."

"I'll always carry the scars," she said.

Eligible claimants to receive $10K - $222K

In 2016, the first RCMP class-action settlement -- known as the
Merlo-Davidson settlement -- covered female officers who faced
gender-based discrimination, harassment and assault.

In Merlo-Davidson, more than 3,000 women came forward, 15 per cent
of the potential class.

In this case, with the potential class at 41,000, so far only 0.5
per cent of eligible women have registered.

"Something's happened," said Taylor. "We don't know what it is. It
could be COVID, it could be fear. But it doesn't make sense to me
that when you have the same members, the same perpetrators . . .
the same environment."

The law firms are using a trauma-informed process -- typically seen
in health care -- in its dealings with plaintiffs.

Women who experienced harassment based on gender or sexual
orientation are eligible for between $10,000 and $222,000 each.

Three retired female judges have been hired as assessors to act as
independent adjudicators. The panel will decide in each case if the
claimant qualifies for compensation and will assign a level of
harassment.

Joyce says it's not about the money, though.

"I needed to tell my story," she said. "I really hope this movement
drives change." [GN]


RECKITT BENCKISER: Sterling Fund Suit Transferred to N.Y. Dist. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as City of Sterling Heights Police & Fire
Retirement System, City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System
and City of Pontiac General Employee's Retirement System,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Reckitt Benckiser Group PLC, Rakesh Kapoor, Adrian
Hennah, Shaun Thaxter and Adrian Bellamy, Defendants, was
transferred from the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey with the assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-15382 to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on Dec. 1,
2020, and assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-10041-PKC.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as
Securities/Commodities filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange
Act.

Reckitt Benckiser Group plc is a British multinational consumer
goods company headquartered in Slough, England. It is a producer of
health, hygiene and home products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Christopher Adam Seeger, Esq.
   Seeger Weiss LLP
   55 Challenger Road
   6th Floor
   Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
   Tel: (973) 639-9100
   Fax: (973) 639-9393
   Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com

     - and -

   Christopher L. Ayers, Esq.
   SEEGER WEISS LLP
   55 Challenger Road
   6th Floor
   Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
   Tel: (973) 639-9100
   Email: cayers@seegerweiss.com

     - and -

   David R. Buchanan, Esq.
   Seeger Weiss LLP
   55 Challenger Rd, 6th Fl
   Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
   Tel: (212) 584-0700
   Fax: (212) 584-0799
   Email: dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com

The Defendants are represented by:

   TRAVIS MISCIA, Esq.
   WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP
   7 WORLD TRADE CENTER
   250 GREENWICH STREET
   NEW YORK, NY 10007
   Tel: (212) 295-6425
   Email: travis.miscia@wilmerhale.com



SAG-AFTRA: Performers Union Sues Over Health Plan Misrepresentation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave McNary at variety.com reports that three days after the
SAG-AFTRA Health Plan and its Trustees were sued over upcoming cuts
in benefits and eligibility for the plan, leaders of SAG-AFTRA have
blasted backers of the suit and accused them of lying.

"There's no easy way to say this: You are being misled," the
performers union said in a message to its 160,000 members. "Since
the changes to the SAG-AFTRA Health Plan were announced in August,
there has been a deliberate public and social media campaign
spreading misinformation and fear."

The message to members made no mention of the  federal class-action
suit, with 91-year-old Ed Asner as lead plaintiff. The action,
filed Dec. 1, estimated that the health plan changes eliminated
coverage for about 11,750 of 32,000 participants, including 8,200
senior performers. It alleges two counts of breach of fiduciary
duty, one count of engaging in a prohibited transaction and one
count of failing to disclose information material to plan
participants.

In August, the health plan announced would raise the earnings floor
for eligibility from $18,040 a year to $25,950, effective Jan. 1.
Trustees said at that point that without restructuring, the plan
was projecting a deficit of $141 million this year and $83 million
in 2021. The suit asks that the court appoint any independent
executive to operate the fund. The health plan announced that the
suit was without merit and would be "vigorously" opposed.

The suit also asserts that the SAG-AFTRA Health Plan Trustees knew
soon after the SAG and AFTRA health plans merged in 2017 that the
health benefit structure was not sustainable.

"However, the trustees did not disclose that information to members
of the union's bargaining committees on the most recent successor
deals for the commercials contract, a new Netflix contract and the
feature-primetime TV contract, approved in June with $54 million of
the $318 million in gains going to the health plan," the suit said.
"Far less draconian and equitable adjustments were available for a
one-time event like Covid-19, such as increased diversions."

SAG-AFTRA's message to members asserted that the plan and trustees
are blameless for the cuts: "We understand that change, myths and
rumors have led to anger and frustration. We also know that truth
is the best balm in uncertain times. Here are five facts you need
to know about changes to the SAG-AFTRA Health Plan: Without
significant changes, the SAG-AFTRA Health Plan's reserves would
have vanished for ALL participants by 2024. Ask yourself this: Why
would the Health Plan want to reduce coverage for members if there
was any other option?"

The union insisted that the trustees had no other choice except to
make the cuts: "The idea that premium increases or higher employer
contributions alone could have fixed the Health Plan is simply
wrong. The root of the problem is the exorbitant cost of healthcare
-- a problem made worse by our industry's production shutdown due
to the pandemic crisis. The cost of healthcare remains a top issue
for Americans, and the SAG-AFTRA Health Plan is not immune from
this and other economic forces. Structural changes were required to
put the Plan on a secure footing now and into the future."

The message also asserted that senior performers are not losing
their healthcare coverage.

"They will continue to have Medicare as their primary insurance, as
they do," it said. "Plus, they will receive a stipend under the new
Health Reimbursement Account Plan to use for supplemental coverage
of their choosing through Via Benefits. For many Senior Performers,
this will mean comparable coverage at a comparable price."

The message also asserted that spouses aren't getting "kicked off"
the plan and points to a COBRA plan that will enable those who
qualify will be eligible to maintain their SAG-AFTRA Health Plan
coverage with significantly reduced COBRA premiums -- at only 20%
of the regular COBRA premium -- for 12-18 months after their
current eligibility expires.

No leaders signed their names to the message. SAG-AFTRA National
Executive Director David White is a Trustee and one of more than
three dozen defendants. [GN]



SAN DIEGO USD: 9th Cir. Allows JF to Revise 1st Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, J.F., a minor, by and through Guardians Ad Litem Aron
Feiles and Alexandra Feiles, individually on and on behalf of the
proposed class, Plaintiff-Appellant v. SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT, a government entity, Defendant-Appellee, Case No.
20-55376 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's
dismissal without leave to amend J.F.'s first amended complaint.

The class action is brought under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act ("IDEA") against San Diego Unified School District
("SDU").

The Ninth Circuit holds that the district court properly dismissed
the action because J.F. should have first exhausted the
administrative process.  The inadequacy and futility exceptions to
IDEA's exhaustion requirement do not apply to J.F.'s failure to
exhaust administrative remedies.

Specifically, exhaustion was not inadequate because J.F.'s claims
are not systemic, the Appellate Court says.  Rather, J.F. seeks
relief only as to one component of SDU's special education
program--the provision of one-to-one aides--for only some periods
of time.  The 2017 examples that J.F. alleges support a finding of
futility have no real connection to SDU's alleged failure,
beginning in 2018, to provide aides in accordance with J.F. and the
class' individualized education plans.  Thus, even taking the
factual allegations in J.F.'s complaint as true, exhaustion would
not be futile because SDU could comply with an administrative order
to provide the one-to-one aides.  Requiring J.F. to exhaust would
also serve exhaustion's purposes by giving SDU the "opportunity to
correct" the aide problem before the issue is brought to federal
court.

The Appellate Court, however, finds that the district court abused
its discretion in denying leave to amend.  The denial of an
opportunity to amend is within the discretion of the District
Court, but outright refusal to grant the leave without any
justifying reason appearing for the denial is not an exercise of
discretion; it is merely abuse of that discretion and inconsistent
with the spirit of the Federal Rules.

Finally, when dismissing J.F.'s FAC without leave to amend, the
district court recited the relevant standard, but did not actually
apply that standard or give any reason for denying leave to amend.
Instead, it merely concluded that the Plaintiff's FAC is dismissed
without leave to amend.  Moreover, the record does not clearly
dictate denying leave to amend on futility grounds because J.F.
could have alleged new facts excusing the exhaustion requirement.

The district court did not appear to know about or inquire into
J.F.'s reasons for requesting leave to amend, the Appellate Court
says.  But J.F. alleges he could have truthfully added an
allegation that other students tried to file administrative
complaints on the aide issue, but SDU told them, through their
attorneys, not to.  The new allegation does not contradict J.F.'s
pleadings.  Importantly, it bears on whether J.F.'s claims are
systemic by hinting at the inadequacy of the IDEA's dispute
resolution procedure.  Because J.F. might have added allegations
with the potential to excuse exhaustion, amendment was not futile
as a matter of law and the district court's lack of written
findings was an abuse of discretion.  J.F. is, therefore, entitled
to leave to amend.

In light of the foregoing, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part,
reversed in part, and remanded with instructions to grant J.F.
leave to amend.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 11, 2020 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8d6rdvm from Leagle.com.


SANTEE COOPER: Residents Could Get Class Settlement Refunds
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dan Hunt at Bluffton Today reports that lowcountry residents who
use one of South Carolina's largest utilities could soon receive
checks and credits from the settlement of a class-action lawsuit
involving the failed V.C. Summer nuclear power project in Fairfield
County.

Palmetto Electric Cooperative said members who used the utility
between Jan. 1, 2007, and Jan. 31, 2020, may receive a bill credit
or check in November or December.

The credits (for amounts less than $25) and checks (for amounts $25
or greater) come from a $520 million settlement paid by Santee
Cooper and Dominion Energy (formerly South Carolina Energy & Gas).

A report from the American Nuclear Society said the utilities were
sued "over alleged deceptive business practices involving the
failed nuclear-expansion project at South Carolina's Summer
plant."

"Customers paid toward the project, which fell behind schedule and
reported cost overruns before it was abandoned," The State
newspaper in Columbia reported.

Under the agreement, Santee Cooper will compensate its ratepayers
up to $200 million and freeze electricity rates for four years,
while Dominion will pay $320 million, the American Nuclear Society
reported.

Palmetto Electric did not own the project but said it is required
to supply checks and credits because it purchases "some of the
power it delivers to its members" from Santee Cooper.

"Palmetto Electric Cooperative did not calculate the payments," the
utility said in a news release. "The payments resulted from a
court-approved process after a settlement agreement was reached
between the parties in the class action lawsuit.

"A list of frequently asked questions and answers can be found on
the cooperative's website, palmetto.coop. If any members have
further questions regarding the administration of the Settlement,
they will be required to contact the settlement administrator."

Palmetto Electric said customers need the following information to
contact the settlement administrator (include name and 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.

Some members who have been with Palmetto Electric for several
years, and thus funded the nuclear project for a longer period,
could expect a larger check than shorter-term customers.

According to The State, refunds are scheduled for more than 1.6
million customers across South Carolina at an average of $169.28.
[GN]


SAP SE: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investor rights law
firm, continues its investigation on behalf of SAP SE ("SAP" or the
"Company") (NYSE: SAP) investors concerning the Company's possible
violations of the federal securities laws.

If you suffered a loss on your SAP investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/sap-se/. You can
also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to
learn more about your rights.

On October 25, 2020, the Company announced its third quarter 2020
financial results, reporting that total revenue declined 4%
year-over-year. SAP also stated that software license revenue fell
23% year-over-year, while cloud revenue grew 11% year-over-year.
The Company also lowered its fiscal 2020 guidance, expecting
between EUR8.0 and 8.2 billion cloud revenue, compared to prior
guidance of cloud revenue between EUR8.3 and 8.7 billion.

On this news, SAP's share price fell $34.66, or 23%, to close at
$115.02 per share on October 26, 2020, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

Whistleblower Notice: Persons with non-public information regarding
SAP should consider their options to aid the investigation or take
advantage of the SEC Whistleblower Program. Under the program,
whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards
totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the
SEC. For more information, call Charles H. Linehan at 310-201-9150
or 888-773-9224 or email shareholders@glancylaw.com.

                           About GPM

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP is a premier law firm representing
investors and consumers in securities litigation and other complex
class action litigation. ISS Securities Class Action Services has
consistently ranked GPM in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report. In 2018,
GPM was ranked a top five law firm in number of securities class
action settlements, and a top six law firm for total dollar size of
settlements. With four offices across the country, GPM's nearly 40
attorneys have won groundbreaking rulings and recovered billions of
dollars for investors and consumers in securities, antitrust,
consumer, and employment class actions. GPM's lawyers have handled
cases covering a wide spectrum of corporate misconduct including
cases involving financial restatements, internal control
weaknesses, earnings management, fraudulent earnings guidance and
forward looking statements, auditor misconduct, insider trading,
violations of FDA regulations, actions resulting in FDA and DOJ
investigations, and many other forms of corporate misconduct. GPM's
attorneys have worked on securities cases relating to nearly all
industries and sectors in the financial markets, including, energy,
consumer discretionary, consumer staples, real estate and REITs,
financial, insurance, information technology, health care, biotech,
cryptocurrency, medical devices, and many more. GPM's past
successes have been widely covered by leading news and industry
publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times,
Bloomberg Businessweek, Reuters, the Associated Press, Barron's,
Investor's Business Daily, Forbes, and Money.

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

Contacts:
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]


SIBANYE GOLD: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that on
November 10, 2020, Judge Kiyo Matsumoto of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted a
motion to dismiss a putative securities class action asserting
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 against a South African precious metals mining company
(the "Company") and its CEO and CFO.  In re Sibanye Gold Ltd. Sec.
Litig., No. 18-CV-3721 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 10, 2020).  Plaintiffs
alleged that the Company made false and misleading statements and
omissions about its mine safety program and the reasons for miner
fatalities.  The Court dismissed these claims for failure to allege
plausible facts supporting plaintiffs' conclusionary allegations.

The Company operates three groups of gold mines in South Africa.
In 2016, the Company launched a mine safety program (the "Safety
Program") to combat a sharp rise in fatalities at its mines.  In
2017, fatalities decreased.  However, in 2018, the Company
experienced a resurgence in fatalities tied to alleged violations
of the Company's safety protocols.  In one incident, seven miners
were killed after an earthquake resulted in the partial collapse of
the Company's Driefontein mine.  Plaintiffs alleged that the
Company falsely attributed the decline in fatalities to the Safety
Program—when, in reality, the drop was the result of "random
chance," as evidenced by the spike in fatalities the following
year.  Plaintiffs also alleged that the Company failed to disclose
that its productivity incentive compensation plan for mid- and
junior-level managers, which encouraged them to ignore Company
safety protocols, was the true cause of fatalities.  Finally,
plaintiffs alleged that the Company falsely asserted that the
collapse of the Driefontein mine "could not have been prevented."

The Court rejected each of these claims for failure to satisfy the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act's ("PSLRA") particularity
requirement.  First, regarding plaintiffs' claims that the Company
falsely attributed the decline in miner fatalities to the Safety
Program, the Court found that plaintiffs failed to "provid[e]
specific facts as to which, how and why statements about [the
Safety Program] . . . were false or misleading."

Second, the Court noted that the disclosure of accurate historical
data concerning the drop in fatalities in 2017 after the
implementation of the Safety Program could not form the basis for a
securities law violation.  The Court rejected plaintiffs' argument
that the Company's statements, while true, were still deceptive
because the spate of subsequent safety incidents in 2018 made clear
that the temporary reduction in fatalities was the result of
"random chance," not the Safety Program.  The Court emphasized that
plaintiffs had offered no facts to support their allegations that
the Company was aware that the drop in fatalities was due to
"random chance" and nonetheless "hid the 'random chance'
explanation from investors . . . in an effort to increase share
price."  The Court therefore concluded that the "most logical
inference" was that the Safety Program had improved safety at the
Company's mines.

Third, the Court addressed plaintiffs' claim that the Company
concealed that the true cause of miner fatalities was the Company's
incentive compensation plan for mid- and junior-level managers.
Plaintiffs relied on a single newspaper article quoting an
anonymous miner who indicated that the Company coerced its
employees to work under dangerous conditions.  The Court explained
that this was insufficient because, although plaintiffs may rely on
newspaper articles and confidential witnesses, here the newspaper's
description of the source merely as a "miner" lacked the necessary
particularity to indicate the reliability of the article's factual
allegations.

Finally, the Court rejected plaintiffs' claim that the Company
falsely stated that the fatalities from the collapse of the
Driefontein mine could not have been prevented.  In support of this
claim, plaintiffs relied on a seismic reading chart, which they
claimed showed that seismic activity at the mine hit a certain
threshold requiring evacuation of all miners from the area before
the earthquake hit.  The Court, however, found that plaintiffs had
mischaracterized this data, noting that the time stamp on the
seismic reading chart showed that this threshold was met only after
the earthquake occurred.

The Court concluded by analyzing whether plaintiffs had violated
Rule 11.  Although the Company had not argued that plaintiffs had
violated Rule 11, the Court explained that the PSLRA requires the
Court, at the end of a private securities action, to include in the
record specific findings regarding compliance with Rule 11 and
impose sanctions for any violation.  The Court ultimately declined
to impose any sanctions because it determined that plaintiffs'
allegations, while conclusory and lacking factual support, were not
frivolous. [GN]


SOUTH CAROLINA: Denmark Residents Sue Over HaloSan-Tainted Water
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Riotta, writing for Independent, reports that attorneys have
reportedly filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of the community
members of a small town in the state of South Carolina, where an
unapproved chemical was injected into the local drinking water.

Residents of Denmark, a town of about 3,000, have been battling in
the courts for years over the injection HaloSan, a chemical used to
treat pools and spas, in their local drinking water. The chemical
has not been approved by the US Environmental Protection Agency to
disinfect drinking water, the agency said in a statement, but town
officials used the additive to prevent discoloration for 10 years.

The residents were now seeking to include the state's Department of
Health and Environmental Control in their class action lawsuit,
along with Berry Systems Inc., a local company. Their efforts have
drawn national attention as the tainted water supply became an
issue along the presidential campaign trail, with Vermont Senator
Bernie Sanders donating water bottles to the town and organizing a
rally in the area to raise awareness.

"It's an environmental injustice," Bakari Sellers, one of the
lawyers involved in the class action lawsuit, told The State. "We
are going to try to go and make our clients whole for the injustice
they suffered at the hands of the city, the state and the
manufacturer.''

The lawsuit demands payment over exposure to the chemical, which
experts have said was not known to be typically used in drinking
water and was in fact banned from use in water supplies in some
states. HaloSan was suspended from being used in Denmark's drinking
water by federal regulators in 2018.

Federal authorities stopped the injection of the chemical into the
water supply after discovering it had been used for a decade, The
State reported on Nov. 15.

The lawsuit argued that residents should not have been exposed to
HaloSan, a chemical often used as a disinfectant, which officials
said had been injected into the drinking water to kill slime.

Mike Marcus, a water bureau chief for the state's health
department, has defended the town's use of HaloSan in its local
drinking water.

New study shows PFAS compounds may be found in more cities than
previously realised, Clark Mindock reports.

He told the newspaper in a statement: "We do not believe that this
has translated into adverse health effects for the users."

Tommy Crosby, director of media relations for the South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Control, has also previously
defended the use of HaloSan and said in a statement: "The Berry
Systems HaloSan treatment unit had been advertised as an effective
treatment in the control of iron bacteria and was certified."

The complaint also said the company involved obtained the
inaccurate authorizations necessary to inject the chemical into the
water supply.

If "defendant Berry operated with a modicum of due diligence," the
complaint read, "they would have known NSF certification was not an
appropriate substitute for EPA registration."

Activists have meanwhile continued fundraising and donating water
bottles to the town, which has faced significant economic hardships
for generations. Residents previously told news outlets like CNN
they were unable to drink the water, which had been discolored, for
years. [GN]


SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Class Action Can Proceed on "Opt Out Basis"
--------------------------------------------------------------
InsuranceNEWS.com.au reports that the Supreme Court of New Zealand
has upheld a lower court's ruling to allow a Canterbury quake claim
class action against Southern Response to proceed on an "opt out"
basis.

Southern Response, which was set up by the Government to settle the
claims of policyholders who were insured through local insurer AMI
after it was acquired by IAG in 2012, had appealed against the
earlier decision made by the Court of Appeal.

The state-owned entity did not oppose the claim from Brendan and
Colleen Ross -- lead plaintiffs in the class action -- being made
on a representative basis. It however objected to their application
to have their claim presented on an "opt out" basis.

Under an "opt out" format, it means a claim would be brought on
behalf of every policyholder unless they have expressly chosen not
to be part of it.

The High Court had granted leave for the representative claim to be
brought in on an "opt in" basis" but the Court of Appeal later
overturned the decision.

Southern Response in its appeal had argued the court should not
seek to develop an opt out regime in the absence of a statutory
framework, saying such an approach raises a number of problems.

It says these include process for notice and settlement approval,
problems arising from the involvement of litigation funding and
problems in the supervision of class actions generally.

"In sum, Southern Response says that given the uncertainties
arising, the benefits of an opt out process are not established.
Finally, Southern Response submits the Court of Appeal was wrong to
make an opt out order in the present case," the Supreme Court says
in its ruling.

The Supreme Court says it is not persuaded by the submissions made
by Southern Response. It says it agrees with the reasons put
forward by the Court of Appeal in allowing the claim to proceed on
an "opt out" basis. The Court of Appeal has cited, among other
things, a "compelling access to justice factors" when it made the
decision.

"For the reasons given by the Court of Appeal, we agree that an opt
out order is appropriate in this case," the Supreme Court said.
"That is the course preferred by the applicant and nothing is
advanced by Southern Response to satisfy us that there will be any
real disadvantage to members of the class.

"Finally, given the nature of the claims and the fact that the
class members will have been policyholders with Southern Response,
it is difficult to see any force in Southern Response's submission
about a lack of awareness of the possible parameters of liability.
For these reasons, the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the
appeal from the High Court decision.

"We accordingly dismiss Southern Response's appeal from the Court
of Appeal decision."

Brendan and Colleen Ross, the lead plaintiffs in the class action
involving around 3000 former policyholders whose homes were damaged
in the Canterbury quakes, are alleging Southern Response deceived
them about their claims.

They say they were misled into settling their claims for less money
than they were actually entitled to under the insurance policy.
[GN]


SPECTRUM BRANDS: January 29 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

IN RE SPECTRUM BRANDS SECURITIES LITIGATION

No. 19-cv-347-jdp

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR
AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.  YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

This notice is for all persons and entities that: (i) purchased
common stock of HRG Group, Inc.  from January 26, 2017 to July 13,
2018; (ii) purchased common stock of Spectrum Brands Legacy, Inc.
(then known as Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc.) from January 26,
2017 to July 13, 2018; and (iii) purchased common stock of Spectrum
Brands Holdings, Inc. from July 13, 2018 to November 19, 2018, and
were damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class").

Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Settlement Class
by definition, as set forth in the full Notice of (I) Pendency of
Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness
Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and
Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"), available at
www.SpectrumBrandsSecuritiesLitigation.com.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Western District of Wisconsin (the "Court"), that the
above-captioned securities class action (the "Action") is pending
in the Court.

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiffs in the Action, on behalf
of themselves and the Settlement Class, have reached a proposed
settlement of the Action for $39,000,000 in cash (the
"Settlement").  If approved, the Settlement will resolve all claims
in the Action.

A hearing (the "Settlement Fairness Hearing") will be held on
January 29, 2021 at 3:00 p.m., before the Honorable James D.
Peterson either in person at the United States District Court for
the Western District of Wisconsin, Courtroom 260, United States
Courthouse, 120 North Henry Street, Madison, WI 53703, or by
telephone or video conference (in the discretion of the Court), to
determine, among other things:  (i) whether the proposed Settlement
should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether,
for purposes of the proposed Settlement only, the Action should be
certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, Lead
Plaintiffs should be certified as Class Representatives for the
Settlement Class, and Lead Counsel should be appointed as Class
Counsel for the Settlement Class; (iii) whether the Action should
be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases
specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement dated August 10, 2020 (and in the Notice) should be
granted; (iv) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be
approved as fair and reasonable; (v) whether Lead Counsel's
application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be
approved; and (vi) any other matters that may properly be brought
before the Court in connection with the Settlement.

The ongoing COVID-19 health emergency is a fluid situation that
creates the possibility that the Court may decide to conduct the
Settlement Fairness Hearing by video or telephonic conference, or
otherwise allow Settlement Class Members to appear at the hearing
by phone or video, without further written notice to the Settlement
Class.  In order to determine whether the date and time of the
Settlement Fairness Hearing have changed, or whether Settlement
Class Members must or may participate by phone or video, it is
important that you monitor the Court's docket and the Settlement
website, www.SpectrumBrandsSecuritiesLitigation.com, before making
any plans to attend the Settlement Fairness Hearing.  Any updates
regarding the Settlement Fairness Hearing, including any changes to
the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or
telephonic appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the
Settlement website, www.SpectrumBrandsSecuritiesLitigation.com.
Also, if the Court requires or allows Settlement Class Members to
participate in the Settlement Fairness Hearing by telephone or
video conference, the information needed to access the conference
will be posted to the Settlement website,
www.SpectrumBrandsSecuritiesLitigation.com.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund.  If you have not yet
received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at:  Spectrum
Brands Securities Litigation, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O.
Box 91362, Seattle, WA 98111, 1-833-674-0176,
info@SpectrumBrandsSecuritiesLitigation.com.  Copies of the Notice
and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the Settlement website,
www.SpectrumBrandsSecuritiesLitigation.com.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, you must submit
a Claim Form by mail postmarked no later than February 25, 2021 or
online using the Settlement website,
www.SpectrumBrandsSecuritiesLitigation.com, no later than February
25, 2021.  If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a
proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to receive a payment
from the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by any
judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than January 8, 2021,
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.  If
you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will
not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to receive a payment from the
Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
expenses must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel
and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than
January 8, 2021, in accordance with the instructions set forth in
the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Office of the Clerk of the
Court, Defendants, or their counsel regarding this notice.  All
questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your
eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to
the Claims Administrator or Lead Counsel.

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:

Spectrum Brands Securities Litigation
c/o JND Legal Administration
P.O. Box 91362
Seattle, WA 98111
1-833-674-0176
info@SpectrumBrandsSecuritiesLitigation.com
www.SpectrumBrandsSecuritiesLitigation.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to
Lead Counsel:

Katherine M. Sinderson, Esq.
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
New York, NY 10020
1-800-380-8496
settlements@blbglaw.com
                                                                   
                                                  By Order of the
Court [GN]


SPLITS 59 LLC: Monegro Alleges Violation under ADA
--------------------------------------------------
SPLITS:59 LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Frankie
Monegro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. SPLITS:59 LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-10059 (S.D.
N.Y., Dec. 1, 2020).

Splits 59 is located in Los Angeles, California. It offers workout
clothing and apparel for women.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SPLUNK INC: Faces Block & Leviton Suit Over Securities Fraud
------------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP, a national securities litigation firm,
announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders against Splunk Inc. (NASDAQ: SPLK) and certain of its
executives for securities fraud. Investors who purchased SPLK
shares between October 21, 2020 and December 2, 2020 and who lost
money are strongly encouraged to contact Block & Leviton attorneys
at (617) 398-5600, via email at cases@blockleviton.com, or at
https://www.blockleviton.com/cases/splunk. The lead plaintiff
deadline is February 2, 2021.

After the markets closed on December 2, 2020, Splunk stunned the
market when it announced its financial results for the third
quarter of 2021. These results fell short of annual recurring and
total revenue estimates, and Splunk reported a loss of 7 cents per
share versus an expected gain of 8 cents per share. Splunk's
forecast for the fourth quarter of 2020 was also lower than
expected. Numerous analysts have already downgraded the stock and
cut their price targets. This includes JPMorgan, who was
"blindsided by the magnitude of too many large deals slipping in
the final days of October on the heels of an upbeat analyst day 10
days prior to the quarter close," on October 21, 2020, "at which
the company reaffirmed guidance and stated that it was excited
about near-term and long-term growth prospects." Shares fell over
23% in one trading day from their December 2, 2020 closing price,
representing billions of dollars in lost market capitalization.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, and has not yet been assigned to a specific
courthouse or judge. The case is captioned Pavlova-Coleman v.
Splunk Inc., et al., No. 3:20-cv-8600 (N.D. Cal.).

If you purchased or acquired shares of Splunk between October 21,
2020 and December 2, 2020 and have questions about your legal
rights or possess information relevant to this matter, please
contact Block & Leviton attorneys at (617) 398-5600, via email at
cases@blockleviton.com, or at
https://www.blockleviton.com/cases/splunk. The deadline to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff in the matter is February 2, 2021.

Block & Leviton LLP is a firm dedicated to representing investors
and maintaining the integrity of the country's financial markets.
The firm represents many of the nation's largest institutional
investors as well as individual investors in securities litigation
throughout the United States. The firm's lawyers have recovered
billions of dollars for its clients.

This notice may constitute attorney advertising.

CONTACT:
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin St., Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: (617) 398-5600
Email: cases@blockleviton.com
SOURCE: Block & Leviton LLP
www.blockleviton.com [GN]


SPLUNK INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of February 2 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay ("GPM"), a leading national shareholder rights law
firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Splunk Inc.
("Splunk" or the "Company") common stock between October 21, 2020
and December 2, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Splunk
investors have until February 2, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff
motion.

If you suffered a loss on your Splunk investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at
[url="]https%3A%2F%2Fwww.glancylaw.com%2Fcases%2Fsplunk-inc%2F[/url].
You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.comto learn more about your rights.

On December 2, 2020, after the market closed, Splunk announced its
third quarter 2021 financial results in a press release. Therein,
the Company reported total revenue of $559 million, down 11%
year-over-year. The Company also announced quarterly non-GAAP
earnings per share of -$0.07, missing estimates by 15 cents. Also,
analysts at JPMorgan were "blindsided by the magnitude of too many
large deals slipping in the final days of October."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell by $47.88 per share,
or approximately 23%, to close at $158.03 per share on December 3,
2020.

The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Splunk was not
closing deals with its largest customers in the third fiscal
quarter of 2021; (2) Splunk was not hitting the financial targets
it had previously announced; and (3) as a result, Defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.

Follow us for updates on [url="]LinkedIn[/url],
[url="]Twitter[/url], or [url="]Facebook[/url].

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Splunk common stock during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than February 2,
2021 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 wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit
our website at [url="]www.glancylaw.com[/url]. If you inquire by
email please include your mailing address, telephone number and
number of shares purchased. [GN]



STERLING INFOSYSTEMS: Settlement in Gambles Suit Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RALPH GAMBLES, THOMAS MERCK and ELSIE COMPO,
individually and as representatives of the Classes, Plaintiffs, v.
STERLING INFOSYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-09746-PAE
(S.D. N.Y.), Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York granted the Plaintiff's
Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.

The Judge found the Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate to
members of the Settlement Class in light of the complexity,
expense, and duration of litigation and the risks involved in
establishing liability and damages, in obtaining class
certification, and in maintaining the Litigation through trial and
appeal.

Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
the Judge finally certified the Settlement Class defined as:

   The 200,423 unique individuals identified on the Class List,
   who constitute, according to the Class Counsel and based on
   data provided by the Defendant: (i) all natural persons about
   whom the Defendant prepared a background report from Dec. 14,
   2013 and continuing through Dec. 19, 2019; and (ii) whose
   background report contains a social security trace which
   includes at least one address where both the first and last
   seen dates antedate the report by more than seven years; and
   (iii) where at least one of the addresses in (ii) includes a
   high risk indicator.

Plaintiff Ralph Michael Gambles is appointed as Class
Representative.

E. Michelle Drake and Joseph C. Hashmall of Berger & Montague,
P.C., David Seligman of Towards Justice, and Beth Terrell and Erika
L. Nusser of Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC are appointed as Class
Counsel.

The Settlement submitted by the Parties is finally approved
pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Parties are directed to consummate the Agreement in accordance
with its terms.

The Action is dismissed on the merits with prejudice, and without
an award of costs or fees to any party, person, or entity, except
as otherwise provided in the Final Approval Order (and with any
award of such costs or fees to he paid out of the Gross Settlement
Amount only).

Upon consideration of the application for a Class Representative
Service Payment, Class Representative Ralph Michael Gambles is
awarded the sum of $7,500 in consideration of the valuable service
he has performed for and on behalf of the Settlement Class.  Upon
consideration of the Class Counsel's request for an award of the
Class Counsel's Fees, the Judge also awarded fees in the amount of
4,811,113.16 and costs in the amount of $306,962.52.  Individual
Settlement Payments will be made to the Settlement Class Members in
accordance with the terms of the Agreement.  Upon consideration of
the application for payment to the Settlement Administrator of
Administrative Costs, the Settlement Administrator will be paid the
amount of $259,698.  These amounts will be paid out of the Gross
Settlement Amount pursuant to the terms of the Agreement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 22, 2020 Final
Approval Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yycg373u from
Leagle.com.


SYMANTEC: Robbins Geller Throws Grenade at Bernstein Litowitz
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel at Reuters reports that the shareholder firm Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd filed an extraordinary two-page notice that
threatens to blow up a two-year-old shareholder class action
against the cybersecurity company Symantec.

Robbins Geller was shut out of the class action in October 2018,
when U.S. District Judge William Alsup of San Francisco appointed
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann as lead counsel. Bernstein
Litowitz has since litigated the case to the brink of settlement,
winning class certification in May. But Robbins Geller's new
filing, styled as a "notice of potential conflict of interest,"
suggests that Bernstein Litowitz may be tainted by conflict because
it recently hired a top-ranking official from the lead plaintiff in
the Symantec case, the Swedish fund SEB Investment Management.

Bernstein Litowitz announced in October that the SEB official, Hans
Ek, was joining the firm as a senior adviser for European investor
relations. It was Ek who, in 2018, selected Bernstein Litowitz to
serve as SEB's counsel in the Symantec case.

Robbins Geller said that if Judge Alsup - who is extremely
sensitive about relationships between lead plaintiffs and their
lawyers in shareholder class actions – was not previously aware
that Bernstein Litowitz had hired the SEB official, the judge
should hold a status conference to "allow the court to determine
how to best protect the class and ensure conflict-free
representation."

Shareholders sued Symantec in May 2018, after the company disclosed
an internal investigation of its accounting practices and said it
had notified the Securities and Exchange Commission of potential
problems. Its shares fell by about 30% on the news, erasing $6
billion of market capitalization. The investigation subsequently
found "relatively weak and informal processes" but no need for a
restatement of revenue. The SEC has not brought an action against
Symantec, which merged with Broadcom in 2019.

SEB competed against a British pension fund represented by Robbins
Geller to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case. Judge Alsup
picked SEB, which had by far the larger losses, in August 2018. But
the judge did not immediately name SEB's lawyers at Bernstein
Litowitz as lead counsel. Instead, he instructed SEB to entertain
proposals from plaintiffs' firms interested in representing the
class, taking into account how candidates proposed to be paid and
their track record in shareholder class actions. SEB could consider
Bernstein Litowitz, Judge Alsup said, "but it may not give current
counsel any special preference."

Alsup emphasized the lead plaintiff's fiduciary duty to make an
unconflicted selection at an Aug. 23, 2018 hearing. Ek, then
serving as SEB's acting CEO, appeared at the hearing. "You cannot
just give any special weight to the lawyers that brought you here,"
Judge Alsup told Ek, warning the choice should not be based on his
relationship with Bernstein Litowitz. "There can be no campaign
contributions, there can be no side payments, there can be nothing
like that," the judge said. "It's got to be completely above board
and in the interest of the class, and not what you've done in the
past . . . .  If you come back with the same lawyer that brought
you here, I'm going to be very suspicious."

In September 2018, Bernstein Litowitz filed a brief informing Alsup
that SEB had conducted "an open and competitive" selection process
- including a widely circulated request for proposals and in-person
interviews with several law firms vying to serve as its counsel —
and had picked Bernstein Litowitz. The firm moved to be appointed
lead plaintiff.

Though Alsup previously warned that he would be "suspicious" if
Bernstein Litowitz were SEB's choice, he did not hold a second
hearing and signed off on Bernstein Litowitz's appointment days
after SEB's motion.

The case has since been aggressively litigated. Symantec's lawyers
at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati won dismissal of shareholders'
first amended complaint, but, as I mentioned, the judge
subsequently certified a shareholder class. Notice of the case has
been sent out to nearly 130,000 class members. Lawyers for Symantec
and the class met to discuss settlement in September under the
auspices of U.S. Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu, according to the
docket. (Symantec counsel Caz Hashemi of Wilson Sonsini didn't
respond to my email.)

Robbins Geller's grenade may turn out to be a dud. I'm sure
Bernstein Litowitz can credibly argue that it had no quid pro quo
agreement with Ek back in 2018 when he picked the firm to serve as
SEB's counsel in the Symantec case. Ek's new job at Bernstein
Litowitz might well be the culminating of deepening mutual regard
that he and Bernstein Litowitz developed in the course of
litigating this case.

Mark Solomon of Robbins Geller acknowledged in an email that there
may be no problem with Ek's hiring if Bernstein Litowitz has
already told Judge Alsup about it. But he said that the judge
encouraged Robbins Geller and its client to keep an eye on the
litigation "to ensure against inappropriate conduct or abnormal
connections between the appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel."
The judge also told Ek, Solomon noted, to avoid payments or side
deals that would cast doubt on his relationship with Bernstein
Litowitz.

"The question is, does the passage of time somehow dilute the Rule
23 implications associated with class counsel extending offers to,
negotiating with and ultimately hiring the very person who told the
court he would be responsible for overseeing that same law firm
during the pendency of the case?" Solomon said.

Robbins Geller seems to be hoping that Judge Alsup, at the very
least, will want to know more about the relationship between Ek and
Bernstein Litowitz. This could get very interesting. [GN]


SYNACOR INC: Announces Dismissal of 2018 Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Synacor, Inc., a leading provider of cloud-based Collaboration and
Identity Management software and services serving global
enterprises, video, internet and communications providers, and
governments, announced the dismissal of the 2018 federal securities
class action lawsuit filed against the company in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York. This lawsuit,
Lefkowitz, et al v. Synacor, Inc., et al, No. 19-4232 (S.D.N.Y.),
was initially dismissed by the district court on August 28, 2019,
and subsequently appealed by the plaintiffs. On October 22, 2020,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed
the decision of the lower court dismissing the lawsuit. The final
mandate dismissing the litigation was issued by the appellate court
on November 12, 2020, thereby ending the case.

"We commend the Court's decision to dismiss this lawsuit," said
Himesh Bhise, Synacor's CEO. "From the outset, we maintained that
these claims were without merit and were confident in our
disclosures and practices. We remain committed to building
shareholder value and the transformation of Synacor into a
profitable cloud-based software company."

                          About Synacor

Synacor (Nasdaq: SYNC) is a cloud-based software and services
company serving global video, internet and communications
providers, device manufacturers, governments and enterprises.
Synacor's mission is to enable its customers to better engage with
their consumers. Its customers use Synacor's technology platforms
and services to scale their businesses and extend their subscriber
relationships. Synacor delivers managed portals, advertising
solutions, email and collaboration platforms, and cloud-based
identity management. For more information please visit
www.synacor.com [GN]


TARGET CORP: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Francis Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, FELICIA FRANCIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TARGET CORPORATION, and TARGET
GENERAL MERCHANDISE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05986
(E.D.N.Y., December 8, 2020) arises from the Defendant's alleged
failure to properly and timely pay wages in violation of the New
York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants from about April 11,
2018 to November 11, 2020 as a guest advocate at the Defendants'
store located at 519 Gateway Drive, Brooklyn, New York 11239.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants compensated him on a
bi-weekly basis despite she regularly spent more than 25% of her
shift performing physical tasks. Specifically, the Defendant paid
the Plaintiff's earned wages for August 16, 2020 to August 29, 2020
workweeks on September 4, 2020, thereby failing to pay the
Plaintiff's lawfully earned wages from August 16, 2020 by August
29, 2020.

In addition, the Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff with
wage statements specifying her right to timely pay and with
accurate wage statement.

The Corporate Defendants operate general merchandise discount
stores. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian S. Shaffer, Esq.
          Hunter G. Benharris, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty St., 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 300-0375


TESLA: Model S & X Owners File Suspension Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tesla is looking at spending this holiday season in litigation, as
owners of its Model S and Model X electric vehicles (EVs) have
filed a class-action lawsuit against the automaker for ignoring
safety issues. The suit alleges Tesla's suspension design put
passenger safety at risk and that the company deliberately engaged
in a cover-up.

Tesla was founded in 2003 and and has since skyrocketed above the
auto market to become the most valuable automaker in the world. As
an EV powerhouse, Tesla has faced several lawsuits and various
degrees of litigation throughout its young life. In fact, there was
even a lawsuit settlement in 2009 to determine which of the
company's early employees could claim the title of co-founder,
current CEO Elon Musk included. This is also not the first safety
issue the automaker has faced either. Tesla recently started
recalling thousands of its Model X and Model Y E-SUVs.

According to a report by CNET, the lawsuit includes many National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration complaints and draws
attention to a China Tesla recall over what appears to be the same
issue with Model X and Model S vehicles. In addition, the documents
also offer evidence alleging Tesla's attempt to cover up the safety
issues. So far, it appears the safety issues in question only
concern some of Tesla's older models.

The issue pertains to alleged faulty front and rear suspension
control arm components on Model S and Model X electric vehicles
built between 2013 and 2018. Apparently, the problem can result in
a driver losing control of their vehicle, as the wheel and the
suspension begin to separate. In some instances cited in the
lawsuit, the wheel completely detached from the car. Tesla's
previous argument has stated that the issue is due in large part to
abuse from the drivers themselves, but the plaintiffs believe this
has been Tesla's attempt at evading the responsibility (and heavy
cost) of admitting a design mistake.

The lawsuit is claiming that Tesla allegedly made large efforts to
avoid the immense cost of recalling the EVs, and instead issued
minor technical service bulletins in an attempt to address the
evident issues. What's even worse (if true) are the allegations the
American automaker required customer NDAs (Non-Disclosure
Agreements) to repair the issue. Currently, Tesla has a new
software release and a separate recall to focus on, but this issue
is not going away now that the lawsuit has officially been filed in
California. It is up to the courts to decide what's next, but Tesla
may need to rehire its PR team to help do damage control on yet
another recent chip to the integrity of Tesla's carbon fiber armor.
[GN]


TETRA TECH: Has Not Agreed to Settle Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Mary B. Powers, writing for Engineering News-Record, reports that
the long running legal saga over toxics cleanup of a former San
Francisco naval base and Superfund site set for private mixed-use
redevelopment has gained new complexities in recent weeks as
consultant Tetra Tech EC on Nov. 17 sued the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and U.S. Navy in federal district court, claiming
the firm is not liable for expected costs to redo all of its
previous site environmental analysis and remediation stemming from
controversial test results in some areas. The firm challenges the
agencies' lack of evidence.

The U.S. Justice Dept. estimates those costs related to the former
400-acre Hunters Point site are $100 million and possibly more,
said the Tetra Tech suit. An earlier government action against the
consultant seeks triple damages and civil penalties, alleging the
firm submitted false claims to the Navy for payment under $261
million in contracts for radiological testing and remediation
between 2006 and 2012.

Multiple lawsuits have been filed related to Tetra Tech's
environmental work to remediate chemical and radioactive toxics at
the former naval shipyard, once a site for military atomic weapons
testing support that was added to the federal Superfund program in
1989. They include whistleblower actions the U.S. government
joined, a suit filed by major site developer Lennar Corp. and a
class action by property owners who allege damage caused by
contamination.

'Inconsistent and Unsupported'

In its latest challenge, Tetra Tech says the complete redo of
analysis and remediation ordered by EPA ­and agreed to by the
Navy, is wrongly based on the word of two former project managers,
termed "rogue employees" by the firm, who pleaded guilty in 2017 to
falsifying a few soil samples from some site locations.

In its suit, the firm said draft reports by other consultants
subsequently hired to investigate "inconsistent and unsupported
allegations" by whistleblowers about the firm's results used
unscientific criteria.  "The draft reports were made public and
have since become the center of a massive, unfounded controversy
concerning Hunters Point," Tetra Tech said.

Bowing to political pressure, EPA "arbitrarily decided that all
investigation and remediation" had to be entirely redone, Tetra
Tech said in its complaint. "EPA arrived at this conclusion even
though the data itself and other reliable evidence did not support
it." EPA coerced the Navy to support the more extensive action "by
threatening to withhold its approval to release [other] remediated
parcels at Hunters Point for redevelopment," the suit said.

Tetra Tech asked the court to declare unlawful a new site
evaluation and work plan for one parcel prepared by the Navy and
approved by EPA. The firm said the two agencies, among other
things, violated federal procedures law by relying on unproven
allegations and draft documents not included in the administrative
record, ignoring reliable contrary evidence and violating
applicable laws and regulations.

"EPA's decision was not driven by law or science," Tetra Tech
claimed. The agency "was trying to save face [amid] public
allegations of negligent regulatory oversight."

Tetra Tech has a lawsuit pending against the other environmental
firms—which include the CH2M unit of Jacobs and Battelle—
claiming they applied "arbitrary ... and inexplicable criteria" to
review Tetra Tech's work and incorrectly told EPA and the Navy that
analyses potentially had been manipulated or falsified.

Case Balancing

A federal magistrate judge has set Dec. 11 for a pre-settlement
conference to identify common facts and legal issues across some
pending Hunters Point cases. The judge will issue written orders
for the three whistleblower false claims act cases dating from 2013
to 2016 and for a suit against the firm by developer Lennar,
according to court documents.

In August, Lennar and affiliates agreed to pay $6.3 million to
settle a class action by some homeowners, but Tetra Tech, also a
suit defendant, has not agreed to settle. The developer also has a
claim against Tetra Tech, which the firm asked the court to
dismiss, and also sued the U.S. government earlier this year,
seeking over $1 billion in damages for agencies' alleged negligent
supervision of the cleanup.  Lennar has intended to build about
10,000 housing units and commercial projects on the former base.

EPA declined to comment to ENR on pending litigation and the Navy
did not respond to requests for comment.

Tetra Tech continues as a Navy contractor in other types of
services, announcing a $150 million contract on Nov. 17 from the
U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Command for architecture and
engineering services. In September the company also received a
$68-million EPA contract to provide extensive scientific and
technical support services.

Publicly traded Tetra Tech told analysts it anticipates net revenue
from U.S. federal clients to grow 5% in fiscal 2021, according to
Zacks Equity Research. "The upside is likely to be driven by
enhanced analytics used in the water and environmental programs,"
said the investment research firm. It said the firm's diversified
business structure, healthy backlog and "sound business" from
federal clients would aid performance, but pandemic impact on its
international business, especially in the U.K. and Australia, are
key bottom line risks ahead. [GN]


TILRAY INC: Consolidated Braun Suit Ongoing in Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------
Tilray, 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 the class action and derivative suit styled,
Braun v. Kennedy, C.A.  No. 2020-0137-KSJM.

On February 27, 2020, Tilray stockholders Deborah Braun and Nader
Noorian filed a class action and derivative complaint in the
Delaware Court of Chancery styled Braun v. Kennedy, C.A. No.
2020-0137-KSJM.  

On March 2, 2020, Tilray stockholders Catherine Bouvier, James
Hawkins, and Stephanie Hawkins filed a class action and derivative
complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery styled Bouvier v.
Kennedy, C.A. No. 2020-0154-KSJM.  

The two complaints are nearly identical, were filed by the same
group of counsel, and name Brendan Kennedy, Christian Groh, Michael
Blue, Maryscott Greenwood, Michael Auerbach, and Privateer
Evolution, LLC as defendants and Tilray as a nominal defendant.  

On March 4, 2020, the Court of Chancery entered an order
consolidating the two cases and designating the complaint in the
Braun/Noorian action as the operative complaint.  

The operative complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty
against Kennedy, Groh, Blue, and Privateer Evolution (the Privateer
Defendants) for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty in their alleged
capacities as Tilray's controlling stockholders and against
Kennedy, Greenwood, and Auerbach for alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties in their capacities as directors and/or officers of Tilray
in connection with the Downstream Merger.

The operative complaint alleges that the Privateer Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by causing Tilray to enter into the
Downstream Merger and Tilray's Board to approve that Downstream
Merger, and that Defendants Kennedy, Greenwood, and Auerbach
breached their fiduciary duties as directors by approving the
Downstream Merger.

Plaintiffs allege that the Downstream Merger gave the Privateer
Defendants hundreds of millions of dollars of tax savings without
providing a corresponding benefit to Tilray and its minority
stockholders and that the Downstream Merger unfairly transferred
and extended Kennedy, Blue, and Groh's control over Tilray.

On July 17, 2020, the stockholder plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint asserting substantially similar claims.

On August 14, 2020, Tilray and all defendants moved to dismiss the
amended complaint. On October 14, 2020, in light of the Plaintiffs'
statement that certain actions may have mooted some of their claims
related to the alleged unfair extension of control over Tilray, the
Court entered an order adjourning the planned November 4, 2020
hearing and removing the pending deadlines for briefing on the
motions to dismiss.  

The parties have stipulated to an amended schedule for the motions
to dismiss.   

The defendants believe the claims, in this case, are without merit
and intend to defend this case vigorously, but there are no
assurances as to its outcome.

Tilray, Inc. engages in the research, cultivation, production, and
distribution of medical cannabis and cannabinoids. The Company is
focused on medical cannabis research, cultivation, processing and
distribution of cannabis products worldwide. The company is based
in Nanaimo, British Columbia.

TILRAY INC: Langevin Putative Class Suit Underway in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tilray, 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 class action suit initiated by Lisa Langevin.

On June 16, 2020, Lisa Langevin commenced a purported class action
in the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, on her behalf and on behalf
of a proposed class of all medicinal and recreational users in
Canada of the defendants' cannabis products who consumed the
products before their expiry date.  

She alleges that the defendants, including Tilray, marketed
medicinal and recreational cannabis products in circumstances where
the defendants misrepresented the amount of Tetrahydrocannabinol
(THC) or Cannabidiol (CBD) in their respective products.  

As a result of the defendants' alleged mislabeling of the cannabis
products it is claimed that the plaintiff and proposed class
members did not receive and consume the product that they believed
that they had purchased and that this caused them loss, risk of
injury and actual injury. Ms. Langevin claims that on February 13,
2020 she purchased Canaca – TenUp manufactured and distributed by
Tilray.  

She had it tested and allegedly found that it only contained 43% of
the claimed amount of THC.

The Statement of Claim seeks $500,000,000 in damages and
restitution and $5,000,000 in punitive damages plus interest and
costs collectively from the defendants.

On July 20, 2020 Plaintiff filed an Amended Statement of Claim, as
well as an Amended Amended Statement of Claim.

Tilray said, "We plan to vigorously defend against this action."

Tilray, Inc. engages in the research, cultivation, production, and
distribution of medical cannabis and cannabinoids. The Company is
focused on medical cannabis research, cultivation, processing and
distribution of cannabis products worldwide. The company is based
in Nanaimo, British Columbia.

TOYOTA MOTOR: Discovery Order Entered in RAV4 Hybrid Fuel Tank Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California has entered a discovery order in
the case, IN RE TOYOTA RAV4 HYBRID FUEL TANK LITIGATION, Case No.
20-cv-00337-EMC (LB) (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action on behalf of
purchasers and lessees of 2019 and 2020 Toyota RAV4 Hybrid
vehicles.  They allege that Defendant Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A.,
Inc. represented that RAV4 has a fuel-tank capacity of 14.5 gallons
and a mileage of 580 miles.  The RAV4's tank shape, however,
allegedly does not allow for a full refill.  The Plaintiffs thus
assert breach-of-warranty, consumer-protection, and unjust
enrichment claims under various state laws.

The parties dispute the timing and extent of "Phase 1 Discovery" as
ordered by the trial judge.  After the parties filed their
discovery letter, the trial judge ordered that prior to resolution
of the motion to dismiss, the Court will allow discovery of
high-level documents.   The Court then referred all future
discovery matters, including the determination of what high-level
documents should be produced at the stage, to Magistrate Judge
Beeler.

The parties' current discovery letter largely disputes whether the
Phase 1 Discovery should take place at all.  The trial court has
ordered the commencement of high-level document discovery.  The
letter does not sufficiently address the parties' narrower dispute
about the scope of the document requests (such as, any specific
objections to the requests) or timing for production.

Magistrate Judge Beller thus terminated the pending discovery
letter and directed the parties to meet and confer in light of the
trial court's order allowing for some high-level document
production.  To the extent that the parties are unable to reach an
agreement, they may file a discovery letter that complies with her
standing order.  The letter brief must be filed under the Civil
Events category of "Motions and Related Filings, Motions - General
Discovery Letter Brief."  After reviewing the joint letter brief,
the Court will evaluate whether future proceedings are necessary,
including any further briefing or argument.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 22, 2020 Discovery
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yy9vwfe2 from
Leagle.com.


TURQUOISE HILL: ClaimsFiler Reminds of December 14 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadline in the following securities class
action lawsuit:

Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd. (TRQ)
Class Period: 7/17/2018 - 7/31/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 14, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-turquoise-hill-resources-ltd-securities-litigation-1

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

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

                                                          About
ClaimsFiler

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

UGI STORAGE: Hughes Appeals Ruling to Penn. Supreme Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Carl F. Hughes, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling issued in the lawsuit styled Hughes, et al. v. UGI Storage
Company, Case No. 453 CD 2019, in the Tioga County Court of Common
Pleas, Pennsylvania.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, UGI Storage
Company filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission in 2009 seeking to operate underground natural gas
storage facilities, including a gas storage field (the Meeker
Storage Field). UGI further sought to delineate a 2,980 acre
protective buffer zone (Meeker Buffer Zone) around the Meeker
Storage Field. On October 10, 2010, FERC granted UGI's application
to operate the Meeker Storage Field and certified portions of the
Meeker Buffer Zone for those areas to which UGI had property
rights.

On November 5, 2015, John Albrecht, on behalf of himself and a
class of similarly-situated individuals, filed a Class Action
Petition with the trial court for the appointment of a Board of
Viewers pursuant to Section 502 of the Pennsylvania Eminent Domain
Code (Code). On November 13, 2015, Carl F. Hughes, Ellen B. Hughes,
h/w, and Bruce D. Hughes and Margaret K. Hughes, h/w, filed an
Amended Petition for the appointment of a Board of Viewers pursuant
to the Code. All parties alleged that UGI effected a de facto
taking of certain subsurface mineral rights within a buffer zone
surrounding UGI's Meeker Storage Field -- a buffer zone for which
UGI sought certification and that was partially certified by FERC.

After UGI failed to timely file preliminary objections to either
Petition, the trial court entered Orders for both matters on
January 6, 2016, affirmatively finding that UGI effected a de facto
taking of the oil, gas, and mineral rights at issue, and appointing
a Board of Viewers. UGI thereafter filed preliminary objections for
both matters on January 14, 2016, asserting that the Petitions
should be dismissed on grounds that UGI does not have the power of
eminent domain and Appellants did not establish a de facto taking
occurred.

On April 4, 2016 the Court of Common Pleas of Tioga County
sustained UGI's preliminary objections, dismissed both the Class
Action Petition and Amended Petition for the Appointment of a Board
of Viewers and vacated the January 6, 2016 Orders appointing a
Board of Viewers.

The Plaintiffs are now seeking an appeal to review the Commonwealth
Court's order affirming the March 25, 2019 order of the Court of
Common Pleas of Tioga County, which sustained the preliminary
objections of UGI Storage Company and dismissed Appellants'
respective petitions for appointment of a board of viewers pursuant
to Section 502(c) of the Eminent Domain Code, 26 Pa.C.S. Section
502(c).

The appellate case is captioned as Carl F. Hughes and Ellen B.
Hughes, husband and wife, and Bruce D. Hughes and Margaret K.
Hughes, husband and wife, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Petitioners v. UGI Storage Company, Respondent,
Case No. 686 MAL 2020, in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners Carl F. Hughes and Ellen B. Hughes, husband
and wife, and Bruce D. Hughes and Margaret K. Hughes, husband and
wife, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
are represented by:

          J. David Smith, Esq.
          MCCORMICK LAW FIRM
          835 W 4th St
          Williamsport, PA 17701-6326
          Telephone: (570) 326-5131

               - and -

          Pace Reich, Esq.
          726 Meetinghouse Rd
          Elkins Park, PA 19027
          Telephone: (215) 887-0130

               - and -

          Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
          Andrew William Ferich, Esq.
          Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq.
          CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER &
           DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
          361 W Lancaster Ave
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: (610) 642-8500
          E-mail: benjohns@chimicles.com
                  andrewferich@chimicles.com  
                  nick@chimicles.com  

Defendant-Respondent UGI Storage Company is represented by:

          Kathleen Jones Goldman, Esq.
          Stanley Yorsz, Esq.
          BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
          501 Grant St Ste 200
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 562-1401  

UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over "No-Blank-Space Policy"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Gammage, writing for The Philadelphia Inquirer, reports that
under the Trump administration, hundreds of small changes in
immigration rules have had a huge impact. In 2019, the Trump
administration imposed a rule requiring immigrants seeking asylum
or other humanitarian relief to fill in every space on the
application, even if the question doesn't apply to them. If they
leave one spot empty - say, they don't write down a middle name,
because they don't have one - the document is rejected. Immigration
lawyers call it the "no-blank-space policy."

That causes more than delay in refiling. It can derail entire
claims and open the door to deportation. Two national
immigrant-advocacy groups filed a federal class-action lawsuit to
stop the rule's use.

But the blank-space policy is no outlier. It's among hundreds of
Trump administration changes in forms, regulations, and fees that
appear tiny and technical but that in combination significantly
impact the nation's immigration system. Now, advocates say, it's up
to the incoming Biden administration to identify and undo the often
hard-to-catch revisions.

"It's been a barrage of more restrictive rules and regulations, and
even interpretations of rules and regulations," said David Bennion,
a Philadelphia lawyer and executive director of the Free Migration
Project, which advocates for fair immigration laws. "It's been hard
to keep track of them all."

The Migration Policy Institute in Washington, a nonpartisan
research agency, tried to count them — and came up with more than
400 changes, big and small. Some are aimed at certain groups, like
asylum-seekers, and one is targeted at immigrants from a single
country, Liberia.

"If you know anything about the government, you know how slowly it
moves, and how difficult it is to get anything through the
bureaucracy," said Sarah Pierce, an MPI analyst and coauthor of
Dismantling and Reconstructing the U.S. Immigration System, a study
that examined scores of Trump revisions. "It's a testimony to how
determined they were. . . . They pushed boundaries wherever they
could."

The administration's genius, she said, was ensuring that each
slight alteration built upon and reinforced others. For example, in
2018 the State Department revised its consular manual, empowering
officers to limit the amount of time that nonimmigrant visas, such
as those issued to students and tourists, would be valid. As a
result, visa-holders must apply for renewals more often. That, in
turn, more frequently subjects them to other Trump administration
changes that have toughened the vetting of foreign nationals.

The White House referred Inquirer questions to the Department of
Homeland Security, which did not immediately respond. The agency
that administers the blank-space policy, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, said it does not comment on matters under
litigation.

"I think the president wanted to make the process of immigration
legal and fair," said Lou Barletta, a Trump supporter who took a
hard-line immigration position both as a congressman and the mayor
of Hazleton and who has been mentioned as a future GOP candidate
for Pennsylvania governor. "He's pro legal immigration."

Even detractors concede that the president, as promised, delivered
one of the most activist immigration agendas ever, transforming the
goals and direction of the system across government agencies.

"The Trump presidency will have lasting effects on the U.S.
immigration system long after his time in office," MPI said in its
study, deeming it "unlikely that a future administration will have
the political will and resources to undo all of these changes at
anywhere near a similar pace."

For instance, MPI found:

- In 2017, the State Department mandated that any visa applicant
who officers decide "warrants additional scrutiny" must provide 15
years of information on travel, housing, and employment.

- In 2018, a new regulation sped the destruction of green cards,
employment authorizations, or other documents that were returned to
USCIS because of a mailing problem. Previously the agency held on
to the papers for a year. That was cut to 60 days.

- In 2018, the administration ended "Deferred Enforced Departure,"
which currently provides protection from deportation for only one
nationality, Liberians. As many as 3,600 could face removal in
January.

- U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement used
never-before-implemented powers of a 1996 law to levy fines of up
to $799 a day on immigrants who remain in the country after a
removal order.

- In 2020, USCIS sought to raise fees for many immigration and
naturalization benefits, in some cases doubling or even tripling
them. The application to become a naturalized citizen, for
instance, would increase more than 80%, from $620 to $1,160. In
September, a federal judge blocked the changes, at least
temporarily.

It was in October 2019 that USCIS began rejecting forms that
included blank spaces.

The policy is "emblematic of the worst and most ridiculed changes
to the system," said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy counsel at the
American Immigration Council, an advocacy group. "It's clearly
designed to throw a wrench in the gears."

Instead of leaving empty spaces on I-589 forms, used to apply for
asylum, applicants are supposed to write "none," "not applicable,"
or "unknown.". In actuality, forms that didn't specifically use
"N/A" were rejected, according to the American Immigration Lawyers
Association.

AILA studied the rejection of 189 of the forms and found that all
were turned back because of blank spaces.

The lawsuit filed in San Francisco on Nov. 19 by the Northwest
Immigration Rights Project and the National Immigration Litigation
Alliance seeks to end what it called this "tectonic shift" that
requires government employees "to arbitrarily reject thousands of
applications from vulnerable immigrants."

"The consequences of the agency's rejection policy are harsh," the
groups said in a statement. "Applicants have missed the deadline
for applying for asylum, lost the ability for their children,
siblings, or parents to obtain status, incurred additional costs
related to refiling, and been denied eligibility for work
permits."

From late 2019 through July 2020, the suit states, USCIS rejected
nearly 12,000 petitions for U visas. That type of visa can be
granted to undocumented migrants who are victims of violent crimes
such as assault, kidnapping, or domestic violence, and who then
assist law enforcement authorities in the investigation.

U visas provide not only permission to stay and work but also a
path to U.S. citizenship. The process is neither fast nor simple.

The application requires that the police agency or prosecutor sign
an accompanying certification, called a Supplement B. That crucial
document -- no U visa will be granted without it -- expires after
six months. So, rejection of the main form because of a blank space
can push the police certification to expiration, placing people in
danger of deportation.

That's what happened at Philadelphia-based HIAS Pennsylvania, which
provides legal and support services to immigrants and refugees, as
it helped dozens of clients file for U visas, asylum, and other
relief last summer.

The U visa rejections came without warning, and the reasons seemed
absurd, said Vleidmy Velarde, who supervises the agency's Immigrant
Victims of Crime Initiative. On the form, a client would answer
that he had no children, only to have his application rejected
because the next question, left blank, asked for the names of those
children.

"The risk that the immigrants are taking is high, because they're
coming out of the shadows, saying, 'Here I am, I'm undocumented,
but I want to help,' " she said. "On top of everything, they're
already victims of crimes, dealing with the trauma."

The rejections left the HIAS Pennsylvania staff scrambling to redo
forms in varying stages of submission.

"All these applications we had filed got rejected," said executive
director Cathryn Miller-Wilson.

In past administrations, when a small bureaucratic change
inadvertently caused havoc, HIAS Pennsylvania and other advocacy
agencies could contact the government and get it resolved.

"But now we know it was intentional," Miller-Wilson said. "It was
intentionally putting people at risk of deportation." [GN]


UNITED STATES: Sued Over Migrant Protection Protocols Program
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Sanchez, writing for ktsm, reports that a class-action
lawsuit has been filed in Southern California against the Trump
administration's Migrant Protection Protocols program, also known
as The "Remain in Mexico" policy, alleging that disabled migrants
were incorrectly put into the program that forces them to wait in
Mexico during their months-long U.S. asylum hearing process.

Several nonprofits representing dozens of asylum-seekers filed the
lawsuit on Nov. 2 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California. It is believed to be the first class-action
lawsuit challenging MPP as conducting discriminatory practices on
the basis of disability and defendants "(continuing) to refuse to
exempt" disabled migrants from the program, according to the
lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that the Trump administration is violating the
Administrative Procedures Act by failing to abide by its own stated
policy, according to the lawsuit filed on behalf of at least 22
disabled migrants and their families by the Texas Civil Rights
Project, and the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, and
with support from the nonprofits Lawyers for Good Government
Foundation, and Al Otro Lado.

Plaintiffs include migrants with physical and mental conditions,
including a 14-year-old amputee; a 34-year-old woman with a brain
tumor; a 13-year-old with only one lung; a 7-year-old with a heart
murmur; a 47-year-old woman with vision loss; a 7-year-old with
seizures; a 9-year-old boy with autism and epilepsy; and a deaf
20-year-old man.

Homeland Security Acting Secretary Chad Wolf and U.S. Customs and
Border Protection Acting Commissioner Mark Morgan are named as
defendants in the lawsuit.

A judge has not certified the class for the lawsuit as of Nov. 3.
The lawsuit was filed in California "because the complaint includes
folks returned to Mexico throughout the Borderlands, not just
through Texas," Texas Civil Rights Project Press Manager Ivy Le
told Border Report.

"The 'Remain in Mexico' policy is inherently unfit and violent for
any asylum seeker, but it is particularly dangerous, and unlawful,
for those living with disabilities," said Erin Thorn Vela, senior
lawyer with the Texas Civil Rights Project, based in San Juan,
Texas. "Our lawsuit is demanding that the Trump administration
comply with its own stated policy. But let's be clear, this policy
has created a humanitarian catastrophe for tens of thousands of
people who have the legal right to seek asylum but have been
effectively barred from that right by the actions of this
administration."

Under MPP, DHS officials have the right to exempt migrants from
"vulnerable populations on a case-by-case basis," according to
DHS's website. But the Nov. 2 lawsuit cites another case filed in
May in Massachusetts against MPP in which a document called the
"Muster MPP Guiding Principles" was entered into evidence, and
which states that migrants "with known physical and mental health
issues" shall not be placed in MPP.

"After countless hours imploring Customs and Border Protection to
protect our clients with disabilities or severe and emergent
medical needs by processing their asylum hearings safely in the
United States, it was clear we needed to take additional action."
said Charlene D'Cruz, director of Project Corazon Border Rights
Program at Lawyers for Good Government. "We're honored to partner
with this esteemed group of immigration advocates and attorneys to
bring this lawsuit, enforcing critical protections for those with
disabilities and their legal right to seek asylum."

About 600 migrants placed in MPP currently are living in a filthy
tent encampment in Matamoros, Mexico, across the Rio Grande from
Brownsville, Texas, after being sent there to wait during their
U.S. immigration proceedings. Early last year, the camp had upwards
of 4,000 asylum-seekers, but that number dwindles now by the day as
many migrants have left since no U.S. immigration hearings are
being held during the current coronavirus pandemic, and no new
migrants are being added to the camp. Volunteers tell Border Report
there are only about 600 migrants now living in the camp.

Since the Trump administration in July 2019 began implementing MPP,
Border Report has visited the camp numerous times and has seen
wheelchairs in the camp, as well as disabled children who were
blind and deaf, and adults with severe impairments.

Prior to travel restrictions implemented to halt the spread of
COVID-19, D'Cruz regularly waited on the Gateway International
Bridge pleading with CBP officials to allow exemptions to certain
families with health and mental issues.

Lawmakers tour migrant camp, call wait-in-Mexico policy 'morally
unjust'

U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, chairman of the Congressional
Hispanic Caucus, in January was part of a delegation of 17 federal
lawmakers who toured the camp and successfully petitioned for the
release of a 6-year-old special needs Salvadoran girl who was
living in the camp.

If elected president, former Vice President Joe Biden has said he
would dismantle the MPP program.

'Decisive' or 'disastrous': Fate of Trump's immigration policies
rests on voters

CBP Commissioner Morgan, who visited South Texas with Wolf, praised
the program, saying "MPP was the driving factor that drove the end
of catch-and-release and through these network of initiatives and
policies and tools we've been able to regain the integrity back
into the immigration system." [GN]


UNITED STATES: US Army Settles Veterans' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
M. Tyler Gillett, writing for Jurist.org, reports that plaintiffs
represented by the Yale Law School Veterans Legal Services Clinic
and co-counsel at Jenner & Block announced on Nov. 18 they had
reached a settlement agreement with the US Army in a class action
lawsuit filed on behalf of more than 50,000 veterans who received
less-than-Honorable discharges.

Steve Kennedy and Alicia Carson served in Iraq and Afghanistan,
respectively, and both were given less-than-Honorable discharges
for being absent without leave (AWOL). They both appealed to the
Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), requesting that their discharge
status be changed to Honorable because their AWOL behavior could be
explained and mitigated by the post-traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD) they both suffered due to their service. Their complaint
alleges that, by denying the requested status change, the ADRB
acted in a way that was "arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by the
evidence, and contrary to the Army's own rules, in violation of the
Administrative Procedure Act and the Due Process Clause of the
Fifth Amendment." A less-than-Honorable discharge denies a veteran
access to the GI Bill for college expenses, denies disability and
unemployment compensation connected with their service, denies them
a military funeral and benefits for survivors, and many other
government benefits. It also carries with it a stigma that can lead
employers to be less likely to hire a veteran with a
less-than-Honorable discharge.

The plaintiffs requested that the ADRB take steps to address the
harm done to discharged veterans and to issue consistent standards
about how to take a veteran's PTSD or related injury into account
when reviewing their discharge status. The US District Court for
the District of Connecticut granted the class certification in
December 2018 and denied a motion to dismiss by the Secretary of
the Army shortly thereafter. After negotiations, the plaintiffs and
the Army have come to an agreement in which the ADRB will
automatically review cases dating back to April 2011 involving
discharge status changes relating to PTSD, traumatic brain injury
(TBI), military sexual trauma (MST), or other behavioral health
(OBH) issue. The ADRB will be required to give "liberal
consideration" to those conditions in making their decision about
discharge status. The Army will also send notices to a second group
of veterans whose applications for upgraded status were denied
between October 2001 and April 2011. That group may reapply for an
upgrade to Honorable discharge status under the new rules. The Army
has also agreed to additional changes in procedures, including
increased training for ADRB members, enhanced notice to veterans,
more detailed documentation requirements, and most importantly a
telephonic hearing program so veterans are not forced to travel to
Washington DC for their review hearings.

Before the settlement agreement is finalized, class members will
have the opportunity to comment on the terms of the agreement in
the district court. [GN]


UNITED STATES: West Midlands Restaurants Sue Over COVID-19 Closures
-------------------------------------------------------------------
John Corser at expressandstar.com reports that restaurants across
the West Midlands are seeking a judicial review of the Government's
decision to close hospitality within the highest Tier 3 Covid-19
areas.

A class action is being made on behalf of 256 restaurants, the vast
majority of them in Birmingham, under the heading of the Birmingham
Hospitality Group.

They are demanding that the government produces more scientific
data in support of its decision to close pubs and restaurants,
apart from takeaways, in Tier 3 zones.

And, if the Government is unable to provide the data, the legal
action calls for greater financial support for businesses to
prevent them going under, or allow venues to trade as normal.

The lead complainant in the class action is Sam Morgan, owner of
Craft restaurant, located on The Terrace at the International
Convention Centre, and 8 restaurant in Centenary Square, both of
which are in the Westside Business Improvement District area of
Birmingham

He said documents in support of the class action were being served
on the Prime Minister's office.

Mr Morgan said: "The class action calls on the government to
provide one of three things, starting with more substantial data in
support of their findings.

"If they cannot provide it, then they need to provide more
substantial support for these businesses to survive, as some are on
the verge of insolvency because of the Government's arbitrary
action.

"And, if they cannot provide numbers one and two, then they need to
allow us to trade with relevant safety restrictions."

Mr Morgan said the restaurants, which includes some in the Black
Country, Solihull and Warwickshire, were taking legal action
because of the "arbitrary and discriminatory action by the
government in respect of the hospitality industry".

He added: "Non-essential shops, gyms, and hair and beauty have been
allowed to reopen but hospitality venues are still locked down. The
treatment of the pub, bar and restaurant sectors seems particularly
harsh and discriminatory.

"The Government is saying they need to take action in order for
Christmas to go ahead in the non-Covid secure environment of
someone's home, but not in the secure environment of hospitality
venues.

"We have no problem in closing our venues in the name of health and
safety but not in the name of Santa Claus.

"We are being sacrificed to allow people to celebrate Christmas in
the least Covid-secure environment of their homes for five days.

"The Government can't just take any unilateral decision it wants to
without being accountable to the public." [GN]


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Ryan S. Appeals Order in ERISA Suit to 9th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Ryan S. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in
the lawsuit styled RYAN S., individually on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-01363-JVS-KES, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case
involves individual and putative class allegations by Plaintiff
Ryan S. that Defendants UnitedHealth Group, Inc., United HealthCare
Services, Inc., United Healthcare Insurance Company, UHC of
California, United HealthCare Services, LLC, and United Behavioral
Health, OptumInsight, Inc., Optum Services, Inc., and Optum, Inc.,
violated ERISA and the terms of the ERISA-governed health benefit
plans in which Plaintiff and putative class members were enrolled
in various ways in connection with the processing, adjudication,
and payment of requests for mental health and substance use
benefits under the terms of Plaintiff's and putative class members'
benefit plans.

The Plaintiff is seeking an appeal to review the Court's Order
dated Dec. 3, 2020, granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
third amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

The appellate case is captioned as Ryan S. v. UnitedHealth Group,
Inc., et al., Case No. 20-56310, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Ryan S. Mediation Questionnaire is due on December
17, 2020;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by January 8, 2021;

   -- Transcript is due on February 8, 2021;

   -- Appellant Ryan S. opening brief is due on March 19, 2021;
  
   -- Appellees Optum Services, Inc., Optum, Inc., OptumInsight,
Inc., UHC of California, United Behavioral Health, Inc., United
Healthcare Insurance Company, United Healthcare Services, Inc.,
United Healthcare Services, LLC and UnitedHealth Group, Inc.
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]

Plaintiff-Appellant RYAN S., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Elizabeth Hopkins, Esq.
          Lisa S. Kantor, Esq.
          KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP
          19839 Nordhoff Street
          Northridge, CA 91324
          Telephone: (818) 886-2525

               - and -

          Daniel J. Callahan, Esq.
          Richard T. Collins, Esq.
          Edward Susolik, Esq.
          CALLAHAN & BLAINE APLC
          3 Hutton Centre Drive
          Santa Ana, CA 92707
          Telephone: (714) 241-4444

               - and -

          Damon D. Eisenbrey, Esq.
          SONGSTAD & RANDALL LLP
          2201 Dupont Drive
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 757-1600

Defendants-Appellees UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC., a Delaware
corporation, UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., a Minnesota
corporation, UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut
corporation, UHC OF CALIFORNIA, a California corporation; UNITED
HEALTHCARE SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, INC., a California corporation;
OPTUMINSIGHT, INC., a Delaware corporation, OPTUM SERVICES, INC., a
Delaware corporation; and OPTUM, INC., a Delaware corporation, are
represented by:

          Jennifer S. Romano, Esq.
          Andrew Holmer, Esq.
          Mana Elihu Lombardo, Esq.
          CROWELL & MORING, LLP
          515 South Flower Street, 40th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071

UPS: Judge Mostly Denies Class Certification to Workers
-------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a California federal judge on Nov. 18 mostly
denied class certification to UPS workers who allege the company
violated state laws concerning meal and rest breaks, agreeing to
certify only a subclass of workers who say they received inadequate
wage statements. [GN]


V. MARCHESE: Gomez-Velasquez Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ALFREDO GOMEZ-VELASQUEZ, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. V. MARCHESE & CO.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01802-PP (E.D. Wis., December 7, 2020)
is brought by the Plaintiff as a collective action arising from the
Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by
failing to properly pay wages and overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff, who has worked for the Defendant as an hourly-paid
sanitation leadman in the Defendant's Sanitation Department,
asserts that the Defendant failed to compensate him and other
similarly situated employees for the time they spent performing
pre-shift duties, such as washing their hands and donning and
doffing protective clothing and equipment, which are integral and
indispensable to their principal activity of processing fruits and
vegetables for the Defendant in a sanitary and marketable manner.
In addition, the Defendant automatically deducted 30-minute meal
breaks to their employees' hours worked although they were not able
to take full 30 minutes for lunch.

As a result of the Defendant's unlawful policies and practices, the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were not properly
compensated for all the hours they worked performing duties for the
Defendant as well as for the hours in excess of 40 in a workweek.

Marchese & Co. processes and sells fruits and vegetables throughout
the Midwestern United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yingtao Ho, Esq.
          THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM S.C.
          310 W. Wisconsin Ave., Suite 100MW
          Milwaukee, WI 53203
          Telephone: (414) 271-4500
          Facsimile: (414) 271-6308
          E-mail: yh@previant.com


VELOCITY INVESTMENTS: Jackson Suit Seeks to Certify Five Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYNISHA JACKSON, DAVID
CREVELING, and MARY HANS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC, Case No.
5:20-cv-02524-JFL (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order:

   1. certifying 5 classes under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and
      (b)(3):

      a. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) Class
         consisting of:

         "all persons who: i) were issued a loan in
         Pennsylvania; ii) had an entity with a CDCA license
         sell the loan to Velocity Investments, LLC
         ("Velocity") before July 2, 2020, without the prior
         written approval of the Department of Banking (the
         "Department"); and iii) were sued by Velocity on the
         loan on or after May 4, 2019, or paid money to
         Velocity, either directly or indirectly, on the loan on
         or after May 4, 2019;"

     b.  Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act (FCEUA) Payment
         Class consisting of:

         "all persons who: i) were issued a loan in
         Pennsylvania; ii) had an entity with a CDCA license
         sell the loan to Velocity before July 2, 2020, without
         the prior written approval of the Department; and iii)
         paid money to Velocity, either directly or indirectly,
         on or after May 4, 2018;"

     c.  Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law
         (UTPCPL) Payment Class consisting of:

         "all persons who: i) were issued a loan in
         Pennsylvania; ii) had an entity with a CDCA license
         sell the loan to Velocity before July 2, 2020, without
         the prior written approval of the Department; and iii)
         paid money to Velocity, either directly or indirectly,
         on or after May 4, 2014;"

     d.  Restitution Payment Class consisting of:

         "all persons who: i) were issued a loan in
         Pennsylvania; ii) had an entity with a CDCA license
         sell the loan to Velocity before July 2, 2020, without
         the prior written approval of the Department; and iii)
         paid money to Velocity, either directly or indirectly,
         on or after May 4, 2016;" and

     e.  Collection Class consisting of:

         "all persons who: i) were issued a loan in
         Pennsylvania; ii) had an entity with a CDCA license
         sell the loan to Velocity before July 2, 2020, without
         the prior written approval of the Department; and iii)
         did not pay the loan in full, or did not discharge the
         loan by way of settlement, judgment, bankruptcy, or
         otherwise;"

   2. appointing themselves as Class Representatives for the
      classes; and

   3. appointing Kevin Abramowicz and Kevin Tucker of East End
      Trial Group LLC, as Class Counsel for the classes.

Velocity Investmentis a debt collection agency.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Nov.
25, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3qjceoG at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
          Kevin Tucker, Esq.
          EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC
          186 42nd Street
          P.O. Box 40127
          Pittsburgh, PA 15201
          Telephone: (412) 223-5740
          E-mail: kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com
                  ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com


WALMART INC: Court Narrows Claims in Amended Morris Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KAYLAN MORRIS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WALMART INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-650-GMB (N.D. Ala.), Magistrate Judge Gray M. Borden of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern
Division, granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint.

Walmart sells a product described as a "Parent's Choice Pediatric
Shake," which it markets to mothers or expectant mothers.  The
labeling on the shakes indicates that they are "Naturally
Flavored," contain a "Balanced Nutrition to Help Kids Thrive" and
"Nutrition to help kids grow," and have "No Synthetic Color, Flavor
or Sweeteners."  Two shakes are at issue - the chocolate flavored
shake and the vanilla flavored shake.

Concerned about the diet and nutrition of her son, who is a picky
eater, Kaylan Morris purchased the shakes for her child in Walmart
retail stores located in Jefferson County, Alabama.  Based on the
promises Walmart made on the bottles, Morris purchased the vanilla
and chocolate shakes for her son to supplement his diet, help him
grow, and provide a balanced nutrition.  She would not have
purchased the shakes had she known that they contained synthetic
and artificial ingredients, that they did not provide a balanced
nutrition that would help kids grow, and that the vanilla shake did
not contain vanilla flavoring derived from actual vanilla.  The
shakes did not provide the nutrients her son needed and instead
incorporated significant sweeteners and sugars.  As a result of
Walmart's material misrepresentations, Morris brings the class
action lawsuit on behalf of customers who purchased the shakes
during the statute of limitations period.

Morris alleges that the labels "Naturally Flavored," "No Synthetic
Color, Flavor, or Sweeteners," "Balanced Nutrition to Help Kids
Thrive," and "Nutrition to help kids grow," are untrue, misleading,
and likely to deceive reasonable customers principally because the
shakes contain unnatural and synthetic ingredients and have a high
sugar content with many empty calories.  Based on these
allegations, Morris brings claims for breach of express warranty,
breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and violation of the Alabama Deceptive
Trade Practices Act.

Walmart moved to dismiss these claims, arguing that they either are
preempted by federal regulations or not sufficiently pled.

Morris' claims centered around the "Naturally Flavored" label have
been amended such that they now survive the motion to dismiss.  In
its order addressed to the original complaint, the Court found that
these claims were due for dismissal while permitting Morris to seek
leave to amend.  Morris accepted the court's invitation, but
Walmart maintains that all claims based on the label "Naturally
Flavored" are preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
("FDCA") even considering the amended complaint's new formulation
of those claims.

Magistrate Judge Borden disagrees.  The allegations are sufficient
to defeat Walmart's preemption argument in as much as they make
clear that Morris is claiming that Walmart violated FDA regulations
in its labeling of the vanilla shakes -- not that Walmart should be
held to another, inconsistent labeling standard.  Accordingly, her
claims concerning the flavoring labels are preempted by the FDCA.

Morris, on the other hand, has alleged that the vanilla flavoring
Walmart uses in its shakes does not consist of natural flavors
derived from vanilla, and she has supported the allegation with
facts from which the inference may be drawn.  The task for Morris
going forward will be to marshal evidence tending to prove that the
components identified only as "Natural Flavors" on the shakes'
labeling do not include any natural flavors derived from vanilla
within the meaning of the FDCA.  At this stage of the litigation,
however, Morris has sufficiently pled her claim that Walmart is
misleading consumers with its "Naturally Flavored" labeling.

Morris' claims based on the "No Synthetic Color, Flavor, or
Sweeteners" label also survive the motion to dismiss.  She
sufficiently pleads that this label is untrue and misleading by
alleging that the shakes contain maltodextrin and that maltodextrin
is an unnatural, synthetic sweetener.  Walmart argues that the
amended complaint does not plausibly allege that the maltodextrin
contained in the shakes is used for sweetening purposes.

The Magistrate Judge finds that Morris has provided enough factual
material for the court to connect the dots.  Drawing on his
experience and common sense, the Judge finds that the amended
complaint states a plausible claim for relief as to the label.  As
with her claims related to the "Naturally Flavored" label, Morris
may have a hard row to hoe in proving that the maltodextrin in the
shakes should have been labelled as a synthetic sweetener.  Even
so, she has sufficiently alleged that the "No Synthetic Color,
Flavor, or Sweeteners" label is untrue and misleading such that her
claims invoking this label survive the motion to dismiss.

Finally, the claims stemming from the "Balanced Nutrition to Help
Kids Thrive" and "Nutrition to help kids grow" labels are due to be
dismissed.  The amended complaint lacks the factual content to
support the bare assertion that the labels "Balanced Nutrition to
Help Kids Thrive" and "Nutrition to help kids grow" are false and
misleading.  The complaint does not claim that the shakes are
completely devoid of nutritional value, which would render the
labels false and misleading.  Nor does the complaint explain in any
detail how the shakes fail to provide balanced nutrition or
nutrition to help kids grow.  Accordingly, Morris' claims based on
the labels "Balanced Nutrition to Help Kids Thrive" and "Nutrition
to help kids grow" must be dismissed.  Because Morris has already
been given an opportunity to amend these claims, the dismissal will
be with prejudice, the Court notes.

For these reasons, Magistrate Judge Borden granted in part and
denied in part the Motion to Dismiss.  The Motion to Dismiss is
denied as to Morris' claims predicated on the labels "Naturally
Flavored" and "No Synthetic Color, Flavor, or Sweeteners."  It is
granted as to Morris' claims predicated on the labels "Balanced
Nutrition to Help Kids Thrive" and "Nutrition to Help Kids Grow,"
and these claims are dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 22, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5m3mohb from
Leagle.com.

Morris filed a second amended complaint on Oct. 6, 2020, and
Walmart filed its responsive pleading on Oct. 20, 2020.

As of presstime, the case's court docket has not showed further
activity.




WELD COUNTY, CO: Court Defers Approval of Settlement in Martinez
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JESUS MARTINEZ, and CHAD HUNTER, Plaintiffs, on their
own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v.
STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official
capacity, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC (D. Colo.), Judge
Philip A. Brimmer of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado held in abeyance his decision on the Joint Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Certification of a
Class and Appointment of Class Counsel, and Permission to Post
Class Notice.

On April 7, 2020, the Plaintiffs brought the case as a class action
alleging that Defendant Sheriff Steven Reams acted with deliberate
indifference to the health of medically vulnerable persons in
custody at the Weld County Jail ("WCJ") by failing to take
necessary measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19.  They filed a
motion for a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction,
and expedited hearing.  They later withdrew the portion of their
motion seeking a temporary restraining order.

On April 30, 2020, the Court conducted a hearing on the Plaintiff's
preliminary injunction motion.  On May 11, 2020, it issued a
preliminary injunction that identified actions Defendant had to
take to identify and protect medically vulnerable inmates at WCJ.
The preliminary injunction has been extended several times and is
currently set to expire Feb. 5, 2021.

The parties have engaged in negotiations in order to reach a
settlement, and on Nov. 30, 2020, they filed a Joint Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Certification of a
Class and Appointment of Class Counsel, and Permission to Post
Class Notice. The parties seek certification of a settlement class
consisting of "all past, present, and future inmates housed within
the Weld County Jail from April 7, 2020 through the COVID-19
Emergency End Date who are medically vulnerable."

An inmate is medically vulnerable if, pursuant to CDC guidelines
for correctional facilities like the WCJ which exist as of the date
this proposed Consent Decree and Final Judgment was submitted to
the Court, the inmate has one or more of the following conditions:
is 65 years and older; has chronic lung disease including COPD; has
moderate to severe asthma; has serious heart conditions such as
heart failure, coronary artery disease or cardiomyopathies; has
sickle cell disease; is immunocompromised; has severe obesity (e.g.
BMI of 30 or higher); has diabetes; has chronic kidney disease and
is undergoing dialysis; has liver disease; has cancer; is pregnant;
or is a former or current cigarette smoker.

The COVID-19 Emergency End Date is the date on which Executive
Order D 2020 205 issued by Colorado Governor Jared Polis, Declaring
a Disaster Emergency Due to the Presence of Coronavirus Disease
2019 in Colorado, as subsequently amended or extended, expires and
is not replaced by a similar Executive Order in light of the
ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

There are no subclasses to the settlement agreement.  The key terms
of the proposed settlement include that: (1) WCJ will identify
medically vulnerable inmates during booking, protect them during
the remainder of the intake process to the extent possible, and
provide them with a document stating their status; (2) WCJ will
attempt to single-cell medically vulnerable inmates in the
intake/transition units and will continue to limit their exposure
in the general jail population; (3) WCJ will medically isolate
COVID-19 positive inmates in a non-punitive environment; (4) WCJ
will continue enhanced sanitation and will distribute masks to
inmates; (5) healthcare processionals will monitor medically
vulnerable inmates for COVID-19 symptoms and will provide testing
to inmates consistent with CDC guidelines; (6) the Defendant will
maintain modified arrest standards to reduce jail population and
will advise Weld County police chiefs to be judicious with jail
space on a regular basis; (7) every two weeks, WCJ will provide the
Chief Judge for the Nineteenth Judicial District of Colorado and
the Colorado Division of Adult Parole a list of all inmates housed
at WCJ, with a request to the Chief Judge for a docket review for
potential judicial action; (8) the Defendant will comply with data
reporting requirements and plaintiffs' counsel will not make
additional requests; (9) the Plaintiffs and the class will release
claims for injunctive and declaratory relief arising from COVID-19
at the WCJ, but that does not include claims concerning conduct
that occurs after the date the Consent Decree is entered, and it
does not include any money damages claims; (10) the Defendant will
pay the counsel for the Plaintiffs $122,387.60 in attorney's fees
and costs; and (11) there is no admission of wrongdoing by the
Defendant.

The parties propose to post notice of the proposed settlement in
portions of the WCJ that house medically vulnerable inmates where
it is visible to them.  They have attached their proposed class
notice as Exhibit B to their motion.  The notice advises the class
members who wish to object to the settlement to mail an objection
to the Court. The parties do not indicate how this method of
posting notice would supply notice to "past" or "future" inmates or
to a medically vulnerable inmate who may not have been placed in
the proper area.

Because the parties have not supplied information about the number
of "past" or "future" inmates, Judge Brimmer considers whether the
numerosity requirement is met by the number of current inmates who
are medically vulnerable.  When injunctive relief is the only
relief requested, even speculative or conclusory representations
regarding numerosity will suffice to permit class certification.
He agrees that joinder of approximately 345 current inmates would
be impracticable and he finds that the numerosity requirement is
met.

The Judge then agrees that there are questions of law or fact
common to the proposed class.  The Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendant exhibited deliberate indifference to the risk of COVID-19
on medically vulnerable inmates.  In Shook v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs
of the Cnty. of El Paso, the district court denied certification
for mentally ill inmates at the El Paso County Jail because
evaluation of the claims asserted on behalf of the class would
require examination of the unique circumstances surrounding each
incident alleged to constitute a constitutional deprivation.  By
contrast, the relief in the instant case will not require an
examination of unique circumstances--once an inmate is categorized
as medically vulnerable, the proposed relief would apply to that
person.  Accordingly, the Judge finds that the proposed settlement
class satisfies the commonality requirement.

The parties argue that typicality is met for the same reason as
commonality and because the Plaintiffs are medically vulnerable and
face the same potential harms of the proposed class.  The Judge
finds that the named Plaintiffs face similar risks as other
medically vulnerable inmates due to the contagious nature of
COVID-19.  They are not subject to any unique defenses, and the
pursuit of the requested relief for themselves will advance the
interests of the class as a whole.  Therefore, the Judge agrees
that the named Plaintiffs bring claims that are typical of the
proposed class--namely, that they are medically vulnerable and the
Defendant has exhibited deliberate indifference to the harm that
COVID-19 could cause them.

The Judge also finds that the counsel and the named Plaintiffs
adequately represent the interests of the class of all current and
future WCJ inmates who are medically vulnerable.  He finds that the
interests of the class are fairly and adequately protected by the
named Plaintiffs.  Also, the Plaintiffs' attorneys are qualified to
represent the action, and there appears to be no dispute as to
their qualifications.

The parties argue that certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is
appropriate because the Plaintiffs seek uniform standardized
procedures to protect inmates from COVID-19.  The Judge finds that
a single injunction would provide relief to all the class members
and relief would not need to be specifically tailored to each class
member.  The proposed consent decree is "sufficiently cohesive" to
satisfy Rule 65(d) and does not avoid individual issues by
formulating an injunction at a stratospheric level of abstraction.
The Judge finds that preliminary certification under Rule 23(b)(2)
is appropriate.

Based on the information available to the Court, the Judge finds
that the proposed consent decree was the product of months of
arms'-length negotiations between the parties.  Judge Brimmer says
that it is evident that the parties believe that the proposed
settlement is fair and reasonable and was negotiated at
arms'-length by the experienced counsel.  Should a current inmate
find the terms unfair, he or she may file an objection to the
proposed settlement.  The Judge finds that the presumption of
fairness is sufficient to preliminary approve the settlement
agreement.

As to the proposed notice by the parties, it advises inmates to
mail objections to the Clerk of Court.  The parties have identified
no authority for identifying the Court or the Clerk of Court as the
recipient of class action objections.  Their vague statement that
WCJ will post notice in portions of the WCJ that house medically
vulnerable inmates where it is visible to them does not allow the
Court to determine whether such notice will reasonably appraise
class members of the proposed settlement.  The parties do not
indicate how this procedure would provide notice to "past" or
"future" class members or medically vulnerable inmates who are
placed in the wrong area of the jail. Moreover, they do not discuss
whether such notice will be provided in both English and Spanish.
Therefore, the Judge finds that the proposed notice procedure is
not reasonably calculated to apprise the class members of the
settlement.

The Plaintiffs' current attorneys--the ACLU of Colorado; Killmer,
Lane and Newman, LLP; Hutchinson Black and Cook, LLC; Stimson
Stancil Labranche Hubbard, LLC; and Maxted Law, LLC--request to be
appointed the class counsel.  Judge Brimmer says that it is unusual
to appoint five law firms for a class of about 345 people.
However, in the case there is no common fund constituting the
settlement, so attorneys' fees will not diminish the fund to the
detriment of the class.  Instead, the settlement includes a set
amount of fees.  Importantly, the relief to the class is
injunctive, not monetary.  Therefore, the Judge finds that it is
appropriate to appoint the Plaintiffs' counsel as the class
counsel.

Finally, the Judge finds that the proposed relief is narrowly drawn
and any impact on public safety has been mitigated.  He finds that
the proposed settlement agreement complies with the Prison
Litigation Reform Act because the majority of its provisions are
applicable only to medically vulnerable inmates, and it remains in
effect only during the length of the pandemic.  Additionally, the
policies restricting the persons the WCJ will accept have been in
place since Sept. 2, 2020, with no evidence of any adverse impact
on public safety.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Brimmer held in abeyance a decision
on the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval so that the parties
can supplement their motion.  The supplemental briefing will
discuss locations for posting notice within the WCJ in English and
Spanish, the location for sending objections that does not involve
the Court, and inclusion of "past" and "future" inmates in the
definition of the class.  The parties' deadline to file
supplemental briefs was Dec. 18, 2020.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 11, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yc4u9lqz from Leagle.com.


WELLS FARGO: Gainey McKenna Reminds of December 29 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Nov. 3 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Wells Fargo & Company ("Wells Fargo"
or the "Company") (NYSE: WFC) in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of those who
purchased or acquired the securities of Wells Fargo between October
13, 2017 and October 13, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Wells Fargo investors under
the federal securities laws.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding
Wells Fargo's business and operations. Defendants reassured
investors that Wells Fargo's commercial credit portfolios were of
exceptional credit quality and the product of robust,
industry-leading underwriting and due diligence policies and
procedures. In truth, however, Wells Fargo fueled its rapid
commercial loan growth by lending to businesses that posed a
heightened risk of default. Wells Fargo systematically concealed
these credit risks by artificially inflating the incomes generated
by borrowing businesses, relaxing or failing to follow applicable
underwriting procedures, and circumventing applicable risk
controls. Wells Fargo exacerbated the threat posed by its defective
commercial debt by packaging the loans into CLOs and CMBS and
widely distributing these securitized products throughout the
financial system.

On April 14, 2020, in connection with the release of its first
quarter 2020 financial results, Wells Fargo revealed it was taking
a massive $4 billion provision expense to account for expected
credit delinquencies. On this news, the price of Wells Fargo stock
fell 14% over three trading days. On July 14, 2020, Wells Fargo
released its second quarter 2020 results, which disclosed that the
Company had suffered a $2.4 billion loss during the quarter, or
($0.66) per share, and was taking a $9.5 billion provision expense
to account for expected credit delinquencies. On this news, the
price of Wells Fargo stock fell 5% to $24.25 per share.

Then, on October 14, 2020, Wells Fargo released its third quarter
2020 results, with the Company announcing that it had recognized
another provision expense of $769 million and that non-accrual
loans had increased $2.5 billion, or 45%, to $8 billion during the
quarter. The price of Wells Fargo stock fell 6% on this news to
close at $23.25 per share on October 14, 2020.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Wells Fargo
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the
December 29, 2020 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members
in directing the litigation.  If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com.

Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]


WELLS FARGO: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Dec. 29 Motion Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming December 29, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Wells Fargo & Company ("Wells Fargo" or the
"Company") (NYSE: WFC) common stock between October 13, 2017 and
October 13, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you suffered a loss on your Wells Fargo investments or would
like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your
loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at
https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/wells-fargo-and-company/.You can
also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to
learn more about your rights.

On April 14, 2020, Wells Fargo announced its first quarter 2020
financial results in a press release. Therein, the Company
announced a $4 billion provision expense to account for expected
credit delinquencies, including $940 million in net charge-offs on
loans and debt securities and a $3.1 billion reserve build.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $4.54, or 14%, over
three consecutive trading sessions to close at $26.89 per share on
April 16, 2020.

On May 5, 2020, Wells Fargo filed its quarterly report with the SEC
for first quarter 2020, in which it stated that Wells Fargo's
collateralized loan obligations ("CLOs") investments fell 9% and
that the Company suffered $1.7 billion in unrealized losses on its
CLO investments during the quarter.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.74, or 6%, over two
consecutive trading sessions to close at $25.61 per share on May 6,
2020.

On June 10, 2020, Wells Fargo's Chief Financial Officer, John
Shrewsberry, presented at the Morgan Stanley Virtual US Financials
Conference, during which he stated that the second quarter reserve
build would be even "bigger than the first quarter" due to
continued deterioration in the Company's credit portfolio.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $5.84, or 18%, over
two consecutive trading sessions to close at $26.79 per share on
June 11, 2020.

On July 14, 2020, Wells Fargo announced its second quarter 2020
financial results in a press release, disclosing a $9.5 billion
provision expense to account for expected credit delinquencies.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.16, or 5%, to close
at $24.25 per share on July 14, 2020.

On October 14, 2020, Wells Fargo announced a $769 million provision
expense for third quarter 2020, but the Company's CFO stated that
further deterioration of the credit portfolio had been forestalled
due to short-term customer accommodations provided since the start
of the pandemic.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.49, or 6%, to close
at $23.25 per share on October 14, 2020.

The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Wells Fargo
had systematically failed to follow appropriate underwriting
standards and due diligence guidelines in issuing billions of
dollars' worth of commercial loans, including by inflating the net
income and future expected cash flows of its commercial clients to
justify issuing excessive loan amounts; (2) a materially higher
proportion of Wells Fargo's commercial loans were to customers of
poor credit quality and/or at a substantially higher risk of
default than disclosed to investors; (3) Wells Fargo had failed to
timely write down commercial loans, CLOs and CMBS on its books that
had suffered impairments; (4) Wells Fargo had materially
understated the reserves needed for expected credit losses in its
commercial portfolios; (5) Wells Fargo had systematically
misrepresented the credit quality and likelihood of default of the
loans it packaged and securitized into CLOs and CMBS, including by
artificially inflating the net income and expected cash flows of
its commercial clients in loan and securitization documentation;
(6) the CLO and CMBS-related loans issued and investment securities
held by Wells Fargo were of lower credit quality and worth far less
than represented to investors; (7) as a result of the foregoing,
the Company's statements regarding the credit quality of its
commercial loans, its underwriting and due diligence practices, and
the value of its CLO and CMBS books were materially false and
misleading; and (8) as a result of the foregoing, the Company was
exposed to severe undisclosed risks of financial, reputational and
legal harm, in particular in the event of significant and sustained
stress in the commercial credit markets. [GN]


WELLS FARGO: Rosen Law Reminds of Dec. 29 Motion Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Nov. 17
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE: WFC)
between October 13, 2017 and October 13, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Wells
Fargo investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Wells Fargo class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1985.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Wells Fargo had systematically failed to follow
appropriate underwriting standards and due diligence guidelines in
issuing billions of dollars' worth of commercial loans, including
by inflating the net income and future expected cash flows of its
commercial clients to justify issuing excessive loan amounts; (2) a
materially higher proportion of Wells Fargo's commercial loan
customers were of poor credit quality and/or at a substantially
higher risk of default than disclosed to investors; (3) Wells Fargo
had failed to timely write down commercial loans, collateralized
loan obligations ("CLOs") and commercial mortgage backed securities
("CMBS") on its books that had suffered impairments; (4) Wells
Fargo had materially understated the reserves needed for expected
credit losses in its commercial portfolios; (5) Wells Fargo had
systematically misrepresented the credit quality and likelihood of
default of the loans it packaged and securitized into CLOs and
CMBS, including by artificially inflating the net income and
expected cash flows of its commercial clients in loan and
securitization documentation; (6) the CLO and CMBS-related loans
issued and investment securities held by Wells Fargo were of lower
credit quality and worth far less than represented to investors;
(7) as a result of the foregoing, Wells Fargo's Class Period
statements regarding the credit quality of its commercial loans,
its underwriting and due diligence practices, and the value of its
CLO and CMBS books were materially false and misleading and (8) as
a result of the foregoing, Wells Fargo was exposed to severe
undisclosed risks of financial, reputational and legal harm, in
particular in the event of significant and sustained stress in the
commercial credit markets. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December
29, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1985.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Contact Information:

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]


WHISH BODY PRODUCTS: Kiler Files Suit under ADA
-----------------------------------------------
Whish Body Products, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Marion Kiler, individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Whish Body Products,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05801 (E.D. N.Y., Dec. 1, 2020).

Whish Body Products, LLC is located in Scottsdale, AZ, United
States and is part of the Cosmetics, Beauty Supply & Perfume Stores
Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
   Scarsdale, NY 10583
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


WORLEY: Shine Lawyers Appeals Class Action Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------
Jerome Doraisamy, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that Shine
Lawyers has filed an appeal against the October decision by the
Federal Court to dismiss proceedings against listed company
Worley.

Just under one month ago, the Federal Court of Australia ruled
against Larry Crowley, a self-funded retiree, who had brought
proceedings on his own behalf as well as others who purchased
shares in professional services provider Worley in the period
between 14 August 2013 and 20 November 2013, and who allegedly
suffered loss by reason of Worley's conduct pertaining to its
earnings guidance and subsequent performance.

The Honourable Jacqueline Gleeson found that Worley had reasonable
grounds in making and maintaining its views about its financial
year 2014 earnings guidance throughout the claim period, and that
the process by which the company's FY14 budget was developed was
reasonable, contrary to the applicant's contention.

However, plaintiff firm Shine Lawyers has opted to appeal the
decision to dismiss the claims of shareholders against the company.


In a statement, Shine Lawyers class actions practice leader Craig
Allsopp said there were concerns about a number of aspects of the
Federal Court's judgment.

"The grounds of appeal include that the primary judge erred in
failing to find that Worley did not have reasonable grounds for
guidance the company provided for FY2014," he said.

"The primary judge also made a number of errors regarding evidence
and the matters that need to be proved to establish wrongdoing."

Shine Lawyers maintains, Mr Allsopp continued, that company
executives "knew at the time their forecasts were unrealistic,
resource companies were deferring projects, and its Canadian
business was underperforming".

"Despite this knowledge, the company maintained an overstated
profit forecast in contravention of its continuous disclosure
obligations and failed to correct market expectations," he argued.

Back in October, Herbert Smith Freehills -- which represented
Worley -- said the decision to dismiss the proceedings was a
"significant win", with partner Jason Betts calling it an
"important day" in Australia's class actions history.

"The Court's decision represents the first dismissal of a
shareholder class action after a full trial, and we are proud to
have represented Worley," he said.

Fellow HSF partner Christine Tran added at the time: "We are
pleased that the Court dismissed the applicant's allegations and
favourably received Worley's evidence, particularly the evidence of
its senior leaders." [GN]


WWE: Settles Saudi Arabia Class Action for $39 Million
------------------------------------------------------
Felix Upton, writing for Ringside News, reports that WWE settled a
$39 million class action lawsuit concerning their dealings with
Saudi Arabia. The were accused of withholding vital information to
their stock holders concerning how well their relationship with the
controversial country was going. This also pertained to the
situation after Crown Jewel where WWE Superstars were stuck in
Saudi Arabia for an additional 24 hours due to a "mechanical
failure."

During Wrestling Observer Radio, Dave Meltzer opened up about this
lawsuit and he explained how out of character it is for Vince
McMahon to settle, especially for such a high amount of money.

"At one point I think I counted 21 different lawsuits that all
copied the original one and with high power people too. Discovery
was coming. They had witnesses. I know some of the things that were
going on behind the scenes and it was gonna be -- you know nothing
that was going to come out wasn't something we didn't already know
and wasn't already reported, but it was all going to come out."

"I think that in the end, WWE settled for $39 million which is a
lot of money. That's more than the Owen Hart case, that's double
the Owen Hart case. I mean people are thinking it's settled for
nothing. This is a large amount of money. They do have insurance to
cover it, but their insurance premiums are going to go through the
roof."

"If you know Vince, Vince is only going to settle at last resort.
You know if you know Vince when it comes to all these different
suits he's been in there are very few settlements and the ones that
are, Martha Hart they had to, but they might do very small
settlements in different cases, but I mean there's never been one
on this level, never close to this dollar amount in history."

It was noted that he received "emails and texts all night" while
Superstars are in Saudi Arabia. He said that Doc Gallows and Karl
Anderson heard people talking on the headset in production, but it
wasn't confirmed that they were two of the witnesses. The Good
Brothers certainly heard things.

WWE obviously didn't want this situation going to court, so they
settled for a very high dollar amount. [GN]


XCVI INC: Monegro Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
XCVI Inc is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Frankie
Monegro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. XCVI Inc, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-10063 (S.D.
N.Y., Dec. 1, 2020).

XCVI, LLC designs women's apparel. The Company offers tops, pants,
skirts, dresses, jackets, sweaters, and shorts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



YAHOO!: Court Approves Data Breach Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Marc Palmer, Esq., of Proskauer, in an article for JDSupra, reports
that a federal court recently issued a decision approving a class
action settlement resolving litigation stemming from five Yahoo!
data breaches that occurred from 2012 to 2016 and affected at least
194 million Yahoo! customers. The company agreed to establish a
$117.5 million settlement fund and institute numerous business
practice changes designed to prevent future data breaches. Of
particular interest in the approval order, however, was the Court's
comparison of the instant settlement to a prior in-district data
breach settlement. A review of the approval order provides insight
into the factors judges analyze to ensure settlements are
reasonable, proper, and in the best interests of the class.

Factors Considered in Evaluating the Settlement

In evaluating a proposed class action settlement pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), a district court must
determine if a settlement "is fundamentally fair, adequate and
reasonable."  In doing so, courts may consider, among other
factors, the strength of plaintiffs' case, the risks, expenses,
complexity, and duration of further litigation, and the total
settlement amount.  In Yahoo!, the Court found that all of these
factors supported the approval of the settlement.  Specifically,
with respect to the risk, expense, and complexity, the Court noted
that the parties reached a settlement prior to the Court's ruling
on hot-button issues, namely class certification and the filing of
any Daubert motions.  Thus, the Court was convinced that settlement
avoided significant further litigation and provided the class "with
timely and certain recovery."

Comparison of Settlement Amount to Other Data Breach Settlements

In addition, the Court undertook a careful review of the overall
settlement amount as compared to the prior in-district settlement
associated with Anthem Inc.'s 2015 medical information data breach.
See In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litigation.

Comparing Yahoo!'s $117.5 million settlement fund for a class of
approximately 196 million to Anthem's $115 million settlement fund
for a class of approximately 79 million, the Court noted that
Yahoo!'s per-capita settlement recovery was $0.60 -- much smaller
than Anthem's $1.46. In addition, the Court found that "there
[were] numerous factors in the instant case that create[d] the
expectation of a larger recovery for the Settlement Class than in
other data breach cases." Specifically, Judge Lucy H. Koh focused
on the fact that Yahoo! had multiple data breaches over a five year
period and, in each instance, denied knowledge of any breach in its
filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and delayed
notifying its users even when it "had contemporaneous knowledge of
the breaches." The Court determined that these circumstances
"weigh[ed] in favor of a larger settlement" than Anthem, but
acknowledged that the personal information at issue may not have
been as sensitive as the information stolen in Anthem.

The Court also explained that the Yahoo! settlement "compares
favorably [to Anthem] in some respects but unfavorably in others."
For example, Yahoo! provided two years of credit monitoring while
Anthem provided six years, but Yahoo! capped out-of-pocket expenses
at $25,000 while Anthem's settlement class members were capped at
only $10,000.  Nevertheless, the Court found Yahoo!'s settlement
largely followed the Anthem settlement and concluded that the
settlement "is a significant sum" and provided "adequate recovery
to the settlement class." Further, the Court was satisfied with the
non-monetary business practice changes Yahoo! agreed to implement
to prevent future data breaches. These included allocating at least
$66 million a year to its information security budget, the
employment of 200 full-time security employees, and a commitment to
undergo annual third-party security assessments.

Conclusion

Yahoo! makes clear that judicial review of the adequacy and
reasonableness of large class action settlements does not take
place in a vacuum. To the contrary, the case serves as a reminder
that courts rely on prior in-district settlements as points of
reference for evaluation of reasonableness, and that ultimately,
judges are inclined to approve a settlement if they find that class
members will receive an adequate recovery. [GN]


ZENDESK INC: Calif. Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that
on November 10, 2020, Judge Charles R. Breyer of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed
without prejudice a putative class action against a software
company (the "Company") and several of its officers, for alleged
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. Reidinger v. Zendesk Inc. et al., No.
3:19-cv-06968 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2020). Plaintiff alleged that
defendants made false and misleading statements and omissions
regarding the Company's performance and sales capabilities in
Europe, the Middle East, and Africa ("EMEA") and the Asian Pacific
("APAC") and the strength of its data security. The Court dismissed
the complaint with leave to amend because plaintiff failed to
allege falsity or scienter, highlighting the formidable challenges
plaintiffs face in pleading event-driven claims based on worse than
expected earnings results.

The Company is a customer service software provider. In providing
its services, the Company collects, stores, and transmits sensitive
and personal information related to its customers, agents, and
end-users. The Company's Q2 2019 results showed slower revenue
growth in EMEA and APAC. Then, in October 2019, the Company
disclosed that it had discovered that a data breach from 2016
resulted in unauthorized access to customer and end-user personal
identifiable information. The complaint alleged misrepresentations
and omissions regarding (i) the Company's results in EMEA and APAC;
and (ii) the strength of the Company's data security.

The Court dismissed these claims. The Court first held that
plaintiff failed to allege falsity with respect to any statement
about performance in EMEA and APAC, including statements regarding
a "strong [global] demand" for the Company's products, and its
presence and growth in EMEA and APAC. The Court held that these
statements concerned performance prior to Q2 2019, and not
performance in Q2 2019. Moreover, other statements by defendants
were consistent with slowing growth in the regions, including the
statement "we look at our pipeline across every region . . . . And
so far, we have not seen anything . . . Not that it won't come. But
today, with the data we have, we haven't seen it." The Court also
rejected plaintiff's contention that defendants failed to disclose
that macroeconomic challenges and sale strategies and personnel
issues were adversely impacting the Company's business. The Court
held that plaintiff's vague allegations did not indicate what
specific fact should have been disclosed or why the alleged failure
to disclose that information was material. Finally, the Court held
that the complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to give rise
to a strong inference of scienter because the pleaded facts gave
"rise to a different inference: that [the Company] made strategic
mistakes that it later examined and began taking steps to fix."
Nothing suggested the Company's "sales leaders (let alone [its] top
executives) knew" the reasons for the decline "well before the end
of Q2 2019."

The Court also held that plaintiff failed to allege falsity or
scienter in the Company's discussion of its data security standards
and risks in 2019. Although an alleged failure to disclose a
security breach resulting in unauthorized access to customer and
end-user information could be a material omission, plaintiff failed
to allege that defendants were aware of the data breach when they
made the challenged statements regarding the Company's "highest
possible standards for protecting" customer information. To the
contrary, plaintiff's allegations indicated that defendants were
unaware of the breach at the time of these statements. [GN]


ZOSANO PHARMA: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Dec. 28 Motion Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Zosano Pharma Corporation.
Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case
can be found at the link provided.

Zosano Pharma Corporation (NASDAQ: ZSAN)

Class Period: February 13, 2017 to September 30, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 28, 2020

Zosano is a clinical stage pharmaceutical company. Its lead product
candidate is Qtrypta (M207), a formulation of zolmitriptan coated
onto the Company's microneedle patch. Its pivotal efficacy trial,
called ZOTRIP, began in July 2016. In December 2019, Zosano
submitted its New Drug Application ("NDA") to the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration ("FDA") seeking regulatory approval for
Qtrypta.

On September 30, 2020, Zosano disclosed receipt of a discipline
review letter ("DRL") from the FDA regarding its NDA for Qtrypta
and stated that approval was not likely. According to the Company's
press release, the FDA "raised questions regarding unexpected high
plasma concentrations of zolmitriptan observed in five study
subjects from two pharmacokinetic studies and how the data from
these subjects affect the overall clinical pharmacology section of
the application." The FDA also "raised questions regarding
differences in zolmitriptan exposures observed between subjects
receiving different lots of Qtrypta in the company's clinical
trials."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.92, or 57%, to
close at $0.70 per share on October 1, 2020.

On October 21, 2020, Zosano disclosed receipt of a Complete
Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA. As a result of the previously
identified deficiencies, the FDA recommended that Zosano conduct a
repeat bioequivalence study between three of the lots used during
development.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.17, or 27%, to
close at $0.04440 per share on October 21, 2020.

The complaint, filed on October 29, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
the Company's clinical results reflected differences in
zolmitriptan exposures observed between subjects receiving
different lots; (2) that pharmocokinetic studies submitted in
connection with the Company's NDA included patients exhibiting
unexpected high plasma concentrations of zolmitriptan; (3) that, as
a result of the foregoing differences among patient results, the
FDA was reasonably likely to require further studies to support
regulatory approval of Qtrypta; (4) that, as a result, regulatory
approval of Qtrypta was reasonably likely to be delayed; and (5) as
a result of the foregoing, defendants' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the Zosano class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/ZSAN

                     About Bragar Eagel

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


ZOSANO PHARMA: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of December 28 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Nov. 9 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

ZSAN Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/zosano-pharma-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=10779&wire=1

* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *

Zosano Pharma Corporation (NASDAQ:ZSAN)

ZSAN Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 13,
2017 - September 30, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 28, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/zosano-pharma-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=10779&wire=1

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

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

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

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


ZOSANO PHARMA: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Dec. 28 Motion Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Zosano Pharma Corporation ("Zosano" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: ZSAN) and certain of its officers.  The class action,
filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, and docketed under 20-cv-07850, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired Zosano securities between February 13, 2017 and
September 30, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to
pursue claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Zosano securities during the
class period, you have until December 28, 2020, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Zosano is a clinical-stage pharmaceutical company. Its proprietary
intracutaneous delivery system purports to offer rapid absorption
of drug, consistent drug delivery, improved ease of use, and
room-temperature stability.  Its intracutaneous patch consists of
an array of titanium microneedles that are coated with Zosano's
proprietary formulation of a previously approved drug that is
attached to an adhesive patch.  The patch purports to offer rapid
and consistent delivery of the drug via the microneedles that
penetrate the skin, resulting in dissolution and absorption of the
drug.

Zosano's lead product candidate is Qtrypta (M207), a formulation of
zolmitriptan coated onto the Company's microneedle patch.  The
Company's pivotal efficacy trial, called ZOTRIP, began in July
2016.  In December 2019, Zosano submitted its New Drug Application
("NDA") to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") seeking
regulatory approval for Qtrypta.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented
and failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to
the Company's business, operations, and prospects, which were known
to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them.  Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that:  (i) the Company's clinical results reflected
differences in zolmitriptan exposures observed between subjects
receiving different lots; (ii) pharmocokinetic studies submitted in
connection with the Company's NDA included patients exhibiting
unexpected high plasma concentrations of zolmitriptan; (iii) as a
result of the foregoing differences among patient results, the FDA
was reasonably likely to require further studies to support
regulatory approval of Qtrypta; (iv) as a result, regulatory
approval of Qtrypta was reasonably likely to be delayed; and (v) as
a result of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On September 30, 2020, after the market closed, Zosano disclosed
receipt of a discipline review letter ("DRL") from the FDA
regarding its NDA for Qtrypta and stated that approval was not
likely.  According to the Company's press release, the FDA "raised
questions regarding unexpected high plasma concentrations of
zolmitriptan observed in five study subjects from two
pharmacokinetic studies and how the data from these subjects affect
the overall clinical pharmacology section of the application."  The
FDA also "raised questions regarding differences in zolmitriptan
exposures observed between subjects receiving different lots of
Qtrypta in the company's clinical trials."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.92 per share, or
56.79%, to close at $0.70 per share on October 1, 2020, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

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


ZOSANO PHARMA: Zhang Investor Reminds of Dec. 28 Motion Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who bought shares of Zosano Pharma Corporation
(NASDAQ: ZSAN) between February 13, 2017 and September 30, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

To join the class action, go to
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=zosano-pharma-corporation&id=2478
or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.

http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=zosano-pharma-corporation&id=2478

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
before the December 28, DEADLINE.   A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(a) the Company's clinical results reflected differences in
zolmitriptan exposures observed between subjects receiving
different lots; (b) pharmocokinetic studies submitted in connection
with the Company's New Drug Application ("NDA") included patients
exhibiting unexpected high plasma concentrations of zolmitriptan;
(c) as a result of the foregoing differences among patient results,
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") was reasonably likely
to require further studies to support regulatory approval of
Qtrypta; (d) as a result, regulatory approval of Qtrypta was
reasonably likely to be delayed; and (e) 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.

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

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


[*] Arkansas PERS Trustees Approve Securities Litigation Policy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael R. Wickline, writing for Arkansas Democrat Gazette, reports
that the Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System's investments
increased in value by $477 million the last quarter to $9.57
billion, its investment consultant reported.

The system's investment return was 6.01% in the quarter that ended
Sept. 30 to rank in the top 7% of its peers among the nation's
public pension systems, Callan said in a written report to the
system's board of trustees.

The unaudited market valuation of the system's investment portfolio
totaled $10.08 billion at the close of business on Nov. 17, system
Executive Director Duncan Baird said after the Nov. 18 board of
trustees meeting.

According to Callan, the system's domestic stock market investments
earned a return of 9.03% to end the quarter valued at $3.91
billion, while the system's international stock market investments
posted a return of 7.79% to finish the quarter valued at $2.33
billion.

The investment consultant said the system's bond investments earned
a return of 2.19% last quarter to end up valued at $1.58 billion,
while real assets, including real estate, energy and timber, had a
return of minus 0.26% last quarter to end up valued at $1.22
billion.

The system's diversified strategy investments earned a return of
3.38% to finish the quarter valued at $459.6 million, according to
Callan.

The system's investment return in the year that ended Sept. 30 was
8.08% to rank in the top 35% of its peers. The target return is
7.15% a year.

The return over the past five years has averaged 8.66% a year to
rank in the top 28% of its peers. The return over the past 10 years
has averaged 8.75% to rank among the top 15% of its peers.

Trustees voted to hire Acadian Asset Management and Franklin
Templeton Investment as international stock market investment
managers to manage about $165 million apiece, Baird said.

The trustees voted to confirm their Aug. 19 vote to maintain the
system's 15.32% of employee payroll charged to state and local
governments in fiscal 2023, which starts July 1, 2022, Baird said.

State and local governments paid $299.4 million into the system in
fiscal 2020, while system members paid $71.4 million, according to
a system report. Fiscal 2020 ended June 30.

The trustees in July approved draft legislation aimed at improving
the system's financial status and reducing its unfunded
liabilities. The proposals would be considered by the Arkansas
General Assembly in the regular session starting in January. One
proposal would gradually increase the salary rate charged to
members who pay into the system from 5% to 7% over eight years.

The system included 44,373 working members with an average salary
of $40,469 a year and 39,805 retirees who were paid a total of $637
million in benefits, or an average of $16,003 a year, as of June
30, according to system actuary Gabriel, Roeder, Smith & Co.

As of June 30, the system's assets were valued at $9.09 billion and
its actuarial accrued liabilities totaled $11.51 billion, so the
system was 79% funded, Gabriel reported.

The system's unfunded liabilities totaled $2.42 billion as of June
30 and are projected to be paid off over a 23-year period,
according to Gabriel. Unfunded liabilities are the amount by which
a system's liabilities exceed the value of its assets. Actuaries
often compare the payoff period to a mortgage on a house.

SECURITIES LITIGATION

The trustees on Nov. 18 approved a securities litigation policy
that requires the system's executive director to make a
recommendation for a securities litigation claim to the board for
approval before seeking lead plaintiff status or initiating such
litigation.

The policy also establishes a threshold of a loss of at least $1
million in order for the system to seek lead or co-lead plaintiff
status in a securities class-action lawsuit.

Under the policy, the board delegates to the executive director the
authority to review and evaluate potential securities litigation
and the authority to make all administrative, procedural or
strategic decisions to meet the goals and objections of the board.

If several law firms are interested in representing the system for
a single case, the factors to consider in which firm to hire
include the first to file or develop the theory for the case;
expertise; willingness to negotiate contingency fees and charge
only reasonable and necessary costs; and transparent billing
practices.

The system has 18 securities-monitoring firms. The firms are paid
on a contingency-fee basis and potentially millions of dollars are
at stake in some successful and complex cases. [GN]


[*] Chambers of Commerce Discuss Class Action Lawsuits in Korea
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lee So-A, writing for Korea JoongAng Daily, reports that
businessmen and economic regulators from Korea and the United
States suggested an amendment to U.S. Trade Expansion Act Section
232 - a regulation utilized by the administration of U.S. President
Donald Trump.

The comments came during the U.S.-Korea Business Council's annual
joint plenary session, a two-day session jointly hosted by the
Federation of Korean Industries (FKI) and the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce through Nov. 18. Held annually since 1988, this was the
first session after the U.S. presidential election.

Section 232 of the U.S. Trade Expansion Act authorizes the U.S.
president to limit imports of goods or materials if they are deemed
a threat to national security.

Enacted in 1962, the act was rarely used until the Trump
administration. With the law, he imposes a 25 percent tariff on
imported steel and a 10 percent tariff on aluminum. Trump has also
strongly pushed efforts to impose tariffs on imported vehicles.

Participants from both countries demanded that the act be amended,
protesting that it undermines a free international trade order and
threatens an economic alliance between Korea and the United
States.

"President-elect Biden may change the imposed tariff based on
Section 232 or create policies to abolish them consecutively, but
Korea's carmakers still have a lot of concern," said Kwon Tae-shin,
the vice chairman of FKI.

"Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate
Committee on Finance, is expected to push forward with the
amendment of Section 232, which was scrapped last year, so I hope
this issue gets solved in the future."

Another hot potato during the meeting was an act on class action
suits, which is being pushed in Korea. This law would permit
collective lawsuits for damages if the case has more than 50
victims, regardless of industry. At the moment, this is only
possible for the securities field.

Council members from the United States said Korea should not repeat
the same mistakes made in the United States. One member said Korea
would be making the same mistake as in the United States, where
class action lawsuits were just rewarding lawyers with billions of
dollars whereas consumers end up with coupons or a few dollars as
compensation.

Another member who volunteered to give an opinion said class-action
lawsuits create an antagonistic environment towards corporations
and therefore suggested that businessmen and economic officials
should proactively voice their opposition during the legislative
process.

Besides the legislative issues, both parties agreed to propose to
respective governments a reduction of self-quarantine periods for
traveling businessmen.  

"Next year should be the year that the coronavirus pandemic ends,"
said Choi Jong-Kun, the first vice minister of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, who gave a keynote address. "The countries must
continue free and fair economic cooperation based on
multilateralism."

Held for the 32nd time this year, the plenary session was attended
by high-ranked economic officials from both governments and senior
executives of Korean and U.S. companies, including Samsung
Electronics, Hyundai Motor, SK, Korean Air, Amazon and 3M.

The list included First Vice Foreign Minister Choi, Yoon Tae-sik,
the deputy minister of the Finance Ministry and Byun Jae-il, the
head of the Korea-U.S. Diplomacy Forum. From the United States,
Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun and Cordell Hull, the
acting undersecretary for industry and security under the Bureau of
Industry and Security, were present.

The event was held at the FKI headquarters in Yeouido, western
Seoul, and aired live via video conference.

"For 70 years since the Korean War, intimate economic cooperation
between Korea and the U.S. was possible due to the alliance from
the war," said Huh Chang-soo, the chief of FKI and chairman of the
Korea-U.S. joint plenary session.

"The Councils will do their best to enhance cooperation for the
digital economy, which has become important due to the coronavirus
pandemic, and also address the agenda faced by both countries."
[GN]


[*] Covid-19 Presents Potential for Coordinated Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
DLA Piper reports that Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has
become an unprecedented pandemic that is having profound economic
and social impacts around the world. Many of its effects are
similar across different countries, resulting in common economic,
supply chain, operational, and consumer issues. The pandemic
presents a potential for coordinated class action and collective
redress activity attacking companies' conduct in multiple
jurisdictions simultaneously.

At the same time, an ever-increasing number of countries are
enacting and expanding class action and global redress procedures,
especially regarding consumer claims. This confluence of events
presents greater opportunities for sophisticated plaintiffs'
lawyers and litigation funders to prosecute coordinated cases in
multiple jurisdictions simultaneously. Indeed, plaintiffs' lawyers
and litigation funders are already focused on instigating COVID-19
related litigation in the UK, Europe, Australia, the US, and
Canada. The US has already seen hundreds of COVID-19 related class
actions, and dozens have been filed in Canada. As discussed below,
extensive COVID-19 related class action filings are expected in
Australia and the UK, with filings expected to varying degrees in
Germany, China, and elsewhere.

In this unparalleled environment, the risk to companies of global
and cross-border class action and collective redress proceedings is
greatly increased. To help our clients anticipate and protect
against these litigation threats, our DLA Piper global team is
monitoring COVID-19 related litigation, identifying trends, and
marshalling our knowledge and experience. Working across our
platform of practices, geographies, and sectors, we are partnering
with our clients to plan proactively to defend against inevitable
litigation.

Below, we discuss the trends we are seeing and the areas in which
we expect to see increased COVID-19 related litigation in multiple
jurisdictions around the world.  We will be drilling down on these
trends in a webinar on June 16, 2020; we hope that you will join
us. If you would like to sign up for the webinar.

COVID-19 related class actions are exploding in the US and Canada

As expected, plaintiffs' lawyers and litigation funders have
already begun capitalizing on the pandemic to bring a significant
number of COVID-19 related class actions. Between the beginning of
March 2020 and as of May 25, 2020, 442 COVID-19-related putative
class actions have been filed throughout the US.  Canadian courts
have seen 32 COVID-19 related class actions, including some early
examples of coordinated cross-border prosecution of putative class
actions between the US and Canada. These US and Canadian lawsuits
are early indicators of class action litigation risk that will
arise in other jurisdictions around the world in 2020 and 2021. We
are already seeing plaintiffs' lawyers trolling for plaintiffs for
putative class action cases in the UK and Australia.

Class actions trends in the US and Canada

The largest number of putative class actions filed to date in the
US are contract, insurance-related, and consumer protection claims,
including refund cases against airlines, educational institutions,
ticket sellers, and venues. A number of other cases have been filed
arising from the federal CARES Act, as well as employment and
securities cases.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the largest number of cases filed to date
has been in California federal and state courts, followed by New
York, Florida, New Jersey, and Illinois.

A number of industry sectors in the US have been hit with multiple
class actions. Over 120 class actions to date have been filed
against insurance companies, and more than 90 class actions have
been lodged against universities and colleges. The travel and
transportation sector has been another frequent target, along with
financial institutions, fitness companies, ticketing and event
companies, manufacturers, retailers, technology companies, and
other businesses, in an expanding wave of putative class actions
across the US.

In Canada, the majority of filings seen so far have been in Quebec
and Ontario, followed by British Columbia.

The largest number of class actions filed in Canada relate to
negligence (personal injury and wrongful death), followed by
insurance and consumer protection cases. There are also a number of
cases against nursing homes and transportation companies.

We expect these trends to continue in both the US and Canada, with
additional likely targets including sports leagues and teams,
manufacturers and sellers of personal protective equipment (PPE),
and pharmaceutical companies.

Based on these filings and past trends in the US and Canada, we
anticipate expansion of COVID-19 class actions and collective
redress proceedings in multiple jurisdictions globally in coming
months.  At present, there is no legislative safe harbor for
COVID-19 related class action litigation in the US or Canada,
although we are closely monitoring all legislative developments.

COVID-19 class actions in Australia

Australia has a well-established and mature class actions regime,
with litigation funders playing a significant role. Although no
COVID-19 class actions have been issued yet, a number are already
in the initial stages and several are imminent. We expect this
trend to mirror the US and Canada, although a surge in Australian
class actions is unlikely until later this year for several
reasons:

The judiciary discourages competing class actions, so there is less
of a race to the starting line than in the US.

COVID-19 will place cashflow pressure on plaintiff law firms, with
all courts prioritizing court business and adjourning many trials.
As a result, many plaintiff law firms will likely want litigation
funding in place before bringing class actions.
Litigation funders similarly may be nervous about delays in funded
matters that were expected to have resolved within the next year.
We expect that funders will, however, continue with due diligence
of potential claims and will not be deterred in pursuing litigation
with prospects of success. Funders have also not welcomed the
announcement of a parliamentary inquiry into the impact of
litigation funding in class actions on justice outcomes.

The Victorian government tabled a bill to introduce contingency
fees for class actions. There is growing pressure from business
industry groups to defer legislation that exposes companies to
increased class action risk whilst the economy struggles to
recover.  The government, however, is pressing on with that
legislation.

There is agitation for legislative reform to limit COVID-19 class
actions, including lobbying from business interest groups to add a
"safe harbour" provision in the Corporations Law barring
proceedings relating to statements about company performance in the
context of COVID-19.

We expect that Australia will follow the emerging US and Canadian
litigation trends, including in travel, products, manufacturers,
personal protective equipment (PPE), consumer claims, supply chain,
employment, privacy, financial services, and securities claims
(especially around disclosure obligations in the COVID-19 world).

Emerging COVID-19 class action risk in the UK

The UK is an emerging jurisdiction for all types of mass
litigation.  Although there is no US-style class action system,
group litigation orders, representative proceedings, and mass
claims are combined under the popular description of "class
actions" in the UK.  Against a backdrop of procedural and
legislative change designed to enable easier access to collective
redress together with multibillion-pound levels of new fundraising
for investment in litigation, it has never been easier to fund and
initiate class actions in the UK, and we expect COVID-19 will
provide a major impetus for expanded class action litigation.
Indeed, two of the UK's most senior retired judges have already
called for "breathing space" for companies to avoid a "deluge of
litigation" in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.

As of the date of this publication, there are no COVID-19 related
class actions filed in UK courts yet, but there are multiple
reports of claimant groups being assembled. The plaintiffs' bar and
litigation funders are actively originating and evaluating claims
for funding across the UK. Given the emerging character of UK class
actions, much of the experience and expertise developed in the more
mature but legally comparable North American and Australian class
action systems will be steadily deployed in the UK in the coming
months and years. Assuming that the UK emerges from lockdown over
the summer, there is a real prospect of a large volume of funded
mass litigation from the third quarter of 2020 onwards.

Any spike in UK litigation will likely follow the trends in the US
and Canada, particularly in the financial services, insurance,
aviation, government contracting, and manufacturing/industrial
sectors. The timing of the UK litigation, however, may be similar
to litigation arising from the global financial crisis. Initially,
few cases were initiated, but some nine to 12 months after the
September 2008 collapse of Lehman Brothers, significant litigation
was steadily initiated, leading to a peak between 2010 and 2012.

Based on our market monitoring in the UK, plaintiffs' lawyers are
already preparing claims in the following areas:

Consumer protection - relating to allegedly exploitative sales, the
management of consumer finance products by financial institutions
or refusing to provide refunds for products or services acquired
prior to COVID-19

Securities litigation - arising from a loss in share investments
and claims against directors and officers concerning operational
resilience, business continuity, and market statements

Supply chain claims - relating to failures to deliver or sell
products or declarations of force majeure

Mass employment claims - in areas such as safe working practices
and worker protection and

Data breach and privacy - eg, how companies manage COVID-19 related
personal data.

The UK is one of the world's largest financial centers and, given
the importance of English law in international contracts, the UK
courts will be a key battleground for potential claims, either as a
testing ground for innovative categories of claims or as part of a
wider global strategy.  Businesses that operate in the UK are urged
to carefully monitor developments in their UK operations, as risks
present in North America and Australia now also present risks for
UK operations.

Limited COVID-19 class action risk in Germany

In Germany, there is no class action procedure and claims are
generally brought individually. However, German procedural law
allows for an action for declaratory judgment, or
"musterfeststellungsklage," where certified bodies (eg, consumer
protection associations) publicly register a suit against a private
company, which can then be joined by consumers. If the court
declares the claims feasible, each consumer who took part in the
action for declaratory judgement still has to file suit for payment
of compensation individually. Alternatively, the claims may result
in a settlement that participants in the declaratory judgment
action can join. Thus, plaintiffs can pool together multiple claims
only if the claims are ceded to them by the individual consumers.
Claims aggregating companies already include consumer claims and
mass enforcement of cartel damage claims, and this may be an area
ripe for expansion for COVID-19 related claims. Currently, there
are no actions for declaratory judgment concerning COVID-19
registered publicly in Germany, but we expect such actions in the
future. We anticipate consumers will likely seek relief primarily
against insurance companies that have declined COVID-19 related
insurance claims. There are also a number of plaintiff lawyers and
legal-tech (claims aggregating) companies urging consumers and
companies to file compensation claims against the federal states of
Germany based on infection control measures that forced temporary
business closures or imposed heavy restrictions on operations.
German law provides that those who are subjected to either unlawful
or lawful government measures may bring compensation claims under
certain circumstances. The key principle in these claims will be
that locked down businesses make a "special sacrifice for the
general public" in helping slow infection at the cost of their
business. Such claims will likely be enforced primarily through
individual trials, although legal-tech companies are seeking to
take on a share of these claims also.

COVID-19 litigation risk in China

Class actions (referred to as representative actions under Chinese
law) are limited to product liability, environmental pollution,
consumer rights, and public interests related claims in China. To
date, no COVID-19 related representative actions have been filed in
China. Given the range of claims that can be made as representative
actions, we expect that the emerging class action trends observed
in jurisdictions like the US and Canada are less likely in China.

Nevertheless, COVID-19 has produced an increase in non-class action
litigation in China, with the bulk of these claims related to
supply chain, property leases, insurance, and international trade
issues.  For example, on April 16, 2020, China's Supreme People's
Court published a "Guiding Opinion on Several Issues Concerning
Proper Trial of Civil Cases Involving COVID-19." The Opinion
provides guidance to lower courts in China on handling COVID-19
related issues in civil cases, including detailed guidance on
applying force majeure and other contract principles to determine
whether performance has been impacted by COVID-19, how the impact
of COVID-19 measures by the government should be taken into
account, and other COVID-19 related guidance.  This Opinion may
provide more clarity to companies involved in or looking to
undertake COVID-19 related litigation in China.

Other COVID-19 related litigation

The flood of COVID-19 related litigation is not limited to putative
class actions.  Continuing areas of focus include: (a) breach of
contract disputes for cancelled events or undelivered goods; (b)
refund actions against various industries; (c) insurance coverage
disputes; (d) litigation seeking to force closure or get out of
corporate transactions; (e) litigation seeking to force or excuse
performance of real estate transactions; and (f) a wide variety of
employment related claims. Claims relating to government relief
programs in the US are also an emerging trend.

We are also anticipating increases in fraud-related allegations.
During times of economic crisis, there is a well-documented pattern
of increased allegations of corporate fraud, especially as
businesses struggle to sustain ongoing losses and damages.  We
anticipate increased restructuring litigation, investor claims
against companies and their boards arising from claim of fraud, and
related claims against financial services companies, as well as
claims related to qualification for and use of government relief.

Trends

As we have already seen in the US and Canada, the following types
of litigation and class action activity may intensify elsewhere:

Consumer: disputes over alleged price gouging, alleged product
defects or failures of PPE or cleaning products, product labeling
and marketing, fees and charges, refund and cancellation policies,
monthly or yearly memberships and other subscription services,
automatic renewals, failure to provide goods and services, and
expiration of time limited services or gift cards. Consumer
protection is also a key focus for regulators, and some companies
have already been subject to additional regulatory attention, which
may generate follow-on litigation.

Securities: disputes relating to financial disclosures, supply
chain impact, and enterprise risk preparedness disclosures,
particularly where there has been an accompanying stock drop or
recent trading (such as stock buyback programs and insider
trading). In addition, companies taking advantage of government
relief programs will face both heightened regulatory scrutiny and
litigation risk regarding their implementation or use of government
stimulus.

Commercial: force majeure provisions, material adverse change
provisions, refund and cancellation policies, indemnification,
representations and warranties, acceptance and rejection of goods,
minimum volume purchase requirements, and delayed payments, as well
as litigation and investigations regarding the payment of money
related to government programs.

Privacy: with the global surge in teleworking, online education,
video communication, and shopping, the volume of cyber incidents
has increased, and will result in data breach and other privacy
related class actions. The increase in at-home medical devices and
testing also creates new privacy litigation risk.
Real estate and construction: rent abatement requests, buyers in
purchase agreements and tenants declaring force majeure events,
anchor tenant remedies, premises-related claims, service
interruptions, foreclosure actions, deadline extensions, and
delayed payments or defaults, including inability to mitigate
damages by re-letting properties.

Insurance: business interruption and event cancellation insurance
coverage and claim denials, travel insurance and claim denials,
professional and directors' and officers' liability disputes,
shareholder class actions, workers' compensation (where the source
of exposure is unclear), litigation related to compliance with
scores of newly adopted directives relating to claim payments,
suspension of premium collection, cancellations for non-payment of
premium, and health insurance, as vaccines or arguably experimental
treatments come on line, as well as bad faith claims.

Employment: issues relating to reopening and potential liability
arising therefrom, discrimination claims, retaliation claims,
whistleblower claims, privacy issues relating to handling of
COVID-19 diagnoses, working time and working condition issues,
COVID-19 absences and adjustments or working while ill, claims
involving mass layoffs or plant closures, workers' compensation
claims, allegations of failure to protect employees and wrongful
death claims.

What you can do right now to minimize your exposure

In light of the flurry of litigation and likely increase in
litigation in the near term, businesses are urged to act now to
mitigate their litigation risk and attendant reputational and
headline risk in all the major jurisdictions where they operate.
Among other things, businesses and their counsel are urged to
consider taking the following proactive steps:

Perform a risk analysis of products or services in the new COVID-19
environment: identify and implement measures that can minimize or
cabin potential liability.

Review potentially impacted agreements (leases, purchase order
terms, or agreements with customers, vendors, or counter-parties),
with a particular focus on provisions such as force majeure
clauses, representations and warranties, refund or cancellation
policies, material adverse change, minimum volume purchase
requirements, automatic renewal provisions, and choice of law/venue
selections for disputes.

Consider implementing a class action waiver and arbitration
agreement or other adjustments to terms and conditions, to the
extent enforceable in particular jurisdictions.

Manage employment risk by clear communications with employees, and
seeking legal guidance as to COVID-19 related employment questions.
Review product labels, warnings, customer disclosures, and
advertisements carefully for litigation and regulatory risk.
Review public disclosures with a particular focus on earnings
guidance, financial statements, MD&A, risk factors, and statements
regarding supply chains or other operational matters that might be
used to allege companies misled investors regarding preparedness in
light of regulatory guidance on the pandemic.

Plan for re-openings, streamlining processes, more liberal
work-from-home options, and new health and safety requirements (all
of which seem very likely to transform workplaces as we know them
across the globe).

Plan and structure transactions in securities, including employee
equity awards and stock repurchase programs, to limit concerns
about inadequate disclosure, insider trading, market manipulation,
or similar claims. [GN]


[*] Life Science Companies Face Greater Risk of Shareholder Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Veronica E. Callahan, Esq., Daniel Hawke, Esq., Jeremy Kamras,
Esq., Arthur Luk, Esq., Joshua Martin, Esq., Michael Trager, Esq.,
and Sasha Zheng, Esq., of Arnold & Porter, in an article for
Mondaq, report that as 2020 draws to a close, companies in the life
sciences industry are reflecting on a year that has presented both
opportunities and challenges. From the securities enforcement and
litigation perspective, life sciences companies continue to face
increased scrutiny arising out of disclosure and event-driven
trading issues relating to worldwide business disruptions and
developments of COVID-19 diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccines.
While life sciences companies are accustomed to stringent
regulatory oversight, extra vigilance this year and beyond can help
to ensure that they do not find themselves on the receiving end of
enforcement actions or securities lawsuits.

SEC Enforcement Actions

At the outset of the pandemic in March, the SEC's Co-Directors of
Enforcement issued a rare public statement emphasizing "the
importance of maintaining market integrity and following corporate
controls and procedures" during COVID-19 and reminding public
companies "to be mindful of their established disclosure controls
and procedures, insider trading prohibitions, codes of ethics, and
Regulation FD and selective disclosure prohibitions to ensure to
the greatest extent possible that they protect against the improper
dissemination and use of material nonpublic information."1

In addition, in light of heightened regulatory and enforcement
concerns relating to COVID-19 business activity, the SEC formed a
special Coronavirus Steering Committee in 2020. Among other
actions, the Committee worked to suspend trading in the securities
of two dozen issuers where questions arose regarding their
disclosures about potential COVID-19 treatments, the manufacture
and sale of personal protection equipment, or disaster-response
capabilities.2 For example, the SEC issued a trading suspension
against Blackhawk Growth Corporation in connection with statements
regarding the company's purported agreement to distribute COVID-19
antibody tests and its sales and delivery of such tests. Under
federal securities laws, the SEC may suspend trading in any stock
for up to 10 business days for the public interest and in order to
protect shareholders. While trading suspensions are not enforcement
actions and do not constitute a finding of wrongdoing, they often
reflect the extent to which the SEC staff believes there may be
inaccurate or incomplete information in the marketplace for a
particular issuer's securities—and in some cases, they may lead
to an enforcement action where there is evidence of fraud or
financial reporting and other disclosure violations. Indeed, the
SEC's Division of Enforcement has been quite active, both in cases
originating from trading suspensions and otherwise. For example,
the SEC suspended trading against Praxsyn Corporation in March 2020
and followed up by filing fraud charges one month later.

Overall, the SEC has opened more than 150 COVID-related inquiries,
many of which have involved life sciences companies, and a number
of enforcement actions already have commenced, albeit against
smaller companies.3 Illustrative examples include:

SEC v. Praxsyn Corporation, No. 9:20-cv-80706 (S.D. Fla. April 28,
2020), where the SEC charged microcap company Praxsyn Corporation
and its CEO for issuing allegedly false and misleading press
releases claiming the company was able to acquire and supply large
quantities of N95 or similar masks to protect wearers from
COVID-19.

SEC v. Turbo Global Partners, Inc., No. 8:20-cv-01120 (M.D. Fla.
May 14, 2020), where the SEC charged microcap company Turbo Global
Partners, Inc. and its CEO for issuing allegedly false and
misleading press releases claiming that the company had the ability
to sell products that could assist in detecting individuals
infected with COVID-19.

SEC v. Applied BioSciences Corp., No. 1:20-cv-03729 (S.D.N.Y. May
14, 2020), where the SEC charged microcap company Applied
Biosciences Corp. for issuing an allegedly false and misleading
press release claiming that it was offering and shipping a COVID-19
fingerprick test to the general public for private use.

SEC v. Nielsen, No. 5:20-cv-03788 (N.D. Cal. June 9, 2020) and SEC
v. Schena, No. 5:20-cv-06717 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2020), where the
SEC charged (i) an investor in microcap company Arrayit Corporation
for allegedly false and misleading statements made on an online
investment forum about the approval status of a COVID-19 blood
test, and (ii) the president of Arrayit for allegedly false and
misleading statements concerning the development of the blood test
as well as the company's intention to resolve a delinquency in
filing required periodic reports with the SEC.

These cases followed an action brought by the U.S. Department of
Justice against the president of Arrayit charging him with one
count of securities fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit
health care fraud. U.S. v. Schena, No. 5:20-mj-70721 (N.D. Cal.
June 8, 2020).

SEC v. Gomes, No. 1:20-cv-11092 (D. Mass. June 9, 2020), where the
SEC charged five individuals and six offshore entities for a scheme
involving promotional campaigns that, in some instances, included
allegedly false and misleading information designed to capitalize
on COVID-19, such as claims that certain companies could produce
medical quality facemasks or possessed automated kiosks for
retailers to use in response to COVID-19.
Securities Class Actions

Over the past few years, securities class actions against life
sciences companies have comprised 20-25% of all shareholder
actions, and there is no expectation that this year will be any
different. The heightened scrutiny on disclosures relating to
COVID-19 matters has also resulted in a greater risk of shareholder
actions, including potentially a higher likelihood of courts
finding materiality and loss causation. Plaintiffs' firms are
aggressively looking for actions to bring and already have started
filing lawsuits based on alleged misstatements involving testing,
therapies, and vaccines. For example:

Gelt Trading v. Co-Diagnostics, Inc. No. 2:20-cv-00368 (D. Utah
June 15, 2020); Chernysh v. Chembio Diagnostics, Inc., No.
2:20-cv-02706 (E.D.N.Y. June 18, 2020), which are securities class
actions alleging misrepresentations by two companies that COVID-19
tests were 100 percent accurate, when the FDA has since given
guidance that no such tests are 100 percent accurate, or in the
case of Chembio Diagnostics, Inc., the FDA found that the test was
not effective.

Yannes v. SCWorx Corp., No. 1:20-cv-03349 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2020),
which is a securities class action alleging misrepresentations by
SCWorx Corp. regarding a deal to acquire two million test kits each
week, when a later research report called the deal "completely
bogus" and reported that suppliers would be unable to deliver.

Wasa Medical Holdings v. Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc., No.
3:20-cv-00966 (S.D. Cal. May 26, 2020), which is a securities class
action alleging misrepresentations made by Sorrento Therapeutics,
Inc.'s chief executive officer to Fox News referring to a recent
breakthrough in the company's COVID-19 therapy research as a
"cure," when a subsequent research report described the company's
claims as "very hyped."

McDermid v. Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-01402 (E.D.
Pa. March 12, 2020); Beheshti v. Kim, No. 2:20-cv-01962 (E.D. Pa.
Apr. 20, 2020); Devarakonda v. Kim, No. 2:20-cv-02829 (E.D. Pa.
June 15, 2020), which are securities class and a shareholder
derivative action alleging that Inovio Pharmaceuticals' executives
claimed that the company had developed a vaccine for COVID-19 in a
matter of hours, with plans to quickly start human testing, when
plaintiffs claim that no working vaccine had in fact been
developed.

Himmelberg v. Vaxart, Inc., No. 3:20-cv-05949 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24,
2020), which is a class action alleging that Vaxart Inc.
exaggerated the prospects about its COVID-19 vaccine candidate,
including by claiming participation in a federal funding initiative
(which plaintiffs allege was false).

These lawsuits add to the volume of additional securities actions
that are unrelated to COVID-19, which continue to be filed by
plaintiffs' firms against life sciences companies. In September and
October 2020 alone, almost 30 such actions were filed against life
science companies in federal court.

Best Practices

Given the increased scrutiny by the SEC and plaintiffs' firms, life
sciences companies should take action to protect themselves and
decrease risk, including:

Companies in all industries must pay close attention to their
disclosures regarding the operational and financial impacts caused
by COVID-19. For companies in the life sciences industry, this may
include supply chain disruptions, fewer elective surgeries, reduced
demand for certain medical devices, fewer doctor visits, reduced
demand for certain drugs, and disruptions in sales processes. These
setbacks could have material negative effects on revenue, earnings,
cash flows, and liquidity, among other financial metrics. Companies
should take this into account when deciding whether and how to
discuss expected future results—for example, certain life
sciences and other companies have either downwardly revised their
forward-looking estimates due to the impact of COVID-19 or
withdrawn guidance indefinitely. Companies also should include
tailored risk disclosures in their public announcements and SEC
filings.

Companies that are active in COVID-19 research should carefully
consider their disclosures regarding COVID-19 testing, therapies,
vaccines, and other products, including disclosures relating to
clinical trials and regulatory approvals. In order to avoid any
missteps, companies active in this space must be careful not to
rush to make public statements or to over-promise about potential
results. Similarly, companies should take into account all
applicable risks, including the possibility of delays and adverse
events that could negatively affect approvals. Companies also
should clearly identify statements of opinions as opinions,
including adding disclaimers as appropriate.

When life sciences companies engage with the federal government,
they should consider appropriate disclosures concerning their
operational and financial arrangements with the government relating
to the development and distribution of testing, therapies,
vaccines, and other products. This is particularly true when the
government makes disclosures about proprietary drugs and processes
that the company itself has not publicly disclosed, which can
result in heightened compliance risk in crafting disclosures as
well as attract SEC attention.

Regardless of the type of disclosure, life sciences companies
should ensure that they have adequate disclosure controls in place
and that these controls are being followed, including having
disclosures and other public statements (for example, congressional
testimony, traditional media, and social media) reviewed through
the companies' disclosure counsel and, where applicable, disclosure
committees. In addition, when companies do business as a
co-venturer with the federal government under exigent
circumstances, such as those involving COVID-19, they should
consider whether changes to disclosure controls are necessary.

When considering the possibility of a new disclosure, life sciences
companies should take into account prior statements made in SEC
filings, press releases, investor presentations, and other
publications. If new information contradicts earlier statements,
companies should consider whether investors are still relying on
those prior statements and evaluate the need for corrective
disclosure. The SEC's Division of Corporation Finance, Office of
the Chief Accountant, and Division of Enforcement have provided
guidance touching on disclosures, financial reporting, and internal
controls in light of COVID-19, and life sciences companies should
familiarize themselves with this guidance.

Finally, companies should exercise vigilance in connection with
potential insider trading that may appear to be related to COVID-19
testing, therapies, and vaccines. Companies should be aware of
potential risks caused by insiders who trade when positive or
negative developments have not yet been publicly disclosed. Even if
trading is unrelated to the specific COVID-19 disclosures, or was
executed pursuant to Rule 10b5-1 plans, it may invite unwanted
scrutiny if timed propitiously.

Life sciences companies have rightly been lauded for their
accomplishments in a year filled with a multitude of wide-ranging
challenges. At the same time, the first wave of COVID-19-related
litigation and enforcement is an indication of the increased legal
risks faced by life sciences companies in the months to come. By
anticipating such risks, life sciences companies can help avoid
securities enforcement and litigation issues from arising. [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 ***