/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210316.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, March 16, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 48

                            Headlines

AGEAGLE AERIAL: Glancy Prongay Reminds of April 27 Deadline
ALEXIAN VILLAGE: Joint Stipulation to Certify Class Action Filed
ALLSTATE FIRE: Cody Appeals Ruling in Insurance Suit to 5th Cir.
APACHE CORPORATION: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of April 26 Deadline
AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Apr. 30 Deadline

ATHENEX INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over Whitehaven Coal Mine Expansion
BARLEAN'S ORGANIC: Testone Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
BAUSCH HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss RICO-Related Class Suit Pending
BAUSCH HEALTH: Facing Eaton Proposed Class Action in Canada

BAUSCH HEALTH: Gutierrez Appeals Dismissal of Class Suit
BAUSCH HEALTH: Subsidiaries Continue to Defend Putative Class Suit
BAUSCH HEALTH: Timber Hill Appeals Final Approval of Settlement
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Schultz Sues Over Crop Input Price Manipulation
BAYERISCHE MOTOREN: Judge Okays Timing Chain Class Settlement

BEE SWEET: Amaro Files Suit in E.D. California
BERRY CORP: Bid to Appoint Lead Plaintiff in Torres Suit Pending
BLACKBAUD INC: Data Breach Class Action Pending in South Carolina
BLUEBIRD BIO: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of April 13 Deadline
BOSS ART: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Bid to Dismiss Newton Putative Class Suit Pending
BYTEDANCE LTD: Settles Tiktok Privacy Class Action for $92MM
CAPTAIN FIN: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CHARLES SCHWAB: Crago Order Routing Securities Class Suit Underway
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Dougan Appeals W.D. Wash. Ruling to Ninth Circuit

CHURCHILL DOWNS: Court Approves Settlement with Soileau et al.
CHURCHILL DOWNS: Settlement in Kater Suit Granted Final Approval
CHURCHILL DOWNS: Settlement in Thimmegowda Suit Approved
CLASSIC SEAFOOD: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CLOVER HEALTH: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of April 6 Deadline

CLOVER HEALTH: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of April 6 Deadline
CLOVER HEALTH: Vincent Wong Reminds of April 6 Deadline
CNC OILFIELD: Saunders Suit Seeks FLSA Collective Action
COMMONWEALTH BANK: 750,000 Customers May be Part of Class Action
CONDUENT INC: Continues to Defend ERS Puerto Rico Electric Suit

CORRECTIONAL SERVICE: Faces Class Suit Over Racism in the Workplace
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE: Fails to Protect Inmates, Class Action Says
CRYPTOZOIC ENTERTAINMENT: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EAT GOOD: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EBIX INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline

EBIX INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of April 23 Deadline
ERGOGENESIS WORKPLACE: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EXTENDICARE PARKSIDE: COVID-19 Class Action Lawsuit Launched
EXTENDICARE PARKSIDE: Proposed Class Action Filed in Saskatchewan
FACEBOOK INC: Judge Okays $650MM Class Action Settlement

FRANCE: Racial Profiling Class Action Against Police Ongoing
FUBOTV INC: The Schall Law Reminds Investors of April 19 Deadline
GENERAL MOTORS: Renewed Bid for Conditional Certification Filed
GOOGLE LLC: Mr. Sweepy Files Online Advertising Class Action Suit
GOOGLE LLC: SCOTUS Ruling May Act as Bellwether in Class Actions

GRIDDY ENERGY: Banned from Texas Power Market Amid Class Action
GRIDDY ENERGY: Customers Being Shifted to Other Providers
HAIN CELESTIAL: Lawrence Sues Over Toxic Metals in Baby Food
HANNA ANDERSSON: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
HILTON MANAGEMENT: Zakay Law, APLC and JCL Law File Class Action

HOSA TECHNOLOGY: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ICG AMERICA: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
IMMUNOVANT INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of April 20 Deadline
IMMUNOVANT INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of April 20 Deadline
INDIANA: Tully Files Certiorari Petition in Civil Rights Suit

INFINITY Q: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of April 27 Deadline
INFINITY Q: Howard G. Smith Reminds Investors of April 27 Deadline
INVESTORS ALLEY: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ITTELLA INTERNATIONAL: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
J.P. MORGAN: Roeder Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling to 2nd Circuit

JOHN HOGUE: ESOP Participants Win Class Certification
JOHN WETZEL: McMillen Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Inmates
JP MORGAN: Dennis Suit Seeks to Certify Class for Settlement
LEGEND NUMISMATIC: Calcano Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline

LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Scott+Scott Attorneys Reminds of May 3 Deadline
LIBERTY OILFIELD: Cobb and Joseph IPO Class Suits Underway
LION AIR: Girardi Allegedly Failed to Disburse Settlement Funds
LOWRY FARMS: 30 Days Extension to Respond to Class Cert. Bid Sought
LUXEMBOURG: Business Lobby Group Says Class Action Law Too Broad

MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Bid to Dismiss Johnson Class Suit Pending
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Bid to Nix Shareholder Suit in Georgia Pending
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Delaware Securities Suit Still Stayed
MULTIPLAN CORPORATION: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of April 26 Deadline
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Henry Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling to 3rd Cir.

NEW SOUTH WALES: To Ban Firefighting Foams Following Class Actions
NEXTEP INC: Loomis Sues Board for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
NEXTIER OILFIELD: Continues to Defend C&J Merger-Related Suits
ONTRAK INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
PACIFICORP: Faces Lawsuits Over Negligence in Beachie Creek Fire

PANERA BREAD: Ahmad Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
RANGE RESOURCES: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
RENEWABLE ENERGY: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Faces Regulator Inquiries Amid Class Actions
SA POWER NETWORK: Victims Launch $150MM Legal Class Action

SANTANDER CONSUMER: Deka Securities Class Suit Tossed w/ Prejudice
Saskatchewan: Move to Delay Humboldt Bus Crash Suit Challenged
SASKATCHEWAN: Proposed Class Action Filed in Over COVID-19
SEQWATER: Wivenhoe, Somerset Class Action Partially Settled
SHREVEPORT, LA: Court Awards More Than $9M to Billing Class Suit

SKANSKA KOCH: Cortese Appeals FLSA Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
ST. PETER'S HEALTH: Class Action Tossed Due to Lack of Jurisdiction
T&D CUSTOM: Ramirez FLSA Suit Seeks Collective Action Certification
TIKTOK INC: Privacy Class Action Ongoing in Illinois and California
TRICIDA INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Investigates Securities Claims

TRUMP CORP: RICO Class Action Pending in New York
U.S. BORAX: Jungers Files Suit in E.D. California
UNITED AIRLINES: Fails to Inspect and Maintain Aircraft, Suit Says
UNITED STATES: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Hernandez FLSA Suit
UNITED STATES: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Jones FLSA Suit

UNITED STATES: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Tarovisky Suit
UNIVERSITY OF SAINT JOSEPH: Hutchinson Files Suit in D. Conn.
VANDA PHARMA: Robbins LLP May Face Damages Caused by Lawsuit
VELODYNE LIDAR: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
VELODYNE LIDAR: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of May 3 Deadline

VIACOMCBS INC: Broadcast TV Spot Advertising Related Suit Underway
VIACOMCBS INC: Construction Laborers Pension Trust Suit Ongoing
VIACOMCBS INC: Discovery in CBS Merger-Related Suit Ongoing
VIACOMCBS INC: Discovery Ongoing in CalPERS Suit
VOLVO CARS: Faces Class Action Over Sunroof Water Leaks

WELLS FARGO: Droesch Seeks Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Dismissal of Wage and Hour Suit Under Appeal
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Cardoso Sues for Invasion of Privacy
WIDEOPENWEST INC: Settlement Reached in Kirkland Class Suit
WORKHORSE GROUP: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline

WORLD WRESTLING: Seeking $500,000 in Legal Fees Over Dismissed Suit
XL FLEET CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of May 7 Deadline
XL FLEET: The Schall Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
[*] Dallas Law Firm to Sue Zantac Manufacturers Over Cancer Link
[*] Defense Bar Calls for More Oversight in MDL

[*] Florida COVID-Related College Refund Suits Making Slow Progress

                            *********

AGEAGLE AERIAL: Glancy Prongay Reminds of April 27 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming April 27, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired AgEagle Aerial Systems Inc. ("AgEagle" or the
"Company") (NYSE: UAVS) securities between September 3, 2019 and
February 18, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you suffered a loss on your AgEagle 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/ageagle-aerial-systems-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.

On February 18, 2021, Bonitas Research published a report alleging,
among other things, that AgEagle "was a pump & dump scheme
orchestrated by Alpha Capital Anstalt ('Alpha Capital'), AgEagle
founder and former chairman Bret Chilcott and other UAVS insiders
to defraud US investors." The report also alleged that "in April
2020 rumor of a partnership between Amazon . . . & AgEagle was
started by a promotional video uploaded to AgEagle's founder and
former chairman Bret Chilcott's daughter's personal website and
youtube account" but that "we have found no evidence of any 'major
e-commerce customer.'" In mid-2020, AgEagle received over $23
million in proceeds from registered direct offerings. Then, in
fourth quarter 2020, an Amazon spokesperson stated that the company
does not have any dealings with AgEagle whatsoever.

On this news, AgEagle's share price fell $5.13, or 36.4%, to close
at $8.96 per share on February 18, 2021, thereby injuring
investors.

The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) AgEagle did
not have a partnership with Amazon and in fact never had any
relationship with Amazon; (2) rather than correct the public's
understanding about a partnership with Amazon, defendants were
actively contributing to the rumor that AgEagle had a partnership
with Amazon; 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.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired AgEagle securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than April 27,
2021 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative
class action lawsuit. 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 the pending class action lawsuit,
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.

View source version on businesswire.com:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210311005323/en/

Contacts

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com [GN]

ALEXIAN VILLAGE: Joint Stipulation to Certify Class Action Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLA SMITH on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. ALEXIAN VILLAGE OF
MILWAUKEE, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01308-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), the
parties agreed to stipulate to certification of the proposed Rule
23 Class for settlement purposes only and as defined as:

   "All current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt front-line
   care employees employed by Defendant in such positions as
   Resident Assistant, Certified Nursing Assistant, Activity
   Assistant, and Activity Coordinator, within the three years
   prior to the filing of the Complaint, who received alleged
   non-discretionary compensation, such as retention bonuses,
   on-call bonuses, and holiday bonuses, that was not
   incorporated into said employees' regular rates of pay for
   overtime compensation purposes."

The parties stipulate that Plaintiff Carla Smith is an appropriate
Class Representative because she was employed as an hourly paid,
non-exempt front-line care employee of the Defendant during the
relevant statutory period, received alleged non-discretionary
compensation, and did not have the same incorporated into her
regular rate of pay for overtime compensation purposes and, thus,
was subject to the same compensation practices as the members of
the Rule 23 Class.

The parties further stipulate that Walcheske & Luzi, LLC are
qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the
litigation, and, therefore, are appropriate Class Counsel.

Alexian is a senior living provider in Milwaukee, Wisconsin that
offers residents Assisted Living and Nursing Homes.

A copy of the Parties' joint motion to certify class dated March 2,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2OvojJk
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
          Brookfield, Wisconsin 53005
          Telephone: (262) 780-1953
          E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                  sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Sofija Anderson, Esq.
          Casey M. Kaiser, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          111 E. Kilbourn, Suite 1000
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: (414) 291-5536
          E-mail: sanderson@littler.com
                  ckaiser@llittler.com


ALLSTATE FIRE: Cody Appeals Ruling in Insurance Suit to 5th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Andrea Cody, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled ANDREA CODY, TRAEVION LOVE,
BRITTANY BURK, and DANA WHITEFIELD, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ALLSTATE FIRE AND
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and ALLSTATE COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-CV-1935, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 16, 2021, Judge Ed
Kinkeade of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division, granted the Defendants' Second Amended Rule
12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike Class Allegations.

Plaintiffs Cody, Love, Burk, and Whitfield were insured under
separate "but materially identical" automobile polices issued by
Defendants Allstate Fire or Allstate County.

Under the Policy for Plaintiffs Cody, Burk, and Whitfield,
respectively, Defendant Allstate Fire provides coverage for "direct
and accidental loss to the covered auto" that results from
"collision with another object or by upset of that auto or trailer"
or for loss that is "not caused by collision" subject to the
relevant Declarations indicating such coverage. Plaintiff Love's
Policy provides that Defendant Allstate County "will pay for direct
and accidental loss to the covered auto and for loss caused by
collision" subject to the Declarations indicating such coverage.
The term "loss" is not defined under the Policy.

The Plaintiffs each had "an accident" involving their respective
automobile that was covered by the Policy--Plaintiff Cody on Aug.
27, 2017, Plaintiff Love on Dec. 20, 2017, Plaintiff Burk on Nov.
12, 2018, and Plaintiff Whitfield on Aug. 28, 2017.  Each Plaintiff
filed a claim with the Defendants for property damage and, in each
instance, the Defendants concluded that the automobile was a total
loss. The Defendants then determined the value of that vehicle and
subtracted the relevant deductible.

For Plaintiffs Cody and Love, the Defendants added an amount for
sales tax and also "DMV fee." Plaintiff Whitfield received an
additional amount for sales tax as well as a "license and transfer
fee." Plaintiff Burk received only the value on her total-loss
vehicle after Defendant also subtracted the "salvage-retain value."
The Plaintiffs dispute the valuation method the Defendants used in
calculating the actual cash value of their total-loss vehicles.

The Plaintiffs now seek a review of Judge Kinkeade's order
dismissing the case.

The appellate case is captioned as Cody v. Allstate Fire and
Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 21-10220, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, March 9, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Andrea Cody, Traevion Love, Brittany Burk,
and Dana Whitfield, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
          NORMAND, P.L.L.C.
          3165 McCrory Place
          Orlando, FL 32803
          Telephone: (407) 603-6031
          E-mail: ed@normandpllc.com  

Defendants-Appellees Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company
and Allstate County Mutual Insurance Company are represented by:

          Roger D. Higgins, Esq.
          THOMPSON, COE, COUSINS & IRONS, L.L.P.
          700 N. Pearl Street
          Plaza of the Americas
          Dallas, TX 75201-2832
          Telephone: (214) 871-8256
          E-mail: rhiggins@thompsoncoe.com   

APACHE CORPORATION: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of April 26 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Apache
Corporation. Investors have until the deadline listed below to file
a lead plaintiff motion.

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

Apache Corporation (NASDAQ: APA)
Class Period: September 7, 2016 - March 13, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 26, 2021

Shareholders with $400,000 losses or more are encouraged to contact
the firm

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) Apache
intentionally used unrealistic assumptions regarding the amount and
composition of available oil and gas in Alpine High; (2) Apache did
not have the proper infrastructure in place to safely and/or
economically drill and/or transport those resources even if they
existed in the amounts purported; (3) these misleading statements
and omissions artificially inflated the value of Apaches operations
in the Permian Basin; 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 the class action, you need not take any action at
this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action
and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to
learn more about the class action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law
Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los
Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com.  If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
[GN]

AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Apr. 30 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
April 30, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the case
filed on behalf of investors who purchased Aquestive Therapeutics,
Inc. ("Aquestive" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: AQST) securities
between December 2, 2019 and September 25, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

Investors suffering losses on their Aquestive 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.

Aquestive is a specialty pharmaceutical company. Its most advanced
proprietary product candidate is Libervant, a buccal soluble film
formulation of diazepam for the treatment of recurrent epileptic
seizures.

On December 2, 2019, Aquestive announced the completion of the
rolling submission of a New Drug Application ("NDA") to the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for Libervant Buccal Film for
the management of seizure clusters.

On September 25, 2020, Aquestive announced receipt of a Complete
Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA stating that the NDA would not
be approved in its current form. According to the CRL, "in a study
submitted by the Company with the NDA, certain weight groups showed
a lower drug exposure level than desired." The Company stated that
it "intends to provide to the FDA additional information on PK
modeling to demonstrate that dose adjustments will obtain the
desired exposure levels."

On this news, Aquestive's stock price fell $2.64 per share, or
approximately 35%, to close at $4.97 per share on September 28,
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
that: (1) data included in the Libervant NDA submission showed a
lower drug exposure level than desired for certain weight groups;
(2) the foregoing significantly decreased the Libervant NDA's
approval prospects; (3) as a result, it was foreseeable that the
FDA would not approve the Libervant NDA in its current form; and
(4) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Aquestive securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than April 30,
2021 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. [GN]

ATHENEX INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Athenex, Inc. (NASDAQ:
ATNX). Stockholders have until the deadline below to petition the
court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about the
case can be found at the link provided.

Athenex, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATNX)

Class Period: August 7, 2019 to February 26, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 3, 2021

On March 1, 2021, Athenex announced that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) issued a complete response letter (CRL) for
the company's New Drug Application for oral paclitaxel plus
encequidar for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. In the
CRL, the FDA cited safety risks to patients and uncertainty over
the results of the primary endpoint of the objective response rate
(ORR) which might have introduced unmeasured bias and influence on
the blinded independent central review. The FDA further recommended
that "Athenex conduct a new adequate and well-conducted clinical
trial in a patient population with metastatic breast cancer
representative of the population in the U.S." The FDA also noted
that additional risk mitigation strategies to improve toxicity
would be required for this cancer treatment to be approved.

On this news, shares of Athenex stock fell approximately 55% in one
day, to close at $5.46 per share.

The complaint, filed on March 3, 2021, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business. Specifically,
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the data included in the Oral Paclitaxel plus
Encequidar NDA presented a safety risk to patients in terms of an
increase in neutropenia-related sequalae; (ii) the uncertainty over
the results of the primary endpoint of objective response rate
(ORR) at week 19 conducted by BICR; (iii) the BICR reconciliation
and re-read process may have introduced unmeasured bias and
influence on the BICR; (iv) that the Company's Phase 3 study that
was used to file the NDA was inadequate and not well-conducted in a
patient population with metastatic breast cancer representative of
the U.S. population, such that the FDA would recommended a new such
clinical trial; (v) as a result, it was foreseeable that the FDA
would not approve the Company's NDA in its current form; and (vi)
as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

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

                        About Bragar Eagel

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. 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]

AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over Whitehaven Coal Mine Expansion
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Melanie Burton, writing for Reuters, reports that a class action
against a coal mine extension that was set to begin on March 2
could make it more difficult for coal mines to be approved in
Australia on the basis of intergenerational equity and climate
change, if the claimants prove successful.

The landmark claim, by a group of eight teenagers from across
Australia, was set to begins on March 2 in Melbourne's Federal
Court and is expected to last for five days, but a judgement may
not be made for several months.

The students argue that Australia's Environment Minister Susan Ley
has a duty of care to protect them from climate change and the
expansion of Whitehaven Coal's Vickery coal mine in New South Wales
state will contribute to climate change and endanger their future.

"In the community, there is an expectation that big coal mines like
this do get approved at federal level and that is precisely the
reason we are concerned," said principal David Barnden of Equity
Generation Lawyers.

"This is about emissions and the contribution to climate change,
and harm to people who are children today."

Ley's office did not immediately respond to a request from Reuters
for comment, but she told local media she was unable to comment
while a court case was underway.

The Vickery open-cut coal mine would produce mostly metallurgical
coal for steel-making as well as some higher grade thermal coal and
is waiting on final approval from the minister.

It would create 450 ongoing jobs during operations with a net A$1.2
billion ($930 million) state economic benefit, Whitehaven
estimates.

"Our position in relation to the litigation . . . is that the legal
claim has no merit and should be dismissed," Managing Director and
CEO Paul Flynn said in a statement.

"As the Australian economy starts to recover from the impacts of
COVID-19, it is vital that major employment-generating investments
in the economy are not delayed by legal claims that have no
substance."

Coal is Australia's second-most valuable resource export, worth an
estimated A$37 billion in the financial year to June, government
figures show.

Climate change has been a divisive topic in Australia, one of the
world's largest per capita carbon emitters. The country's
conservative government has won successive elections on a platform
of supporting Australia's dominant fossil fuel sectors. [GN]


BARLEAN'S ORGANIC: Testone Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL TESTONE, COLLIN
SHANKS, and LAMARTINE PIERRE, on behalf of themselves, all others
similarly situated, and the general public, v. BARLEAN'S ORGANIC
OILS, LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-00169-JLS-BGS (S.D. Calif.), the
Plaintiff will move the Court on May 20, 2021, to enter an order
certifying the following Classes pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)
and 23(b)(3):

   -- The California Class

      "All persons in California who, between January 24, 2015
      and the date the Class is notified of certification,
      purchased any of the Barlean's Coconut Oils for household
      use and not for resale;" and

   -- The New York Class

      "All persons in New York who, between January 24, 2016 and
      the date the Class is notified of certification, purchased
      any of the Barlean's Coconut Oils for household use and
      not for resale."

Barleans provides organic oil products. The Company offers flax,
omega, fish, and specialty oils, as well as seeds and olive leaf
products.

A copy of the Plaintiff's notice of motion to certify class dated
March 2, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2OJhWSB at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul k. Joseph, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF
          PAUL K. JOSEPH, PC
          3150 Cabrillo Bay Ln.
          San Diego, California 92110
          Telephone: (619) 767-0356
          Facsimile: (619) 331-2943
          E-mail: paul@pauljosephlaw.com

               - and -

          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
          Melanie Persinger, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF
          JACK FITZGERALD, PC
          Hillcrest Professional Building
          3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 692-3840
          Facsimile: (619) 353-0404
          E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
                  trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
                  melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com


BAUSCH HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss RICO-Related Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion
to dismiss the consolidated class action suit in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey is still pending.

Between May 27, 2016 and September 16, 2016, three actions were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
against the Company and various third-parties (these actions were
subsequently consolidated), alleging claims under the federal
Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") on behalf
of a putative class of certain third-party payors that paid claims
submitted by Philidor for certain Company branded drugs between
January 2, 2013 and November 9, 2015.  

On November 30, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating the
three actions under the caption In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. Third-Party Payor Litigation, No.
3:16-cv-03087. A consolidated class action complaint was filed on
December 14, 2016.

The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the
defendants committed predicate acts of mail and wire fraud by
submitting or causing to be submitted prescription reimbursement
requests that misstated or omitted facts regarding (1) the identity
and licensing status of the dispensing pharmacy; (2) the
resubmission of previously denied claims; (3) patient co-pay
waivers; (4) the availability of generic alternatives; and (5) the
insured's consent to renew the prescription.  

The complaint further alleges that these acts constitute a pattern
of racketeering or a racketeering conspiracy in violation of the
RICO statute and caused plaintiffs and the putative class
unspecified damages, which may be trebled under the RICO statute.

A Special Master appointed by the Court has recommended that the
Company's motion to dismiss be denied, but a final decision is
still pending with the Court.

The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to
defend itself vigorously.

Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.

BAUSCH HEALTH: Facing Eaton Proposed Class Action in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company
and certain U.S. and Canadian subsidiaries are facing a proposed
class action proceeding entitled Kathryn Eaton vs. Teva Canada
Limited, et al.

The company and certain U.S. and Canadian subsidiaries have been
named as defendants in a proposed class proceeding entitled Kathryn
Eaton vs. Teva Canada Limited, et al. in the Federal Court in
Toronto, Ontario, Canada (Court File No. T-607-20).

The plaintiff seeks to certify a proposed class action on behalf of
persons in Canada who purchased generic drugs in the private
sector, alleging that the Company and other defendants violated the
Competition Act by conspiring to allocate the market, fix prices,
and maintain the supply of generic drugs, and seeking damages under
federal law.

The proposed class action contains similar allegations to the In
re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation pending in
the United States Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The Company disputes the claims against it and will defend itself
vigorously.

Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.

BAUSCH HEALTH: Gutierrez Appeals Dismissal of Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that plaintiffs
in the proposed class action suit entitled, Gutierrez, et al. v.
Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. 37-2019-00025810-CU-NP-CTL,
filed a Notice of Appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on
the court's order of dismissal.

On June 19, 2019, plaintiffs filed a proposed class action in
California state court against Bausch Health US and Johnson &
Johnson asserting claims for purported violations of the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law and Unfair
Competition Law in connection with their sale of talcum powder
products that the plaintiffs allege violated Proposition 65 and/or
the California Safe Cosmetics Act.

This lawsuit was served on Bausch Health US in June 2019 and was
subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California. Plaintiffs seek damages,
disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief, and
reimbursement/restitution.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims, which was
granted in April 2020 without prejudice.

In May 2020, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and in June
2020, filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint further,
which was granted. In August 2020, plaintiffs filed the Fifth
Amended Complaint.

On January 22, 2021, the Court granted the motion to dismiss on all
claims and dismissed the case with prejudice.

On February 19, 2021, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.

BAUSCH HEALTH: Subsidiaries Continue to Defend Putative Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the
company's subsidiaries continue to defend a consolidated putative
class action suit entitled, In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing
Antitrust Litigation, pending in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (MDL 2724, 16-MD-2724).

The Company's subsidiaries, Oceanside Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Bausch
Health US, LLC (formerly Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America
LLC), and Bausch Health Americas, Inc. (formerly Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International) are defendants in multidistrict
antitrust litigation (MDL) entitled In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals
Pricing Antitrust Litigation, pending in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (MDL 2724,
16-MD-2724).

The lawsuits seek damages under federal and state antitrust laws,
state consumer protection and unjust enrichment laws and allege
that the Company's subsidiaries entered into a conspiracy to fix,
stabilize, and raise prices, rig bids and engage in market and
customer allocation for generic pharmaceuticals.

The lawsuits, which have been brought as putative class actions by
direct purchasers, end payers, and indirect resellers, and as
direct actions by direct purchasers, end payers, insurers, States,
and various Counties, Cities, and Towns, have been or are expected
to be consolidated into the MDL.

There are also additional, separate complaints which have been
consolidated in the same MDL that do not name the Company or any of
its subsidiaries as a defendant. In July 2019, 87 health plans
commenced an action in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County against the Company and other defendants related to the
multidistrict litigation, but no complaint has been filed and the
case has been put in deferred status.

In May 2020, seven health plans commenced an additional action in
the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County against the
Company and other defendants related to the multidistrict
litigation, but no complaint has been filed.

The Company disputes the claims against it and continues to defend
itself vigorously.

Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.

BAUSCH HEALTH: Timber Hill Appeals Final Approval of Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the appeal
on the court's order granting final approval of the settlement in
the consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
15-cv-07658, is pending.

On December 16, 2019, the Company announced that it had agreed to
settle, subject to final court approval, the consolidated
securities class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey (In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 15-cv-07658).

On January 31, 2021, the District Court issued an order granting
final approval of this settlement.

On February 4, 2021, Timber Hill LLC filed a notice of appeal of
the Court's final approval order, which overruled its objections to
the allocation of settlement proceeds as between common stock and
options.

The deadline for other parties to file notices of appeal from the
final approval order is March 2, 2021.

Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.


BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Schultz Sues Over Crop Input Price Manipulation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Schultz, on behalf of himself individually and all others
similarly situated v. Bayer Cropscience LP, Bayer Cropscience,
Inc., Corteva, Inc., Cargill Incorporated, BASF Corporation,
Syngenta Corporation, Winfield Solutions, LLC, Univar Solutions,
Inc., Federated Co-Operatives LTD., CHS Inc., Nutrien AG Solutions,
Inc., Growmark Inc., Growmark ES, LLC, Simplot AB Retain Sub, Inc.,
and Tenkiz, Inc., Case No. 0:21-cv-00681-WMW-KMM (D. Minn., March
10, 2021), seeks to recover injunctive relief, treble damages, and
other relief as appropriate, for the Defendants' violations of
federal and state antitrust laws, unfair competition laws, consumer
protection laws, and unjust enrichment laws of the several States;
and seeks to represent persons and entities who purchased products
used by farmers including seeds and crop protection chemicals such
as fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides ("Crop Inputs") for
their own use, and not for resale, in the United States.

Relevant purchases are from at least as early as January 1, 2014
through the present, from the Defendants, or through Defendants'
authorized retailers for which the Defendants charged
supracompetitive prices due to their collusion and conspiracy.

The complaint alleges that Defendants Bayer CropScience, Inc.,
Corteva, Inc., Syngenta Corporation, and BASF Corporation (the
"Manufacturer Defendants"), together with Defendants Cargill
Incorporated, Winfield Solutions, LLC, Univar Solutions, Inc. (the
"Wholesaler Defendants"), and Defendants CHS Inc., Nutrien Ag
Solutions Inc., Growmark Inc., Simplot AB Retail Sub, Inc., Tenkoz
Inc., and Federated Co-Operatives Ltd. (the "Retailer Defendants"),
established a secretive distribution process that keeps Crop Inputs
prices inflated at supracompetitive levels. In furtherance of their
conspiracy, the Defendants have restricted and denied farmers
access to relevant market information that would allow for
comparison shopping and better-informed purchasing decisions, as
well as denying the Plaintiff and the Classes information about
seed relabeling practices that would inform farmers as to whether
they are buying newly developed seeds or identical seeds repackaged
under a new brand name and sold for a higher price.

Initiatives were undertaken, as early as 2014, to provide new
online Crop Inputs sales platforms and to offer pricing comparison
tools that would allow farmers to view what other farmers were
paying for the same Crop Inputs, increasing price transparency.
These online sales platforms, including Farmers Business Network
("FBN") and AgVend Inc., became useful to and successful with
farmers. In order to keep prices supracompetitively high, and to
the detriment of farmers, the Defendants conspired and coordinated
to boycott these online Crop Inputs sales platforms. These online
tools and sales platforms posed a threat to the Defendants' market
position and price control.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' conspiracy and boycott
served its intended purpose. Online Crop Inputs sales platforms
such as FBN and AgVend were unable to purchase Defendants' Crop
Inputs in order to sell them on their platforms, which was
devastating to the platforms and which directly harmed farmers by
locking in captive distribution systems and eliminating a lower
cost option for purchasing these Crop Inputs.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' anticompetitive
conduct, the Defendants' have maintained supracompetitive prices
for Crop Inputs by denying farmers access to accurate pricing
information and have injured farmers by forcing farmers to accept
opaque price increases that drastically outweigh any increase in
crop yields or market prices for the farmers' crops, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff Schultz purchased one or more Crop Inputs.

Bayer CropScience Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG,
who is a multinational pharmaceutical, chemical, and agriculture
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Karl L. Cambronne, Esq.
          Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Bores, Esq.
          Christopher P. Renz, Esq.
          CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: 612-339-7300
          Email: kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com
                 bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
                 jbores@chestnutcambronne.com
                 crenz@chestnutcambronne.com

               - and -

          Wilbert B. Markovits, Esq.
          Terence R. Coates, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          3825 Edwards Road, Ste. 650
          Cincinnati, OH 45209
          Phone: (513) 651-3700
          Email: bmarkovits@msdlegal.com
                 tcoates@msdlegal.com


BAYERISCHE MOTOREN: Judge Okays Timing Chain Class Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a BMW
timing chain lawsuit settlement is final after a federal judge
found the agreement fair, reasonable and adequate.

The automaker was sued by owners who claim the primary timing chain
assemblies have defects that cause the chains to skip on the
sprockets, causing failures of the crankshafts and camshafts to
function properly.

The BMW timing chain lawsuit settlement says the pistons and valves
can bang into each other which can cause the engines to stall or
completely fail.

According to the BMW class action, owners are faced with repairs
that can cost thousands of dollars to replace the engines and
timing chain components.

The timing chain lawsuit describes the involved components.

Main timing chain assembly: Includes the hydraulic chain tensioner,
tensioning rails, camshaft and crankshaft sprockets and the chain
rails.

Secondary timing chain assembly: Includes the crankshaft and
counterbalance shaft sprockets, oil pump drive chain, pump drive
sprocket, chain tensioner and integrated guide and tensioner
rails.

Vehicles included in the BMW timing chain lawsuit settlement are
equipped with N20 and N26 direct injection turbocharged engines.

   -- 2012-2015 BMW X1
   -- 2013-2015 BMW X3
   -- 2015 BMW Z4
   -- 2012-2015 BMW X4
   -- 2014-2015 BMW 228i
   -- 2012-2015 BMW 320i
   -- 2012-2015 BMW 328i
   -- 2014-2015 BMW 428i
   -- 2012-2015 BMW 528i

BMW denies all the allegations in the class action and says it
stands behind its products.

BMW Timing Chain Lawsuit Settlement Agreement (Final)
For a customer who submits a valid claim showing they paid for the
diagnosis, repair and/or replacement of a failed timing chain
module and/or failed oil pump drive chain module and the failure
occurred within 7 years of the in-service date and 70,000 miles:

That customer will receive reimbursement of 100% of the invoice
amount for work performed at an authorized BMW dealership, and also
for work performed at an independent service center (ISC).

Reimbursement is subject to a monetary cap for repairs done at an
ISC of up to $3,000 for the timing chain module/oil pump drive
chain module, and a monetary cap up to $7,500 for engine failure
directly related to timing chain failure.

The BMW timing chain lawsuit settlement further says valid claims
for BMW vehicles with prior repairs done after 7 years of the
in-service date or 70,000 miles (whichever occurs first), but
before 8 years of the in-service date or 100,000 miles, if the work
is performed at either a BMW dealer or ISC the work will be
reimbursed according to the following terms.

   -- 70,001 to 80,000 miles and within 7 to 8 years in service:
BMW pays 75% / Customer pays 25%
   -- 80,001 to 90,000 miles and less than 8 years in service: BMW
pays 55% / Customer pays 45%
   -- 90,001 to 100,000 miles and less than 8 years in service: BMW
pays 40% / Customer pays 60%
   -- 100,001 miles and above or or more than 8 years in service:
Customer pays 100%

The above terms are subject to same reimbursement monetary caps
mentioned above.

BMW Timing Chain Lawsuit Settlement (Extended Warranty)
The settlement also says there is an "extended warranty" program
for repair or replacement of the defective parts (timing chain
module, oil pump drive chain module and engine if damaged by chain
failure) in vehicles up to 8 years or 100,000 miles.

However, a customer will still have to pay something for repairs
because the extended warranty is based on these terms.

   -- 70,001 to 80,000 miles and within 7 to 8 years in service:
BMW pays 75% / Customer pays 25%
   -- 80,001 to 90,000 miles and less than 8 years in service: BMW
pays 55% / Customer pays 45%
   -- 90,001 to 100,000 miles and less than 8 years in service: BMW
pays 40% / Customer pays 60%

Finally, for one year from the effective date of the BMW timing
chain lawsuit settlement, any affected vehicle with less than
100,000 miles that experiences timing chain module failure, oil
pump drive chain module failure or engine damage due to timing
chain module or oil pump drive chain module failure may go to a BMW
dealer for repairs.

However, the same monetary percentage terms above apply, meaning
customers will have to partially pay for repairs.

According to the final BMW timing chain settlement documents, 44
customers objected to the settlement and 141 customers requested to
be excluded from the settlement. The majority of objections relate
to the extended warranty time duration and the 100,000 mileage
limitation.

Judge Cathy L. Waldor found the objections lacked merit and gave
the BMW timing chain settlement her final approval.

Attorneys for BMW customers have requested up to $3.7 million for
fees and expenses.

The BMW timing chain lawsuit settlement was finalized in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey: Gelis, et al. v.
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft, et al.

The plaintiffs are represented by Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman,
P.C., Law Offices of Thomas P. Sobran, and Nagel Rice, LLP. [GN]


BEE SWEET: Amaro Files Suit in E.D. California
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bee Sweet Citrus,
Inc. The case is styled as Rafael Marquez Amaro, Javier Barrera, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Bee Sweet
Citrus, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00382-NONE-HBK (E.D. Cal., March 11,
2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Agriculture Acts for Farmworker
Rights.

Bee Sweet Citrus -- https://www.beesweetcitrus.com/ -- has been
supplying premium citrus around the globe for over 30 years.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edgar I. Aguilasocho, Esq.
          Mario Martinez, Esq.
          MARTINEZ AGUILASOCHO & LYNCH, A Prof. Law Corp.
          P.O. Box 1998
          Bakersfield, CA 93303
          Phone: (661) 750-9881
          Email: mhart@farmworkerlaw.com
                 mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com

               - and -

          Eric Bryce Kingsley, Esq.
          Kelsey Szamet, Esq.
          Liane Katzenstein Ly, Esq.
          Ariel J. Stillershulman, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY APC
          16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Phone: (818) 990-3800
          Fax: (818) 990-2903
          Email: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
                 kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com
                 liane@kingsleykingsley.com
                 ari@kingsleykingsley.com


BERRY CORP: Bid to Appoint Lead Plaintiff in Torres Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Berry Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to apppoint
lead plaintiff filed in the putative class action suit initiated by
Luis Torres, is pending.

On November 20, 2020, Torres, individually and on behalf of a
putative class, filed a securities class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
against Berry Corp. and certain of its current and former directors
and officers, including the company's Board Chair and Chief
Executive Officer Trem Smith and Chief Financial Officer and Board
member Cary Baetz.

The complaint asserts violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act of 1934, on behalf of a putative class of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired (i) common stock pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering (IPO); or
(ii) Berry Corp.'s securities between July 26, 2018 and November 3,
2020 (the Class Period).

In particular, the complaint alleges that the Defendants made false
and misleading statements during the Class Period and in the
offering materials for the IPO, concerning the Company's business,
operational efficiency and stability, and compliance policies, that
artificially inflated the Company's stock price, resulting in
injury to the purported class members when the value of Berry
Corp.'s common stock declined following release of its financial
results for the third quarter of 2020 on November 3, 2020.

The complaint does not quantify the alleged losses but seeks to
recover all damages sustained by the putative class as a result of
these alleged securities violations, as well as attorneys' fees and
costs.

On January 21, 2021, multiple plaintiffs filed motions in the
Torres Lawsuit seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff and lead
counsel. Once those motions are decided, and the court appoints a
lead plaintiff and lead counsel, the lead plaintiff will likely
file an amended complaint, and defendants will then move to
dismiss.

Berry said, "We dispute these claims and intend to defend the
matter vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the
preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be
met for, among other things, class certification and success on the
merits, we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of
loss that may result from this action."

Berry Corporation operates as an upstream energy company. The
Company engages in the acquisition, exploration, development, and
production of oil and natural gas reserves. Berry serves customers
throughout the United States. The company is based in Dallas,
Texas.

BLACKBAUD INC: Data Breach Class Action Pending in South Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Fischenich, writing for The Free Press, reports that an
investigation by Minnesota State University into the improper
sharing of nonpublic personal information of students, staff and
donors found that 142,226 individuals were affected -- more than
triple the number reported in December.

But most of the private data was not in the database of a cloud
services company that was hacked last summer in a ransomware
attack, according to the report completed in February.

The investigation was launched after the discovery of a ransomware
attack of the computer systems of Blackbaud, a South Carolina-based
cloud services company used by the fundraising arms of numerous
nonprofits and colleges, including MSU and South Central College.
The hackers potentially had access to a variety of personal
information compiled by MSU and SCC and stored with Blackbaud.

The final report completed by Michael Menne, MSU's chief
information security officer, listed the information provided to
the MSU Foundation for fundraising purposes that should have been
kept private.

"Not-public data shared with the Foundation included country of
birth, gender, last 4 digits of Social Security Number, marital
status, birth date, TechID, high school and years of attendance,
ethnicity, and status as a first-generation college student,"
Menne's report stated.

However, virtually none of that data was accessed during the
Blackbaud security breach -- the only exception being people's date
of birth.

"Financial data, social security numbers and passwords were not
accessed as part of the Foundation's Blackbaud security incident,"
according to the report, which was issued following an
investigation conducted by a team of nine MSU officials.

SCC did not do any further investigation since informing 13,282
students, staff, alumni and donors on Dec. 18 of the Blackbaud
breach. In SCC's case, the final conclusion was that the college
had improperly shared with its fundraising foundation full Social
Security numbers, dates of birth, addresses, telephone numbers,
email addresses and campus ID numbers and that the data "may have"
been in the compromised Blackbaud database.

Hospital systems, nonprofit organizations and colleges across the
country had information stored with Blackbaud, including 12 of the
state colleges and universities in the system of 37 public higher
education institutions in Minnesota. Other Minnesota state colleges
impacted by the data breach were Alexandria Technical and Community
College, Bemidji State University, Inver Hills Community College,
Itasca Community College, Metropolitan State University, Minnesota
State University-Moorhead, Ridgewater College, Saint Paul College,
Southwest Minnesota State University, and St. Cloud Technical and
Community College.

Both MSU's report and SCC's earlier report state that there has
been no "final disposition of disciplinary action" against any
employee for violating the Family Educational Rights and Privacy
Act, which obligates colleges to protect the privacy of students
and staff. Under the law, SCC and MSU should have supplied their
fundraising foundations only "directory information" such as a
student's name, field of study and dates of attendance and "limited
directory information" such as a mailing address or email address.

According to MSU's report, the state college system "is reviewing
its contractual relationship with Blackbaud and will ensure
additional security measures are in place."

The Blackbaud hacker, who has not been caught, demanded an
undisclosed amount of ransom from Blackbaud in return for
destroying the data he or she had obtained. The company paid the
ransom and claimed that it received confirmation that the hacker
had destroyed the private data.

A class-action lawsuit filed against Blackbaud by some of the
millions of affected Americans is being heard in a U.S. District
Court in South Carolina. [GN]


BLUEBIRD BIO: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of April 13 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Jakubowitz Law on Feb. 28 disclosed that securities fraud class
action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the
following publicly-traded companies who purchased shares within the
class periods listed below. Shareholders interested in representing
the class of wronged shareholders have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to petition the court. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. For
more details and to speak with our firm without cost or obligation,
follow the links below.

bluebird bio, Inc. (NASDAQ:BLUE)

CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT BLUE:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/bluebird-bio-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=13180&from=1

Class Period: May 11, 2020 - November 4, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 13, 2021

The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
data supporting bluebird's BLA submission for LentiGlobin for SCD
was insufficient to demonstrate drug product comparability; (ii)
Defendants downplayed the foreseeable impact of disruptions related
to the COVID-19 pandemic on the Company's BLA submission schedule
for LentiGlobin for SCD, particularly with respect to
manufacturing; (iii) as a result of all the foregoing, it was
foreseeable that the Company would not submit the BLA for
LentiGlobin for SCD in the second half of 2021; and (iv) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

Astrazeneca Plc (NYSE:AZN)

CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT AZN:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/astrazeneca-plc-loss-submission-form/?id=13180&from=1

Class Period: May 21, 2020 - November 20, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 29, 2021

The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a)
initial clinical trials for the Company's COVID-19 vaccine,
AZD1222, had suffered from a critical manufacturing error,
resulting in a substantial number of trial participants receiving
half the designed dosage; (b) clinical trials for AZD1222 consisted
of a patchwork of disparate patient subgroups, each with subtly
different treatments, undermining the validity and import of the
conclusions that could be drawn from the clinical data across these
disparate patient populations; (c) certain clinical trial
participants for AZD1222 had not received a second dose at the
designated time points, but rather received the second dose up to
several weeks after the dose had been scheduled to be delivered
according to the original trial design; (d) AstraZeneca had failed
to include a substantial number of patients over 55 years of age in
its clinical trials for AZD1222, despite this patient population
being particularly vulnerable to the effects of COVID-19 and thus a
high priority target market for the drug; (e) AstraZeneca's
clinical trials for AZD1222 had been hamstrung by widespread flaws
in design, errors in execution, and a failure to properly
coordinate and communicate with regulatory authorities and the
general public; (f) as a result of (a)-(e) above, the clinical
trials for AZD1222 had not been conducted in accordance with
industry best practices and acceptable standards and the data and
conclusions that could be derived from the clinical trials was of
limited utility; and (g) as a result of (a)-(f) above, AZD1222 was
unlikely to be approved for commercial use in the United States in
the short term, one of the largest potential markets for the drug.

Ebix, Inc. (NASDAQ:EBIX)

CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT EBIX:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/ebix-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=13180&from=1

Class Period: November 9, 2020 - February 19, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 23, 2021

The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
that there was insufficient audit evidence to determine the
business purpose of certain significant unusual transactions in
Ebix's gift card business in India during the fourth quarter of
2020; (2) that there was a material weakness in Company's internal
controls over the gift or prepaid revenue transaction cycle; and
(3) that the Company's independent auditor was reasonably likely to
resign over disagreements with Ebix regarding $30 million that had
been transferred into a commingled trust account of Ebix's outside
legal counsel; 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.

Jakubowitz Law is vigorous in pursuit of justice for shareholders
who have been the victim of securities fraud. Attorney advertising.
Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
JAKUBOWITZ LAW
1140 Avenue of the Americas
9th Floor
New York, New York 10036
T: (212) 867-4490
F: (212) 537-5887 [GN]


BOSS ART: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BOSS Art Culture,
LLC. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. BOSS Art Culture, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-02143 (S.D.N.Y., March 11, 2021).

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

BOSS Art Culture -- https://bossartculture.com/ -- offers
motivational wall art.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Bid to Dismiss Newton Putative Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
24, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the
company's motion to dismiss the purported class action suit
entitled, Richard A. Newton v. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company
(U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta
Division, filed May 8, 2020), is pending.

Plaintiff has filed a purported class action lawsuit against
Brighthouse Life.

Plaintiff was the owner of a universal life insurance policy issued
by Travelers Insurance Company, a predecessor to Brighthouse Life
Insurance Company.

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

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

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

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

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

BYTEDANCE LTD: Settles Tiktok Privacy Class Action for $92MM
------------------------------------------------------------
PitchBook reports that TikTok owner ByteDance has offered to pay
$92 million to settle a class-action lawsuit that accused the
company of illegally harvesting user data on teenagers, according
to reports. The settlement was proposed in the US District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois and reportedly still needs
court approval. ByteDance denied the allegations and said it
proposed the settlement to avoid further litigation, The Wall
Street Journal reported.  [GN]




CAPTAIN FIN: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Captain Fin Co. LLC.
The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Captain Fin Co. LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-02149 (S.D.N.Y., March 11, 2021).

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

Captain Fin Co. -- https://captainfin.com/ -- offers Surfing
Products & Apparel (keel fins, twin fins, quad fins, thruster fins,
longboard and single fins).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


CHARLES SCHWAB: Crago Order Routing Securities Class Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Charles Schwab Corporation (CSC) said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
24, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the
company and its subsidiary Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (CS&Co)
continues to defend a class action suit related to Crago Order
Routing.

On July 13, 2016, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of a putative class of customers executing equity orders
through Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.

The lawsuit names CS&Co and CSC as defendants and alleges that an
agreement under which CS&Co routed orders to UBS Securities LLC
between July 13, 2011 and December 31, 2014 violated CS&Co's duty
to seek best execution.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, interest, injunctive and
equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.

After a first amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend,
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on August 14, 2017.

Defendants again moved to dismiss, and in a decision issued
December 5, 2017, the court denied the motion.

Defendants have answered the complaint to deny all allegations, and
are vigorously contesting the lawsuit.

The Charles Schwab Corporation (CSC) is a savings and loan holding
company. Incorporated in 1986, CSC engages, through its
subsidiaries, in wealth management, securities brokerage, banking,
asset management, custody, and financial advisory services. The
company is based in Westlake, Texas.

CHILDREN'S PLACE: Dougan Appeals W.D. Wash. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Elaine Dougan filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled ELAINE DOUGAN, Plaintiff v. THE CHILDREN'S
PLACE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00818-JLR, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 10,
2021, Judge James L. Robart of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, grants Plaintiff Dougan's
motion to certify the Court's Oct. 27, 2020 order for interlocutory
appeal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b).

Ms. Dougan's suit is a proposed class action arising from her
allegations that TCP sent emails with subject lines advertising
false or misleading discounts to Ms. Dougan and others in
Washington. TCP is a specialty retailer that sells apparel,
accessories, footwear, and other items for infants and children
online and in retail stores nationwide, including in Washington.

Ms. Dougan alleges that TCP creates purported list prices for its
products which are inflated far above the products' regular and
true selling prices. As a result, when TCP offers discounted and
sale prices, the list prices and claimed discounts are false and
inflated because TCP rarely or never offers the products at their
stated list price.

The Plaintiff files a petition for permission to appeal pursuant to
Section 1292(b), Fed. R. App. P., after the District Court granted
her motion to certify for interlocutory appeal.

The appellate case is captioned as Elaine Dougan v. The Children's
Place, Inc., Case No. 21-80014, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, March 9, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner ELAINE DOUGAN, for herself, as a private
attorney general, and/or on behalf of all others similarly
situated, is represented by:

          Che Corrington, Esq.
          Daniel Hattis, Esq.
          HATTIS & LUKACS
          400 108th Avenue
          Bellevue, WA 98004
          Telephone: (425) 233-8633
          E-mail: che@hattislaw.com
                  dan@hattislaw.com

               - and -

          Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq.
          HATTIS & LUKACS
          936 Woodlawn Drive
          Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
          Telephone: (805) 233-8062
          E-mail: pkl@hattislaw.com    
  
Defendant-Respondent THE CHILDREN'S PLACE, INC. is represented by:

          Michelle Doolin, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          4401 Eastgate Mall
          San Diego, CA 92121-1909
          Telephone: (858) 550-6000
          E-mail: mdoolin@cooley.com  

               - and -

          Christopher Brian Durbin, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          5 Palo Alto Square
          3000 El Camino Real
          Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155
          Telephone: (650) 843-5000
          E-mail: cdurbin@cooley.com

CHURCHILL DOWNS: Court Approves Settlement with Soileau et al.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Churchill Downs Incorporated said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the
District Court issued a Final Order and Judgement approving the
settlement in John L. Soileau, et al. v. Churchill Downs Louisiana
Horseracing, LLC, Churchill Downs Louisiana Video Poker Company,
LLC (Suit No. 14-3873) and objectors have until April 9, 2021, to
file a notice of appeal.

On April 21, 2014, John L. Soileau and other individuals filed a
Petition for Declaratory Judgment, Permanent Injunction, and
Damages-Class Action styled John L. Soileau, et. al. versus
Churchill Downs Louisiana Horseracing, LLC, Churchill Downs
Louisiana Video Poker Company, LLC (Suit No. 14-3873) in the Parish
of Orleans Civil District Court, State of Louisiana.

The petition defined the "alleged plaintiff class" as quarter horse
owners, trainers and jockeys that have won purses at the "Fair
Grounds Race Course & Slots" facility in New Orleans, Louisiana
since the first effective date of La. R.S. 27:438 and specifically
since 2008. The petition alleged that Churchill Downs Louisiana
Horseracing, LLC and Churchill Downs Louisiana Video Poker Company,
LLC ("Fair Grounds Defendants") have collected certain monies
through video draw poker devices that constitute monies earned for
purse supplements and all of those supplemental purse monies have
been paid to thoroughbred horsemen during Fair Grounds' live
thoroughbred horse meets. La. R.S. 27:438 requires a portion of
those supplemental purse monies to be paid to quarter-horse
horsemen during Fair Grounds' live quarter-horse meets.

The petition requested that the District Court declare that Fair
Grounds Defendants violated La. R.S. 27:438, issue a permanent and
mandatory injunction ordering Fair Grounds Defendants to pay all
future supplements due to the plaintiff class pursuant to La. R.S.
27:438, and to pay the plaintiff class such sums as it finds to
reasonably represent the value of the sums due to the plaintiff
class.

On August 14, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amendment to their
petition naming the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective
Association 1993, Inc. ("HBPA") as an additional defendant and
alleging that HBPA is also liable to plaintiffs for the disputed
purse funds. On October 9, 2014, HBPA and Fair Grounds Defendants
filed exceptions to the suit, including an exception of primary
jurisdiction seeking referral to the Louisiana Racing Commission.

By Judgment dated November 21, 2014, the District Court granted the
exception of primary jurisdiction and referred the matter to the
Louisiana Racing Commission. On January 26, 2015, the Louisiana
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs' request for
supervisory review of the Judgment.

On August 24, 2015, the Louisiana Racing Commission ruled that the
plaintiffs did not have standing or a right of action to pursue the
case. The plaintiffs appealed this decision to the District Court,
which affirmed the Louisiana Racing Commission's ruling. The
plaintiffs filed an appeal of the District Court's decision with
the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the
Louisiana Racing Commission's ruling and remanded the matter to the
Louisiana Racing Commission for further proceedings on June 13,
2018. The Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Fair
Grounds Defendants' Motion for Rehearing on July 12, 2018 and the
Louisiana Supreme Court denied the Fair Grounds Defendants' Writ of
Certiorari seeking review of that decision on November 14, 2018.

The parties had previously attempted to mediate the matter in
October 2018 but were unsuccessful.

Thereafter, the parties resumed informal settlement discussions,
and, as a result, the Company established an accrual for an
immaterial amount in the third quarter of 2019. The parties
submitted a settlement agreement to the District Court on February
14, 2020, following the Louisiana Racing Commission's approval to
transfer the matter to the District Court for approval and
administration of the settlement agreement on February 12, 2020.

At a hearing on February 18, 2020, the District Court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement agreement and set certain
deadlines relating to actions to be taken by class members.

The settlement agreement requires, among other items, the Fair
Grounds Defendants to (i) pay a certain out-of-pocket amount that
is within the amount for which we established an accrual in the
third quarter of 2019, and (ii) support legislation that allocates
a specified amount of video poker purse funds to quarter horse
purses for races at Fair Grounds with maximum annual payout caps
that are not deemed material. On June 13, 2020, the legislation
addressed in the settlement agreement was passed by the legislature
and signed into law by the Governor of Louisiana. The settlement
includes a release of claims against the Fair Grounds Defendants in
connection with the proceeding, although individual plaintiffs may
opt-out. If there are opt-out claims in excess of $50,000, the
settlement will be voided, unless the parties agree to stipulate
otherwise. The settlement agreement is subject to certain
conditions, including court approval.

After the parties entered into the settlement, legal counsel for
six objecting plaintiffs filed an amended petition with the
District Court. After a hearing on July 20, 2020, the District
Court dismissed the amended petition.

The objecting plaintiffs filed a notice of their intention to seek
a writ with the Louisiana Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
related to the dismissal of the amended petition, which was denied.


The fairness hearing with the District Court relating to the terms
of the settlement agreement occurred on October 7, 2020, and
November 17, 2020, and the parties have submitted post-trial
briefing and proposed final judgments.

Objecting plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal of the February
2020 Order appointing class counsel certifying a class for
settlement purposes.

On January 28, 2021, the District Court issued a Final Order and
Judgement approving the settlement.

The objector's appellant brief in support of their appeal of the
February 2020 preliminary approval was filed on February 9, 2021,
and the Fair Grounds Defendants' brief is due on March 1, 2021.

The objectors have until April 9, 2021, to file a notice of appeal
of the January 28, 2021 Final Order and Judgment.

Churchill Downs Incorporated operates as a racing, gaming, and
online entertainment company in the United States. It operates
through Racing, Casinos, Online Wagering, and Other Investments and
Corporate segments. Churchill Downs Incorporated was founded in
1928 and is headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky.

CHURCHILL DOWNS: Settlement in Kater Suit Granted Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Churchill Downs Incorporated said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the
Washington District Court entered an order granting final approval
of class action settlement in Cheryl Kater v. Churchill Downs
Incorporated.

On April 17, 2015, the Cheryl Kater v. Churchill Downs Incorporated
class action lawsuit was filed in the United District Court for the
Western District of Washington alleging, among other claims, that
the Company's "Big Fish Casino" operated by the Company's
then-wholly owned mobile gaming subsidiary Big Fish Games, Inc.
violated Washington law, including the Washington Consumer
Protection Act, by facilitating unlawful gambling through virtual
casino games (namely the slots, blackjack, poker, and roulette
games offered through Big Fish Casino), and seeking, among other
things, return of monies lost, reasonable attorney's fees, treble
damages, and injunctive relief.

On January 9, 2018, the Company sold Big Fish Games to Aristocrat
Technologies, Inc., an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of
Aristocrat Leisure Limited, an Australian corporation, pursuant to
the Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as of November 29, 2017, by and
among the Company, Big Fish Games and Aristocrat.

Pursuant to the terms of the Stock Purchase Agreement, the Company
agreed to indemnify Aristocrat for the losses and expenses
associated with the Kater Litigation for Big Fish Games, which is
referred to in the Stock Purchase Agreement as the "Primary
Specified Litigation."

After the Washington District Court dismissed the case with
prejudice on November 19, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the Washington District
Court's dismissal of the complaint on March 28, 2018. The complaint
was amended on March 20, 2019, to add Big Fish Games as a party and
to assert claims on behalf of an additional plaintiff, Suzie
Kelly.

On May 22, 2020, the parties entered into an agreement in principle
to settle the Kater litigation and the Thimmegowda litigation. The
agreement in principle remains contingent on final court approval
by the Washington District Court.

Under the terms of the settlement, which will take effect only
after final court approval of the proposed class settlement: (i) a
total of $155.0 million will be paid into a settlement fund. The
Company will pay $124.0 million of the settlement; Aristocrat will
pay $31.0 million of the settlement; (ii) all members of the
nationwide settlement class who do not exclude themselves will
release all claims relating to the subject matter of the lawsuits;
and (iii) Aristocrat has agreed to specifically release the Company
of any and all indemnification obligations under the Stock Purchase
Agreement arising from or related to the Kater Litigation and
Thimmegowda Litigation, including any claims of diminution of value
of Big Fish Games and any claims by any person who opts out of the
proposed class settlement.

On August 31, 2020, the Washington District Court granted the
parties' motion for preliminary approval.

On December 14, 2020, plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval
of class action settlement agreement.

The Washington District Court entered an order granting final
approval of class action settlement on February 11, 2021. The
Company's settlement contribution will be made by March 26, 2021.

Churchill Downs Incorporated operates as a racing, gaming, and
online entertainment company in the United States. It operates
through Racing, Casinos, Online Wagering, and Other Investments and
Corporate segments. Churchill Downs Incorporated was founded in
1928 and is headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky.

CHURCHILL DOWNS: Settlement in Thimmegowda Suit Approved
--------------------------------------------------------
Churchill Downs Incorporated said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the
Washington District Court entered an order granting final approval
of the class action settlement in Manasa Thimmegowda v. Big Fish
Games, Purchaser, Aristocrat Leisure Limited.

On February 11, 2019, the Manasa Thimmegowda v. Big Fish Games,
Inc. class action lawsuit was filed in the Washington District
Court alleging, among other claims, that "Big Fish Casino," which
is operated by Big Fish Games, violated Washington law, including
the Washington Consumer Protection Act, and seeking, among other
things, return of monies lost, reasonable attorney's fees,
injunctive relief, and treble and punitive damages.

On May 22, 2020, the parties entered into an agreement in principle
to settle the Kater and Thimmegowda Litigations.  

On August 31, 2020, the Washington District Court granted the
parties' motion for preliminary approval.

On December 14, 2020, plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval
of class action settlement agreement. The Washington District Court
entered an order granting final approval of class action settlement
on February 11, 2021.

The Company's settlement contribution will be made by March 26,
2021.

Churchill Downs Incorporated operates as a racing, gaming, and
online entertainment company in the United States. It operates
through Racing, Casinos, Online Wagering, and Other Investments and
Corporate segments. Churchill Downs Incorporated was founded in
1928 and is headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky.


CLASSIC SEAFOOD: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Classic Seafood
Group, Inc. The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Classic Seafood Group,
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02120 (S.D.N.Y., March 11, 2021).

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

Classic Seafood Group, Inc. -- http://www.classicseafoodgroup.com/
-- is located in Ayden, North Carolina and is part of the Food
Wholesalers Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CLOVER HEALTH: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of April 6 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on Feb. 28
disclosed that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee against Clover Health Investments, Corp. (NASDAQ:
CLOV) ("Clover") on behalf of those who purchased or acquired
Clover publicly traded securities between October 6, 2020 and
February 4, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and/or purchased
or acquired Clover securities pursuant or traceable to Clover's
registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the
December 2020 Merger.

Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired Clover
publicly traded securities during the Class Period may, no later
than April 6, 2021, 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 contact Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne
Bell, Esq. (484) 270-1435); toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail
at info@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/clover-health-investments-corp-securities-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=clover

According to the complaint, Clover provides health insurance
services. Clover was taken public through a reverse merger with
IPOC, a Special Purpose Acquisition Company (the "Business
Combination"). Prior to the Business Combination, IPOC traded on
the New York Stock Exchange. The Class Period commences on October
6, 2020, when Clover issued a press release announcing its
intention to become a public company through a merger with IPOC. On
October 20, 2020, Clover filed its registration statement and
preliminary proxy statement/prospectus on a Form S-4 with the SEC
(the "Registration Statement"). The Registration Statement was
amended on December 9, 2020 and December 10, 2020, and was declared
effective on December 11, 2020. The Registration Statement touted
Clover's growth as strong and organic.

On February 4, 2021, before market hours, Hindenburg Research
published a research report that revealed that Clover's flagship
platform, Clover Assistant, was the subject of a U.S. Department of
Justice ("DOJ") investigation for a variety of issues, including
illegal kickbacks, marketing practices, and undisclosed
related-party transactions. Hindenburg discovered that Clover's
sales growth was not driven by technology, but by deceptive sales
practices. Following this news, Clover common stock (CLOV) fell
$1.72 per share, or 12.3%, to close at $12.23 per share on February
4, 2021, and Clover warrants (CLOVW) fell $0.18 per warrant, or 5%,
to close at $3.39 per warrant on February 4, 2021.

On February 5, 2021, before the market opened, Clover filed a Form
8-K disclosing that the SEC was conducting an "investigation and
requesting document and data preservation for the period from
January 1, 2020, to the present, relating to certain matters that
are referenced in the [Hindenburg Research report]." Following this
news, Clover common stock (CLOV) fell $0.53 per share, or 4.3%
during intraday trading on February 5, 2021, and Clover warrants
(CLOVW) fell $0.28 per warrant, or 8.2% during intraday trading on
February 5, 2021.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Clover was under active investigation by the DOJ
for at least 12 issues ranging from illegal kickbacks, to marketing
practices, to undisclosed related-party deals; (2) the DOJ's
investigation presented an existential risk to Clover, since it
derives most of its revenues from Medicare; (3) Clover's sales were
driven by a major undisclosed related-party deal and misleading
marketing targeting the elderly, not its purported "best-in-class"
technology; (4) a significant portion of Clover sales were from an
undisclosed relationship between Clover and a brokerage firm
controlled by Clover's Head of Sales; and (5) as a result, the
defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis.

Clover investors may, no later than April 6, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, 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, LLP 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, LLP 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, LLP.
For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
please visit www.ktmc.com.

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


CLOVER HEALTH: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of April 6 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Clover Health Investments,
Corp. 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.

CLOV Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/clover-health-investments-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=13572&wire=1

Clover Health Investments, Corp. (NASDAQ:CLOV)

CLOV Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased October 6, 2020
- February 3, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 6, 2021

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/clover-health-investments-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=13572&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Clover
Health Investments, Corp. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Clover was the
recipient of a Civil Investigative Demand from the DOJ; (ii) much
of Clover's sales are driven by a major related party deal that
Clover not only failed to disclose but took active steps to
conceal; (iii) Clover's subsidiary Seek Insurance failed to
disclose its relationship with Clover and misled consumers as to
its purported independence; (iv) Clover's software was in fact
rudimentary; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

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

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

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
http://www.zlk.com[GN]

CLOVER HEALTH: Vincent Wong Reminds of April 6 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on Feb. 28 disclosed that class
actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the
following companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.

SolarWinds Corporation (NYSE:SWI)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/solarwinds-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=13177&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 5, 2021
Class Period: October 18, 2018 - December 17, 2020

Allegations against SWI include that: (1) since mid-2020,
SolarWinds Orion monitoring products had a vulnerability that
allowed hackers to compromise the server upon which the products
ran; (2) SolarWinds' update server had an easily accessible
password of 'solarwinds123'; (3) consequently, SolarWinds'
customers, including, among others, the Federal Government,
Microsoft, Cisco, and Nvidia, would be vulnerable to hacks; (4) as
a result, the Company would suffer significant reputational harm;
and (5) as a result, Defendants' statements about SolarWinds's
business, operations and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

QuantumScape Corporation f/k/a Kensington Capital Acquisition Corp.
(NYSE:QS)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/quantumscape-corporation-f-k-a-kensington-capital-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=13177&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 8, 2021
Class Period: November 27, 2020 - December 31, 2020

Allegations against QS include that: (1) that the Company's
purported success related to its solid-state battery power, battery
life, and energy density were significantly overstated; (2) that
the Company is unlikely to be able to scale its technology to the
multi-layer cell necessary to power electric vehicles; and (3)
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.

Clover Health Investments, Corp. (NASDAQ:CLOV)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/clover-health-investments-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=13177&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 6, 2021
Class Period: October 6, 2020 - February 3, 2021

Allegations against CLOV include that: (i) Clover was the recipient
of a Civil Investigative Demand from the DOJ; (ii) much of Clover's
sales are driven by a major related party deal that Clover not only
failed to disclose but took active steps to conceal; (iii) Clover's
subsidiary Seek Insurance failed to disclose its relationship with
Clover and misled consumers as to its purported independence; (iv)
Clover's software was in fact rudimentary; and (v) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

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

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

CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]


CNC OILFIELD: Saunders Suit Seeks FLSA Collective Action
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PHILIP SAUNDERS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CNC
OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 0:21-cv-00023-NDF (D. Wyo.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. allowing his coworkers -- other vacuum truck drivers
      working for CNC in Wyoming who were subject to the same
      pay scheme -- to receive notice of this collective action
      and stop the statute of limitations from running on their
      valuable back wage claims; and

   2. conditionally certifying this action.

The Plaintiff contends the CNC did not pay its vacuum truck drivers
the overtime wages required under federal law. CNC instead paid the
drivers straight-time only when working overtime at its facilities,
and nothing at all for overtime when they worked more than 40 hours
per week as a driver. These practices violate the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiff adds that his evidence meets and surpasses the
lenient standard for conditional certification, and the Court
should certify this collective action and order notice to be sent
to putative class members.

CNC offers vacuum trucks, mixing plants, and containment berms.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 2,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3ctaWBCat
no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          PARMET PC
          3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone 713 999 5228
          E-mail: matt@parmet.law

               - and -

          Dustin T. Lujan, Esq.
          LUJAN LAW OFFICE
          1601 Capitol Ave., Ste. 310 No. A559
          Cheyenne, WY 82001
          Telephone: (970) 999 4225
          E-mail: wyoadvocate@gmail.com

COMMONWEALTH BANK: 750,000 Customers May be Part of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
InsuranceNEWS.com.au reports that Slater and Gordon says more than
750,000 people was on March 1 set to receive a Federal Court notice
advising they may be eligible to be part of a consumer credit
insurance class action against Commonwealth Bank.

The action alleges that many people were sold "junk" credit card
and personal loan insurance that was of little or no value and that
many customers would not have been eligible to make successful
claims.

The firm has also commenced similar class actions against ANZ and
Westpac, while a suit against NAB in 2019 secured a $49.5 million
settlement.

Slater and Gordon says Commonwealth Bank had said it would provide
refunds as part of a remediation program, but only a small portion
of customers had been compensated, despite sale of the products
ending in March 2018.

"This move to return only a small portion of its customers premiums
seems to have been a tokenistic effort to protect the bank's brand,
rather than a genuine attempt to make good its past wrongdoing,"
Practice Group Leader Andrew Paull said.

Consumers may be eligible to join the action if they were issued
with a consumer credit insurance policy since January 1 2010, have
paid a premium and have not been paid back in full.

More than two million people have now received court-ordered
notices advising they may be eligible to participate in one of the
four class actions, which is part of the Get Your Insurance Back
campaign. [GN]


CONDUENT INC: Continues to Defend ERS Puerto Rico Electric Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Conduent Incorporated said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Employees'
Retirement System of the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority et al
v. Conduent Inc. et al.

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

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

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

The company intends to defend the litigation vigorously.

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

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

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

CORRECTIONAL SERVICE: Faces Class Suit Over Racism in the Workplace
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jessie Anton, writing for CBC News, reports that as it awaits
certification, a proposed class-action lawsuit filed in January
against Correctional Service Canada (CSC) is garnering a lot of
support.

The statement of claim was filed Jan. 11 on behalf of two
Indigenous officers who have worked for the prison agency in
Saskatchewan and Alberta, Jennifer Sanderson and Jennifer Constant.


The pair are alleging systemic racism within the CSC workplace.

While nothing has been proven in court, the plaintiffs allege they
and other racialized colleagues were treated as though they were
"inmates and not like equals" by both CSC staff and management. As
a result, the statement of claim alleges it has created an "'us
versus them' mentality" within the prison agency.

Since the suit was launched in January, Aden Klein, the
Vancouver-based lawyer representing the plaintiffs, said his law
firm has received more than 30 calls from other former and current
racialized CSC workers wanting to be a part of it.

"They're alleging similar things -- they're alleging racist taunts
and inappropriate jokes at their expense. They're alleging not ever
being considered for promotions, despite going through all the
requirements required," Klein explained. "Really, it boils down to
differential treatment for those individuals."

Late in January, CSC spokesperson Kyle Lawlor told CBC News in an
emailed statement the prison agency is aware of the suit, but
wouldn't comment on it directly as it's before the courts.

However, Lawlor noted measures are in place to help prevent and
eliminate racism and discrimination at CSC. A "workplace wellness
and employee well-being strategy" implemented last fall -- which
aims to make addressing such complaints easier for CSC workers --
was listed as an example.

"CSC does not tolerate these behaviours and is committed to
providing a workplace that is healthy, supportive and free of
harassment and discrimination," Lawlor wrote. "Fostering a work
environment that is safe and inclusive for everyone is our top
priority."

'We'll get through it as a group'
Sanderson, a former correctional officer at the Saskatchewan
Penitentiary and one of the lead proposed plaintiffs in the case,
said it's comforting to see others joining in.

"I think that if there are enough people that come together and
understand that we'll get through it as a group, there will be
positive [outcomes]," she said.

At this time, Klein said CSC's council is still reviewing the case.
However, he noted, the class-action certification process could
take anywhere from months to years.

With more former and current CSC workers willing to get on board,
should it get certified, Klein said it hopes to prove how
widespread the issue is.

"When you look at every individual circumstance, it feels
individual -- it could conceivably be connected to that one person
-- but when you start gathering all these stories and see that
they're all so similar, it shows that it's a systemic problem," he
explained.

A mother of six from the Wahpeton Dakota Nation, Sanderson noted
she ultimately chose to launch the suit to set an example for her
children and in honour of her late mother, a Duck Lake residential
school survivor.

"You don't ever think that you'll have to continue on the fight
after your family member's gone," a teary-eyed Sanderson said. "You
think that society is progressing and government agencies are
progressing, but they're failing." [GN]


CORRECTIONAL SERVICE: Fails to Protect Inmates, Class Action Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Amminson and Ethan Lycan-Lang and halifaxexaminer.ca reports
that a former federal inmate has launched a proposed class action
lawsuit against Correctional Service Canada, claiming the service
fails to protect inmates of prisons for women against sexual
misconduct and abuse.

The suit, filed in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, claims
Correctional Service Canada (CSC) does not take adequate measures
to prevent staff-to-inmate sexual violence, and that it fails to
properly investigate reports of sexual assault when they are
brought forward. The suit is awaiting court approval.

A statement of claim submitted to the court outlines a number of
allegations, including a failure on the part of CSC to uphold the
Charter rights of inmates of prisons for women, specifically their
rights to security, equality, and protection from cruel and unusual
punishment.

"The stories and experiences I've heard described to me by current
and former inmates of female correctional facilities describe a
systemic problem," said Mike Dull, the lawyer representing the
class, in an interview. "Hopefully this lawsuit will shine a light
on, and create an impetus for, policy and procedural changes that
will better protect individuals within those institutions."

The lead plaintiff is a woman named Sara Tessier, representing all
victims of abuse in prisons for women in Canada. Tessier is a
former inmate of Nova Institution for Women in Truro, N.S.

Tessier said the power imbalance between prison guards and inmates
creates an environment where abuse can occur without
accountability.

"You see it all the time, that power imbalance. And it's just a
very scary place . . . .  there's that fear of what's going to
happen if you come forward with something," she said in an
interview.

"That type of environment is literally a playground for predators
to carry out their criminal activity and get away with it," she
said. "And you see that from the inside."

Sexual abuse is underreported among the general population, and
according to advocates, inmates are even less likely to report.
Inmates fear they will not be believed or that they will face
reprisal if they come forward. Victims might also feel shame,
embarrassment, or think their own behaviour contributed to their
assault.

Emma Halpern, executive director of the Elizabeth Fry Society of
Mainland Nova Scotia, hopes this class action will help change
that.

"Part of why we're doing this is to make it a little easier for
individuals to come forward," she said in an interview. "And that's
why we're supporting this class action. And to get a sense, quite
frankly, of the scope and magnitude of this problem, and then to
pressure the system to address it."

The Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies (CAEFS) will
provide support for victims by ensuring they can access therapy and
counselling services throughout the legal process.

In a statement emailed to the Examiner, Isabelle Robitaille, a
spokesperson for CSC, said the service can't comment on the matter
because it hasn't served with the lawsuit.

The Globe and Mail reported that CSC doesn't keep data on employees
who've been charged with sexual assault. In its annual report
released in October 2020, the Office of the Correctional
Investigator found that CSC lacked clear protocol for addressing
incidents of sexual abuse, resulting in "a culture of silence and
indifference." In a news release issued, CAEFS called for a public
inquiry into staff-to-prisoner sexual coercion, violence and
abuse.

Robitaille said CSC tracks all employee cases of misconduct, and
that the service will refine its data to more specifically track
incidents involving sexual coercion and violence.

"Correctional Service Canada (CSC) takes allegations of sexual
coercion and violence seriously and does not tolerate any breach of
the law or CSC policies," she wrote. "CSC employees are expected to
carry out their duties with professionalism and consistently with
the Services policies and mission - and of course, the law."

Robitaille also wrote that the service's current reporting system
"contributes to safer institutions by identifying and responding to
issues early and encouraging offenders to resolve conflicts in
appropriate ways."

CSC recently updated its policy that requires staff to report any
criminal allegations, Robitaille said. She said the service will
also develop a directive specific to sexual violence that will
address "the reluctance of alleged victims to come forward in
certain situations."

Tessier hopes the class action will lead to better protection for
inmates and more accountability in Canadian prisons.

"[Prisons] are not successful in helping people and addressing the
issues that brought people there in the first place. All they do is
cause more harm," she said. "I want to make a change to that." [GN]

CRYPTOZOIC ENTERTAINMENT: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cryptozoic
Entertainment, LLC. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Cryptozoic
Entertainment, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02153 (S.D.N.Y., March 11,
2021).

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

Cryptozoic Entertainment -- https://cryptozoic.com/ -- is an
American publisher of board and card games, trading cards and
collectibles based on both licensed and original intellectual
properties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


EAT GOOD: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eat Good Fish, Inc.
The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Eat Good Fish, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-02108 (S.D.N.Y., March 11, 2021).

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

Eat Good Fish, Inc. -- https://goodfish.com/ -- offers salmon skin
snacks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EBIX INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Ebix, Inc. ("Ebix" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: EBIX) securities between November 9, 2020 and
February 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Ebix investors
have until April 23, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

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

On February 19, 2021, after the market closed, Ebix revealed that
its independent auditor, RSM US LLP ("RSM"), resigned "as a result
of being unable, despite repeated inquiries, to obtain sufficient
appropriate audit evidence that would allow it to evaluate the
business purpose of significant unusual transactions that occurred
in the fourth quarter of 2020" related to the Company's gift card
business in India. RSM had also stated that there was a material
weakness related to Ebix's failure to design controls "over the
gift or prepaid card revenue transaction cycle sufficient to
prevent or detect a material misstatement." In addition, Ebix and
RSM disagreed over the accounting treatment of $30 million that had
been transferred into a commingled trust account of Ebix's outside
legal counsel in December 2020.

On this news, the Company's share price fell as much as $20.24, or
approximately 40%, to close at $30.50 on February 22, 2021, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that there was insufficient audit evidence to
determine the business purpose of certain significant unusual
transactions in Ebix's gift card business in India during the
fourth quarter of 2020; (2) that there was a material weakness in
the Company's internal controls over the gift or prepaid revenue
transaction cycle; and (3) that the Company's independent auditor
was reasonably likely to resign over disagreements with Ebix
regarding $30 million that had been transferred into a commingled
trust account of Ebix's outside legal counsel; 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 Ebix securities during the Class Period, you may
move the Court no later than April 23, 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 purchased Ebix 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]

EBIX INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of April 23 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Ebix, Inc. Shareholders
interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadline
listed to petition the court. Further details about the case can be
found at the link provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

EBIX Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ebix-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=13572&wire=1

Ebix, Inc. (NASDAQ:EBIX)

EBIX Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased November 9, 2020
- February 19, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 23, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ebix-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=13572&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Ebix,
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) there was insufficient audit evidence
to determine the business purpose of certain significant unusual
transactions in Ebix's gift card business in India during the
fourth quarter of 2020; (2) there was a material weakness in
Company's internal controls over the gift or prepaid revenue
transaction cycle; and (3) the Company's independent auditor was
reasonably likely to resign over disagreements with Ebix regarding
$30 million that had been transferred into a commingled trust
account of Ebix's outside legal counsel; and (4) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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

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

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
http://www.zlk.com[GN]

ERGOGENESIS WORKPLACE: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ergogenesis Workplace
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Ergogenesis Workplace
Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02150 (S.D.N.Y., March 11, 2021).

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

ErgoGenesis -- http://ergogenesis.com/-- manufactures and markets
premium-priced, highly customizable, ergonomic chairs and ergonomic
workspace accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


EXTENDICARE PARKSIDE: COVID-19 Class Action Lawsuit Launched
------------------------------------------------------------
620ckrm.com reports that a class-action lawsuit regarding the
handling of the COVID-19 pandemic at the Parkside Extendicare
nursing home where many died as a result of the virus has been
filed.

Tony Merchant is the lawyer who filed the lawsuit. His statement of
claim contains several allegations and that Extendicare was
negligent, callous and displayed wanton disregard for vulnerable
residents they were caring for.

41 people died and 200 residents and staff became ill after an
outbreak at the home on the city's south side.

Extendicare is saying it will respond to these allegations through
the appropriate legal channels in due course.

The provincial ombudsman is currently investigating the outbreak
after being asked to do so by the provincial government in late
January. [GN]

EXTENDICARE PARKSIDE: Proposed Class Action Filed in Saskatchewan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed class-action lawsuit has been filed in Saskatchewan
against a long-term care operator alleging it lacked proper
resources to handle COVID-19.

Documents filed at Regina's Court of Queen's Bench say the novel
coronavirus spread through different Extendicare locations last
fall.

One of those was Extendicare Parkside in Regina, where a statement
of claim says at least 41 residents have died of COVID-19.

The claim from Merchant Law Group says reports by the Saskatchewan
Health Authority and internal audits had warned of pre-existing
issues, including a lack of single rooms.

"For residents who survived the Extendicare COVID-19 outbreaks,
they endured, and continue to endure harsh and intolerable
treatment at Extendicare Saskatchewan locations," it reads.

"They were locked down in their rooms, feared for their safety and
lives, knew other residents were dying around them and were unable
to have visits with their loved ones and family members."

The suit also alleges that Extendicare didn't have proper infection
controls in place. It is seeking damages for loss of life, funeral
expenses, emotional distress on family members and residents, as
well as medical treatment for long-term COVID-19 effects.

None of the allegations have been proven in court.

"Our focus at this time is solely on providing quality care to our
residents, and supporting our families and team members," said an
emailed statement from Extendicare.

"We share in the sadness of our community over the devastating toll
COVID-19 has taken on Extendicare Parkside and other long-term care
homes across the country."

"We'll respond to the allegations through the appropriate legal
channels in due course."

One of the plaintiffs listed in the suit, Marie Albert, was a
short-term resident at Parkside who contracted COVID-19 and now has
to be on oxygen and has limited mobility.

"She survived but with devastating impacts on her enjoyment of
life," the claim reads.

The suit says Albert had been in a four-bed room until recently.
When two residents moved, she was placed n a two-person room.

Extendicare Inc. and Extendicare Canada own or lease five long-term
care homes and four long-term retirement communities in
Saskatchewan, says the claim.

Other proposed class actions have been filed in Canadian courts
against care homes that have had COVID-19 outbreaks, including a
claim in Ontario against Extendicare. [GN]

FACEBOOK INC: Judge Okays $650MM Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Bibhu Pattnaik, writing for Yahoo!Finance, reports that a federal
judge has approved a $650 million settlement of a class-action
privacy lawsuit against Facebook that claimed the company used its
facial recognition feature without user consent.

What Happened: In 2015, Chicago attorney Jay Edelson filed a
lawsuit against Facebook, Inc (NASDAQ: FB) in Cook County Circuit
Court. According to the lawsuit, Facebook violated Illinois'
Biometric Information Privacy Act, by failing to get consent before
using facial-recognition technology, which scans photos uploaded by
users to create and store faces digitally, The Verge has reported.

Along with the settlement amount, the judge also ordered the 1.6
million members of the class-action lawsuit in Illinois to be paid
"as expeditiously as possible."

Why It Matters: According to the order by Judge James Donato of the
Northern District of California, the three named plaintiffs will
each receive $5,000 and others in the class-action lawsuit will get
at least $345 each, the report said.

Donato described the settlement as a "landmark result" and said it
"is one the largest settlements ever for a privacy violation."

In a statement, Facebook said, "We are pleased to have reached a
settlement so we can move past this matter, which is in the best
interest of our community and our shareholders."

Facebook isn't the only company to run into the Illinois law. Sony
Corp (NYSE: SNE) doesn't sell its robot dog, aibo, which has facial
recognition technology, in the state because of the law. [GN]


FRANCE: Racial Profiling Class Action Against Police Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Dodmn, writing for France 24, reports that President
Emmanuel Macron recently lamented that the French have become "a
nation of 66 million prosecutors". He may have a point: Whether
battling climate change or racial profiling by police, activists
and ordinary citizens are pursuing groundbreaking legal action to
force his government into action.

When France's government hosted a roundtable on relations between
the police and the public earlier in February, part of
consultations aimed at bolstering confidence in law enforcement,
the panel invited to the interior ministry in Paris raised more
than a few eyebrows.

There was no shortage of officials in attendance, including senior
police officers and gendarmes, union representatives from both
forces, four members of parliament and four mayors, and even a
guest from Canada's Royal Mounted Police.

But somehow organisers did not think to invite the public. There
were no ordinary citizens, no community representatives, no
activists or grassroots campaigners, and none of the academics
whose investigations into the chronic problems affecting French
policing have been dismissed and ignored over the years.

As a veteran campaigner for community outreach, Omer Mas Capitolin,
a founder of the grassroots Community House for Supportive
Development, would have been a useful addition to the ministry's
panel. Instead, his NGO counts among six organisations, including
Amnesty International, which have launched France's first
class-action lawsuit aimed at forcing the government to tackle
systemic discrimination by the police.

For Mas Capitolin, the lawsuit marks a new step in a decades-long
struggle to raise awareness of racial profiling that targets
France's "visible minorities", as non-white citizens are commonly
referred to.

"I've been to all the rallies, spoken to countless politicians, and
listened, time and time again, to their empty promises. But nothing
ever changes," he says in an interview with FRANCE 24. "The law is
a pillar of our democracy and a precious tool," he adds. "We've
seen around the world that many great social advances result from
legal action."

'Attack' the state

While France famously does not compile official statistics based on
religious faith, ethnicity or skin colour, racial discrimination by
law enforcement -- particularly in immigrant-rich city suburbs --
has been widely documented.

A study conducted by France's National Centre for Scientific
Research has shown that Blacks are 11.5 times more likely to be
checked by police than Whites, and those of Arab origin are seven
times more likely. In a landmark 2016 case, France's highest court
ruled for the first time that police had illegally stopped three
men based on racial profiling, setting more specific rules to
ensure checks are not discriminatory.

At the height of mass protests against racism last summer, Jacques
Toubon, then France's human rights ombudsman, raised the alarm over
widespread discrimination and a "crisis of public confidence in the
security forces" in a report that made for grim reading. He urged a
reversal of what he described as a "warring mentality" in law
enforcement.

The difficulty, says lawyer Slim Ben Achour, a protagonist of the
2016 ruling and one of the lawyers involved in the current
class-action lawsuit, is to get governments to act upon these
injunctions and bring about "systemic change".

Using a law introduced in 2016 by the former justice minister,
Christiane Taubira, Ben Achour and his colleagues have served the
government with formal legal notice of demands for concrete steps
to end racial profiling by police. The law gives French authorities
four months to talk with the plaintiffs about how they can meet the
demands. If the plaintiffs are left unsatisfied, the case will go
to court.

"Past lawsuits involved only individual plaintiffs and resulted --
when successful -- in damages being paid," Ben Achour tells FRANCE
24. "In this case, we're not looking for damages. We want judges to
force the government into meaningful reforms."

Ben Achour credits Taubira's 2016 law with giving "vulnerable
parties" unprecedented access to the judiciary, allowing them to
team up with bigger players, like Amnesty, in class actions. He
says it has also brought about a change in both tactics and
thinking.

"So far, racial profiling complaints have mostly been used in a
defensive capacity, when the police dragged our clients to court,"
he explains. "Now we can go on the offensive, we can sue the
state," he adds, using the French word attaque, which translates as
both "sue" and "attack".

Broken promises

Turning to the courts is not an instinctive reaction in France, a
nation more accustomed to street protests, canvassing and
petitioning lawmakers. "It is not in our culture like it is in the
US," Ben Achour concedes, pointing to changes forced upon the New
York Police Department as a model for France.

The largest police department in the US underwent major reform
following a 2013 class-action lawsuit brought by a dozen Black and
Brown New Yorkers who said they were stopped solely because of
their race. A federal judge ruled the NYPD had violated the civil
rights of tens of thousands of New Yorkers, dismissing claims that
police checks were a necessary crime-fighting tool. Stops dropped
precipitously under the new regime, but crime did not rise.

"Class actions allow us to change society through legal means,"
says Ben Achour, particularly when politicians fail to deliver on
promised change. He points to former president François Hollande,
who famously reneged on a campaign pledge to introduce a form of
written receipt for all identity checks -- a measure long advocated
by campaigners against racial profiling.

"Hollande's promised reform offered a 'traditional' path towards
meaningful change," the lawyer explains. "That path was
interrupted, now legal action offers an alternative route."

The alternative route's growing popularity has prompted academics
in a variety of fields to take an interest in litigation.
Reflecting on the declining effectiveness of traditional forms of
activism, such as strikes and street protests, the left-wing
sociologist Geoffroy de Lagasnerie has stressed the importance of
pursuing legal avenues to push certain causes -- and lamented a
French backwardness in the field.

In his 2020 book, Sortir de notre impuissance politique (Ending our
political impotence), Lagasnerie notes that court action to uphold
the rights of migrants has often resulted in defeat for the
government. He points to recent rulings that vindicated activists
who helped migrants illegally cross the border from Italy and
compelled the French state to provide migrant camps in Calais with
basic sanitation.

"The law is one of the few powers that can compel a government to
back down or act - perhaps the only one," Lagasnerie writes, urging
activists to "multiply legal 'guerilla actions', summon European
and international law, be imaginative in our use of the law."

'The case of the century'

In recent years, many of the most sensational attempts to hold
governments accountable through the courts have involved climate
campaigners, leading to convictions in countries as diverse as
Pakistan, the Netherlands and Colombia.

In a first for France, a court ruled earlier in February that the
French state was guilty of failing to keep its promises to slash
carbon emissions under the 2015 Paris climate accord. Hailed as a
"historic win for climate justice", the ruling set a two-month
deadline for the government to come up with concrete measures to
further cut emissions.

While France is likely to appeal the verdict, a Dutch precedent has
given environmental campaigners reason to be confident. In 2019,
the Dutch government lost its appeal against a landmark ruling that
ordered it to slash greenhouse emissions. Officials are now
scrambling to cut emissions, for instance by closing fossil-fuel
plants ahead of schedule.

Urgenda, an environmental group, fought the successful case on
behalf of some 900 Dutch citizens. The same model inspired the
French lawsuit, dubbed the "Affaire du siècle" (Case of the
Century) and spearheaded by four NGOs following a petition signed
by 2.3 million people.

Carole-Anne Sénit, a political scientist who specialises in civil
society activism at the University of Utrecht, says such cases
signal the emergence of "new coalitions of mobilised players",
bringing together ordinary citizens and a variety of non-state
actors, from Greenpeace to smaller groups with experience of
litigation, such as the French group Notre affaire à tous.

"When two million people sign a petition in less than a month, it
counters the notion of an increasingly apolitical and apathetic
public," she tells FRANCE 24, stressing that online mobilisations
complement other forms of activism, including street protests and
lobbying. Cases like the Affaire du siècle, Sénit adds, also help
to "restore the people's faith in their ability to bring about
change" -- particularly in the "repressive context" of a health
emergency that has led governments to drastically curtail civic
space.

Covid lawsuits

The devastating social and economic effects of the Covid-19
pandemic have generated a surge in legal complaints levelled at
government officials, prompting President Emmanuel Macron to liken
the French to "a nation of 66 million prosecutors" in one of the
trademark "petites phrases" that infuriate his critics.

As early as March 4, 2020, two weeks before the first nationwide
lockdown, a group of health workers asked France's highest
administrative court to force the government to provide them with
FFP2 face masks. Dozens more legal complaints soon followed,
calling for stricter lockdown measures, the requisitioning of
factories to produce masks and antiseptic gel, or improved
sanitation in overcrowded prisons. The flurry of complaints, almost
all of which were dismissed, prompted commentators to speak of
litigation "going viral".

"Lawsuits targeting the state seldom succeed; but when they do,
they encourage others to come forward," says lawyer Julien Lalanne,
noting that one undesired effect is to "overburden courts that were
already stretched".

Lalanne says a key aim of the increased litigation is to set legal
precedents on issues that had not previously been brought before
the courts, thereby expanding both the judges' area of competence
and the state's liability.

"France has long privileged the political arena," he tells FRANCE
24. "We're now witnessing a shift towards leaning on judges in
order to put pressure on politicians." To meet the challenge, the
judiciary is having to step up its communication, Lalanne adds,
bringing the arcane world of litigation "outside of the courtrooms
and into the public domain".

'Concrete solutions'

Writing in the Conversation, Jessy Bailly, a political scientist at
the University of Aix-Marseille, notes that lawsuits brought
against the state need not always be successful in court to be
considered a success – at least not when it comes to
communication.

"Lawsuits have a spectacular character simply by targeting the
giant that is the state and by inspiring copycats," Bailly writes.
"This ability to catch the media's attention enables them to put
pressure on the government, which is well aware that an
intransigent public opinion is watching."

By coinciding with the start of the interior ministry's
highly-publicised consultations on police reform, the class-action
lawsuit against racial profiling was able to undercut the
government's communication and catch the public eye, at least
briefly.

Mas Capitolin is hoping the case will help raise awareness of
rampant injustice and of a growing divide that hurts both the
police and the public, alienating youths even as the country
ponders how to tackle "separatist" ideologies.

"People need to realise what it means to be Black or Arab in parts
of the country, to fear the police when you have done nothing, to
tell your own son to look down and keep it shut when he meets an
officer," says the veteran activist. "They also need to challenge a
policing culture that leads so many officers to take their own
lives," he adds, referring to the scourge of suicides among French
officers.

But Mas Capitolin and his fellow plaintiffs will not be satisfied
with a mere PR victory. Their aim is to foster social change
through the courts.

"We're not only denouncing the problem; we're offering concrete
solutions -- that's what democracy is about," he says, pointing to
proposed reforms put forward by the six NGOs in conjunction with
the lawsuit. They include a change in the penal code to demand
accountability in stops, and an end to the longstanding practice of
gauging police performance by the number of tickets issued or
arrests made, benchmarks that encourage baseless identity checks.

"We could have opted for a criminal lawsuit, but we're not after a
few bad apples in the police," adds Ben Achour, the lawyer. "We're
aiming at the heart of the problem; and that means going for the
state." [GN]


FUBOTV INC: The Schall Law Reminds Investors of April 19 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against fuboTV Inc.
("fuboTV" or "the Company") (NYSE: FUBO) 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 March 23,
2020 and January 4, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before April 19, 2021.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://bit.ly/3bQBgXi to participate.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, 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. FuboTV's growth in profitability and
subscribers was unsustainable past the seasonable surge in
subscriber levels. The Company's product offerings suffered from
undisclosed cost increases. The Company could not successfully
capitalize on its sports wagering opportunity or successfully act
as a sports book. The Company was not in a position to achieve long
term advertising revenue growth. 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 fuboTV, 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]

GENERAL MOTORS: Renewed Bid for Conditional Certification Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY C. GALLAGHER and
ROBERT WYATT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-11836-RHC-MKM
(E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs renewed their motion for the
conditional certification of the following collective class:

   "All persons who are or have been employed by or worked for
   General Motors LLC ("GM") in the capacity of non-union
   contract workers compensated on an hourly basis and who
   worked under the management or supervision of a direct GM
   employee during any time from June 20, 2016 forward. This
   class excludes "computer employees" whose primary duties
   consist of (1) application of systems analysis techniques and
   procedures, (2) design, development, documentation, analysis,
   creation, testing or modification of computer systems or
   programs, (3) design, documentation, testing, creation or
   modification of computer programs related to machine
   operating systems, or (4) a combination of the aforementioned
   duties requiring the same level of skills. A worker is not an
   excluded "computer employee" simply because the worker
   engaged in the manufacture or repair of computer hardware and
   related equipment or has work that is highly dependent upon,
   or facilitated by, the use of computers and computer software
   programs. To be excluded as a "computer employee," a worker
   must receive at least $684 per week or $27.63 per hour. GM
   includes any predecessor in interest, agent, subsidiary,
   alter ego, and/or any other entity operating the subject
   business or division of the subject business."

The Plaintiffs further request that the Court:

   1. approve notice to the class of putative plaintiffs on an
      expedited basis;

   2. find that Plaintiffs and the putative class members are
      "similarly situated" for purposes of notice and discovery;

   3. direct the Court-approved notice be provided to the
      putative class members by Plaintiffs; and

   4. direct the Defendant to produce to Plaintiff the name,
      email address and postal address, telephone number, dates
      of employment, location(s) of work assignment at GM, last
      four digits of the social security number, date of birth,
      job title(s), and name of the contract house supplying the
      worker for each putative class member; all to be compiled
      in an Excel spreadsheet format within 14 days of the
      Court's Order so that Plaintiffs may effectuate the notice
      process expeditiously and cost-effectively.

This motion is made pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

In the Plaintiffs complaint, thay have renewed their motion as
expeditiously as possible given GM's delay in discovery production
for over one year based on GM shutdowns and Covid-19 impediments.

General Motors is an American multinational corporation
headquartered in Detroit that designs, manufactures, markets, and
distributes vehicles and vehicle parts, and sells financial
services, with global headquarters in Detroit's Renaissance
Center.

A copy of the Plaintiff's renewed motion for conditional
certification dated March 2, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2OMzWvx at no extra charge.
[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel W. Rucker, Esq.
          Steve J. Weiss, Esq.
          Hertz Schram PC
          1760 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 300
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
          Telephone: (248) 335-5000
          E-mail: drucker@hertzschram.com
                  sweiss@hertzschram.com

The Attorney for Allegis Global Solutions is:

          Megan A. Scheiderer, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
          Attorney for Allegis Global Solutions
          4801 Main Street, Suite 1000
          Kansas City, MO 64112, 816-983-8295
          E-mail: megan.scheiderer@huschblackwell.com

               - and -

          Ryan C. Plecha, Esq.
          KOSTOPOULOS RODRIGUEZ, PLLC
          550 W. Merrill Street, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Birmingham, MI 48009, 248-268-7800
          E-mail: ryan@korolaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq.
          David J. Rowland, Jr., Esq.
          Jennifer A. Riley, Esq.
          Alex w. Karasik, Esq.
          Andrew Welker, Esq.
          Kevin J. Lesinski, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          233 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 8000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 460-5000
          E-mail: gmaatman@seyfarth.com
                  drowland@seyfarth.com
                  jriley@seyfarth.com
                  akarasik@seyfarth.com
                  awelker@seyfarth.com
                  klesinski@seyfarth.com

GOOGLE LLC: Mr. Sweepy Files Online Advertising Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David McCabe, writing for New York Times, reports that Google is
facing antitrust cases from Europe's top competition enforcer, the
Justice Department and attorneys general from more than 30 states
and territories.

Then there are the lawsuits from people like Mr. Sweepy.

The operator of a website called Sweepstakes Today, Mr. Sweepy -- a
nickname used by Craig McDaniel -- says Google used its power over
online advertising to bleed his website dry. In December, he filed
a lawsuit against Google, saying he was entitled to "substantial"
damages.

His case is one of what is expected to be a host of private
antitrust lawsuits stemming from the government cases against
Google and Facebook.

Already, more than 10 suits echoing the federal and state cases
have been filed against one or both of the Silicon Valley giants in
recent months. Many of them lean on evidence unearthed by the
government investigations. In January, for example, a media company
in West Virginia sued Google and Facebook, arguing that the tech
companies had worked together to monopolize the digital ad market.
Its lawyers extensively cited evidence from the government cases.

Legal experts say many more suits are likely to be filed this
year.

The suits add to the mounting legal pressure on the tech companies.
Federal and state officials have filed three lawsuits against
Google, saying it illegally maintained monopolies in search and the
online advertising market. Lawsuits filed against Facebook by the
Federal Trade Commission and a group of states could seek to break
the company up.

If successful, private lawsuits could be costly for Facebook and
Google. The companies work with millions of advertisers and
publishers every year, and Google hosts apps from scores of
developers, meaning there are many potential litigants. The damages
could be significant. After the United States sued Microsoft for
antitrust violations a generation ago, the company paid $750
million to settle with AOL, at that point the owner of the browser
Netscape, which was at the core of the government's case.

"There's a fair amount of scrambling going on and folks trying to
figure out what private suits might be successful and how to bring
them," said Joshua Davis, a professor at the University of San
Francisco's law school.

Facebook declined to comment about the lawsuits. Julie Tarallo
McAlister, a spokesperson for Google, said in a statement that the
company would defend itself against the claims.

"Like other claims courts have rejected in the past, these
complaints try to substitute litigation for competition on the
merits," she said.

The private suits follow the government ones for a simple reason:
Regulators have distinct advantages when it comes to obtaining
evidence. Federal and state investigators can collect internal
documents and interview executives before filing a suit. As a
result, their complaints are filled with insider knowledge about
the companies. Private individuals can seek that kind of evidence
only after they file lawsuits.

If the government cases succeed against Google or Facebook at
trial, the win is likely to bolster the case for private lawsuits,
experts said. Lawyers could point to those victories as evidence
the company broke the law and move quickly to their primary aim:
obtaining monetary damages.

The people bringing the cases against the tech giants include
publishers, advertisers and users.

Sweepstakes Today, the site run by McDaniel, aggregates prize
contests from around the country. Its revenue comes from
advertising that is sold partly by Google, according to McDaniel's
lawsuit, which is seeking class-action status.

For years, the website generated about $150,000 in annual revenue
and turned a profit, according to the complaint. But its revenue
has dropped since 2012, a fall that the suit blames on Google's
dominance in online advertising.

McDaniel, who signs some of his public messages as "Mr. Sweepy,"
said on a GoFundMe page he set up to help cover the costs of
running the site that his revenue had "dropped like a rock" and
that he could go out of business. He said Google had also harmed
his earnings by classifying his site as a venue for online
gambling, causing him to receive lower-quality ads.

"As Google has literally taken over the internet, it is nearly
impossible for companies to operate in this area without utilizing
some Google service, thereby subjecting themselves to Google's
arbitrary rules and policies," John Herman, McDaniel's lawyer, said
in a statement.

Other publishers that recently have filed antitrust complaints
against Google include lyrics website Genius -- which sued Google
in 2019 citing its use of Genius' lyrics data in search results,
only to have its case dismissed -- and progressive magazine The
Nation. Both are among the plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed by law
firm Boies Schiller Flexner that is seeking class-action status.
Another prominent law firm, Berger Montague, has also filed a
complaint against Google on behalf of publishers.

Patrick Madden, a shareholder at Berger Montague, and Mark Mao, a
partner at Boies Schiller Flexner, declined to comment.

One of the suits coming from advertisers was brought by the
operator of WineClubReviews.net, which says Facebook abused its
power to charge more for ads.

Others suits represent private citizens who use the social network.
Some of the users are arguing that Facebook can use their personal
data without adequately compensating them for it because it has the
power of a monopoly.

The sweeping government claims against Facebook have helped
convince potential plaintiffs that they might have a winning case,
even against huge companies like Google and Facebook.

"I think it adds credibility to the allegations," said Tina
Wolfson, a California lawyer who filed a private lawsuit against
Facebook.

But lawyers bringing the lawsuits also face difficulties. The tech
companies have armies of lawyers to fight back against the suits.
They may try to force the cases to go to arbitration, in which each
individual claim would be weighed on its own rather than in one big
group, rather than to trial. And the law includes limitations on
which private citizens can sue over antitrust violations.

It may also be difficult to calculate payouts. The tech giants
generally offer their products free to users, and it could be
difficult to calculate the money hypothetically lost.

Still, the potential payouts are big, given the size of the tech
companies.

"You're talking about billions of dollars as, at least, potential
liability," said Davis of the University of San Francisco. [GN]


GOOGLE LLC: SCOTUS Ruling May Act as Bellwether in Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
James McGachie, writing for The Scotsman, reports that in data
protection, the Supreme Court's decision in Lloyd v Google (to be
heard at the end of April) may act as a bellwether as to how courts
both north and south of the border will approach class actions.

Data privacy claims are undoubtedly attractive to class action
claimant lawyers and claimants alike, as such incidents tend to
impact large numbers of subjects, but will likely only generate
modest potential damages awards, thus often acting as a deterrent
to individual proceedings given the cost inefficiency.

The Lloyd case concerns a claim by Richard Lloyd, a former
executive director of consumer magazine Which?, relating to
Google's placing of advertising tracking cookies on iPhones using
Apple's 'Safari' browser between June 2011 and February 2012.

He seeks to bring the claim on a representative basis on behalf of
several million individuals whom he says were affected. Whilst the
Court of Appeal decision in this case appears to support opt-out
representative actions predicated on the loss of control of data
without consent, Google's appeal to the Supreme Court, scheduled
for 27 April should provide guidance regarding the interpretation
of the English procedural rules with regard to "opt in" (where
potential claimants expressly sign up to be a member of the class)
and "opt out" (where anyone who falls within the scope of the
proposed class definition is treated as being a member of the class
unless they explicitly opt-out or withdraw) litigation.

Whether the Supreme Court will endorse such a significant step as
"opt out", or leave Parliament to legislate, remains to be seen.
The Scottish rules, whilst currently "opt in" based, already have
yet-to-be-enacted "opt out" provisions.

How should businesses prepare for class actions? If group
proceedings are raised, businesses must assess the nature of the
claims, makeup of the claimant class and potential claimant pool
more generally to effectively determine the risk.

Class actions, which are not geographically unique, often follow
trends. Understanding the risk in one jurisdiction, which may later
be faced by another, can prove invaluable.

As with every litigation, it is important to quickly identify and
adopt a preferred strategy. This is especially important when
considering the amplified scope of a class action and the
significant amount of resource needed to address it.

The question that invariably must be answered is whether a business
is best advised to defend the action or settle. This may be
answered relatively easily depending on the liquidity of the
business and, in many cases, there can be no option but to defend
the proceedings. It is important this decision is made quickly so
the business, and its legal team, can decide on how best to channel
resources and which avenues of inquiry should be progressed.

The same strategic decisions must be made when it comes to handling
any media attention: good PR can prove to be a useful tool when
defending class actions. However, media strategy should not dictate
legal strategy.

Resolving a class action is no different to resolving any other
legal proceedings brought against a business. To end the dispute,
both parties must come to a mutual agreement whereby the action is
settled and proceeds no further.

However, by their very nature, class actions often involve
substantial financial sums which can challenge the liquidity of
even the largest corporate entities. The growth of third party
funders working with claimant lawyers in this arena further
complicates settlement strategy. As such, businesses should not be
afraid to be creative when it comes to the structure of a
settlement as the success of the proposal hinges on the agreement
of both parties.

As group proceedings are in their infancy in Scotland it will take
time for practitioners and Scottish courts to become accustomed to
them. However, during that bedding-in process, businesses would be
well advised to understand the potential risk group proceedings
pose to their day-to-day operations. [GN]


GRIDDY ENERGY: Banned from Texas Power Market Amid Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daily Beast reports that Griddy, the power company that charged
customers as much as $450 per day for electricity during the
catastrophic winter storm, has been banned from the state's power
market. The Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which regulates
the state energy grid, brought the hammer down on the company for
nonpayment, according to Bloomberg. Further details were
unavailable. Customers have also filed a class action suit against
the company over the exorbitant bills. [GN]




GRIDDY ENERGY: Customers Being Shifted to Other Providers
---------------------------------------------------------
Neelam Bohra, writing for The Texas Tribune, reports that Texans
who receive their electricity from Griddy Energy are being shifted
to other providers after the Electric Reliability Council of Texas,
which operates the power grid for most of Texas, revoked the
company's rights to operate because it missed required payments to
ERCOT, according to a market notice.

In all, Texas electricity providers failed to make more than $2.1
billion in payments that were due to ERCOT, according to another
market notice on Feb. 26. The state entity depends on transaction
fees from providers to help operate the state's electric grid.
Those missed payments came after the costs for a megawatt hour of
electricity jumped from an average of $35 to $9,000 during the
height of the devastating winter storm that contributed to the
near-collapse of the state's power grid.

Griddy made headlines for sending massive bills to customers. One
woman in Chambers County filed a class-action lawsuit accusing
Griddy of price gouging. In the lawsuit, her attorney claimed the
company charged her more than $9,000 for the week of the storm in
stark contrast to her normal $200 to $500 monthly bill.

Griddy passes wholesale electricity rates directly to customers,
who in turn pay the company $10 a month. This differs from
fixed-rate electricity plans which offer a consistent rate
regardless of market conditions. Wholesale prices spiked during the
storm because the winter weather temporarily knocked many power
generators offline, shrinking supply and skyrocketing demand.

ERCOT said it was "working closely with PUC staff and Affected
Market Participants to ensure an efficient and effective transfer
of customers." ERCOT spokesperson Leslie Sopko said she had no
further details on Griddy's customers.

In a message to customers that Griddy spokesperson Lauren Valdes
shared with The Texas Tribune, the company said ERCOT ignored
requests for emergency help and shut it down on Feb. 26.

"It was not a choice we made," the message said. "On the same day
when ERCOT announced that it had a $2.1 billion shortfall, it
decided to take this action against only one company that
represents a tiny fraction of the market and that shortfall."

ERCOT can bar electric providers from conducting business if they
make four late payments over one year, according to the entity's
protocols.

Griddy earlier warned customers about price hikes and encouraged
them to switch to other providers, according to previous reporting
by The Texas Tribune. The company also posted a blog on its website
blaming the Public Utility Commission of Texas, which regulates
ERCOT, for raising the wholesale market price of energy.

The disastrous effects of the storm spurred daylong hearings in the
Texas House and Senate on Feb. 25 and Feb. 26 where lawmakers
questioned ERCOT CEO Bill Magness, PUC chairperson DeAnn Walker,
and representatives from a variety of electricity providers about
what went wrong.

Tom Hancock, a representative for municipally-owned utility Garland
Power and Light, said many providers may struggle to make their
payments to ERCOT on time following the storm's aftermath.

"ERCOT is due a lot of money today from market participants that
could have been short," Hancock said. "We think if this domino
effect is going to start to take place, that after today, we'll
know about it." [GN]


HAIN CELESTIAL: Lawrence Sues Over Toxic Metals in Baby Food
------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Lawrence, Rachel M. Frantz, Marie Mezile, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP,
NUTURE, INC., GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY and BEECH-NUT NUTRITION
COMPANY, Case No. 1:21-cv-01287 (E.D.N.Y., March 10, 2021), is
brought for damages and injunctive relief, and to seek refunds and
all other economic losses suffered by purchasers of Baby Food
Products that the Defendants marketed and sold without disclosing
that they were tainted with arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury
("Toxic Heavy Metals") at levels above what is considered safe for
babies.

On February 4, 2021, the Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer
Policy of the U.S. House of Representatives released a Report
concluding that the Defendants sold Baby Food Products containing
concentrations of inorganic arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury at
levels above what is considered safe for babies. According to the
complaint, the Defendants do not disclose the Toxic Heavy Metal
content of their foods on their labels or in their marketing
materials, nor do they warn consumers that their Baby Food Products
may contain potentially dangerous levels of Toxic Heavy Metals.

The Plaintiffs purchased Baby Food Products manufactured and sold
by the Defendants, unaware that the Defendants' products
potentially contain Toxic Heavy Metals at levels well above what is
considered safe for babies. Had the Defendants disclosed the Toxic
Heavy Metal content on their product labels, or otherwise warned
that their products could contain levels of Toxic Heavy Metals
considered unsafe, neither the Plaintiffs nor any other reasonable
consumer would have purchased the Defendants' products, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs purchased baby foods made by Nurture and Gerber.

The Defendants sells Baby Food Products throughout the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Zahra R. Dean, Esq.
          Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq.
          William E. Hoese, Esq.
          Craig W. Hillwig, Esq.
          Barbara Gibson
          Aaarthi Manohar, Esq.
          KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 238-1700
          Email: zdean@kohnswift.com
                 dabrahams@kohnswift.com
                 whoese@kohnswift.com
                 chillwig@kohnswift.com
                 bgibson@kohnswift.com
                 amanohar@kohnswift.com

               - and -

          David H. Fink, Esq.
          Nathan J. Fink, Esq.
          FINK BRESSACK
          38500 Woodward Ave; Suite 350
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
          Phone: (248) 971-2500
          Email: dfink@finkbressack.com
                 nfink@finkbressack.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
          Karen Halbert, Esq.
          ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A.
          20 Rahling Circle
          Little Rock, AK 72223
          Phone: (501) 821-5575
          Email: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us
                 karenhalbert@robertslawfirm.us


HANNA ANDERSSON: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hanna Andersson, LLC.
The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, for himself and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Hanna Andersson, LLC, Case
No. 1:21-cv-01314 (E.D.N.Y., March 11, 2021).

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

Hanna Andersson -- https://www.hannaandersson.com/ -- offers
crafted for comfort and sublime softness, selection of clothes,
swimsuits, and pajamas for baby, toddler, boys + girls, and even
adults, designed to last.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN ALEXANDER ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 229-2249
          Fax: (212) 229-2246
          Email: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com


HILTON MANAGEMENT: Zakay Law, APLC and JCL Law File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco labor law attorneys, at Zakay Law Group, APLC and
JCL Law Firm, APC, filed a class action complaint against Hilton
Management, LLC for failure to accurately and timely pay employees'
wages. The Hilton Management, LLC class action lawsuit, Case No.
CGC-21-589873, is currently pending in the San Francisco County
Superior Court of the State of California. A copy of the Complaint
can be read here.

According to the lawsuit, Hilton Management, LLC allegedly violated
California Labor Code Sections Sec 201, 202, 203, 204, 206.5, 226,
226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802 by failing
to: (1) pay minimum wages; (2) pay overtime wages; (3) provide
required meal and rest periods; (4) reimburse employees for
required expenses; (5) provide accurate itemized wage statements;
and (6) provide wages when due.

California Labor Code Section 226 requires an employer to furnish
its employees an accurate itemized statement in writing showing (1)
gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked, (3) the number of
piece-rate units earned and any applicable piece-rate, (4) all
deductions, (5) net wages earned, (6) the inclusive dates of the
period for which the employee is paid, (7) the name of the employee
and only the last four digits of the employee's social security
number or an employee identification number other than a social
security number, (8) the name and address of the legal entity that
is the employer and, (9) all applicable hourly rates in effect
during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked
at each hourly rate by the employee. Hilton Management, LLC failed
to provide its employees with accurate itemized wage statements
that complied with all the requirements of California Labor Code
Section 226.

If you would like to know more about the Hilton Management, LLC
lawsuit, please contact Attorney Jackland K. Hom by calling (619)
255-9047.

Zakay Law Group, APLC and JCL Law Firm, APC are employment and
labor law firms with offices located in California that dedicate
their practices to helping employees and consumers fight back
against employers and corporations for unfair employment practices.
If you need help with collecting unpaid wages, wrongful
termination, discrimination, harassment, and other unlawful
workplace conduct, contact one of their attorneys today.

-THIS IS AN ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT-

Media Contact

Jackland K. Hom, Zakay Law Group, APLC, (619) 255-9047,
jackland@zakaylaw.com

SOURCE Zakay Law Group, APLC [GN]

HOSA TECHNOLOGY: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hosa Technology,
Incorporated. The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Hosa Technology,
Incorporated, Case No. 1:21-cv-02144 (S.D.N.Y., March 11, 2021).

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

Hosa -- https://hosatech.com/ -- offers audio and video cables,
adapters and other accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ICG AMERICA: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ICG America Inc. The
case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. ICG America Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02139
(S.D.N.Y., March 11, 2021).

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

ICG America -- http://www.icgamerica.com/-- is an e-commerce and
internet marketing holding company with a number of subsidiaries
specializing in subscription e-commerce, gourmet food & wine, home
brewing, grilling accessories, and mobile entertainment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


IMMUNOVANT INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of April 20 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of
Immunovant, Inc. Investors have until the deadline listed below to
file a lead plaintiff motion.

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

Immunovant, Inc. (NASDAQ: IMVT)
Class Period: October 2, 2019 - February 1, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 20, 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) HSAC had performed inadequate due diligence into Legacy
Immunovant prior to the Merger, and/or ignored or failed to
disclose safety issues associated with IMVT-1401; (2) IMVT-1401 was
less safe than the Company had led investors to believe,
particularly with respect to treating TED and WAIHA; (3) the
foregoing foreseeably diminished IMVT-1401's prospects for
regulatory approval, commercial viability, and profitability; and
(4) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

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

IMMUNOVANT INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of April 20 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on March 1 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Immunovant, Inc. ("Immunovant" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: IMVT) 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
October 2, 2019 and February 1, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before April 20,
2021.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, 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. Health Sciences Acquisitions Corporation
failed to perform proper due diligence into Immunovant Sciences
Ltd. prior to the merger, and ignored or failed to disclose safety
problems with IMVT-1401. IMVT-1401 was not as safe as the Company
led the market to believe, particularly for the treatment of
thyroid eye disease (TED) and warm autoimmune hemolytic anemia
(WAIHA). These issues would greatly impact the likelihood of
IMVT-1401 securing regulatory approval and commercial viability.
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 Immunovant, 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.
310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com
www.schallfirm.com [GN]


INDIANA: Tully Files Certiorari Petition in Civil Rights Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Barbara Tully, et al., filed with the Supreme Court of
United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter
styled Barbara Tully, et al., Petitioners vs. Paul Okeson, et al.,
Respondents, Case No. 20-1244.

Response is due on April 8, 2021.

Petitioners Tully, et al., petition for a writ of certiorari to
review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh BARBARA TULLY, KATHARINE BLACK, MARC BLACK, DAVID CARTER,
REBECCA GAINES, ELIZABETH KMIECIAK, CHAQUITTA MCCLEARY, DAVID
SLIVKA, DOMINIC TUMMINELLO, and INDIANA VOTE BY MAIL, INC.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. PAUL OKESON, S. ANTHONY LONG, SUZANNAH
WILSON OVERHOLT, ZACHARY E. KLUTZ, and CONNIE LAWSON, in their
official capacities, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 20-2605. The
Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision denying
Plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 21,
2020, the case is assigned to the Hon. Judge James Patrick Hanlon.
The lawsuit alleges violation of civil rights-related laws.

Relying on the unprecedented challenges posed by the COVID-19
pandemic, Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction requiring
Indiana to permit unlimited absentee voting in the upcoming general
election. To attain this goal, they challenge Indiana's
absentee-voting regime on two grounds. First, Plaintiffs assert
that Indiana's extension of absentee ballots to elderly Hoosiers
violates the Twenty-Sixth Amendment by abridging younger Hoosiers'
right to vote. Second, Plaintiffs contend that requiring some
voters, such as themselves, to cast ballots in person during the
ongoing COVID-19 pandemic infringes on their fundamental right to
vote and thus violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection
Clause.

The Plaintiffs include nine Indiana voters who do not expect to
qualify for an absentee ballot in the general election. Asserting
claims under the Twenty-Sixth Amendment and the Equal Protection
Clause, they moved for a preliminary injunction requiring Indiana
to implement "no-excuse absentee voting" in the general election.

On June 8, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction based on their federal constitutional claims. Pursuant
to the briefing schedule set by the court, Defendants filed their
Response in opposition on July 24, and Plaintiffs filed their reply
on July 31. On August 21, the District Court denied the Plaintiffs'
motion on the grounds that the Plaintiffs had not shown a
reasonable likelihood of success. As to the Twenty-Sixth Amendment
claim, the Court held that mail-in voting restrictions do not
"absolutely prohibit" voters from casting a ballot and therefore
that the Amendment's prohibition on the denial or abridgement of
the right to vote on account of age was not implicated. As to the
Fourteenth Amendment claim, the court similarly held that
Defendants' refusal to permit all Indiana voters to vote by mail
during the pandemic did not "absolutely prohibit" Plaintiffs from
voting.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners Barbara Tully, et al., are
represented by:

          Andrew John Pincus, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          1999 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 263-3220
          E-mail: apincus@mayerbrown.com

INFINITY Q: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of April 27 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Infinity Q Diversified Alpha
Fund. Stockholders have until the deadline below to petition the
court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about the
case can be found at the link provided.

Infinity Q Diversified Alpha Fund (NASDAQ: IQDAX, IQDNX)

Class Period: December 21, 2018 to February 22, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 27, 2021

On February 22, 2021, Infinity Q filed a request with the SEC for
an order pursuant to Section 22(e)(3) of the Investment Company Act
of 1940 suspending the right of redemption with respect to shares
of the Fund, effective February 19, 2021, because of Infinity Q's
inability to determine Fund Pricing, or Net Asset Value ("NAV").
The request also stated that the Fund was liquidating its portfolio
and distributing its assets to shareholders.

The complaint, filed on February 26, 2021, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Infinity Q's Chief Investment
Officer made adjustments to certain parameters within the
third-party pricing model that affected the valuation of the swaps
held by the Fund; (2) consequently, Infinity Q would not be able to
calculate NAV correctly; (3) as a result, the previously reported
NAVs were unreliable; (4) because of the foregoing, the Fund would
halt redemptions and liquidate its assets; and (5) as a result, the
prospectuses were materially false and/or misleading and failed to
state information required to be stated therein. When the true
details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

For more information on the Infinity Q class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/InfinityQ

                         About Bragar Eagel

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country.

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]



INFINITY Q: Howard G. Smith Reminds Investors of April 27 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
April 27, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the case
filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Infinity Q Diversified Alpha Fund ("Infinity Q" or the "Company")
Investor Class shares (NASDAQ: IQDAX) or Institutional Class shares
(NASDAQ: IQDNX) between December 21, 2018 and February 22, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

Investors suffering losses on their Infinity Q 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 February 23, 2021, The Wall Street Journal published an article
entitled, "Investment Firm Halts Redemptions on $1.8 Billion Fund:
Infinity Q Capital Management bans its chief investment officer
from trading after discovering issues valuing the fund's holdings".
The article reported that Infinity Q "asked the Securities and
Exchange Commission to halt redemptions on one of its mutual funds
and forbid its chief investment officer from trading after
discovering issues valuing the fund's holdings." The article
continued to state that, "[t]he fund was unable to calculate an NAV
on February 19, 2021, and it is uncertain when the fund will be
able to calculate an NAV that would enable it to satisfy requests
for redemptions of fund shares[.]"

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) Infinity Q's
Chief Investment Officer made adjustments to certain parameters
within the third-party pricing model that affected the valuation of
the swaps held by the Fund; (2) consequently, Infinity Q would not
be able to calculate NAV correctly; (3) as a result, the previously
reported NAVs were unreliable; (4) because of the foregoing, the
Fund would halt redemptions and liquidate its assets; and (5) as a
result, the prospectuses were materially false and/or misleading
and failed to state information required to be stated therein.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Infinity Q shares during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than April 27, 2021
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]

INVESTORS ALLEY: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Investors Alley Corp.
The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Investors Alley Corp., Case No.
1:21-cv-02146 (S.D.N.Y., March 11, 2021).

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

Investors Alley Corp. -- https://www.investorsalley.com/ -- is
located in Los Angeles, California and is part of the Investment
Firms Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


ITTELLA INTERNATIONAL: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ittella
International, LLC. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Ittella
International, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02147 (S.D.N.Y., March 11,
2021).

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

Ittella International, LLC -- https://tattooedchef.com/ -- is
located in Paramount, California and is part of the Food
Wholesalers Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


J.P. MORGAN: Roeder Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling to 2nd Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs David M. Roeder, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled DAVID M. ROEDER, SUSANNE A.
ROEDER, RODNEY SICKMANN, DON COOKE, and MARK SCHAEFER, individually
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO., et al., Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-2400, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 9, 2021, Judge
Lewis J. Liman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York granted on February 26, 2021, Defendants J.P. Morgan
Chase & Co., and JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s motion to dismiss the
amended class action complaint against them.

On Nov. 4, 1979, a group of armed Iranian militants scaled the wall
of the American Embassy compound in Tehran, Iran, capturing the
Embassy and taking 63 American citizens as hostages. Shortly
thereafter, U.S. Charge d'affaires Bruce Laingen and two other
Americans were seized at the Iranian Foreign ministry. For the next
444 days, 52 of the 66 Americans continued to be held as hostages.
The hostage takers, who were supported by the provisional
government of Iran, demanded that the United States turn over the
Shah of Iran as the price for the release of the hostages. The Shah
was then in the United States for medical treatment. The Americans
remained hostage until Jan. 20, 1981. They were released on the
date of Ronald Reagan's inauguration as President. Throughout their
long captivity, the hostages were blindfolded, tortured, taunted,
and threatened with death.  The impact on family members was also
horrific.

The lawsuit seeks to recover from Chase for damages incurred as a
result of the seizure of the hostages and their delayed release.
The Plaintiffs include three former hostages: David M. Roeder, who
was Assistant Air Force Attache when he was taken hostage; Rodney
Sickmann, an enlisted Marine serving at the American Embassy in
Tehran when he was taken hostage; and Don Cooke, a Consular Officer
at the American Embassy in Tehran when he was taken hostage. They
also include David M. Roeder's spouse, Susanne Roeder, and Mark
Schaefer, son of hostage Colonel Thomas E. Schaefer, the American
Defense and Air Attache at the American Embassy in Tehran when he
was taken hostage.

The Plaintiffs bring the action on behalf of themselves and as
representatives of a class of all Americans taken hostage from the
American Embassy in Tehran or from the Iranian Foreign Ministry in
1979, including the hostages' estates and successors, the hostages'
immediate family members at the time, and the estates and
successors of those immediate family members.

The Plaintiffs seek a review of the Court's Order entered February
26, 2021, dismissing the case.

The appellate case is captioned as Roeder v. J.P. Morgan Chase &
Co., Case No. 21-552, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, March 9, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants David M. Roeder, Susanne A. Roeder, Rodney
Sickmann, Don Cooke, and Mark Schaeffer, individually and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated individuals, are represented by:

         Brent William Landau, Esq.
         HAUSFELD LLP
         325 Chestnut Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19106
         Telephone: (215) 985-3273
         E-mail: blandau@hausfeld.com

              - and -

         Terrance Reed, Esq.
         LANKFORD & REED, PLLC
         120 North Saint Asaph Street
         Alexandria, VA 22314
         Telephone: (703) 299-5000
         E-mail: tgreed@lrfirm.net   

Defendants-Appellees J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., successor by merger
to Chase Manhattan Corporation; and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
successor by merger to Chase Manhattan Bank, are represented by:

         James E. Brandt, Esq.
         LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
         885 3rd Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Telephone: (212) 906-1200
         E-mail: james.brandt@lw.com

JOHN HOGUE: ESOP Participants Win Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NELSON GAMACHE, et al., v.
JOHN F. HOGUE, JR., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00021-LAG (M.D. Ga.),
the Hon. Judge Leslie A. Gardner entered an order:

   a. certifying the following class:

      "Participants in the Technical Associates Employee Stock
      Ownership Program (ESOP) on or after the date stock was
      issued to Defendants Hogue and Thompson in connection with
      the 2011 Refinancing who vested under the terms of the Plan
      (or ERISA) and those participants beneficiaries;"

      Excluded from the Class are Defendants and their immediate
      families, any other fiduciary of the Plan and his or her
      immediate family the officers and directors of Technical
      Associates and their immediate family, and legal
      representatives, successors, and assigns of any such
      excluded persons;"

   b. defining the class claims as those stated in the
      Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, dated April 19, 2019;

   c. appointing the Plaintiffs Nelson Gamache and Edward Nofi
      as class representatives;

   d. appointing R. Joseph Barton of Block & Leviton LLP and
      Nina Wasow and Daniel Feinberg of Feinberg, Jackson,
      Worthman & Wasow LLP as co-lead class counsel;

   e. appointing Stone Law Group Trial Lawyers, LLC as liaison
      class counsel; and

   f. directing the Defendants to disclose to the Plaintiffs,
      within 14 days of this Order, the names, last known
      addresses, email addresses (to the extent known), dates of
      birth, and job titles of all potential class members
      employed by Defendants, in electronic, importable, and
      searchable format.

The Court said, "Despite the Defendants' assertion that
certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(B) is improper because "many
individual questions between and among the putative class members
exist," as stated above, individual differences among class members
will not destroy class certification and the Plaintiffs in this
case have not "rejected the gravamen of the class claims." In re
BellSouth Corp. ERISA Litig., Case No. 1:02-CV-2440-JOF, 2005 WL
8154294, (N.D. Ga. Sept. 30, 2005). The Plaintiffs seek recovery on
behalf of the entire ESOP to correct and prevent the alleged breach
of fiduciary duties. Accordingly, class certification is also
proper under Rule 23(b)(1)(B)."

On January 29, 2019, the Plaintiffs Gamache and Nofi filed this
putative class action pursuant to the ERISA. The Plaintiffs amended
their Complaint on April 19, 2019. The Plaintiffs, former employees
of the Technical Associates of Georgia., Inc. (TAG) and
participants in the TAG ESOP, allege that the Defendants engaged in
prohibited transactions and breached fiduciary duties in violation
of 29 U.S.C. sections 1104(a)(1), 1105, 1106(a)(1)(D), and 1106(b).


A copy of the Court's order dated March 2, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38Abcxy at no extra charge.[CC]

JOHN WETZEL: McMillen Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Inmates
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEENAN McMILLEN v. JOHN
WETZEL, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00192-MPK (W.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class of
inmates in the state of Pennslyvania.

The Plaintiff filed a section 1983 complaint challenging medical
treatment deprivation that would no doubt affect an entire class of
thousands of inmates in the state of pennslyvania.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

A copy of the the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March
2, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2NdxT2Z at no extra charge.[CC]

JP MORGAN: Dennis Suit Seeks to Certify Class for Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD DENNIS, SONTERRA
CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LTD., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND,
L.P., FRONTPOINT ASIAN EVENT DRIVEN FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT
FINANCIAL HORIZONS FUND, L.P., and ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., et al., Case No.
1:16-cv-06496-LAK-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the Class for settlement pursuant
      to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3) subject to later,
      final approval of such Class for purposes of the Westpac
      and JPMorgan settlements;

   2. conditionally appointing Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Lovell
      Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP as Class Counsel for the
      Class with respect to the Westpac settlement;

   3. approving the proposed plan of notice to the Class,
      including the form and substance of the proposed class
      notices;

   4. setting a fairness hearing and certain related deadlines
      leading up to the fairness hearing, including deadlines to
      object to the proposed settlements and request exclusion
      from the Class;

   5. granting leave to Representative Plaintiffs to develop a
      plan of distribution and proof of claim form for later
      approval by the Court prior to the deadlines for
      objections and requests for exclusion;

   6. appointing A.B. Data as the Settlement Administrator for
      the Westpac settlement;

   7. appointing Citibank, N.A. as Escrow Agent for purposes of
      the Settlement Fund for the Westpac settlement; and

   8. staying all proceedings against Westpac and JPMorgan until
      the Court renders a decision on final approval of the
      proposed settlements.

JPMorgan Chase is an American multinational investment bank and
financial services holding company headquartered in New York City.

The Defendants include JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., BNP PARIBAS,
S.A., THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC, THE ROYAL BANK OF
SCOTLAND PLC, RBS N.V., RBS GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED, UBS AG,
AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD., COMMONWEALTH BANK OF
AUSTRALIA, NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED, WESTPAC BANKING
CORPORATION, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK
AUSTRALIA LIMITED, LLOYDS BANKING GROUP PLC, LLOYDS BANK PLC,
MACQUARIE GROUP LTD., MACQUARIE BANK LTD., ROYAL BANK OF CANADA,
RBC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, MORGAN STANLEY, MORGAN STANLEY AUSTRALIA
LIMITED, CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, ICAP PLC, ICAP
AUSTRALIA PTY LTD., TULLETT PREBON PLC, TULLETT PREBON (AUSTRALIA)
PTY LTD., AND JOHN DOES NOS. 1-50.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March 2,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tiY9rZ
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

The Counsel for the Representative Plaintiffs and the Proposed
Class, are:

          Vincent Briganti, Esq.
          Geoffrey M. Horn, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
          E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com
                  ghorn@lowey.com

               - and -

          Christopher McGrath, Esq.
          Christopher Lovell, Esq.
          LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP
          500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2440
          New York, NY 10110
          Telephone: (212) 608-1900
          E-mail: clovell@lshllp.com
                  cmcgrath@lshllp.com

Additional Counsel for the Orange County Employees Retirement
System, are:

          Todd Seaver, Esq.
          Carl N. Hammarskjold, Esq.
          BERMAN TABACCO
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-320
          Facsimile: (415) 433-6382
          E-mail: tseaver@bermantabacco.com
                  chammarskjold@bermantabacco.com

               - and -

          Patrick T. Egan, Esq.
          BERMAN TABACCO
          One Liberty Square
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 542-8300
          Facsimile: (617) 542-1194
          E-mail: pegan@bermantabacco.com

LEGEND NUMISMATIC: Calcano Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. LEGEND NUMISMATIC AUCTIONS LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY, AND LEGEND RARE COIN AUCTIONS, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-02063-JMF (S.D.N.Y., March 10, 2021), is brought against
the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical location, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Because the Defendants' Website https://www.legendnumismatics.com/,
is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers,
it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to
cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices,
and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and
remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.

The Defendants operate the Legend online retail store as well as
the Legend website and advertises, markets, and operates in the
State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
                 Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
                 Danalgottlieb@aol.com


LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Leidos Holdings, Inc.
Stockholders have until the deadline below to petition the court to
serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about the case can
be found at the link provided.

Leidos Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: LDOS)

Class Period: May 4, 2020 to February 23, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 3, 2021

On February 16, 2021, Spruce Point Capital Management LLC ("Spruce
Point") published a research report, alleging, among other things
that "Leidos is potentially covering up at least $100m of
fictitious sales, mischaracterizing $355 - $367m of international
revenue." The report also alleged that the Company was "concealing
numerous product defects from investors, notably faulty explosive
detection systems at airports and borders."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.58, or 2.4%, to
close at $105.22 per share on February 16, 2021.

On February 23, 2021, Leidos announced its fourth quarter and full
year 2020 financial results in a press release. Therein, the
Company reported $89 million revenue related to the SD&A businesses
for the fourth quarter, meaning that after two full quarters, the
acquisition generated only $163 million in sales (or $326 million
annualized), falling well short of projected $500 million sales.
The Company expected cash flow of $850 million, well below analyst
estimates of $1.083 billion.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $10.29, or 9.91%, to
close at $93.51 per share on February 23, 2021.

On February 24, 2021, Spruce Point highlighted that Leidos had
"materially expanded" the risk disclosures in its annual report for
the year ended December 31, 2020. Spruce Point tweeted: "We believe
it is validating all the major points of our report."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.13, or 3.3%, to
close at $90.38 per share on February 24, 2021.

The complaint, filed on March 4, 2021, 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 purported benefits of the Company's acquisition of L3Harris'
Security Detection & Automation businesses were significantly
overstated; (2) that Leidos' products suffered from numerous
product defects, including faulty explosive detection systems at
airports, ports, and borders; (3) that, as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's financial results were significantly
overstated; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

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

                       About Bragar Eagel

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. 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]

LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Scott+Scott Attorneys Reminds of May 3 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international
shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit against Leidos Holdings, Inc.
("Leidos" or the "Company") (NYSE: LDOS) and certain of its
officers, alleging violations of federal securities laws. If you
purchased Leidos securities between May 4, 2020 and February 23,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and have suffered a loss, you
are encouraged to contact attorney Joe Pettigrew for additional
information at (844) 818-6982 or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com.

Leidos is a science, engineering, and information technology
company that provides services and solutions in the defense,
intelligence, homeland security, civil and health markets, both
domestically and internationally.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the Company made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose: (1) that the purported benefits of the Company's
acquisition of L3Harris Technologies's Security Detection &
Automation ("SD&A") businesses were significantly overstated; (2)
that Leidos's products suffered from numerous product defects,
including faulty explosive detection systems at airports, ports,
and borders; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the
Company's financial results were significantly overstated.

Throughout the Class Period the Company touted its revenue, sales
figures, and the state of its internal control over financial
reporting. On February 16, 2021, Spruce Point published a report,
alleging, among other things that "Leidos was potentially covering
up at least $100 [million] of fictitious sales, mischaracterizing
$355-$367 [million] of revenue." The report also alleged that the
Company was concealing "numerous product defects from investors,
notably faulty explosive detection systems at airports and
borders."

On this news, the price of Leidos's common stock fell $2.58, or
almost 2.4%, to close at $105.22 per share on February 16, 2021.

On February 23, 2021, the Company reporting on its SD&A business
stated that it fell $163 million short of its projected sales goal
of $500 million.

On this news, the price of Leidos's stock fell by $10.29, or 9.91%,
to close at $93.51 per share on February 23, 2021.

On February 23 and 24, 2021, Spruce Point tweeted, highlighting
materially expansions the Company had made to its risk disclosure
statement in its annual report for the year ended December 31,
2020.

On this news, the price of Leidos's stock fell by $3.13, or 3.3%,
to close at $90.38 per share on February 24, 2021.

                      What You Can Do

If you purchased Leidos securities between May 4, 2020 and February
23, 2021, or if you have questions about this notice or your legal
rights, you are encouraged to contact attorney Joe Pettigrew at
(844) 818-6982 or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com. The lead plaintiff
deadline is May 3, 2021.

                    About Scott+Scott Attorneys

Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP has significant experience in
prosecuting major securities, antitrust, and employee retirement
plan actions throughout the United States. The firm represents
pension funds, foundations, individuals, and other entities
worldwide with offices in New York, London, Connecticut,
California, and Ohio.

CONTACT:

Joe Pettigrew
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10169-1820
(844) 818-6982
jpettigrew@scott-scott.com [GN]

LIBERTY OILFIELD: Cobb and Joseph IPO Class Suits Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Oilfield Services Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend against putative class action suits initiated
by Marshall Cobb and Marc Joseph.

On March 11, 2020, Marshall Cobb, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated, filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the state District Court of Denver County, Colorado
against the Company and certain officers and board members of the
Company along with other defendants in connection with the initial
public offering (IPO).

The Cobb Complaint alleges that the Company and certain officers
and board members of the Company violated Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 by virtue of inaccurate or misleading
statements allegedly contained in the registration statement filed
in connection with the IPO and requests unspecified damages and
costs. The Cobb Plaintiffs also allege control person liability
claims under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against
certain officers and board members of the Company and other
defendants.

On April 3, 2020, Marc Joseph, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated, filed a putative class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court in Denver, Colorado against the
Company and certain officers and board members of the Company along
with other defendants in connection with the IPO and requests
unspecified damages and costs.

The Joseph Complaint, which is based on similar factual allegations
made in the Cobb Complaint, alleges that the defendants violated
Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 by virtue of
inaccurate or misleading statements allegedly contained in the
registration statement and prospectus filed in connection with the
IPO.

The Joseph Complaint also alleges control person liability claims
under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against certain
officers and board members of the Company and other defendants.

The Company has hired counsel and plans to vigorously defend
against the allegations in the Securities Lawsuits.

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

Liberty Oilfield Services Inc. is an independent provider of
hydraulic fracturing services and goods to onshore oil and natural
gas exploration and production ("E&P") companies in North America.
The company had grown from one hydraulic fracturing fleet in
December 2011 to 24 fleets in the first quarter of 2020, including
the addition of one fleet in January 2020. The company is based in
Denver, Colorado.

LION AIR: Girardi Allegedly Failed to Disburse Settlement Funds
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Robson, writing for Law.com, reports that nearly a quarter of
the way through 2021, and it does not look like things will slow
down much compared with last year. One of the big storylines
heading into 2021 was the bankruptcy of Girardi Keese, a giant
within the plaintiffs bar, and allegations that firm founder Tom
Girardi failed to disburse settlement funds to members of the Lion
Air crash litigation.

The allegations, and the firm's subsequent bankruptcy, have some
lawyers calling for more judicial oversight of certain types of
mass tort settlements. A key issue discussed in our cover story by
Amanda Bronstad is that judges currently have no power to review
settlements in mass tort cases, unlike in class action litigation.
One potential sticking point, though, is some people are not sure
reforms would have helped with the Lion Air settlement given how
much control Girardi exercised over his firm. [GN]


LOWRY FARMS: 30 Days Extension to Respond to Class Cert. Bid Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNABE' ANTONIO BENITO
AND JESUS JIMENEZ MARTINEZ, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED v. LOWRY FARMS, INC. AND MICHAEL CLAYTON LOWRY
AKA CLAY LOWRY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01039-SOH (W.D. Ark.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting an additional
30 days to respond to the Motion for Certification of Rule 23 Class
Action, and for any and all other relief which this Court deems
just and proper.

The Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Certification of Rule 23 Class
Action on February 2. The Defendants' response to such motion is
due on March 3, 2021. Due to the trial schedule, workload and
amount of work required to respond to such filing, the defendants'
counsel requests an additional 30 days to respond to the
Plaintiffs' motion.

Lowry Farms is a major farm labor contractor based in Arkansas.

A copy of the Defendants' motion to certify class dated March 2,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3eAPM7k
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          F. Mattison Thomas, III, Esq.
          THOMAS LAW FIRM
          103 East Main Street, Suite D
          El Dorado, AR 71730
          Telephone: (870) 881-8468

LUXEMBOURG: Business Lobby Group Says Class Action Law Too Broad
----------------------------------------------------------------
delano.lu reports that Luxembourg's chamber of commerce has heavily
criticised a bill of law that would enable consumers to launch
class actions.

The bill, which is a transposition of an EU directive, offers
consumers who have been wronged by a company or business the chance
to launch class action law suits in Luxembourg. The bill also
permit both parties to reach an out-of-court settlement. Its main
goal is to simplify access to justice for consumers and avoid a
clogging up of courts.

In a public statement published, the business lobby group said that
while it did not oppose consumer protection, the scope of the bill
was too broad.

The bill "consists in ultimately encompassing any dispute between a
consumer and a professional," and the professional chamber
recommends limiting the scope of the bill to breaches of the
provisions of the Consumer Code "or at the very least adopting a
restrictive list of the provisions for which a breach on the part
of the professional may give rise to the introduction of a class
action."

The professional chamber also takes issue with the principle of
introducing moral and bodily injuries, which it says are
"inherently unsuitable for the class action mechanism  [. . . . ]
in particular because of the lengthening and increased complexity
of the procedures this would entail."

Finally, it opposes the public naming of the defendant when a judge
deems a class action is eligible, which is the first stage of the
procedure. "No publication should be ordered before the very
principle of the professional's liability has been established by a
final court decision, in order to preserve the reputation of the
professionals concerned by such an action," it wrote. [GN]

MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Bid to Dismiss Johnson Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
the complaint in the class action suit initiated by Jarrod Johnson
is pending.

In September 2016, the Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of
Gadsden, Alabama filed an individual complaint in the Circuit Court
of Etowah County, Alabama against certain manufacturers, suppliers,
and users of chemicals containing specific PFCs, including the
Company.

In May 2017, the Water Works and Sewer Board of the Town of Centre,
Alabama filed a similar complaint in the Circuit Court of Cherokee
County, Alabama.

The Gadsden Water Board and the Centre Water Board both seek
monetary damages and injunctive relief claiming that their water
supplies contain excessive amounts of PFCs. Certain defendants,
including the Company, filed dispositive motions in each case
arguing that the Alabama state courts lack personal jurisdiction
over them. These motions were denied.

In June and September 2018, certain defendants, including the
Company, petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for Writs of Mandamus
directing each lower court to enter an order granting the
defendants' dispositive motions on personal jurisdiction grounds.
The Alabama Supreme Court denied the petitions on December 20,
2019. Certain defendants, including the Company, filed an
Application for Rehearing with the Alabama Supreme Court asking the
Court to reconsider its December 2019 decision. The Alabama Supreme
Court denied the application for rehearing. On August 21, 2020,
certain defendants, including the Company, petitioned the Supreme
Court of the United States for review of the matter. On January 19,
2021, the Supreme Court denied the defendants' petition for
review.

In December 2019, the City of Rome, Georgia filed a complaint in
the Superior Court of Floyd County, Georgia that is similar to the
Gadsden Water Board and Centre Water Board complaints, again
seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief related to PFCs.  

Also in December 2019, Jarrod Johnson filed a putative class action
in the Superior Court of Floyd County, Georgia purporting to
represent all water subscribers with the Rome (Georgia) Water and
Sewer Division and/or the Floyd County (Georgia) Water Department
and seeking to recover, among other things, damages in the form of
alleged increased rates and surcharges incurred by ratepayers for
the costs associated with eliminating certain PFCs from their
drinking water.  

In January 2020, defendant 3M Company removed the class action to
federal court. The Company has filed motions to dismiss in both of
these cases.

On December 17, 2020, the Superior Court of Floyd County denied the
Company's motion to dismiss in the Rome case.

The Company denies all liability in these matters and intends to
defend them vigorously.

Mohawk Industries, Inc. is a global flooring manufacturer that
creates products to enhance residential and commercial spaces
around the world. The company is based in Calhoun, Georgia.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Bid to Nix Shareholder Suit in Georgia Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
the amended complaint filed in the putative shareholder class
action suit is pending.

On January 3, 2020, the Company and certain of its executive
officers were named as defendants in a putative shareholder class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
making materially false and misleading statements and that the
officers are control persons under Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint is filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased
shares of the Company's common stock between April 28, 2017 and
July 25, 2019.

On June 29, 2020, an amended complaint was filed in the Securities
Class Action against Mohawk and its CEO Jeff Lorberbaum, based on
the same claims and the same Class Period.

The amended complaint alleges that the Company (1) engaged in
fabricating revenues by attempting delivery to customers that were
closed and recognizing these attempts as sales; (2) overproduced
product to report higher operating margins and maintained
significant inventory that was not salable; and (3) valued certain
inventory improperly or improperly delivered inventory with
knowledge that it was defective and customers would return it.

On October 27, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims.


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

Mohawk Industries, Inc. is a global flooring manufacturer that
creates products to enhance residential and commercial spaces
around the world. The company is based in Calhoun, Georgia.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Delaware Securities Suit Still Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the putative class
action suit filed before the  Superior Court of the State of
Delaware, remains stayed.

The Company and certain of its present and former executive
officers were named as defendants in a putative state securities
class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of
Delaware on January 30, 2020.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11 and
12 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The complaint is filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased
shares of the Company's common stock in Mohawk Industries
Retirement Plan 1 and Mohawk Industries Retirement Plan 2 between
April 27, 2017 and July 25, 2019.

On March 27, 2020, the Court granted a temporary stay of the
litigation pending the earlier of either the close of fact
discovery or the deadline to appeal the dismissal of the related
Securities Class Action pending in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia.  

The stay may be lifted according to the terms set forth in the
Court's Order to Stay Litigation. The Company intends to vigorously
defend against the claims.

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

Mohawk Industries, Inc. is a global flooring manufacturer that
creates products to enhance residential and commercial spaces
around the world. The company is based in Calhoun, Georgia.

MULTIPLAN CORPORATION: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of April 26 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of
MultiPlan Corporation. Investors have until the deadline listed
below to file a lead plaintiff motion.

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

MultiPlan Corporation f/k/a Churchill Capital Corp. III (NYSE:
MPLN)
Class Period: July 12, 2020 - November 10, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 26, 2021

The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that MultiPlan was
losing tens of millions of dollars in sales and revenues to
Naviguard, a competitor created by one of MultiPlan's largest
customers, UnitedHealthcare, which threatened up to 35% of
MultiPlan's sales and 80% of its levered cash flows by 2022; (2)
that sales and revenue declines in the quarters leading up to the
Merger were not due to "idiosyncratic" customer behaviors as
represented, but rather due to a fundamental deterioration in
demand for MultiPlan's services and increased competition, as
payors developed competing services and sought alternatives to
eliminating excessive healthcare costs; (3) that MultiPlan was
facing significant pricing pressures for its services and had been
forced to materially reduce its take rate in the lead up to the
Merger by insurers, who had expressed dissatisfaction with the
price and quality of MultiPlan's services and balanced billing
practices, causing MultiPlan to cut its take rate by up to half in
some cases; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, MultiPlan was
set to continue to suffer from revenues and earnings declines,
increased competition and deteriorating pricing dynamics following
the Merger; (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, MultiPlan was
forced to seek continued revenue growth and to improve its
competitive positioning through pricey acquisitions, including
through the purchase of the healthcare technology company HST for
$140 million at a premium price from a former MultiPlan executive
only one month after the Merger; and (6) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Churchill III investors had grossly overpaid for the
acquisition of MultiPlan in the Merger, and MultiPlan's business
was worth far less than represented to investors.

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

NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Henry Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling to 3rd Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Kevin Henry, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled KEVIN HENRY and NAJEH DAVENPORT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE and NFL PROPERTIES, LLC,
successor-in-interest to NFL Properties, Inc., Case No.
2-20-cv-04165, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought on behalf of former Black football players alleging
deprivation of equal rights under the law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have been avoiding
paying head-injury claims under the settlement agreement in the
National Football League: Players' Concussion Injury Litigation,
Case No. 2:12-md-02323-AB, by manipulating the evaluation for the
qualifying diagnoses of neurocognitive impairment through a
statistical manipulation approach called "race-norming", which
discriminates against former Black football players.

When being evaluated for the qualifying diagnoses, former Black
players are automatically assumed to have started with worse
cognitive functioning than former White players. As a result, if a
retired Black player and a retired White player receive the exact
same raw scores on a battery of tests designed to measure their
current cognitive functioning, the Black player is presumed to have
suffered less impairment, and he is, therefore, less likely to
qualify for compensation.

As a result of the Defendants' actions, it is far more difficult
for Black retirees, including the Plaintiffs, to receive benefits
for the brain injuries, which are a routine result of playing
professional football, the Plaintiffs contend.

The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's Order dated March
8, 2021, granting Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim.

The appellate case is captioned as Kevin Henry, et al. v. NFL, et
al., Case No. 21-1434, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit, March 9, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants KEVIN HENRY and NAJEH DAVENPORT, On Behalf of
themselves and all Others Similarly Situated, are represented by:

          Aitan D. Goelman, Esq.
          Steven N. Herman, Esq.
          Ezra B. Marcus, Esq.
          ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER
          1800 M Street, N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 778-1800
          E-mail: agoelman@zuckerman.com
                  sherman@zuckerman.com
                  emarcus@zuckerman.com   

               - and -

          Cyril V. Smith, Esq.
          ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER
          100 East Pratt Street, Suite 2440
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 949-1145
          E-mail: csmith@zuckerman.com

               - and -

          Edward S. Stone, Esq.
          300 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (203) 504-8425
          E-mail: eddie@edwardstonelaw.com  

               - and -

          Justin R. Wyatt, Esq.
          49 West 37th Street
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (215) 557-2776
          E-mail: justin@jrwyattlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE is represented by:

          Logan Anderson, Esq.
          Sean P. Fahey, Esq.
          TROUTMAN PEPPER
          3000 Two Logan Square
          18th and Arch Streets
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 981-4474
          E-mail: logan.anderson@troutman.com
                  sean.fahey@troutman.com

               - and -

          Lynn B. Bayard, Esq.
          Bruce A. Birenboim, Esq.
          Claudia Hammerman, Esq.
          Brad S. Karp, Esq.
          PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 373-3000  
          E-mail: lbayard@paulweiss.com
                  bbirenboim@paulweiss.com
                  chammerman@paulweiss.com
                  bkarp@paulweiss.com

NEW SOUTH WALES: To Ban Firefighting Foams Following Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Fellner, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
the state government will ban firefighting foams containing PFAS
chemicals, bringing NSW into line with Queensland and South
Australia where foams containing the dangerous toxins are already
outlawed.

The Herald can reveal the ban will be announced on Monday by NSW
Environment Minister Matt Kean and will prohibit the use of
firefighting foams containing PFAS for training or demonstration
purposes from March.

Foams containing the per- and poly-fluoroalkyl chemicals will still
be able to be used in catastrophic or special circumstances.

"This ban on PFAS firefighting foam will significantly reduce the
impact on our environment but still enable our emergency agencies
to fight catastrophic fires that can have devastating impacts on
life and property," Mr Kean said.

PFAS chemicals do not break down in the environment and have been
linked to a slew of health effects by overseas governments,
including cancer, immune system suppression and hormone
disruption.

Australia remains one of the only countries in the world not to
have introduced a ban at a federal level by ratifying a United
Nations treaty.

Dr Mariann Lloyd-Smith, from the National Toxics Network, said the
organisation welcomed the decision but believed there was no place
for PFAS in firefighting foams at all, given the alternatives
available.

"This decision by NSW can be considered well overdue as, in May
2019, more than 180 countries agreed to ban the use of firefighting
foams containing PFOA or PFOS in training exercises.

"Even the chemical industry lobby group, the FluoroCouncil, argued
that they should never be used in a training exercise."

Dr Lloyd-Smith added they would be looking at the details of the
announcement with interest.

"There are thousands of PFAS chemicals and it will be important to
know how many PFAS will the NSW ban cover and how they will monitor
the ban," she said.

PFAS chemicals have contaminated the blood of most of the global
population due to their past use in popular consumer products
including cosmetics, food packaging, textiles, Teflon frying pans
and the fabric protector Scotchguard.

Their main use in Australia today is in firefighting foams to
smother liquid fuel fires, along with in X-rays and chromium
plating.

Government agencies, including Fire and Rescue NSW and the
Department of Defence, have voluntarily abandoned use of the toxic
foams but used them for decades during training exercises.

It is believed private industry continues to use stocks of the PFAS
firefighting foams.

Mr Kean said the changes followed extensive consultation with
emergency agencies and will be introduced in stages over the next
19 months to allow adequate time for systems and practices to be
changed.

Even with the phase-out, PFAS will continue to be an ever-present
threat in dozens of communities across Australia where the toxic
foams have been used, lingering in waterways, on land and in the
food chain.

Last year the federal government paid out a $212 million settlement
after class actions were launched by communities polluted by the
Department of Defence in Williamtown in NSW, Katherine in the
Northern Territory and Oakey in Queensland.

Further lawsuits are either afoot or being investigated at an
additional 24 military bases across the country.

The president of the Coalition against PFAS, Lindsay Clout, who was
involved in the class action at Williamtown, welcomed news of the
ban in NSW.

"It's a commendable step in the right direction," he said.

"It's an admission that the product is dangerous and confirmation
for all the people that have fought so long and hard to have the
dangers of PFAS chemicals exposed."

Investigations by the Sydney Morning Herald and Newcastle Herald
have uncovered clusters of cancer cases in communities that have
been heavily exposed to PFAS.

Fifty cases of cancer were uncovered on a heavily polluted road in
Williamtown, while a further 21 cases were found at a high school
in Minnesota in the United States' mid-west where students drank
polluted water.

The investigations also revealed that one of the main global
manufacturers of the chemicals, 3M company, has been accused of
secretly working over decades to "command the science" and deceive
the public about the dangers of PFAS.

Last year in a landmark finding, the Federal Court's independent
expert umpire ruled there is "good evidence" that PFAS potentially
causes harmful effects, including cancer.

The Queensland Government was the first ban the use of PFAS
firefighting foams in 2016 and it was followed by South Australia
in 2018. [GN]


NEXTEP INC: Loomis Sues Board for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Loomis, Jason Boyer and Daniel W. Kilday, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. NEXTEP, INC., THE BOARD
OF DIRECTORS OF NEXTEP, INC., THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF NEXTEP,
INC. and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 5:21-cv-00199-HE (D.W. Okla.,
March 10, 2021), is brought on behalf of the Nextep 401(k)
Retirement Savings Plan (the "Plan") pursuant to the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against the Plan's
fiduciaries, which include Nextep, Inc. and the Board of Directors
of Nextep, Inc. and its members during the Class Period and the
Investment Committee of Nextep, Inc. and its members during the
Class Period for breaches of their fiduciary duties.

The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class Period the
Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan, as that term is defined
under ERISA, breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to the
Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter
alia, (1) failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's
investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment
option was prudent, in terms of cost; and (2) maintaining certain
funds in the Plan despite the availability of identical or similar
investment options with lower costs and/or better performance
histories; and (3) failing to control the Plan's administrative and
recordkeeping costs.

It appears that in 2020, five years into the Class Period, some
changes were made to the Plan wherein certain Plan investment
options, some of which are the subject of this lawsuit, were either
converted to lower class shares or eliminated unnecessary fees.
These changes were far too little and too late as the damages
suffered by Plan participants to that point had already been baked
in. There is no reason to not have implemented these changes by the
start of the Class Period when the majority of lower-class shares
were available. The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the
detriment of participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach
of the fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty, in violation of
the ERISA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs participated in the Plan investing in the options
offered by the Plan.

Nextep is the Plan sponsor and a named fiduciary with a principal
place of business in Norman, Oklahoma.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          2933 North Front Street
          Harrisburg, PA 17110
          Phone: (717) 233-4101
          Fax (717) 233-4103
          Email: donr@capozziadler.com

               - and -

          Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          312 Old Lancaster Road
          Merion Station, PA 19066
          Phone: (610) 890-0200
          Fax (717) 233-4103
          Email: markg@capozziadler.com


NEXTIER OILFIELD: Continues to Defend C&J Merger-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nextier Oilfield Solutions Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend class action suits related to its merger with
C&J Energy Services, Inc.

On June 16, 2019, the Company entered into an agreement and plan of
merger among the Company, C&J Energy Services, Inc. and King Merger
Sub Corp.

In connection with the Merger Agreement and the transactions
contemplated thereby the following complaints were filed: (i) one
putative class action complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado by a purported C&J
stockholder on behalf of himself and all other C&J stockholders
(excluding defendants and related or affiliated persons) against
C&J and members of the C&J board of directors, (ii) two putative
class action complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware by a purported C&J stockholder
on behalf of himself and all other C&J stockholders (excluding
defendants and related or affiliated persons) against C&J, members
of the C&J board of directors, the Company and Merger Sub, (iii)
one putative class action complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas by a purported
stockholder of the Company on behalf of himself and all other
stockholders of the Company (excluding defendants and related or
affiliated persons) against the Company and members of its board of
directors, and (iv) one putative class action was filed in the
Delaware Chancery Court by a purported stockholder of the Company
on behalf of himself and all other stockholders of the Company
(excluding defendants and related or affiliated persons) against
members of the Company's board of directors.

The five stockholder actions are captioned as follows: Palumbos v.
C&J Energy Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02386 (D.
Colo.), Wuollet v. C&J Energy Services, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-01411 (D. Del.), Plumley v. C&J Energy Services, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01446 (D. Del.), Bushansky v. Keane Group,
Inc. et al., Case No. 4:19-cb-02924 (S.D. Tex) and Woods v. Keane
Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2019-0590 (Del. Chan.).

In general, the Stockholder Actions allege that the defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, or aided and
abetted in such alleged violations, because the Registration
Statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC on July 16, 2019 in
connection with the proposed C&J Merger allegedly omitted or
misstated material information.

The Stockholder Actions seek, among other things, injunctive relief
preventing the consummation of the C&J Merger, unspecified damages
and attorneys' fees. C&J, the Company and the other named
defendants believe that no supplemental disclosures were required
under applicable laws; however, to avoid the risk of the
Stockholder Actions delaying the C&J Merger and to minimize the
expense of defending the Stockholder Actions, and without admitting
any liability or wrongdoing, C&J and the Company filed a Form 8-K
on October 11, 2019 making certain supplemental disclosures in
connection with the C&J Merger.

Following those supplemental disclosures, plaintiffs in the Woods
and Bushansky actions voluntarily dismissed their claims as moot on
October 16, 2019 and October 29, 2019, respectively.

The Company subsequently agreed to pay $125,000 to plaintiff's
counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses in full satisfaction of
the claim for attorneys' fees and expenses in the Woods action, and
the remaining cases were settled and dismissed as well.

No shareholder litigation is currently pending arising out of the
C&J Merger.

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

Nextier Oilfield Solutions Inc. provides oilfield services. The
Company offers drilling and other related solutions such as
developing, delivering, management, and engineering activities.
Nextier Oilfield Solutions serves customers in the United States.
The company is based in Houston, Texas.


ONTRAK INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Ontrak, Inc. Stockholders
have until the deadline below to petition the court to serve as
lead plaintiff. Additional information about the case can be found
at the link provided.

Ontrak, Inc. (NASDAQ: OTRK)

Class Period: November 5, 2020 to February 26, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 3, 2021

On March 1, 2021, Ontrak issued a press release announcing
preliminary financial results for fourth quarter and full year
2020. Therein, the Company stated that its largest customer had
terminated its contract with Ontrak, effective June 26, 2021. The
Company stated that this customer "evaluated Ontrak on a provider
basis" and "[a]s such, the customer evaluated [Ontrak's]
performance based on [its] ability to achieve the lowest possible
cost per medical visit, and not on [its] clinical outcomes data or
medical cost savings." The Company also stated that "the coaching
model which Ontrak has pioneered for over a decade was seen by the
customer to be less relevant to their performance metrics."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $27.32, or more than
46%, to close at $31.62 per share on March 1, 2021.

The complaint, filed on March 3, 2021, 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
Ontrak's largest customer evaluated the Company on a provider
basis, valuing Ontrak's performance based on achieving the lowest
cost per medical visit rather than clinical outcomes or medical
cost savings; (2) that, as a result, Ontrak's largest customer did
not find the Company's program to be effective and was reasonably
likely to terminate its contract with Ontrak; (3) that, because
this customer accounted for a significant portion of the Company's
revenue, the loss of the customer would have an outsized impact on
Ontrak's financial results; and (4) that, as a result of the
foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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

                           About Bragar Eagel

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. 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]

PACIFICORP: Faces Lawsuits Over Negligence in Beachie Creek Fire
----------------------------------------------------------------
Monica Samayoa at opb.org reports that the Beachie Creek Fire was
one of the most catastrophic wildfires in Oregon's history, burning
more than 193,000 acres east of Salem.

A pair of lawsuits were filed against one of the Northwest's
biggest private utilities, alleging the company was negligent and
failed to properly maintain power lines during last year's
devastating Labor Day wildfires.

The two mass action cases were filed against PacifiCorp by Edelson
PC and Johnson Johnson Lucas & Middleton, on behalf of 100 Beachie
Creek Fire victims.

The lawsuits claim PacifiCorp failed to safely design, operate and
maintain infrastructure. They also claim the utility failed to pay
attention to warnings by the National Weather Service about the
historically powerful east winds, which contributed to the spread
and ignitions of Oregon wildfires, including the Beachie Creek
Fire.

The plaintiffs are seeking more than $1 billion.

"The vast majority, if not all of the individuals that have been
named in this suit, lost homes, or had property severely damaged or
lost businesses," Edelson PC Partner Chris Dore said.

The Beachie Creek Fire was one of the most catastrophic wildfires
in Oregon's history, burning more than 193,000 acres east of Salem.
Dore said grouping the lawsuits together while still representing
each individual, gives wildfire survivors a better chance to be
fairly compensated.

Edelson PC has represented more than 1,000 individuals over the
past couple of years from northern California's 2018 deadly Camp
Fire. The law firm helped secure and reach a resolution of a
settlement amount of $13.5 billion against Pacific Gas and Electric
company. The fire claimed 85 lives.

Dore said this lawsuit has many similarities between the lawsuit
against Pacific Gas and Electric in which the utility knew what
type of weather was coming, what the dangers were and possible
solutions.

"The defendant here had the benefit of seeing what that tragedy at
the Camp Fire looked like and learning from it," he said. "In fact
there are documents that they put together for themselves about
what happened there and how to prevent it."

The 100 individuals are only a portion of the people Edelson PC
represents in Oregon. The law firm plans to file more lawsuits
soon.

PacifiCorp faces at least one other class action lawsuit from three
Pacific Northwest law firms. The suit claims the utility failed to
properly maintain powerlines that caused the Labor Day wildfires.

A spokesperson for PacifiCorp declined to comment, citing company
policy regarding pending litigation. [GN]

PANERA BREAD: Ahmad Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
-------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Mahasin Ahmad, inidividually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Panera Bread Company, Case No.
21SL-CC00593 was removed from the Circuit Court of St. Louis
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri on March 11, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00311-CDP to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Panera Bread Company -- https://www.panerabread.com/en-us/home.html
-- is an American chain store of bakery-cafe fast casual
restaurants with over 2,000 locations, all of which are in the
United States and Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tiffany M. Yiatras, Esq.
          CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGAL
          308 Hutchinson Road
          Ellisville, MO 63011
          Phone: (314) 541-0317
          Fax: (855) 710-7706
          Email: tiffany@consumerprotectionlegal.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christopher M. Hohn, Esq.
          Kimberly M. Bousquet, Esq.
          THOMPSON COBURN LLP - St Louis
          One US Bank Plaza
          505 N. 7th Street, Suite 2700
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Phone: (314) 552-6159
          Fax: (314) 552-7000
          Email: chohn@thompsoncoburn.com
                 kbousquet@thompsoncoburn.com


RANGE RESOURCES: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Resources Corporation.
Stockholders have until the deadline below to petition the court to
serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about the case can
be found at the link provided.

Range Resources Corporation (NYSE: RRC)

Class Period: April 29, 2016 to February 10, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 3, 2021

Range Resources operates as an independent natural gas, natural gas
liquids ("NGLs"), and oil company in the U.S. The Company and its
subsidiary, Range Resources - Appalachia, LLC, engage in the
exploration, development, and acquisition of natural gas and oil
properties in, among other U.S. regions, Fayette County,
Pennsylvania. As of December 31, 2019, the Company purportedly
owned and operated 1,272 net producing wells in the Appalachian
region, including Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania's Department of
Environmental Protection (the "DEP") enforces the regulations
governing the correct designation of a well's status.

On February 10, 2021, the DEP issued a press release announcing
that Range Resources had paid a $294,000 civil penalty to the
agency on January 8, 2021 for violating the 2012 Oil and Gas Act.
The DEP had begun investigating the Company after the agency found
conflicting and inaccurate information on the status of a Company
well in Fayette County, Pennsylvania-specifically concerning
whether the well in question was correctly designated as inactive
for the purposes of DEP regulation. After subpoenaing Range
Resources for information on other wells the Company had requested
to designate as inactive, the DEP found that "between, July 16,
2013, and October 11, 2017, 42 of Range Resources' conventional
wells were placed on inactive status but were never used again" and
that several of the Company's "wells had not been in use for 12
months at the time Range Resources submitted its applications for
inactive status," even though "after 12 consecutive months of no
production, the well would be classified as abandoned and must be
plugged." In addition to paying the DEP's civil penalty, Range
Resources was ultimately required to plug the wells the agency
identified as having no viable future use to remediate the issue.

The following day, Range Resources' stock price fell $0.62 per
share, or 6.08%, from its closing price on February 10, 2021, to
close at $9.57 per share on February 11, 2021.

The complaint, filed on March 4, 2021, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and
compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Range
Resources had improperly designated the status of its wells in
Pennsylvania since at least 2013; (ii) the foregoing conduct
subjected the Company to a heightened risk of regulatory
investigation and enforcement, as well as artificially decreased
the Company's periodically reported cost estimates to plug and
abandon its wells; (iii) the Company was the subject of a DEP
investigation from sometime between September 2017 to January 2021
for improperly designating the status of its wells; (iv) the DEP
investigation foreseeably would and ultimately did lead to the
Company incurring regulatory fines; and (v) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

For more information on the Range Resources class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/RRC

                       About Bragar Eagel

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. 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]

RENEWABLE ENERGY: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Renewable Energy Group, Inc.
Stockholders have until the deadline below to petition the court to
serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about the case can
be found at the link provided.

Renewable Energy Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: REGI)

Class Period: May 3, 2018 to February 25, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 3, 2021

On February 25, 2021, Renewable Energy issued a press release
announcing its fourth quarter and full year 2020 financial results.
Therein, the Company revealed that it would restate "$38.2 million
in cumulative revenue from January 2018 through September 30, 2020"
because Renewable Energy was not the "proper claimant for certain
BTC payments on biodiesel it sold between January 1, 2017 and
September 30, 2020." Renewable Energy further stated that it had
reached an agreement with the Internal Revenue Service "on a $40.5
million assessment, excluding interest" to correct these claims.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $8.17, or 9.5%, over
two consecutive trading sessions to close at $77.77 per share on
February 26, 2021.

The complaint, filed on March 2, 2021, 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
due to failures in the diesel additive system, petroleum diesel was
not periodically added to certain loads by the Company and was
instead added by the Company's customers; (2) that, as a result,
Renewable Energy was not the proper claimant for certain BTC
payments on biodiesel it sold between January 1, 2017 and September
30, 2020; (3) that, as a result, Renewable Energy's revenue and net
income were overstated for certain periods; (4) that there was a
material weakness in the Company's internal control over financial
reporting related to the purchase and use of the petroleum diesel
gallons when blending with biodiesel; and (5) 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 Renewable Energy Group class action go
to: https://bespc.com/cases/REGI

                         About Bragar Eagel

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. 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]

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Faces Regulator Inquiries Amid Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AFP reports that stock trading app Robinhood has confirmed it is
cooperating with inquiries from United States regulators into its
decision to temporarily throttle purchases of shares in companies
like GameStop during frenzied trading in January.

The free brokerage platform is facing inquiries from federal
financial regulators, state attorneys general and the US Congress,
according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Robinhood, which says it is "cooperating" with the entities, is
already facing dozens of class action lawsuits.

The lawsuits "generally allege breach of contract, breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, breach
of fiduciary duty and other common law claims," Robinhood said in
the filing on Feb. 26.

"We believe that the claims in these lawsuits are without merit and
intend to defend against them vigorously."

Key players in the GameStop shares trading frenzy told skeptical US
lawmakers that their actions were above board and in line with
ordinary stock market business.

Founders of Robinhood and the online forum Reddit were among those
to testify at a House of Representatives financial services
committee hearing.

Unprecedented recent volatility -- with shares in the GameStop
video game store surging more than 400 percent -- prompted calls
for regulators to review the role of social media, hedge funds and
trading platforms which some allege manipulated the market. The
GameStop Wall Street upheaval was sparked via a "subreddit" known
as WallStreetBets. [GN]


SA POWER NETWORK: Victims Launch $150MM Legal Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
abc.net.au reports that a class action lawsuit seeking $150 million
for victims of the 2019 Cudlee Creek bushfire in the Adelaide Hills
has been lodged with the South Australian Supreme Court.

Maddens Lawyers is seeking compensation for up to 1,000 victims of
the blaze, which destroyed more than 90 homes and killed one person
in December 2019.

It claims SA Power Networks' inadequate fault protection settings
led to the bushfire, which started when a tree fell on power lines
and then a fence.

Brendan Pendergast the Victorian law firm Maddens Lawyers said
South Australia's energy distributor knew it was a catastrophic
fire danger day, with a total fire ban in place.

"And yet we see in the Office of the Technical Regulator's report
that the fault mechanisms were adjusted to normal settings and
quite alarmingly the auto-reclose device operated twice so it
de-energised the line and then re-energised it after the tree fell
on the line and brought it down to the ground," he said.

In its report on the fire released in August, the Office of the
Technical Regulator said it "could not identify any indicators that
could have enabled a reasonable person to identify this tree
failure prior to the event".

Mr Pendergast said he would present experts who said the tree was
already "severely compromised" three years before the fire and
should have been identified as "dead, dying or dangerous".

                Range of Losses From Bushfire

He said losses went beyond the destroyed homes and 1,000 hectares
in damaged vineyards.

"One person tragically lost their life, more than 50 firefighters
were injured and many of the citizens living up there had suffered
psychological or psychiatric injury as a result of the trauma of
the bushfire experience," he said.

"So we're seeking to recover compensation for those aspects of the
fire as well."

An SA Power Networks spokesman said the company had not yet seen
"the detail of the claim" but would defend its actions.

"An independent government report concluded the fire start was due
to a tree falling from outside the vegetation clearance zone
surrounding power lines, and that SAPN had acted in accord with its
bushfire and vegetation management procedures and equipment
settings," he said.

SA Power Networks is controlled by Hong Kong billionaire Li
Ka-Shing.

Maddens Lawyers is also representing victims of the November 2019
Yorketown bushfire, which was caused by a power network fault.

That case is heading to court-ordered mediation next month.

"We're optimistic that proper resolution can be achieved at that
time rather than taking the matter before the court for a
determination," Mr Pendergast said.

Mr Pendergast's firm has been involved in a number of lawsuits
relating to bushfires, starting with the Ash Wednesday fire that
struck the Adelaide Hills and parts of Victoria in 1983. [GN]

SANTANDER CONSUMER: Deka Securities Class Suit Tossed w/ Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
24, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the
Court in Deka Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer USA
Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-K, entered a Final Judgement
and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice.

The Company is a defendant in a purported securities class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court, Northern District of
Texas, captioned Deka Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer
USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-K.

The Deka Lawsuit, which was filed in August 2014, was brought
against the Company, certain of its current and former directors
and executive officers and certain institutions that served as
underwriters in the Company's initial public offering (IPO) on
behalf of a class consisting of those who purchased or otherwise
acquired our securities between January 23, 2014 and June 12, 2014.


The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company's IPO
registration statement and prospectus and certain subsequent public
disclosures violated federal securities laws by containing
misleading statements concerning the Company's ability to pay
dividends and the adequacy of the Company's compliance systems and
oversight.

In December 2015, the Company and the individual defendants moved
to dismiss the lawsuit, which was denied. In December 2016, the
plaintiffs moved to certify the proposed classes.

In July 2017, the court entered an order staying the Deka Lawsuit
pending the resolution of the appeal of a class certification order
in In re Cobalt Int'l Energy, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. H-14-3428, 2017
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91938 (S.D. Tex. June 15, 2017).

In October 2018, the court vacated the order staying the Deka
Lawsuit and ordered that merits discovery in the Deka Lawsuit be
stayed until the court ruled on the issue of class certification.

On July 28, 2020, the Company executed a Stipulation of Settlement
with the plaintiffs in the Deka Lawsuit that fully resolves all of
the plaintiffs' claims for a cash payment of $47 million.

On August 13, 2020, the Court entered an Order Preliminarily
Approving the Settlement and Providing For Notice, setting the
Final Settlement Hearing and on January 12, 2021, the Court entered
a Final Judgement and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice.

Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc., a specialized consumer
finance company, provides vehicle finance and third-party servicing
in the United States. Its products and services include retail
installment contracts and vehicle leases, as well as dealer loans
for inventory, construction, real estate, working capital, and
revolving lines of credit. The company was founded in 1995 and is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Santander Consumer USA Holdings
Inc. is a subsidiary of Santander Holdings USA, Inc.

Saskatchewan: Move to Delay Humboldt Bus Crash Suit Challenged
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Graveland, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that
Battlefords NOW reports that a battle between lawsuits related to
the Humboldt Broncos bus crash was to be heard in a Regina
courtroom last month.

Eleven lawsuits were filed after the crash on April 6, 2018.
Sixteen people died and 13 were injured when the driver of a
semi-truck blew a stop sign and drove into the path of the junior
hockey team's bus near Tisdale, Sask.

Lawyers for a proposed class action waiting for certification plan
to ask a judge Friday to delay another lawsuit filed by five of the
victims families until that's done.

The possible delay has some of the families frustrated.

"We want to put certain pieces of this behind us. When they get
dragged out longer and longer, it just makes it harder and harder.
It causes more pain," said Chris Joseph, a former NHL player from
St. Albert, Alta. His 20-year-old son, Jaxon, died in the crash.

The proposed class action so far includes the families of
24-year-old Dayna Brons, the team's athletic therapist from Lake,
Lenore, Sask., who died in hospital after the crash, and injured
goalie Jacob Wassermann, 21, from Humboldt, Sask. The suit names
the Saskatchewan government, the inexperienced truck driver who
caused the crash and the Calgary-based company that employed him.

Vancouver lawyer John Rice said the request for a stay, or delay,
is about fairness.

"In situations where numerous claimants are harmed from the same
event -- and where the legal findings in one proceeding could
impact all the others -- the court needs to strike a balance
between the competing interests of individual litigants to ensure
that the most efficient and just process is adopted," Rice said.

"In these awful circumstances, in this application, the court is
being asked to exercise the 'least-worst' option, which is to press
pause on the progress of one action until the application for
certification is heard."

Kevin Mellor of Regina, lawyer for the other lawsuit, said a delay
would put his clients' claim at risk. He represents the Joseph
family as well as the families of Adam Herold, 16, of Monmartre,
Sask.; Logan Hunter, 18, of St. Albert, Alta.; Jacob Leicht, 19, of
Humboldt, Sask.; and assistant coach Mark Cross, 27, from
Strasbourg, Sask. They all died from the crash.

That lawsuit, in addition to naming the Saskatchewan government,
the driver and his employer, also lists the bus company as a
defendant.

Mellor said Jaskirat Singh Sidhu was sentenced to eight years in
prison for causing the crash, but could be deported to India before
their lawsuit gets to trial.

"If the class action is going to delay . . . they're going to miss
out on material evidence because this guy will be deported," Mellor
said.

"We need to giddy-up and go."

Co-counsel, Sharon Fox, said their clients shouldn't be punished
because they were first to file a lawsuit.

"We filed our claim in July 2018, three months after the crash
happened," Fox said.

"We have been at this for almost two years . . . They're trying to
hold us back, put us on the sidelines, so they can catch up. We're
saying that's not fair and that's going to impact our client's
ability to prove our case."

Their clients also don't want to put their healing on hold any
longer, she said.

An affidavit from Herold's father, Russ Herold, was filed in
advance of Friday's hearing.

"I feel I will suffer psychological harm if my lawsuit is delayed,"
he says in the document.

"I want to advance my lawsuit to hold responsible those that should
be held responsible for my son's death."

Lawyers for the Saskatchewan government recently argued in court
that, because of the province's no-fault insurance, it should be
struck as a defendant from the class action. A judge has not yet
ruled on that application.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published March 1,
2021. [GN]


SASKATCHEWAN: Proposed Class Action Filed in Over COVID-19
----------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Taylor at The Canadian Press reports that a proposed
class-action lawsuit has been filed in Saskatchewan against a
long-term care operator alleging it lacked proper resources to
handle COVID-19.

Documents filed at Regina's Court of Queen's Bench say the novel
coronavirus spread through different Extendicare locations last
fall.

One of those was Extendicare Parkside in Regina, where a statement
of claim says at least 41 residents have died of COVID-19.

The claim from Merchant Law Group says reports by the Saskatchewan
Health Authority and internal audits had warned of pre-existing
issues, including a lack of single rooms.

"For residents who survived the Extendicare COVID-19 outbreaks,
they endured, and continue to endure harsh and intolerable
treatment at Extendicare Saskatchewan locations," it reads.

"They were locked down in their rooms, feared for their safety and
lives, knew other residents were dying around them and were unable
to have visits with their loved ones and family members."

The suit also alleges that Extendicare didn't have proper infection
controls in place. It is seeking damages for loss of life, funeral
expenses, emotional distress on family members and residents, as
well as medical treatment for long-term COVID-19 effects.

None of the allegations have been proven in court.

"Our focus at this time is solely on providing quality care to our
residents, and supporting our families and team members," said an
emailed statement from Extendicare.

"We share in the sadness of our community over the devastating toll
COVID-19 has taken on Extendicare Parkside and other long-term care
homes across the country."

"We'll respond to the allegations through the appropriate legal
channels in due course."

One of the plaintiffs listed in the suit, Marie Albert, was a
short-term resident at Parkside who contracted COVID-19 and now has
to be on oxygen and has limited mobility.

"She survived but with devastating impacts on her enjoyment of
life," the claim reads.

The suit says Albert had been in a four-bed room until recently.
When two residents moved, she was placed n a two-person room.

Extendicare Inc. and Extendicare Canada own or lease five long-term
care homes and four long-term retirement communities in
Saskatchewan, says the claim.

Other proposed class actions have been filed in Canadian courts
against care homes that have had COVID-19 outbreaks, including a
claim in Ontario against Extendicare. [GN]

SEQWATER: Wivenhoe, Somerset Class Action Partially Settled
-----------------------------------------------------------
InsuranceNews.com.au reports that the Wivenhoe and Somerset class
action has been partially settled for $440 million after a
compensation agreement was reached with the Queensland Government
and its statutory body, SunWater, law firm Maurice Blackburn
announced.

The settlement comes more than a year after the NSW Supreme Court
ruled in November 2019 that negligence by operators of the Wivenhoe
and Somerset dams exacerbated the 2011 Brisbane floods.

Maurice Backburn filed the class action in 2014, alleging
negligence on the part of Queensland Bulk Water Supply Authority
(which trades as Seqwater), Sunwater and the State of Queensland
contributed to the extensive flooding disaster.

The class action, which includes a number of insurers, claimed the
three defendants are legally responsible for the actions of four
flood engineers who were in charge of running flood operations at
the two dams from January 2-11 in 2011.

Maurice Blackburn calls the $440 million compensation a "record"
and one that will offer some closure for its clients after a long
and arduous legal battle.

"It has now been ten years since the Brisbane and Ipswich floods,
so this settlement is a very welcome development that we hope will
bring some much-needed closure to our clients, who have had to
endure significant uncertainty and frustration while the defendants
fought this case at every turn," Principal Rebecca Gilsenan said.

Maurice Blackburn says Seqwater, which is 50% liable for the
damage, is not a party to the settlement and will continue to
appeal the NSW Supreme Court ruling.

"Of course, complete closure can only happen for our clients when
Seqwater also settles or Seqwater's appeal is finalised," Ms
Gilsenan said.

"The class will continue to vigorously fight Seqwater's appeal,
buoyed by the substantial settlement reached with the other two
defendants."

The settlement is subject to approval by the NSW Supreme Court and
agreement on terms, with an approval hearing likely to take place
before the Seqwater appeal starts in May. [GN]


SHREVEPORT, LA: Court Awards More Than $9M to Billing Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Shreveport judge has awarded nearly $10 million to Shreveport
water customers that were part of a class action lawsuit over
billing issues, the Harper Law Firm announced March 11.

On March 10, Judge Michael Pitman issued a ruling against the City
of Shreveport in favor of citizens in the amount of $9,626,894 in
damages. The ruling will benefit more than 100,000 families who are
both current and former water and sewerage customers.

This is the eighth consecutive ruling against the City of
Shreveport in favor of citizens amid the ongoing water billing
litigation.

"With this ruling, we hope that the mayor and the city will
discontinue their efforts to refuse to repay the citizens of the
city for amounts the courts have repeatedly awarded to the citizens
of Shreveport for amounts that the city has overcharged them for
water and sewer," said one of the attorneys representing citizens,
Jerry Harper of the Harper Law Firm. "The Mayor is now faced with
the choice of either paying the judgment or seeking an appeal
against his own constituents. The City of Shreveport has been
fighting its own citizens for years in these cases to resist paying
amounts owed to them for overcharges to water and sewer; and, we
hope that this judgment will put an end to this practice and that
the city will work with us and the court to promptly repay what the
citizens are owed."

Next in the case, it will be determined how much each member of the
suit will receive. Participants will be notified via mail. [GN]

SKANSKA KOCH: Cortese Appeals FLSA Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Anthony Cortese, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ANTHONY CORTESE, JAMES
KEARNEY, DANIEL JULIO, JOHN SICILIANO, JEFFREY BROOK, and MARK
LEYBLE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
SKANSKA KOCH, INC., KIEWIT INFRASTRUCTURE CO., and SKANSKA KOCH -
KIEWIT JV, Case No. 20-cv-1632, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New York City).

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on February 22, 2021, the
Hon. Judge Lewis J. Liman entered an order:

   1. granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice;
      and

   2. denying the motion for conditional certification.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and
the New York Labor Law (the NYLL") against the Defendants. The
Defendants moved to dismiss the third amended complaint, pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a
claim for relief. The Plaintiffs moved for conditional
certification of a collective action under FLSA. The motion to
dismiss was granted with prejudice. Because the TAC is being
dismissed, the move for conditional certification was denied.

The Plaintiffs seek a review of Judge Liman's order.

This case arises out of work performed in connection with the
Bayonne Bridge "Raise the Roadway Plan" construction project,
connecting Bayonne, New Jersey with Staten Island, New York.
Pursuant to a 2013 contract (the "Construction Agreement") with the
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the Defendants agreed to
serve jointly as the general contractors for the Bayonne Bridge
Project. SKKJV allegedly is a joint venture between Skanska Koch
and Kiewit formed for purposes of the Bayonne Bridge Project. The
Plaintiffs allege that Skanska Koch, Kiewit, and SKKJV constitute
"joint employers" under FLSA and the NYLL because they "have an
arrangement to share Plaintiffs' services, act directly in the
interest of each other on the Project and/or shared control of the
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees because the
Defendants are jointly responsible for completion of the Project as
PANYNJ's general contractor."

The appellate case is captioned as Cortese v. Skanska Koch, Inc.,
Case No. 21-473, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, February 25, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Anthony Cortese, James Kearney, Daniel Julio,
Mark Leyble, Jeffrey Brooks, John Siciliano, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Michael H. Ansell, Esq.
          BRACH EICHLER LLC
          101 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 228-5700
          E-mail: mansell@bracheichler.com  

Defendants-Appellees Skanska Koch, Inc., Kiewit Infrastructure Co.,
and Skanska Koch - Kiewit JV are represented by:

          Gregory Robert Begg, Esq.
          PECKAR & ABRAMSON, P.C.
          70 Grand Avenue
          River Edge, NJ 07661
          Telephone: (201) 343-3434
          E-mail: gbegg@pecklaw.com

ST. PETER'S HEALTH: Class Action Tossed Due to Lack of Jurisdiction
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Drake, writing for Independent Record, reports that a former
St. Peter's Health oncologist who was fired in November has good
skills but was seriously overloaded with work, a physician who was
asked by attorneys for Dr. Thomas Weiner to review accusations
against him said in a recent court filing.

Dr. Robert R. Witham, who said he has nearly 41 years of experience
as a physician, said he reviewed 20,000 pages of medical records
pertaining to claims by St. Peter's Health to suspend Weiner's
staff privileges as of Nov. 17. Witham said in a Feb. 17 court
filing in Lewis and Clark County District Court that he had been
asked by Weiner's legal counsel to review seven oncology patients,
plus three chronic patients.

"Having reviewed the ten medical records in issue, it is my opinion
that they do not support either a summary suspension or revocation
of Dr. Weiner's medical staff privileges," he said in his
declaration, but added St. Peter's should develop an evaluation
plan and monitor Weiner's improvement in specific issues for six
months.

"The hospital should structure a rehabilitation program for a
habitual overachiever like Dr. Weiner," Witham wrote later in the
report. "It would be good for him and the community."

Witham also noted a pain management specialist left Helena in 2018,
leaving over 300 patients "stranded" and other doctors referred
them to Weiner. He said "it became one more patient care chore Dr.
Weiner could not say 'No' to."

"Dr. Weiner is not a bad doctor and he has good skills but he is
over-loaded," Witham wrote. "The system seems to have failed him
piling on favors until he could not function clearly at times and
now the hospital is blaming him for agreeing to doing even more
work after the pain management specialist left Helena in 2018. The
community and hospital profited from his long tenure in the
community."

St. Peter's Health offered brief comment about the latest filing,
saying "We feel strongly about the steps we're taking to protect
the safety of our patients. We are not able to provide further
comment as these are ongoing legal proceedings."

St. Peter's Health said in January that Weiner had incorrectly
treated a patient for lung cancer for 11 years before it was
determined that the person did not have the disease at the time of
death. The hospital's legal counsel also said that it learned of
"alarming narcotic prescribing practices" by Weiner.

Weiner, who had been with the hospital for nearly 25 years, is
contesting his dismissal. Several of his patients had filed their
own class-action suit against St. Peter's. That suit was dismissed
Feb. 1 by District Court Judge Michael Menahan, who said he lacked
the jurisdiction to resolve the dispute at this time, and the
claims must first be filed with the Montana Medical Legal Panel.

On Jan. 5, St. Peter's Hospital filed a response in 1st Judicial
District Court to Weiner's Dec. 14 motion for a temporary
restraining order, preliminary injunction and order to show cause
after the medical center ended Weiner's employment on Nov. 17. The
hospital asked the judge to deny the request, saying the dismissal
was in the public's best interest and protected patients who could
be harmed if he continued practicing.

A hearing on the motions has been set for May 20.

Witham, in the Feb. 17 filing, said Weiner was seeing an estimated
300 patients a week, or had nearly 15,000 patient contacts a year.
He said factoring in the complexity of the cases, that equaled
"four new items" per contact, or 60,000 decisions a year.

"How many erroneous decisions out of 60,000 are allowed," Witham
asked. "Here the percentage of errors is exceedingly low -
minuscule, really."

He said Weiner would have to work seven days a week, 10-12 hours a
day, to spend an average of eight minutes with each patient.

"When does he sleep, eat, interact with friends and family?" Witham
asked. "This is a classic prescription for burnout and sleep
deprivation cognitive dysfunction."

He said if Weiner had sleep deprivation one day per year it would
account for all the cases the hospital has faulted him.

He also said the absence of cancer at an autopsy "apparently
convinced physicians with no training or experience with (redacted)
that this was proof the patient never had cancer. This assessment
is false." About three pages of Witham's nine pages of testimony is
redacted.

In his summary, Witham said "this case does not indicate that Dr.
Weiner poses an imminent threat to patient safety.

"Dr. Weiner is not likely to make mistakes if he has time to
document treatment decisions, patient care notes, review the charts
and take real personal time to recharge and sleep," he said.

Witham said in five of the six additional cases he reviewed, there
was a clear diagnosis the patient had cancer, often documented by
other practitioners, "and Dr. Weiner's explanation of his care of
the patients was reasonable."

The Patients of Dr. Tom Weiner have compiled a book in support of
him.

Also recently, a group of Weiner's patients who have a Facebook
page called "We stand with Dr. Tom Weiner," compiled a notebook
filled with testimonials to the doctor.

"We ask that you try to understand how severely our lives have been
impacted," the introduction reads. "Not only have we lost a trusted
and well-respected doctor, but we have also lost a quality of care!
We are suffering. We are scared. We are asking for your time to
read through these stories with an open and caring heart."

The book has about 50 pages of stories and testimonials from
patients and their families. It includes postings from the private
Facebook group "Patients and Friends of Dr. Tom Weiner" and various
postings to the news media.

Tom Schultz, the host of the radio show "Voices of Montana"
discussed the book on Friday, but stayed away from talking about
the litigation. [GN]


T&D CUSTOM: Ramirez FLSA Suit Seeks Collective Action Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE RAMIREZ,
individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. T&D CUSTOM FENCES AND DECKS, LLC and TIMMY WELLS,
Case No. 7:20-CV-144-BO (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Terrence W.
Boyle entered an order:

   1. granting the plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify a
      collective action.

   2. approving the proposed Notice of Collection Action Lawsuit
      and Consent to Become Party Plaintiff forms;

   3. directing the Defendants to produce to the plaintiff's
      counsel within 7 days of the date of entry of this order a
      computer readable data file containing the names,
      addresses, email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of
      employment, social security numbers, and dates of birth
      for all potential plaintiffs;

   4. setting the opt-in period of 60 days and shall commence
      seven days after defendants produce the requested
      documentation containing information pertaining to
      potential plaintiffs;

   5. directing the Defendants to post the notice at the
      defendants' facilities in locations where potential
      plaintiffs are likely to view it.

The Court said, "The collective action members in this action are
alleged to have performed substantially similar job duties, were
required to work off the clock, were not paid overtime wages, and
were otherwise subject to the same unlawful wage and hour
practices. The allegations in the complaint are supported by the
plaintiffs declaration and a declaration by Jordan Samford, one of
the plaintiffs co-workers. The Defendants do not argue that the
plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the notice standard, and the
Court finds that the plaintiff and potential opt-in plaintiffs are
sufficiently similarly situated."

The Plaintiff filed this action on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated alleging that the defendants failed to pay
current and former non-exempt hourly laborers in accordance with
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to pay minimum wages
and earned overtime wages for all hours worked on their regular
payday at the rate required by the FLSA.

T&D offers fence and deck installation.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 2, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/30EpubX at no extra charge.[CC]

TIKTOK INC: Privacy Class Action Ongoing in Illinois and California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Garrison, writing for Distractify, reports that the social
media platform TikTok started as a harmless app meant for dancing,
lip-synching, and filling the digital void that Vine left behind.
Unfortunately, amid the rising stars and new trends, TikTok has
caught heat for stealing personal user data and selling it to third
parties. As of Feb. 25, 2021, there is a proposed settlement;
here's everything you need to know about the TikTok class-action
lawsuit.

The TikTok class action lawsuit has been raging for over a year.
According to NPR, this legal battle started with 21 federal
lawsuits against TikTok, alleging that the company committed "theft
of private and personally identifiable TikTok user data." The suits
were merged into one direct action suit by the Northern District of
Illinois, which cited violations in privacy laws of both Illinois
and California as the reason for the compilation. The laws that
TikTok violated require users to give written consent before their
data can be collected.

In the words of the lawyers representing the TikTok users, the app
"clandestinely vacuumed up" large amounts of data that could be
used to personally identify and spy on users without their
knowledge or permission. According to the suit, even draft videos
that were never published were fair game for data mining. This is
not even the first suit TikTok has faced for data mining -- in
February 2019, the app paid a $5.7 million fine for allegedly
collecting the data of minors.

According to investigations of TikTok noted in the lawsuit, it's
clear the company went to great lengths to cover up their theft.
The good news, however, is that the suit has finally reached a
tentative settlement. TikTok has agreed to pay $92 million to 89
million TikTok users in the United States, among a few other
amendments, to ensure the safety of future app users.

These demands specified that TikTok could, "no longer record a
user's biometric information, including facial characteristics, nor
track a user's location using GPS data. TikTok also committed to
stop sending U.S. users' data overseas, and the app said it would
no longer collect data on draft videos before the content is
published." But is it really all's well that ends well?

A national security review of TikTok could change whether or not
U.S. users access the app.

Many are familiar with former President Donald Trump's
determination to block U.S. users from the app because of its basis
with Chinese company ByteDance, but President Biden has been
considerably more lenient with the app. That being said, the
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States is in the
middle of a national security review of TikTok presently; so how
U.S. users interact with the app could change drastically.

Although the intentions of TikTok seemed in the beginning, it might
be a little more trouble than it's worth. Many apps nowadays data
mine, but for something as serious as a $92 million payout, maybe
users are better off finding a different replacement for Vine.
[GN]


TRICIDA INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Investigates Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against Tricida, Inc. ("Tricida" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ:TCDA) and reminds investors of the March 8,
2021 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal
securities class action that has been filed against the Company.

If you suffered losses exceeding $50,000 investing in Tricida stock
or options between September 4, 2019 and October 28, 2020 and would
like to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi partner
Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310).

There is no cost or obligation to you.

Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading minority and Woman-owned national
securities law firm with offices in New York, Delaware,
Pennsylvania, California and Georgia.

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)
Tricida's NDA for veverimer was materially deficient; (2)
accordingly, it was foreseeably likely that the FDA would not
accept the NDA for veverimer; and (3) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

Specifically, on July 15, 2020, Tricida issued a press release
announcing that, on July 14, 2020, the Company received a
notification from the FDA, stating that as part of the FDA's
ongoing review of the Company's NDA for veverimer, "the FDA has
identified deficiencies that preclude discussion of labeling and
postmarketing requirements/commitments at this time." Tricida
stated that "[t]he notification does not specify the deficiencies
identified by the FDA."

On this news, Tricida's stock price fell $10.56 per share, or
40.31%, to close at $15.64 per share on July 16, 2020.

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 Tricida'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. [GN]


TRUMP CORP: RICO Class Action Pending in New York
-------------------------------------------------
Karl Mihm, Jacob Apkon and Sruthi Venkatachalam, writing for Just
Security, report that a group of anonymous plaintiffs have filed a
class action against the Trump family and their business, alleging
that the Trumps used their brand to scam investors into paying for
worthless business opportunities. The district court denied the
Trumps' bid to force the case into arbitration, and the Trumps are
now appealing.

Doe v. The Trump Corporation Class Action
Doe v. Trump Corp., No. 18-cv-09936 (S.D.N.Y. Oct 29, 2018), appeal
docketed, No. 20-01706 (2d Cir. May 28, 2020)

Plaintiffs: (Anonymous) Jane Doe, Luke Loe, Mary Moe, Richard Roe

Case Summary: On Oct. 30, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed
against the Trump Corporation, Donald Trump, Ivanka Trump, Donald
Trump Jr., and Eric Trump. The complaint alleges that the
defendants used their brand name to defraud thousands of working
class individuals by promoting numerous businesses in exchange for
"secret payments." The companies include ACN Opportunity, LLC (a
business based on a controversial multi-level marketing scheme),
the Trump Network, LLC (another multi-level marketing scheme), and
Business Strategies Group, LLC (a seminar claiming to sell the
Trump secrets to success). The lawsuit also claims that the
defendants are liable for a "pattern of racketeering activity"
violating the RICO Act (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act) as well as activity violating numerous state
consumer protection laws concerning fair business practices and
competition.

On July 24, 2019, the District Court judge partially granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss. The judge dismissed the RICO claims
because the Complaint did not "sufficiently plead that Defendants'
conduct was the proximate cause of Plaintiffs' losses." However,
she ruled that the other claims concerning the state laws will not
be dismissed under Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

Case Status: The Trumps' moved to compel forced arbitration and the
district court judge denied the motion in Apr. 2020. The court held
that the defendants were not party to the arbitration agreement
(between ACN and the plaintiffs) and thus, could not compel
arbitration. She also found that the motion to compel arbitration
was in bad faith as they are acting in a manner that is
"substantively prejudicial towards the plaintiffs" and not within
the spirit of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The Trumps have
filed an interlocutory appeal to the Second Circuit.

Following the denial of compelled arbitration, the Trumps also
filed a motion to stay, or a motion to halt the legal process. The
district court denied this motion, citing the four traditional
factors that must be balanced when granting a stay and finding that
the defendants have not met the requirements to grant a stay. [GN]


U.S. BORAX: Jungers Files Suit in E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against U.S. Borax Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Robert G. Jungers, an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. U.S. Borax Inc., a
Delaware corporation; Rio Tinto America Inc., a Delaware
corporation; Rio Tinto Services Inc., a Delaware corporation;
Amanda Smith, an individual; Does 1 through 100, inclusive; Case
No. 1:21-at-00255 (E.D. Cal., March 11, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights for Employment
Discrimination

U.S. Borax, part of Rio Tinto -- https://www.borax.com/ -- operates
in the supply and science of borates—naturally-occurring minerals
containing boron and other elements.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


UNITED AIRLINES: Fails to Inspect and Maintain Aircraft, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
news18.com reports that the Chicago-headquartered United Airlines
was hit hard by a class-action lawsuit filed by passengers who went
through a near-death experience in one of its flights due to an
engine explosion. The suit filed describes the near-death
experience on February 20 felt by 231 passengers on a direct flight
from Denver to Honolulu, Hawaii, as the right engine of the Boeing
777 aircraft suddenly exploded at 10,000 feet, Xinhua news agency
reported.

Following the explosion, heavy metal debris fell on a
heavily-populated Denver suburb. Engine parts in the size of
pick-up trucks landed in Broomfield, a suburb of 68,000 people,
located 25 miles (40.2 km) north of the Colorado capital, but
authorities reported no deaths or injuries.

The filing alleged "negligent infliction of emotional distress,"
and asserted that United Airlines "failed to properly inspect and
maintain its aircraft that resulted in the engine failure".

"These passengers are lucky to escape with their lives, as the
flight managed to land with no serious physical injuries; however,
it left these passengers in fear for their life for nearly 20
minutes," the lawsuit stated. [GN]

UNITED STATES: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Hernandez FLSA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant United States filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled ROBERTO HERNANDEZ, et al., Plaintiffs v.
THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00063-PEC, in the
United States Court of Federal Claims.

The Plaintiffs in this putative collective action allege that the
government, through several agencies, violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to timely pay their earned overtime and
regular wages during the partial government shutdown and lapse of
appropriations that began on December 22, 2018. On May 3, 2019, the
Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a
claim on which relief may be granted, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of
the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims, on the
basis that the Anti-Deficiency Act prohibited the government from
paying employees.

The Defendant seeks a review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b),
Fed. R. App. P. 5, of the Court's Order dated December 1, 2020,
denying its motion to dismiss the case.

The appellate case is captioned as Hernandez v. United States, Case
No. 21-123, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,
March 9, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Entry of Appearance is due on March 23, 2021; and

   -- Certificate of Interest is due on March 23, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents ROBERTO HERNANDEZ and JOSEPH QUINTANAR,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          William Clifton Alexander, Esq.
          ANDERSON 2X, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401

Defendant-Petitioner UNITED STATES is represented by:

          Director, Commercial Litigation Branch
          Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice
          DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          PO Box 480, Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044

UNITED STATES: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Jones FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant United States filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled DAVID JONES, et al., Plaintiffs v. THE
UNITED STATES, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00257-PEC, in the United
States Court of Federal Claims.

The Plaintiffs in this putative collective action allege that the
government, through several agencies, violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to timely pay their earned overtime and
regular wages during the partial government shutdown and lapse of
appropriations that began on December 22, 2018. On May 3, 2019, the
Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a
claim on which relief may be granted, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of
the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims, on the
basis that the Anti-Deficiency Act prohibited the government from
paying employees.

The Defendant seeks a review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b),
Fed. R. App. P. 5, of the Court's Order dated December 1, 2020,
denying its motion to dismiss the case.

The appellate case is captioned as Jones v. United States, Case No.
21-128, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, March
9, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Entry of Appearance is due on March 23, 2021; and

   -- Certificate of Interest is due on March 23, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent DAVID JONES, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Joshua Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Kirkpatrick Plaza
          10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088

Defendant-Petitioner UNITED STATES is represented by:

          Sean Janda, Esq.
          DOJ-CIV
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 514-3388

UNITED STATES: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Tarovisky Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant United States filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled JUSTIN TAROVISKY, et al., Plaintiffs v. THE
UNITED STATES, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00004-PEC, in the United
States Court of Federal Claims.

The Plaintiffs in this putative collective action allege that the
government, through several agencies, violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to timely pay their earned overtime and
regular wages during the partial government shutdown and lapse of
appropriations that began on December 22, 2018. On May 3, 2019, the
Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a
claim on which relief may be granted, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of
the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims, on the
basis that the Anti-Deficiency Act prohibited the government from
paying employees.

The Defendant seeks a review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b),
Fed. R. App. P. 5, of the Court's Order dated December 1, 2020,
denying its motion to dismiss the case.

The appellate case is captioned as Tarovisky v. United States, Case
No. 21-126, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,
March 9, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Entry of Appearance is due on March 23, 2021; and

   -- Certificate of Interest is due on March 23, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents JUSTIN TAROVISKY and GRAYSON SHARP,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Heidi R. Burakiewicz, Esq.
          KALIJARVI, CHUZI & NEWMAN, PC
          818 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 331-9260

Defendant-Petitioner UNITED STATES is represented by:

          Director, Commercial Litigation Branch
          Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice
          DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          PO Box 480, Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044

UNIVERSITY OF SAINT JOSEPH: Hutchinson Files Suit in D. Conn.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against University of Saint
Joseph. The case is styled as Nyoka Hutchinson, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. University of Saint
Joseph, Case No. 3:21-cv-00325 (D. Conn., March 11, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.

The University of Saint Joseph -- https://www.usj.edu/ -- is a
private university in Connecticut for future professionals in
health care and social services, education, digital media, and the
sciences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald S. Johnson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RONALD S. JOHNSON
          100 Wells Street, Suite 2C
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Phone: (860) 231-9757
          Fax: (860) 233-8276
          Email: janvier7@aol.com


VANDA PHARMA: Robbins LLP May Face Damages Caused by Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP announces that Vanda
Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ: VNDA) may face damages caused by a
pending securities lawsuit. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a
biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the development and
commercialization of products for the treatment of central nervous
system disorders.

Shareholder Class Action Alleging Vanda Pharmaceuticals (VNDA) Made
Materially False and Misleading Statements Survives Motion to
Dismiss

According to the complaint filed in February 2019, between 2015 and
2019, Vanda and its officers hid that Vanda was involved in a
fraudulent scheme that included violations of federal Medicare,
Medicaid, and Tricare programs and that Vanda's promotional
materials were false and misleading, garnering scrutiny from the
FDA. Specifically, Vanda schemed to promote its drugs Fanapt and
Hetlioz for "off-label" uses in addition to other prohibited
promotional strategies. The complaint further alleges that Vanda's
executives and officers knew about the prohibited promotional
strategies and actively participated in the fraudulent activity.
When the truth was revealed, Vanda's stock declined over 5%.

On March 10, 2021, U.S. District Judge Frederic Block denied Vanda
and its CEO's motion to dismiss the securities class action
against, paving the way for litigation to proceed.

Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. (VNDA) Shareholders Have Legal Options

Contact us to learn more:
Lauren Levi
(800) 350-6003
llevi@robbinsllp.com,
Shareholder Information Form

Robbins LLP is a nationally recognized leader in shareholder rights
law. To be notified if a class action against Vanda Pharmaceuticals
settles or to receive free alerts about companies engaged in
corporate wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today.

Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]

VELODYNE LIDAR: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Velodyne Lidar, Inc.
Stockholders have until the deadline below to petition the court to
serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about the case can
be found at the link provided.

Velodyne Lidar, Inc. (NASDAQ: VLDR)

Class Period: November 9, 2020 to February 19, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 3, 2021

On February 22, 2021, Velodyne announced that the Board had
"removed David Hall as Chairman of the Board and terminated Marta
Hall's employment as Chief Marketing Officer of the Company" after
the Audit Committee's investigation "concluded that Mr. Hall and
Ms. Hall each behaved inappropriately with regard to certain Board
and Company processes, and failed to operate with respect, honesty,
integrity, and candor in their dealings with Company officers and
directors." In addition, the Company announced that Velodyne's
Board formally censured Mr. Hall and Ms. Hall, but that they would
remain directors of Velodyne.

On this news, Velodyne's common stock fell $3.14, or approximately
15%, to close at $17.97 per share on February 22, 2021.
Additionally, Velodyne's warrants fell $1.47, or approximately 20%,
to close at $5.90 per warrant on February 22, 2021.

The complaint, filed on March 2, 2021, 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)
that certain of Velodyne's directors had failed to operate with
respect, honesty, integrity, and candor in their dealings with the
Company's officers and directors; (2) that the Company was
investigating the foregoing matters; and (3) that, as a result of
the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked reasonable basis at all relevant times.

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

                          About Bragar Eagel

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. 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]

VELODYNE LIDAR: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of May 3 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Velodyne Lidar, Inc.
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the
deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the
case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost or
obligation to you.

VLDR Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/velodyne-lidar-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=13572&wire=1

Velodyne Lidar, Inc. (NASDAQ:VLDR)

VLDR Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased November 9, 2020
- February 19, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 3, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/velodyne-lidar-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=13572&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Velodyne
Lidar, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) certain of Velodyne's directors
had failed to operate with respect, honesty, integrity, and candor
in their dealings with the Company's officers and directors; (2)
the Company was investigating the foregoing matters; and (3) as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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

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

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

VIACOMCBS INC: Broadcast TV Spot Advertising Related Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
ViacomCBS Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit initiated by purchasers of
broadcast television spot advertising.

On September 9, 2019, the Company was added as a defendant in a
multi-district putative class action lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The lawsuit was filed by parties that claim to have purchased
broadcast television spot advertising beginning on or about January
1, 2014 on television stations owned by one or more of the
defendant television station owners and alleges the sharing of
allegedly competitively sensitive information among such television
stations in alleged violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

The action, which names the Company among fourteen total
defendants, seeks monetary damages, attorneys' fees, costs and
interest as well as injunctions against the allegedly unlawful
conduct.

On October 8, 2019, the Company and other defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the matter, which was denied by the court on November 6,
2020.

ViacomCBS said, "We believe that the claims are without merit and
we intend to defend against them vigorously. We are currently
unable to determine a range of potential liability, if any.
Accordingly, no accrual for this matter has been made in our
consolidated financial statements."

ViacomCBS Inc., a media and entertainment, creates content and
experiences for audiences worldwide. The company operates in four
segments: Entertainment, Cable Networks, Publishing, and Local
Media. The company was formerly known as CBS Corporation and
changed its name to ViacomCBS Inc. in December 2019. ViacomCBS Inc.
was founded in 1986 and is based in New York, New York.


VIACOMCBS INC: Construction Laborers Pension Trust Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
ViacomCBS Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated putative class action suit headed by
Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California.

On August 27, 2018 and on October 1, 2018, Gene Samit and John
Lantz, respectively, filed putative class action lawsuits in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, for claims
that are similar to those alleged in the amended complaint
described below. On November 6, 2018, the Court entered an order
consolidating the two actions.

On November 30, 2018, the Court appointed Construction Laborers
Pension Trust for Southern California as the lead plaintiff of the
consolidated action. On February 11, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed
a consolidated amended putative class action complaint against CBS,
certain current and former senior executives and members of the CBS
Board of Directors.

The consolidated action is stated to be on behalf of purchasers of
CBS Class A Common Stock and Class B Common Stock between September
26, 2016 and December 4, 2018.

This action seeks to recover damages arising during this time
period allegedly caused by the defendants' purported violations of
the federal securities laws, including by allegedly making
materially false and misleading statements or failing to disclose
material information, and seeks costs and expenses as well as
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On April 12, 2019, the defendants filed motions to dismiss this
action, which the Court granted in part and denied in part on
January 15, 2020. With the exception of one statement made by Mr.
Leslie Moonves at an industry event in November 2017, in which he
allegedly was acting as the agent of CBS, all claims as to all
other allegedly false and misleading statements were dismissed.

ViacomCBS said, "We believe that the remaining claims are without
merit and we intend to defend against them vigorously. We are
currently unable to determine a range of potential liability, if
any. Accordingly, no accrual for this matter has been made in our
consolidated financial statements."

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

ViacomCBS Inc., a media and entertainment, creates content and
experiences for audiences worldwide. The company operates in four
segments: Entertainment, Cable Networks, Publishing, and Local
Media. The company was formerly known as CBS Corporation and
changed its name to ViacomCBS Inc. in December 2019. ViacomCBS Inc.
was founded in 1986 and is based in New York, New York.

VIACOMCBS INC: Discovery in CBS Merger-Related Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
ViacomCBS Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in
the putative class action suit headed by Bucks County Employees'
Retirement Fund and International Union of Operating Engineers of
Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware.

On December 4, 2019, Viacom Inc. merged with and into CBS
Corporation, with CBS continuing as the surviving company. At the
effective time of the Merger, the combined company changed its name
to ViacomCBS Inc. The Merger has been accounted for as a
transaction between entities under common control as National
Amusements, Inc. ("NAI") was the controlling stockholder of each of
CBS and Viacom (and remains the controlling stockholder of
ViacomCBS). Upon the closing of the Merger, the net assets of
Viacom were combined with those of CBS at their historical carrying
amounts and the companies have been presented on a combined basis
for all periods presented.

Beginning on February 20, 2020, three purported CBS stockholders
filed separate derivative and/or putative class action lawsuits in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

On March 31, 2020, the Court consolidated the three lawsuits and
appointed Bucks County Employees' Retirement Fund and International
Union of Operating Engineers of Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware
as co-lead plaintiffs for the consolidated action.

On April 14, 2020, the lead plaintiffs filed a Verified
Consolidated Class Action and Derivative Complaint against Shari E.
Redstone, NAI, Sumner M. Redstone National Amusements Trust,
members of the CBS Board of Directors (comprised of Candace K.
Beinecke, Barbara M. Byrne, Gary L. Countryman, Brian Goldner,
Linda M. Griego, Robert N. Klieger, Martha L. Minow, Susan Schuman,
Frederick O. Terrell and Strauss Zelnick), former CBS President and
Acting Chief Executive Officer Joseph Ianniello and nominal
defendant ViacomCBS Inc.

The Complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties to CBS
stockholders in connection with the negotiation and approval of the
Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of August 13, 2019, as
amended on October 16, 2019.

The Complaint also alleges waste and unjust enrichment in
connection with Mr. Ianniello's compensation.

The Complaint seeks unspecified damages, costs and expenses, as
well as other relief.

On June 5, 2020, the defendants filed motions to dismiss. On
January 27, 2021, the Court dismissed one disclosure claim, while
allowing all other claims against the defendants to proceed.
Discovery on the surviving claims will now proceed.

ViacomCBS said, "We believe that the remaining claims are without
merit and we intend to defend against them vigorously. We are
currently unable to determine a range of potential liability, if
any. Accordingly, no accrual for this matter has been made in our
consolidated financial statements."

ViacomCBS Inc., a media and entertainment, creates content and
experiences for audiences worldwide. The company operates in four
segments: Entertainment, Cable Networks, Publishing, and Local
Media. The company was formerly known as CBS Corporation and
changed its name to ViacomCBS Inc. in December 2019. ViacomCBS Inc.
was founded in 1986 and is based in New York, New York.

VIACOMCBS INC: Discovery Ongoing in CalPERS Suit
------------------------------------------------
ViacomCBS Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in
the putative class action suit headed by the California Public
Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS).

Beginning on November 25, 2019, four purported Viacom stockholders
filed separate putative class action lawsuits in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware. On January 23, 2020, the Court
consolidated the four lawsuits.

On February 6, 2020, the Court appointed CalPERS as lead plaintiff
for the consolidated action. On February 28, 2020, CalPERS,
together with Park Employees' and Retirement Board Employees'
Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago and Louis M. Wilen, filed a
First Amended Verified Class Action Complaint against National
Amusements, Inc. (NAI), NAI Entertainment Holdings LLC, Shari E.
Redstone, the members of the Viacom special transaction committee
of the Viacom Board of Directors (comprised of Thomas J. May,
Judith A. McHale, Ronald L. Nelson and Nicole Seligman) and our
President and Chief Executive Officer and director, Robert M.
Bakish.

The Complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties to Viacom
stockholders in connection with the negotiation and approval of the
Merger Agreement. The Complaint seeks unspecified damages, costs
and expenses, as well as other relief.

On May 22, 2020, the defendants filed motions to dismiss. On
December 29, 2020, the Court dismissed the claims against Mr.
Bakish, while allowing the claims against the remaining defendants
to proceed.

Discovery on the surviving claims will now proceed.

ViacomCBS said, "We believe that the remaining claims are without
merit and we intend to defend against them vigorously. We are
currently unable to determine a range of potential liability, if
any. Accordingly, no accrual for this matter has been made in our
consolidated financial statements."

ViacomCBS Inc., a media and entertainment, creates content and
experiences for audiences worldwide. The company operates in four
segments: Entertainment, Cable Networks, Publishing, and Local
Media. The company was formerly known as CBS Corporation and
changed its name to ViacomCBS Inc. in December 2019. ViacomCBS Inc.
was founded in 1986 and is based in New York, New York.

VOLVO CARS: Faces Class Action Over Sunroof Water Leaks
-------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Volvo
sunroof leak lawsuit is still seeking class action certification
more than 10 years after the lawsuit was filed.

The Volvo sunroof leak lawsuit includes any person who between
April 29, 2004, and December 31, 2015, purchased or leased any of
the following vehicles from a Volvo dealership in California,
Florida, Massachusetts or New Jersey and also resided in one of
those states at the time of that purchase or lease.

   -- Volvo S40
   -- Volvo S60
   -- Volvo S80
   -- Volvo V70
   -- Volvo V50
   -- Volvo XC90

The sunroof lawsuit alleges the vehicles are defective because
water leaks into the cabins and damages electronics, carpets and
other parts of the interiors. The main argument is drainage tubes
and holes get clogged by debris which routes the water into the
vehicles.

Some Volvo owners claim they spent hundreds of dollars to repair
the damage from leaking sunroofs even when the vehicles were under
their warranties.

The Volvo sunroof leak lawsuit was originally filed on behalf of
owners nationwide, but the current version includes Volvo customers
in the four states named above.

Volvo's Motion to Deny Class Action Certification
Volvo argues the plaintiffs have filed at least five motions for
class action certification since 2012 and allegedly still have been
unable to show a class or subclass can be certified. The automaker
also says the plaintiffs several times have changed their
description of what defines a class of customers.

In this fifth motion to certify the lawsuit, the plaintiffs seek to
certify two subclass in the four states. The first subclass makes
up current owners who purchased the affected vehicles from Volvo
dealerships and who still own the vehicles.

The second subclass consists of current and former Volvo owners in
the four states who experienced a sunoof leak and can offer proof
they incurred out-of-pocket expenses for repairs.

But Volvo says the plaintiffs cannot establish the required
numerosity because membership is determined at some future point in
time, which is the date when the lawsuit would be certified as a
class suit.

"Plaintiffs have offered no evidence from which the Court could
reasonably determine the number of putative class vehicles that
might be included in the proposed subclasses as of some future date
when the Court rules on Plaintiffs' latest class certification
motion." -- Volvo

After this many years in court, two of the plaintiffs allegedly no
longer own their Volvo vehicles. Volvo argues this means the
plaintiffs have no current owner class representatives for
California and Florida.

Volvo also points to an expert hired by the plaintiffs, and the
automaker says the expert admits his analysis cannot be used to
identify anyone who experienced a water leak from the sunroof in
their vehicle. Nor is he aware of any database that would identify
those who did.

The automaker further says nothing in the expert's testimony
provides any information that could be used to identify the number
of people who experienced a sunroof water leak and incurred prior
out-of-pocket expenses related to sunroof leaks.

Even if a sunroof did leak at some point, the water leak allegedly
doesn't mean an owner paid out-of-pocket for repairs. And to find
out who may have paid is allegedly not possible because the
plaintiffs haven't provided a way to learn how to do it.

According to Volvo, "even if a putative class member experienced a
water leak and repaired the vehicle, some vehicles may have been
repaired under warranty or at no cost as goodwill by Volvo."

Volvo previously argued possibly 0.5% of the vehicles may suffer
from leaking sunroofs, but the automaker also says the plaintiffs
don't provide any evidence those 0.5% of owners who purchased from
a Volvo dealer experienced a sunroof leak and paid their own money
for repairs.

According to Volvo, the lawsuit was filed more than 10 years ago
and the oldest affected Volvo vehicles are now 17 years old.

Additionally, it's likely many vehicles will be sold or scrapped in
the next year, leaving the plaintiffs unable to show how many
vehicles would even be involved in the proposed class action.

In its motion to deny class certification, Volvo argues the
plaintiffs cannot prove unlawful conduct with common evidence
because the allegedly defective sunroof sound traps at issue differ
and have different risks of clogging. And the plaintiffs allegedly
cannot prove a loss or damages with common evidence.

"[T]he overwhelming majority of vehicles in the class never
experienced a clogged sunroof drain or water leak, and Plaintiffs'
expert's testimony admittedly does not support the diminished value
theory on which they rely for an ascertainable loss and damages."
-- Volvo

Additionally, Volvo alleges the plaintiffs cannot prove causation
with common evidence.

The Volvo sunroof leak lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey - Neale, et al. v. Volvo Cars of
North America LLC, et al.

The plaintiffs are represented by Chimicles & Tikellis LLP,
McCuneWright LLP, Lite DePalma Greenberg, and Mazie Slater Katz &
Freeman LLC. [GN]


WELLS FARGO: Droesch Seeks Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENISE DROESCH and SHAKARA
THOMPSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., a United States Corporation,
and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. e 3:20-cv-06751-JSC (N.D.
Calif.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. granting conditional certification of Fair Labor Standards
      Act (FLSA) Collective:

      "All individuals currently or formerly employed by Wells
      Fargo as a Telephone Bankers in the United States at any
      time from three years before the filing of the initial
      Complaint through resolution of this action, and: (a) who
      did not file a timely consent to join form with the court
      in Singer v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (W.D. Tex. Case No.
      5:19-cv-00679) or (b) who did not file a timely consent to
      join form in Harris, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (D.
      Ariz. Case No. CV-17-01146-PHX-DMF, consolidated with
      Kerness v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (D. Ariz. Case No. CV-
      17-02516-PHX-DMF) or who filed a timely consent to join
      form in Harris, but whose claims here nonetheless accrued
      after the settlement period in that case (i.e., after
      December 31, 2019); (c); or who filed a timely consent to
      join form in Harris/Kerness, but whose claims here
      nonetheless accrued after the settlement period in that
      case (i.e. after December 5, 2015);"

   2. approving the requested 60-day opt in period;

   3. requiring Wells Fargo to produce the needed employee
      contact information within the next 10 days, of this
      Court's order;

   4. approving the Plaintiffs' proposed form of Notice and
      direct that it be mailed within 20 days of this Court's
      Order and emailed to all identified Telephone Bankers who
      worked for Wells Fargo any time since September 28, 2017,
      with a reminder email sent 40 days after the initial
      mailing;

   5. directing Wells Fargo to post the notice at every call
      center location; and

   6. appointing Christina Humphrey Law, P.C., Gessner Law,
      PLLP, and Quintilone & Associates as class counsel for the
      collective class.

The Plaintiffs Droesch and Thompson bring this motion pursuant to
29 U.S.C. section 216(b) of the FLSA to facilitate notice of this
case to similarly situated individuals working as non-exempt
telephone dedicated employees working in the various call centers
of Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

The Plaintiffs' complaint challenges a policy and practice that
Wells Fargo has long used, and continues to use, to track and
record the time of telephone-dedicated employees who work in its
call centers across the nation ("Telephone Bankers"). This policy
and practice permits and/or requires Telephone Bankers to be logged
into their phones by their scheduled start time but does not
compensate them for required tasks that can only be performed
before and after their scheduled shift times.

Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services company
with corporate headquarters in San Francisco, California,
operational headquarters in Manhattan, and managerial offices
throughout the United States and overseas.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March 2,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rVOKGw
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christina A. Humphrey, Esq.
          CHRISTINA HUMPHREY LAW, P.C.
          8330 Allison Ave., Suite C.
          La Mesa, California 91942
          Telephone: (619) 488-6400
          E-mail: christina@chumphreylaw.com

               - and -

          L. Michelle Gessner, Esq.
          GESSNERLAW, PLLC
          602 East Morehead Street
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (844) 437-7634
          E-mail: michelle@mgessnerlaw.com

               - and -

          Richard E. Quintilone II, Esq.
          Jeffrey T. Green, Esq.
          QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES
          22974 El Toro Road, Suite 100
          Lake Forest, CA 92630
          Telephone: (949) 458-9675
          Facsimile: (949) 458-9679
          E-mail: req@quintlaw.com
                  jtg@quintlaw.com

WERNER ENTERPRISES: Dismissal of Wage and Hour Suit Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Werner Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the appeal on the
order of dismissal in the  wage-and-hour class suit in Nebraska, is
still pending.

The company has been involved in class action litigation in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, in which the
plaintiffs allege that we owe drivers for unpaid wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Nebraska Wage Payment and
Collection Act and that the company failed to pay minimum wage per
hour for drivers in its Career Track Program, related to short
break time and sleeper berth time.

The period covered by this class action suit is August 2008 through
March 2014.

The case was tried to a jury in May 2017, resulting in a verdict of
$0.8 million in plaintiffs' favor on the short break matter and a
verdict in our favor on the sleeper berth matter.

As a result of various post-trial motions, the court awarded $0.5
million to the plaintiffs for attorney fees and costs.

As of December 31, 2020, the company had accrued for the jury's
award, attorney fees and costs in the short break matter and had
not accrued for the sleeper berth matter.

Plaintiffs appealed the post-verdict amounts awarded by the trial
court for fees, costs and liquidated damages. The United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied Plaintiffs' appeal
and granted Werner's appeal, vacating the judgment in favor of the
plaintiffs.

The appellate court sent the case back to the trial court for
proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion.

On June 22, 2020, the trial court denied Plaintiffs' request for a
new trial and entered judgment in favor of the Company, dismissing
the case with prejudice.

On July 21, 2020, Plaintiffs' counsel filed a notice of appeal of
that dismissal.

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

Werner Enterprises, Inc., a transportation and logistics company,
engages in transporting truckload shipments of general commodities
in interstate and intrastate commerce in the United States, Mexico,
Canada, and China. It operates in two segments, Truckload
Transportation Services and Werner Logistics. Werner Enterprises,
Inc. was founded in 1956 and is headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska.

WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Cardoso Sues for Invasion of Privacy
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mariana Cardoso, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Case No. CACE-21-004989 (Fla.
17th Judicial, Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., March 10, 2021), is brought
under the Florida Security of Communications Act ("FSCA"), arising
from the Defendant's unlawful interception of electronic
communications.

Specifically, this case stems from the Defendant's use of tracking,
recording, and/or "session replay" software to intercept the
Plaintiff's electronic communications with the Defendant's website,
including how they interact with the website, their mouse movements
and clicks, information inputted into the website, and/or pages and
content viewed on the website. The Defendant intercepted the
electronic communications at issue without the knowledge or prior
consent of Plaintiff and the Class members.

The Defendant did so for its own financial gain and in violation of
the Plaintiff's and the Class members' privacy rights under the
FSCA. Such clandestine monitoring and recording of an individual's
electronic communications has long been held a violation of the
FSCA. The Defendant has intercepted the electronic communications
involving the Plaintiff's visits to its website, causing them
injuries, including invasion of their privacy and/or exposure of
their private information, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff visited Defendant's website approximately 6 times.

The Defendant owns and operates the website www.whirlpool.com.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone (305) 479-2299
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
                 gberg@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Phone: 305-975-3320
          Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com

               - and -

          Manuel Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 954-400-4713
          Email: MHiraldo@Hiraldolaw.com


WIDEOPENWEST INC: Settlement Reached in Kirkland Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
WideOpenWest, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that a settlement has been
reached in Kirkland et al. v. WideOpenWest, Inc., et al.,
653248/2018.

Beginning in June 2018, four different plaintiffs' firms filed five
separate class-action lawsuits against the company (WOW), certain
individual defendants, and the private equity sponsors and
underwriters of the May 2017 initial public offering (IPO). The
actions allege violations of Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the 1933
Securities Act.  

The three actions filed in New York state court have been
consolidated as Kirkland et al. v. WideOpenWest, Inc., et al.,
653248/2018. The other two actions, which were filed in Colorado
state court, have been stayed by agreement until final resolution
of the Kirkland action.  

The Plaintiffs in Kirkland allege that Defendants made or caused
misstatements to be made in the Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO.  

On January 17, 2019, Defendants filed an omnibus motion to dismiss
all claims for failure to state causes of action which the court
denied in part and granted in part on May 18, 2020, with the
Company thereafter appealing those claims not dismissed.

Prior to an anticipated trial in 2022 or 2023, the parties
undertook mediation on November 6, 2020 which, in turn, resulted in
a soon-to-be-filed Stipulation of Settlement with the court.  

WideOpenWest said, "Upon approval of the Court to the Stipulation
of Settlement (which is expected in the second quarter of 2021),
the Company will be dismissed entirely without any admission of
wrongdoing in exchange for a payment of substantially less than
that sought by plaintiffs, with the substantial majority of such
payment to be funded by the Company's primary D&O carrier."

WideOpenWest, Inc. provides high-speed data, cable television, and
digital telephony services to residential and business services
customers in the United States. The company was formerly known as
WideOpenWest Kite, Inc. and changed its name to WideOpenWest, Inc.
in March 2017. The company was founded in 2001 and is based in
Englewood, Colorado.

WORKHORSE GROUP: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Workhorse Group, Inc.
(NASDAQ: WKHS). Stockholders have until the deadline below to
petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional
information about the case can be found at the link provided.

Workhorse Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: WKHS)

Class Period: July 7, 2020 to February 23, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 7, 2021

In 2016, the United States Postal Service ("USPS") announced the
USPS Next Generation Delivery Vehicle ("NGDV") project, a
competitive multiyear acquisition process for replacing
approximately 165,000 package delivery vehicles. Workhorse was one
of the companies vying for the NGDV contract, which was thought to
be worth approximately $6.3 billion.

On February 23, 2021, while the market was open, the USPS issued a
press release entitled: U.S. Postal Service Awards Contract to
Launch MultiBillion-Dollar Modernization of Postal Delivery Vehicle
Fleet. The press release announced that Oshkosh Defense - not
Workhorse - had won the lucrative NGDV contract.

On this news, securities of Workhorse fell $14.88 per share, or
47%, to close at $16.47 in the regular session on February 23,
2021. The price continued to drop in after-hours trading and opened
on February 24, 2021 at a price of $14.07, a fall of over 50% from
the previous open, damaging investors.

The complaint, filed on March 8, 2021, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was merely hoping
that USPS was going to select an electric vehicle as its Next
Generation Delivery Vehicle, and had no assurance or indication
from USPS that this was the case; (2) the Company had concealed the
fact that - as revealed by the postmaster general in explaining the
ultimate decision not to select an electric vehicle - electrifying
the USPS's entire fleet would be impractical and astronomically
expensive; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about
Workhorse'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.

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

                       About Bragar Eagel

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. 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]

WORLD WRESTLING: Seeking $500,000 in Legal Fees Over Dismissed Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
H Jenkins at ringsidenews.com reports that Konstantine Kyros is an
attorney who led a class action lawsuit against WWE. This lawsuit
had a ton of pro wrestling legends involved, but they lost. Now WWE
wants recouped for their expenses.

Law360 notes that WWE and Vince McMahon are seeking $573,770.44 for
legal fees they spent on the now-dismissed class action concussion
lawsuit. They claim that attorney Konstantine Kyros is on the hook
for this cash.
WWE asked a federal Connecticut court for the payment valued over
1/2 million dollars. The filing took place prior to a hearing about
WWE's two constituent applications for court-ordered fees.

Jerry McDevitt, WWE's attorney who handled this case, further
backed up the company's innocence as he discussed the misconduct
from Konstantine Kyros as a part of the lawsuit.

He violated court orders, didn't comply with court orders, ignored
court orders that cautioned him to cease certain behavior or risk
sanctions. He would continue the same kind of behavior. He
plagiarized and made false allegations based on other lawsuits
against the NFL, where he would just parrot allegations that had
been made against the NFL or its personnel, and would just change
[text], reading from 'NFL' to 'WWE.'

The liability for sanctions has been established in three different
court orders, that he's supposed to pay all of our attorney's fees
in connection with various things he did wrong. The only thing left
to be determined is how much that is.

Some of the names involved with this class action lawsuit included:
Jimmy "Superfly" Snuka, Road Warrior Animal, Paul Orndorff, King
Kong Bundy, and Mr. Fuji. There were a ton of other names connected
as well.

We will continue monitoring this ongoing situation. WWE won the
lawsuit, but they apparently aren't going to stop until Konstantine
Kyros pays up. [GN]

XL FLEET CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of May 7 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 XL
Fleet Corp. ("XL Fleet" or the "Company") (NYSE: XL) from October
2, 2020 through March 2, 2021 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

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

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose to investors: (i) that XL Fleet's salespeople
were pressured to inflate their sales pipelines to boost the
Company's reported sales and backlog; (ii) that at least 18 of 33
customers that XL featured were inactive and had not placed an
order since 2019;  (iii) that XL's technology had been materially
overstated and offered only 5% to 10% of fleet savings; (iv) that
XL lacks the supply chain and engineers to roll out new products on
the announced timelines; and (v) that, as a result of the
foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On March 3, 2021, Muddy Waters Research ("Muddy Waters") published
a report entitled: "XL Fleet Corp. (NYSE: XL): More SPAC Trash,"
alleging, among other things, that salespeople were "pressured to
inflate their sales pipelines materially in order to mislead XL's
board and investors" and that "customer reorder rates are in
reality quite low" due to "poor performance and regulatory issues."
Citing interviews with former employees, the report alleged that
"at least 18 of 33 customers XL featured were inactive." Muddy
Waters also claimed that XL has "weak technology" and that "XL's
announcement of future class 7-8 upfits seems highly promotional"
because the task is "too technologically complex for XL engineers
to deliver on the promised timeline."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.09, or 13%, to
close at $13.86 per share on March 3, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume. The share price continued to decline by $2.69, or
19.4%, over two consecutive trading sessions to close at $11.17 per
share on March 5, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than May 7, 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 XL Fleet securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/xlfleetcorp-xl-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-377/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) 2021 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.

Contact Information

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

XL FLEET: The Schall Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against XL Fleet
Corp. ("XL Fleet" or "the Company") (NYSE: XL) 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 2,
2020 and March 2, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before May 7, 2021.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://bit.ly/2ODQaHx to participate.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, 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. XL Fleet pressured its salespeople to
inflate their pipeline of potential sales to artificially boost the
Company's backlog of orders. Out of the Company's 33 customers, at
least 18 were inactive and hadn't placed orders since 2019. The
Company's technology benefits were overstated, offering fleet
savings of only 5% to 10%. 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 XL Fleet,
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]

[*] Dallas Law Firm to Sue Zantac Manufacturers Over Cancer Link
----------------------------------------------------------------
Will Maddox, writing for D Magazine, reports that a Dallas law firm
is part of a team taking on some of the biggest drug-makers in a
nationwide lawsuit that alleges that over-the-counter heartburn
medication Zantac causes cancer.

In April 2020, the Food and Drug Administration recalled
ranitidine, the generic version of Zantac. The recall was part of
an ongoing investigation into the medication, suspected of
converting N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), a known carcinogen when
the drug was exposed to more than room-temperature heat. NDMA can
cause several types of cancer; the lawsuit is focusing on cases of
prostate, pancreatic, esophageal, gastric, liver, bladder, and
breast cancer.

Zantac was developed in the 1980s and was among the first drugs to
hit $1 billion in annual sales. It was offered over-the-counter and
prescription in various forms. The medicine was developed in 1976
by GlaxoSmithKline in the UK; a number of companies have
manufactured it over the years and under different brands as the
patents ran out.

In 2019, an independent lab's experiment found that NDMA in
ranitidine at levels above what is considered safe (NDMA is found
in small amounts in food and water). After later testing, the FDA
found dangerous levels of NDMA in ranitidine even at normal storage
conditions. There are numerous opportunities for temperatures to
rise and convert the medicine into NDMA. The manufacturing process
involves high heat, storage in trucks and warehouses can be at high
temperatures, and consumption can cause the medicine to heat up.
These are all opportunities for the drug to develop NDMA,
plaintiffs claim.

The claim is more than 1,000 pages, but in essence, manufacturers,
distributors, and retailers should have known that their product
would cause cancer when stored at high temperatures, as early
studies showed the dangers of the drug and NDMA. It includes gross
negligence (they should have known and didn't) and fraud, as
reviews say the drug should not have been used over a long time.
"They were telling in advertising that this was safe for long-term
use," says Nicholas Gibson, an attorney at Fears Nachawati. "There
was a study saying that if you do take it, it should be short-term
use. So there's a lot of contradicting statements and
advertisements that have been misleading."

When the drug was recalled, Dallas plaintiff's firm Fears Nachawati
began recruiting and accepting clients who may have developed
cancer because of their use of Zantac. If someone has one of the
cancers listed in the lawsuit and took Zantac at least daily for
one year or more significant, they could become a claimant in the
case. The suit is multidistrict litigation (MDL), which is similar
to a class-action lawsuit but allows for new plaintiffs to be added
as they are discovered. The case is being ruled in the federal
Southern District of Florida.

One issue will be proving the plaintiffs took the drug they
claimed. Because it was mostly purchased over the counter, it won't
be easy to track. Retailers have offered to release purchase data
for the lawsuit, and medical records may show patients were taking
the medication if they told their doctors. In addition, NDMA can be
found in cigarettes, alcohol, or other chemicals that may have been
present on the worksite. Plaintiffs will have to prove that the
NDMA came from Zantac.

The case is still early in the process, and the firm is advertising
to attract clients who have the appropriate types of cancer and
consistent use of the drug. It is also accepting referrals from
other firms that don't operate in the healthcare space. They are
collecting the medical records, reviewing the candidate's strength,
and tracking the 150 different manufacturers of ranitidine over the
years.

Over the last several years, some studies show different levels of
NDMA conversion in the drug, but the most recent studies were
enough to have firms jump on board and take the case. "We weren't
sure if this a good case to take forward if all these different
studies are contradicting each other," Gibson said. "But two months
ago, the big plaintiff's firms determined that this is a valid
claim."

A trial date has not been set, but Gibson estimates that it will be
the end of 2022 or 2023. [GN]


[*] Defense Bar Calls for More Oversight in MDL
-----------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that many in the
defense bar, and even some plaintiffs attorneys, have called for
more oversight in multidistrict litigation, especially after the
sudden bankruptcy of Girardi Keese.

Tom Girardi needed no introduction when stepping into a courtroom.

Founding attorney of Los Angeles-based Girardi Keese, he made his
name working on the environmental contamination case made famous
from the 2000 film "Erin Brockovich" and took lead roles in
numerous mass torts. He handled large numbers of cases over
pharmaceutical drugs and for NFL players claiming concussion
injuries. He has innumerable accolades for his professional
successes: The National Law Journal's annual Elite Trial Lawyers,
president of the International Academy of Trial Lawyers and the
State Bar of California's Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame.

Even his flamboyant personal life was on display. Since 2015, his
wife, Erika Jayne, has starred on the Bravo reality TV show "The
Real Housewives of Beverly Hills," which included Girardi and his
home in Pasadena, California, which a bankruptcy trustee said could
be worth $16.5 million. [GN]



[*] Florida COVID-Related College Refund Suits Making Slow Progress
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Rosen, writing for RE, reports that when the coronavirus
pandemic prompted colleges and universities to shut their doors
last spring and send students home for virtual learning, many
families cried foul and fought back in the courts.

More than 200 lawsuits have been filed by students and their
parents demanding a refund of at least part of their tuition, room
and board, and other fees. The common thread in these suits: The
education they paid for was not the education they got.

As one California Polytechnic University student reportedly said,
"I'm not paying full price for YouTube University."

Over the past year, several suits have been dismissed and most of
the others continue to slowly work their way through the courts.

But earlier in February, parents scored a courtroom victory in a
Florida class-action case involving fees collected by Miami-Dade
College, when a judge refused a motion to have the complaint
against Miami-Dade College dismissed. The judge's ruling could have
broader implications regarding similar suits around the country.

"We have great empathy for everyone affected by (the pandemic),
including the schools, but this order would apply to millions of
students who have already paid these exact . . . charges" at many
other colleges across the country," said Adam Moskowitz, the
attorney who handled the class action case.

Moskowitz said he will file similar cases seeking class action
status on behalf of students who attend other schools in Florida.
The ruling against Miami-Dade has been appealed.

In many cases, colleges offered refunds for room and board and meal
plans that were paid for but went unused because of the pandemic.
However, some schools refused to offer tuition refunds because of
their own financial struggles.

Generally speaking, some schools argued that they didn't have
"contracts" with the students, and therefore reimbursement for room
and board and user fees were not necessary.

The court cases can be divided into two types of lawsuits. One is
for COVID-19-related tuition reimbursement; the others are asking
for room and board, or fees refunds, for such things as lab
supplies, athletics passes, and transportation.

The tuition lawsuits face an "uphill battle," said Mark Kantrowitz,
a college financing expert and president of Cerebly Inc. "That's
because most colleges did not have a different tuition rate for
online education, even if they had an online education program
prior to the pandemic."

However, Kantrowitz said, the cases seeking reimbursement for room
and board and fees "are more likely to be successful. For example,
housing agreements do not provide for removal from the dorms in the
event of a pandemic," he said. The only reason usually given is for
"conduct reasons."

"Since the housing agreements were drafted by the colleges, that
omission will be held against them," Kantrowitz said.

To patch that leak, some colleges amended their housing agreements
for the current 2020-2021 academic year to address removal for
COVID-19 reasons, he said.

Meanwhile, these continue to be anxious times for college students.
In a January survey of more than 1,000 students by
CollegeFinance.com, about 46% said they were attending classes in
person, while 54% were attending virtually.

And to no one's surprise, about 60% of both virtual and in-person
learners rated their current stress levels as "high" or "extremely
high." [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 2021. 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 ***