/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210408.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, April 8, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 65

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Pesce Alleges
3M COMPANY: Hill Sues Over Harmful Effects of AFFF Products
4PX EXPRESS: Tan Suit Alleges Wrongful Termination and Unpaid Wages
ACCELLION INC: Faces Whittaker Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
ACTIVISION PUBLISHING: Faces Suris Suit Over Guitar Hero Live Game

AFSCME COUNCIL 5: Brown Appeals Dismissal of Suit Over Union Fees
AGAPE HEALTH: Faces Che FLSA Class Suit Over Retaliation
AMERICAN INT'L: D'Artiste Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to Ninth Cir.
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Appeals Denial of Bid to Enforce Judgment
APACHE CORP: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of April 26 Deadline

APPROVED PROVIDERS: Fabricant Sues Over Unwanted Prerecorded Calls
ATHENEX INC: Hagens Berman Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
AUSTRALIA: Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Awaits PFAS Settlement
BANK OF AMERICA: Alfaro Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling to 11th Cir.
BANK OF AMERICA: Threatt Brings Atty. Fee Issue Before Sup. Court

BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Hapka Farm Sues Over Crop Inputs' Price Fixing
BAYERISCHE MOTOREN: Water Pump Settlement Obtains Court Approval
BECTON DICKINSON: Marion Appeals Suit Dismissal to 7th Cir.
BHP GROUP: Class Action Suit Over Mine Workers' Benefits Pending
BLUEBIRD BIO: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of April 13 Deadline

BLUEBIRD BIO: Glancy Prongay Reminds of April 13 Deadline
BPROTOCOL FOUNDATION: Holsworth Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal
BRINK'S INC: Hamlet Seeks LLV Messengers' Unpaid Overtime Wages
BRISTOW GROUP: August 6 Class Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
C.R. LAURENCE: Villa Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California

CLEANSPARK INC: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action Lawsuit
CLEARVIEW AI: 7th Cir. Refuses to Stay Remand in BIPA Class Suit
CLEMSON UNIVERSITY: Bailey Glasser Mulls Title IX Class Action
CLOVER HEALTH: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of April 6 Deadline
CLOVER HEALTH: KSF Reminds of April 6 Lead Plaintiff Deadline

COLKER'S UNION: Fails to Compensate All Hours Worked, Keslick Says
COLUMBIA PIPELINE: Merger Litigation Dismissal Bid Denial Appealed
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Dure Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
CORELOGIC CREDCO: Judge Puts FCRA Class Action Lawsuit on Hold
CORTEC PRECISION: Ponce Seeks Minimum Wages & OT Under Labor Code

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend Rough Class Action
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Jadan Settlement Gets Court Approval
CSI ELECTRICAL: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Huerta to 9th Cir.
DELTA AIR: Reep Suit Seeks Proper Wage Pay for Airline Staff
DELTA GALIL: Seeks Review of Arbitration Bid Denial in Figueroa

DOMETIC CORP: Skadden Arps Attorneys Discuss 11th Circuit Ruling
EBIX INC: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of April 23 Deadline
EBIX INC: Kessler Topaz Meltzer Reminds of April 23 Deadline
EVERETT, WA: Businesses May File Class Action Over Ordinance
EXTENDICARE INC: Merchant Law Group Files Class Action Lawsuit

FACEBOOK INC: Faces Suit Over Open Display Ads Market Conspiracy
FANDUEL GROUP: Klein Moynihan Attorney Discusses Class Action
FMA ALLIANCE: Faces Klein Suit Over Deceptive Collection Letter
FMS INC: Faces Lamm Suit Over Deceptive Collection Letter
FUBOTV INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of April 19 Deadline

GATEWAY PLASTICS: Fails to Properly Pay OT, Holloway Suit Claims
GEICO INSURANCE: Prudhomme Seeks 5th Cir. Review in Insurance Suit
GENESIS ENGINEERING: Misclassifies Service Employees, Curtis Says
GERBER PRODUCTS: Baby Foods Contain Toxic Heavy Metals, Suit Says
GOOGLE LLC: Lords Sues Over Alleged Illegal Online Casino Games

GOOGLE LLC: Must Face Class Action Over Incognito Mode Browsing
GORMAN GROUP: Spiciarich Suit Seeks Initial OK of Settlement Deal
GRIDDY ENERGY: Plans to File for Bankruptcy Amid Litigation
HEDDEN ENTERPRISES: Plaintiff's "Oversized Brief" Request Denied
HYLANDS INC: Allen Appeals Ruling in Fraud Suit to 9th Circuit

IMMUNOVANT INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of April 20 Deadline
IMMUNOVANT INC: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of April 20 Deadline
INFUCARE RX: Faces Marc Irwin Suit Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
J.J. MARSHALL: Court Junks Gartrell Class Certification Bid
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: SDCERA Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action

KELSEY-SEYBOLD: Chapman Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Premiums
KRIEGER LAW: Almada Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in FDCPA Suit
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Vida Longevity Fund Suit v. LLANY Ongoing
LINEN USA: Underpays Laundry Attendants, Rojas Suit Claims
LITTLE BEACH: Martinez Sues Over Unpaid Wages & Benefits for Cooks

LLOYD'S LONDON: Town Kitchen Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Castillo Suit Consolidated w/ Generic Pricing MDL
MALLINCKRODT PLC: City of Marietta Putative Class Suit Closed
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Court Stays Employee Stock Purchase Plan Suit
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Shaver Putative Class Suit Stayed

MDC PARTNERS: Wilhelm Balks at Proposed Merger Deal With Stagwell
MIAMI POOL: Fails to Pay Pool Technicians' Overtime, Rojas Claims
MILWAUKEE, WI: Kreuziger Bid to Certify Class Tossed w/o Prejudice
MINNEAPOLIS, MN: ACLU Protester Class Action v. PD Can Proceed
MINNESOTA ASSOCIATION: Fellows Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling

MONDELEZ INT'L: Class Cert. Ruling Appealed in McMorrow Suit
MONEYGRAM INT'L: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of April 30 Deadline
MONEYGRAM INT'L: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of April 30 Deadline
MONEYGRAM INT'L: Schall Law Firm Reminds of April 30 Deadline
MULTIPLAN CORP: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of April 26 Deadline

NEW YORK: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Gulino Suit re Jorle
NIDEC MOBILITY: June 10 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
NISSAN NORTH: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Hays Suit
NVIDIA CORP: California Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Insurer No Duty to Defend Against Class Action

ONTRAK INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of May 3 Deadline
ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Pomerantz Law Investigates Securities Claims
PAUL INVESTMENT: Underpays Construction Workers, Torres Suit Says
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Underpays Employees, Labor Group Suit Claims
PLUG POWER: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline

PLUG POWER: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
PLUG POWER: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of May 7 Deadline
PORSCHE NA: Car Owners File Class Action Over Stop Sale Order
PREMIER NUTRITION: Injunction Bid Denial in Sonner Suit Appealed
PREMIER TRADING: Misclassifies Drivers, Wills Suit Alleges

PREMIERE CREDIT: Echols Appeals Ruling in FDCPA Suit to 3rd Cir.
REGENCY GP: Dieckman Appeals Ruling in Merger-Related Claims Suit
RENEWABLE ENERGY: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of May 3 Deadline
SA POWER: Faces Suit Over 2019 Bushfire Due to Faulty Network
SAN JOSE, CA: Engages in Widespread Law Violations, Protestors Say

SHOREWOOD HOME: Fails to Properly Pay Sales Clerk, Perales Claims
SOUTHWESTERN BUILDING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Garcia Claims
SPX CORPORATION: UAW Appeals Ruling in ERISA Suit to 4th Circuit
SUGARHOUSE HSP: Wade Sues Over Retaliation After Filing PFPA Leave
SUKKAH MIAMI BEACH: Martell Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime

SURGICAL CARE: Joseph Saveri Law Files Antitrust Class Action
UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Must Face Cancer Therapy Coverage Class Action
VAN BUREN COUNTY, MI: 6th Cir. Appeal Filed in Wayside Church Suit
VELODYNE LIDAR: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of May 3 Deadline
WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Judge Tosses Property Tax Class Action Lawsuit

WESTERN DISTRIBUTING: Medina Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. Cal.
WORKHORSE GROUP: Faces Kinney Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
XL FLEET: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of May 7 Deadline
XL FLEET: Robbins Geller Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
XL FLEET: Rosen Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline

XL FLEET: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
ZINUS: Mattress Class Action Lawsuit Set to Go to Trial in 2022
ZOOM VIDEO: Judge Dismisses Part of Zoombombing Class Action
[*] Casual Employment Reforms May Cut Class Action Payouts
[*] Courts to Rule on COVID-19 Class Actions Against Cruise Lines

[*] Illinois House Committee Advances BIPA House Bill 559
[*] Ireland Government to Pave Way for Class Action Lawsuits
[*] Securities Class Actions v. Non-U.S. Issuers Up 27% in 2020

                            *********

3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Pesce Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD A. PESCE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00959-RMG
(D.S.C., April 1, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

The case arises from a personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming
foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants allegedly failed to use reasonable and appropriate care
in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction,
training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their
PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public
entities and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, who
they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF
products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a
danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff
was exposed to toxic chemicals and developed serious medical
conditions and complications, the suit says.

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.

ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.

Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.

Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.

Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.

Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.

Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.

Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.

Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.

E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.

Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.

Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.

Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.

The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.

Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.

United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.

UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
         Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
         GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         270 West Main Street
         Sayville, NY 11782
         Telephone: (631) 600-0000
         Facsimile: (631) 543-5450

                 - and –

         Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
         Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
         Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
         ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
         2160 Highland Avenue South
         Birmingham, AL 35205
         Telephone: (205) 328-9200
         Facsimile: (205) 328-9456

3M COMPANY: Hill Sues Over Harmful Effects of AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD HILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00958-RMG
(D.S.C., April 1, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

The case arises from a personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming
foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants allegedly failed to use reasonable and appropriate care
in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction,
training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their
PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public
entities and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, who
they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF
products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a
danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff
was exposed to toxic chemicals and developed serious medical
conditions and complications.

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.

ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.

Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.

Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.

Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.

Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.

Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.

Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.

Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.

E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.

Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.

Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.

Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.

The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.

Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.

United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.

UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
         Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
         GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         270 West Main Street
         Sayville, NY 11782
         Telephone: (631) 600-0000
         Facsimile: (631) 543-5450

                 - and –

         Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
         Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
         Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
         ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
         2160 Highland Avenue South
         Birmingham, AL 35205
         Telephone: (205) 328-9200
         Facsimile: (205) 328-9456

4PX EXPRESS: Tan Suit Alleges Wrongful Termination and Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JINHAI TAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 4PX EXPRESS USA and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV12456 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., April 1, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code, the
California Government Code, and the California Business and
Professions Code including wrongful termination, retaliation,
failure to pay wages timely, failure to provide meal and rest
breaks, failure to pay overtime, and unfair business practices.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly employee
before September 2019. His employment status was changed to exempt
employee starting September 2019 until his termination.

4PX Express USA is a logistics firm doing business in Los Angeles
County, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                                   
          
         
         Michael A. DesJardins, Esq.
         THE LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL DESJARDINS, INC.
         210 West Birch Street, Suite 202
         Brea, CA 92821
         Telephone: (714) 265-2100
         Facsimile: (714) 494-8215
         E-mail: md@desjardinslaw.com

ACCELLION INC: Faces Whittaker Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE WHITTAKER, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. ACCELLION, INC., Case No. 5:21-cv-01708 (N.D. Cal.,
March 11, 2020) arises out of the Defendant's failure to properly
maintain and store personal information.

Businesses whose systems and products are designed and marketed for
the purposes of storing and transferring sensitive, personally
identifying information (PII) and personal medical information
(PMI) owe a duty of reasonable care to the individuals to whom that
data relates. According to the complaint, the Defendant owes this
duty this duty to the Plaintiff and the Class because it is
reasonably foreseeable that the exposure of PII or PMI to
unauthorized persons -- and especially hackers with nefarious
intentions -- would result in harm to them.

Accellion provides cloud-based file transferring solutions to a
variety of different industries, including governmental agencies,
healthcare, financial services, legal, and higher 23 education.
Accellion advertises safety as a major selling point for its
products and services. "When employees click the Accellion button,
they know it's the safe, secure way to share sensitive information
with the outside world." With respect to the healthcare industries,
Accellion touted its platforms' ability to "providesecure access to
sensitive content such as Electronic Health Records (EHRs) that
must be protected for HIPAA compliance."

After choosing Accellion as a file management and security
provider, its clients use Accellion's products to store and
transfer data that frequently includes highly sensitive PII and/or
PMI.

The Plaintiff, bring this action on behalf of herself and on behalf
of classes of individuals whose PII and PMI were accessed and
exposed as a result of the Data Breach.

The Plaintiff brings claims for actual damages, statutory damages,
and punitive damages, with attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses
under the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act,
the California Consumer Privacy Act, and further sues the Defendant
for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and
declaratory judgment pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act.

Plaintiff Valerie Whittaker is an adult individual who at all
relevant times has been a citizen and resident of the State of
Michigan. The Plaintiff has used Kroger's pharmacy in Michigan on a
continuous basis starting in approximately 2008 through present.

The Plaintiff entrusted Kroger with her sensitive PII and PMI,
including but not limited to her name, address, social security
number, driver's license number, and medical information.

In February 2020, the Plaintiff learned of the Data Breach, that
Kroger used Accellion as a third-party vender, and that as a result
of that relationship, Plaintiff's PII and PMI information, may have
been accessed or exposed to unknown, unauthorized third parties
during the Data Breach. Since the Data Breach, the Plaintiff's has
experienced potential fraud on her bank account whereby an
unauthorized individual attempted to take out a loan in her name,
the suit says.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex M. Outwater, Esq.
          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          Erin Green Comite, Esq.
          Carey Alexander, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-4565
          Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
          E-mail: aoutwater@scott-scott.com
                  jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
                  ecomite@scott-scott.com
                  calexander@scott-scott.com

ACTIVISION PUBLISHING: Faces Suris Suit Over Guitar Hero Live Game
------------------------------------------------------------------
YAROSLAV SURIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. ACTIVISION PUBLISHING, INC., Case No.
1:21-cv-01312-MKB-SJB (E.D.N.Y., March 11, 2020) is proposed class
action against Activision for misleading consumers during the
period October 1, 2015 to January 1, 2019 (Class Period) about the
most substantial component of Activision's flagship video game
Guitar Hero Live (Products) that provided the vast majority of
songs (92%) for play.

Guitar Hero Live is a music video game in which players use a
unique guitar-shaped controller to "play" along with music tracks
by contemporaneously matching, on the controller, guitar fret
patterns that the game scrolls on screen.

Activision launched Guitar Hero Live for consoles in October 2015
and for Apple TV and iOS devices in November 2015. The Products
offered two gaming modes: (1) "Guitar Hero TV" or "GHTV" mode,
which, to be playable, required the use of an online streaming
service that Activision provided, and (2) "Guitar Hero Live" or "GH
Live" mode, which allows players to use the game without the
streaming service, to a limited extent.

As of November 1, 2018, the Guitar Hero TV streaming service
offered 484 playable tracks. The Guitar Hero Live mode offers 42
playable tracks. Thus, the Guitar Hero TV streaming service offered
92% of the playable music tracks within the Guitar Hero Live
Products.

In marketing and selling the Guitar Hero Live Products, Activision
prominently and conspicuously represented that the Products were
playable online. Activision represented that the Products included
the GHTV mode, which it prominently and conspicuously stated is a
"playable music video network." Activision also marketed the GHTV
mode as, among other things, a "continuous broadcast of music
videos," "running 24-hours a day, seven days a week."

On December 1, 2018 -- only three years after Activision launched
the Guitar Hero Live Products and in violation of Activision
representations -- Activision eliminated 92% of the game's playable
music tracks by terminating the online feature. Furthermore,
consumers who purchased Hero Cash lost access to that Hero Cash on
and after December 1, 2018, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated consumers. Plaintiff Suris resides in Brooklyn,
New York. Plaintiff has no intention of changing his residence. The
Plaintiff bought Guitar Hero Live for a premium of approximately
$300 as a present for his pre-teen son. The Plaintiff expected that
Guitar Hero Live would provide online play for as long as his
family owned Guitar Hero Live.

Activision Publishing is an American video game publisher based in
Santa Monica, California. It currently serves as the publishing
business for its parent company, Activision Blizzard, and consists
of several subsidiary studios.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          George V. Granade, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
                  ggranade@reesellp.com

AFSCME COUNCIL 5: Brown Appeals Dismissal of Suit Over Union Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Eric Brown, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Eric Brown, Jody Tuchtenhagen, and
Debbie Schultz, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. American Federation of State, County, and
Municipal Employees, Council No. 5, AFL-CIO, Defendant, Case No.
0:20-cv-01127-SRN, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, on May 11,
2020, six Minnesota state employees sued two of the state's largest
government unions for an estimated recovery of $19 million in union
fees paid by state and local employees. The two class action
lawsuits claim that because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it is
illegal to require public employees to pay union fees as a
condition of employment, past fees should be refunded to
workers.

The unions, AFSCME Council 5 and Minnesota Association of
Professional Employees (MAPE) collected fees for years from workers
who did not want to join a union. The lawsuit against AFSCME may
net $13 million in recovered fees for 8,000 state and local workers
who paid fees to the union prior to the 2018 Supreme Court ruling.
The lawsuit against MAPE could recover as much as $5.8 million for
state employees.

The Plaintiffs are seeking a review of the Court's Order dated
February 12, 2021 and Judgment dated February 17, 2021, granting
Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellate case is captioned as Eric Brown, et al v. AFSCME,
Case No. 21-1640, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit, filed on March 19, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Transcript is due on or before April 28, 2021;

   -- Appendix is due on May 10, 2021;

   -- BRIEF APPELLANT, Eric Brown, Debbie Schultz and Jody
Tuchtenhagen is due on May 10, 2021;

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues
the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Eric Brown, Jody Tuchtenhagen, and Debbie
Schultz, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Craig S. Krummen, Esq.
          GREENBERG & TRAURIG
          90 S. Seventh Street, Suite 3500
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 259-9719
          E-mail: krummenc@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          William L. Messenger, Esq.
          NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION
          8001 Braddock Road
          Springfield, VA 22160-0000
          Telephone: (703) 321-8510
          E-mail: wlm@nrtw.org   

               - and -

          Jeffrey Michael Schwab, Esq.
          Daniel Robert Suhr, Esq.
          LIBERTY JUSTICE CENTER
          208 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1690
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 637-2280
          E-mail: jschwab@libertyjusticecenter.org  
                  dsuhr@libertyjusticecenter.org

               - and -

          Douglas Seaton, Esq.
          UPPER MIDWEST LAW CENTER
          8421 Wayzata Boulevard
          Golden Valley, MN 55426
          Telephone: (612) 428-7001
          E-mail: doug.seaton@umwlc.org  

Defendant-Appellee American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees, Council No. 5, AFL-CIO is represented by:

          Leon Dayan, Esq.
          BREDHOFF & KAISER
          805 15th Street, N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20005-0000
          Telephone: (202) 842-2600
          E-mail: ldayan@bredhoff.com

               - and -

          Josie Doris Hegarty, Esq.
          AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY
            AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES
          300 Hardman Avenue, S.
          South Saint Paul, MN 55075
          Telephone: (612) 772-3119
          E-mail: jd.hegarty@afscmemn.org  

               - and -

          Ramya Ravindran, Esq.
          BREDHOFF & KAISER
          805 15th Street, N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20005-0000
          Telephone: (202) 842-2600
          E-mail: rravindran@bredhoff.com

AGAPE HEALTH: Faces Che FLSA Class Suit Over Retaliation
--------------------------------------------------------
KYONG SIM CHE and MYEONG SUK CHOI, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AGAPE HEALTH
MANAGEMENT INC. and JEONG BOK LEE, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-00408 (E.D. Va., April 1, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
by making retaliatory comment that the Plaintiffs were planning to
sue their current employer, Friends Health, as they sued the
Defendants.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as personal care aides.

Agape Health Management Inc. is an adult day care center in
Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                                      
                          
         Michael Hyunkweon Ryu, Esq.
         RYU & RYU, PLC
         301 Maple Ave West, Suite 620
         Vienna VA 22180

AMERICAN INT'L: D'Artiste Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to Ninth Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Maison D'Artiste filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Maison D'Artiste v. American
International Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-07574-SVW-E, in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 23, 2021, the
Hon. Judge Stephen V. Wilson entered an order denying the
Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification with prejudice.

Judge Wilson said, "The Plaintiff has not cured the defects
articulated in the Court's prior order denying class certification,
and the Court, therefore, denies the renewed motion with
prejudice."

The putative class action seeks to recover for alleged wrongful
depreciation in insurance payouts.

The Plaintiff seeks a review of the Court's Order denying the
Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification with prejudice.

The appellate case is captioned as Maison D'Artiste v. AIG, et al.,
Case No. 21-80021, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, filed on March 23, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner MAISON D'ARTISTE, individually and on behalf
of other persons similarly situated, is represented by:

          Evan Selik, Esq.
          MCCATHERN LLP
          523 W 6th Street, Suite 830
          Los Angeles, CA 90014
          Telephone: (213) 225-6150
          E-mail: eselik@mccathernlaw.com

Defendants-Respondents AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC. and
LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY are represented by:

          Mark L. Hanover, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5900
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 876-8000
          E-mail: mark.hanover@dentons.com

               - and -

          Sonia Martin, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          525 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2708
          Telephone: (415) 882-2476
          E-mail: sonia.martin@dentons.com  

               - and -

          David R. Simonton, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          One Market Plaza, Spear Tower, 24th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 882-0327
          E-mail: david.simonton@dentons.com  

ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Appeals Denial of Bid to Enforce Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Anadarko Petroleum
Corporation filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in IN RE
TRONOX INCORPORATED, et al., Case No. 14-cv-5495, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

According to the complaint, in 2014, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
and affiliated companies entered into a $5.15 billion environmental
and toxic-tort settlement to end an adversary proceeding in
bankruptcy court. Critical to that settlement was a permanent
injunction prohibiting the litigation of claims that are derivative
or duplicative of the settled claims. In 2020, Larry Ashworth filed
a complaint in the Western District of Louisiana alleging
environmental harm, including claims against Anadarko and
Occidental Petroleum Corporations (collectively, "Anadarko").
Anadarko moved before the Court to enforce the Injunction, which it
alleges bars Ashworth's claims against it in Louisiana, and asked
the Court to hold Ashworth and his counsel in contempt.

In 2019, Ashworth discovered toxic waste contamination on his
property. In early 2020, Ashworth filed suit in the Western
District of Louisiana alleging toxic waste contamination from
creosote treatment sites located 5.1 miles from his property that
were shut down in 1989. Ashworth named both Anadarko Petroleum
Company and Occidental Petroleum Company as two of six defendants,
alleging they are liable as successors in title to the companies
that caused the contamination.

Anadarko now seeks a review of the Court's Opinion and Order dated
February 19, 2021, denying its motion to enforce the judgment and
to hold Ashworth and his counsel in contempt.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: Tronox Incorporated, Case
No. 21-627, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on March 19,2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees Avoca Plaintiffs and Larry W. Ashworth,
individually and as class representative for all similarly situated
persons, are represented by:

          Alani Golanski, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
          700 Broadway
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 558-5866

               - and -

          Luke A. McGrath, Esq.
          DUNNINGTON, BARTHOLOW & MILLER LLP
          230 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682-8811
          E-mail: lmcgrath@dunnington.com   

               - and -

          Andrew K. Glenn, Esq.
          GLENN AGRE BERGMAN & FUENTES LLP
          55 Hudson Yards
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 358-5600
          E-mail: aglenn@glennagre.com

Defendant-Appellee Kerr-McGee Corporation is represented by:

          David Marc Stern, Esq.
          KLEE, TUCHIN, BOGDANOFF & STERN LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 407-4000
          E-mail: dstern@ktbslaw.com  

Defendants-Appellants Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Anadarko
Petroleum Corporation are represented by:

          Bryan Michael Killian, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 739-3000
          E-mail: bryan.killian@morganlewis.com

APACHE CORP: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of April 26 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors of Apache Corporation
(NASDAQ:APA). The case is currently in the lead plaintiff stage.
Investors who purchased APA stock or other securities between
September 7, 2016 and March 13, 2020 may contact the Thornton Law
Firm's investor protection team by visiting
www.tenlaw.com/cases/Apache to submit their information. Investors
may also email investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917.

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

The case alleges that Apache and its senior executives made
misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (i)
Apache intentionally used unrealistic assumptions regarding the
amount and composition of available oil and gas in Alpine High;
(ii) 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; and (iii) these
misleading statements and omissions artificially inflated the value
of the Apache's operations in the Permian Basin.

Interested Apache investors have until April 26, 2021 to retain
counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are interested to
do so. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to be
a class member. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other
investor class members in managing the class action. If investors
choose to take no action, they can remain an absent class member.
The class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs,
investors are not represented by an attorney.

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

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

CONTACT:

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


APPROVED PROVIDERS: Fabricant Sues Over Unwanted Prerecorded Calls
------------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. APPROVED PROVIDERS NETWORK, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:21-cv-02498 (C.D. Cal., March 22, 2021) brings this
complaint as a class action against the Defendant for its alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant placed prerecorded call
to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone (818) 481-XXXX on March 17,
2021 in an attempt to promote its services. The Plaintiff was able
to confirmed that the pre-recorded call was from the Defendant when
she "pressed 1" in response to the recording and she has spoken
with the Defendant. Thereafter, the Plaintiff has received a text
message that contains a link promoting the Defendant's services.
The Plaintiff asserts that she never provided the Defendant her
prior express written consent to receive such unsolicited
telemarketing prerecorded call.

As a result of the Defendant's alleged unlawful act, the Plaintiff
and other members of the Class were harmed in the form of invasion
of privacy, annoyance and harassment, and they were charged for
incoming calls. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks damages, an injunctive
relief enjoining the Defendant from using pre-recorded messages to
call cellular telephones, and other relief as the Court deems
necessary, just and proper.

Approved Providers Network, LLC offers digital marketing services
to businesses. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J. Schwartz, Esq.
          5670 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1800
          Los Angeles, CA 90036
          Tel: (323) 455-4016
          E-mail: adam@ajschwartzlaw.com


ATHENEX INC: Hagens Berman Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Athenex, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATNX) investors with
significant losses to submit your losses now.

Class Period: Aug. 7, 2019 - Feb. 26, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 3, 2021
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/ATNX
Contact An Attorney Now: ATNX@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895

Athenex, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATNX) Securities Class Action:

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false statements and omissions about its flagship drug
candidate, an oral paclitaxel and encequidar for the treatment of
metastatic breast cancer.

Specifically, Defendants misrepresented and concealed that: (i) the
data included in the Oral Paclitaxel plus Encequidar New Drug
Application presented a safety risk to patients; (ii) there was
uncertainty over the results of the primary endpoint of objective
response rate (ORR), which might have introduced unmeasured bias
and influence on the blinded independent central review (BICR);
(iii) the Company's Phase 3 study did not include a representative
population; and (v) as a result, it was foreseeable that the FDA
would not approve the Company's NDA in its current form.

On Mar. 1, 2021, the market learned the truth when Athenex
announced it received the FDA's complete response letter ("CRL") to
the NDA for oral paclitaxel plus encequidar. In the CRL, the FDA
cited safety risks to patients in terms of an increase in
neutropenia-related sequalae. The CRL also cited uncertainty over
the results of the primary endpoint of the ORR at week 19, which
might have introduced unmeasured bias and influence on the BICR.
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."

On this news, shares of Athenex stock fell approximately 55% in one
day.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Athenex
intentionally misled investors about its leading drug candidate,"
said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the
investigation.

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

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

                      About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents
investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex
litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at
hbsslaw.com. [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Awaits PFAS Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Crawford, writing for South Coast Register, reports that the
Wreck Bay Aboriginal community says it is buoyed by news Katherine
residents have started receiving compensation payments for PFAS
contamination after a landmark class action against the Department
of Defence.

The Katherine community was awarded $56 million in compensation
payments for PFAS contamination and after months of delay,
residents have finally started receiving payments.

Shine Lawyers, who were successful in the Katherine action, has
also brought a class action on behalf of the Wreck Bay Aboriginal
Community Council and the Wreck Bay community against the
Department for Defence over contamination from the historic use of
toxic firefighting foam.

The action alleges the substance, known as PFAS, leached into the
soil and waterways, damaging culturally significant sites in Wreck
Bay, negatively impacting the value of the land.

Group member James Williams said Katherine residents receiving
payments for PFAS is a good sign.

"It's great for the people of Katherine," he said.

"Hopefully we can achieve the same for our community. We know we
still have a long way to go but I believe and hope this might be
settled quickly."

PFAS - per- and pol- fluoroalkyl substances, are a group of
chemicals that include perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS),
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorohexane sulfonate
(PFHxS), which were historically used by defence in their
firefighting foams and have been discovered at numerous defence and
other locations around the country.

The community's case was heard for the first time on February 12 by
Justice Michael Lee at the Federal Court in Sydney, with a large
number of community members, including elders, making the trip
north for that initial hearing.

"We are still on a high after that initial hearing," Mr Williams
said.

"I believe it [the case] could be settled quite quickly, especially
when you take into consideration how the judge [Justice Lee] came
across at that last hearing that he wanted things settled quickly.

"It is hopefully a good indication our community will follow the
same path of others who have already settled.

"I believe we are on the path to a good outcome and hopefully the
outcome will be sooner rather than later."

The community's next court date is June 4.

Meanwhile, another GoFundMe effort to purchase more bottled water
for the community has kicked off.

Mr Williams and Keiran Stewart-Assheton relaunched the fundraising
efforts.

The initial fundraiser raised $11,000 which provided around six
months water supply for the community.

"We purchased the water from Shoalhaven Spring Water," Mr Williams
said.

"Even though authorities maintain the water from our taps is fine
to use, a lot of residents don't believe that. They simply do not
want to use the water out of the taps.

"The results of the last testing showed the PFAS levels had risen.

"They still refuse to provide us with clean drinking water - until
we have our own independent testing, people are very wary of
turning on the tap and drinking out of it, boiling it for tea and
are hesitant in even using it in cooking.

"Lots won't even shower using it."

Mr Williams said residents were still paying rent but feel they
can't use resources they should be provided with.

"There's been no reduction in rent, yet we can't use the resource
everyone else renting a property can," he said.

He said the fundraising efforts had created a lot of public
interest, with more than $1400 already raised.

"All we want is fresh, safe water," he said.

"We raised that issue at the last information session with defence
and were told 'no'." [GN]


BANK OF AMERICA: Alfaro Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling to 11th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Carlos Alfaro and Henrietta I. Egbunike filed an appeal
from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled CARLOS ALFARO;
and HENRIETTA I. EGBUNIKE, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; and BANK
OF AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-22762-MGC, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The lawsuit is a putative class action brought by the Plaintiffs
against Defendants Bank of America N.A. and Bank of America
Corporation alleging that Defendants improperly assessed
international transaction fees in violation of an agreement between
Plaintiffs and Defendants. Plaintiffs are residents of Florida who
have, at relevant times, held personal checking accounts with Bank
of America.

Prior to May 8, 2015, the Defendants imposed upon all of its
personal deposit account holders nationwide a standardized set of
two contractual documents: the "Deposit Agreement and Disclosures"
(the "Deposit Agreement" or "DA") and the "Personal Schedule of
Fees" (the "Schedule of Fees" or "SF") (DASF). The Plaintiffs
contend that Bank of America's assessment of 3% "international
transaction fees" prior to May 8, 2015 (as well as on and after May
8, 2015 for account holders who opened accounts prior to May 8,
2015) constituted a clear breach of the DASF (as well as a breach
of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, procedurally and
substantively unconscionable conduct, and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiffs seek a review of the Court's Order dated February
23, 2021, granting Defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissing
their second amended complaint.

The appellate case is captioned as Carlos Alfaro, et al. v. Bank of
America, N.A., et al., Case No. 21-10948, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on Mar. 24,
2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Carlos Alfaro and Henrietta I. Egbunike,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          1395 Brickell Ave, Suite 1140
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 357-2107
          Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
          E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com

               - and -

          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          Henry J. Kelston, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          10728 Lindbrook Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                  hkelston@ahdootwolfson.com

BANK OF AMERICA: Threatt Brings Atty. Fee Issue Before Sup. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Objector-Appellant Rachel Threatt filed with the Supreme Court of
United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter
styled RACHEL THREATT, Petitioner v. RYAN THOMAS FARRELL, et al.,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, et al.,
Respondents, Case No. 20-1349.

Response is due on  April 26, 2021.

Ms. Threatt petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the
judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit in the cases titled JOANNE FARRELL; et al., Plaintiffs
Appellees, ESTAFANIA OSORIO SANCHEZ, Objector-Appellant, v. BANK OF
AMERICA CORPORATION, N.A., Defendant-Appellee. JOANNE FARRELL; et
al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, AMY COLLINS, Objector-Appellant, v. BANK
OF AMERICA CORPORATION, N.A., Defendant-Appellee. JOANNE FARRELL;
et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. RACHEL THREATT,
Objector-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant-Appellee,
Case Nos. 18-56272, 18-56273, 18-56371. The Ninth Circuit affirmed
the district court's: (1) approval of a class action settlement
between Defendant-Appellee Bank of America and
Plaintiffs-Appellees, Bank of America accountholders; and (2) $14.5
million fee award to the class counsel.

The question presented is: Whether, and to what degree, a district
court must consider counsel's lodestar in awarding "reasonable
attorney's fees" under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(h).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Ninth
Circuit found that that district court did not err in approving the
settlement over objections to the failure to create subclasses. Nor
did the district court abuse its discretion in using the
percentage-of-recovery method to calculate fees and refusing to
conduct a lodestar crosscheck. The district court considered the
most pertinent factors influencing reasonableness, and it did not
err in finding the fee award reasonable under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(h). Most significantly, the district court concluded
that the class counsel demonstrated "tenacity and great skill,"
achieving a "remarkable" result in a "hard fought battle" despite
an "adverse legal landscape" and the "substantial risk of
non-payment."

The Ninth Circuit agreed with the dissent that the individual cash
distributions were small, but it takes a different view of the
value of the injunctive relief. While it can be difficult to value
nonmonetary relief, the Court had no trouble finding that the value
exceeds the $29.1 million assigned to it by the parties. Even more
valuable than the debt forgiveness is the Defendant-Appellee's
agreement to refrain from assessing the fees challenged in the
lawsuit -- over the five-year moratorium imposed under the
settlement agreement, the Defendant-Appellee will forgo assessing
$1.2 billion in fees. It did not struggle to conclude, as the
district court did, that the counsel "generated benefits" far
"beyond the cash settlement fund."

Applying the abuse of discretion standard, the Ninth Circuit found
that the district court reasonably determined that the relevant
factors justified a fee award equivalent to 21.1% of the common
fund. It was reasonable not to perform a crosscheck of the lodestar
in the case, given the difficulty of measuring the value of the
injunctive relief.  

What is more, the award fell under the 25% benchmark that the Court
has encouraged district courts to use as a yardstick.  Even if it
were inclined to question the district court's motive in approving
the settlement and awarding fees, the Ninth Circuit notes that the
district court's prior order denying the Defendant-Appellee's
motion to dismiss is inconsistent with the dissent's suggestion
that the district court streamlined its docket at the expense of
faithful adherence to the law.

In short, neither the settlement nor the fee award raises an
eyebrow, ruled the Ninth Circuit. The Court has settled the issue
of whether a lodestar crosscheck is required, and it would not
unsettle its precedent, even if it had the authority to do so, it
added.[BN]

Objector-Appellant-Petitioner Rachel Threatt is represented by:

          Theodore H. Frank, Esq.
          Anna St. John, Esq.
          Adam Ezra, Esq.
          SCHULMAN HAMILTON LINCOLN LAW INSTITUTE
          1629 K Street NW Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (703) 203-3848
          E-mail: ted.frank@hlli.org

BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Hapka Farm Sues Over Crop Inputs' Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HAPKA FARMS, INC. and AMY HAPKA, individually and on behalf of 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 FS, LLC, SIMPLOT AB
RETAIL SUB, INC., AND TENKOZ, INC., Case No. 0:21-cv-00685-PJS-TNL
(D. Minn., March 11, 2020) arises from an unlawful agreement
between the Defendants to artificially increase and fix the prices
of seeds and crop protection chemicals such as fungicides,
herbicides, and insecticides (Crop Inputs) used by farmers.

The Defendants are manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers of
Crop Inputs.

The Plaintiff Hapka Farms, Inc. is a Minnesota corporation and had
its principal place of busines in Minnesota at all relevant times.
During the Class Period and while operating in Minnesota, the
Plaintiff purchased one or more Crop Inputs, for its own use for
its farming operation and not for resale, that was manufactured or
sold by one or more Defendants.

The Plaintiffs seek to recover injunctive relief, treble damages,
and other relief as appropriate, based on the Defendants violation
of federal and state antitrust laws, unfair competition laws,
consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment laws of the several
States.

They also seek to represent classes consisting of persons and
entities who purchased Crop Inputs, for their own use and not for
resale, in the United States from at least as early as January 1,
2014 through the present (the "Class Period") from the Defendants,
or through Defendants' authorized retailers.

The Plaintiffs further contend that the Defendants have established
a secretive distribution process that keeps Crop Inputs prices
inflated at supracompetitive levels and, in furtherance of their
conspiracy, denies farmers access to relevant market information,
including transparent pricing terms that would allow comparison
shopping and better-informed purchasing decisions and information
about seed relabeling practices that would enable farmers to know
if they are buying newly developed seeds or identical seeds
repackaged under a new brand name and sold for a higher price.

The cost of Crop Inputs is increasing at a significantly faster
rate than profits from farmers' crop yields. The skyrocketing Crop
Inputs prices are causing farmers to take on operating debt and
often forcing them into bankruptcy, creating a crisis situation in
the agriculture community for American farmers who are critical to
the nation's food supply. Neither the cost increases nor the price
disparities are attributable to any independent legitimate cause,
such as weather or other factors, the suit says.

Beginning at least as early as 2014, new online Crop Inputs sales
platforms launched and offered pricing comparison tools to 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 successful with farmers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
          Roberta A. Yard, Esq.
          REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
          332 Minnesota Street, Suite W1050
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 287-2100
          Facsimile: (651) 287-2103
          E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
                  r.yard@rwblawfirm.com

BAYERISCHE MOTOREN: Water Pump Settlement Obtains Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that final
approval has been granted to a BMW water pump lawsuit settlement
over pumps that allegedly prematurely fail long before they should.
The class action lawsuit alleges the electric water pumps cause the
engines to leak coolant and overheat.

According to the plaintiffs, consumers are at risk due to the water
pumps, and vehicle owners are stuck with paying for replacement
pumps because BMW concealed the defects.

BMW denies the vehicles are defective, denies the water pumps have
defects and alleges there are no safety issues with the vehicles.
BMW also denies any warranties were breached and says no state law
consumer statues were violated.

The lawsuit settlement includes all current and former U.S. owners
and lessees of the following BMW vehicles.

2008-2013 BMW 135i
2007-2013 BMW 335i, 335i xDrive, 335is Convertible
2008-2016 BMW 535i, 535i xDrive, 535i Active Hybrid
2012-2017 BMW 640i, 640i xDrive
2010-2015 BMW 740i, 740Li
2012-2015 BMW X1 3.0si
2011-2017 BMW X3 xDrive
2015-2018 BMW X4 xDrive, X4 M40i
2007-2013 BMW X5 3.0si, X5 xDrive 30i, X5 xDrive
2008-2019 BMW X6 sDrive, X6 xDrive
2009-2016 BMW Z4 sDrive

BMW Water Pump Settlement Agreement
There are many details and conditions related to the water pump
lawsuit settlement, but the agreement calls for BMW to extend the
warranty for the pump from 4 years/50,000 miles to 7 years/84,000
miles, whichever occurs first.

The water pump will be replaced under the warranty if an original
water pump or a BMW-approved pump fails during the extended
warranty period.

A customer may also be eligible for a reimbursement program for
past repairs. BMW will reimburse current or past owners or lessees
up to $1,000 in total costs previously incurred for replacements
relating to the water pump and thermostat.

Additionally, a customer may be eligible for replacement of a
failing electric coolant pump or BMW-approved replacement pump
within one year of the effective date of the settlement, regardless
of vehicle age or mileage.

The BMW water pump lawsuit settlement approved by Judge Mark Falk
does have many additional details and conditions you can read
here.

The BMW class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey: Oliver, et al., v. BMW of North
America, LLC.

The plaintiffs are represented by Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman,
P.C., and Thomas P. Sobran, Esq. [GN]


BECTON DICKINSON: Marion Appeals Suit Dismissal to 7th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Marion Diagnostic Center, LLC and Marion Healthcare, LLC
filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled
MARION DIAGNOSTIC CENTER, LLC and MARION HEALTHCARE, LLC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. BECTON, DICKINSON & CO., CARDINAL HEALTH, INC., and
MCKESSON MEDICAL-SURGICAL INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-01059-NJR, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint
alleged that the defendants entered into a vertical conspiracy to
force health care providers into long-term exclusionary contracts
that restrain trade in the nationwide markets for conventional and
safety syringes and safety IV catheters and inflate the prices of
certain Becton products to above-competitive levels.

The named plaintiffs sought to represent three separate classes
consisting of all health care providers that purchased (i) Becton's
conventional syringes, (ii) Becton's safety syringes, or (iii)
Becton's safety catheters directly from Becton, Premier, Vizient,
Cardinal, O&M or Henry Schein on or after May 3, 2014.

The complaint asserted a single count under Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, and sought equitable relief, treble damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and expenses, and pre judgment
and post-judgment interest.

The Plaintiffs seek a review of the Court's Order and Judgment
dated March 15, 2021, granting Defendants' motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim.

The appellate case is captioned as MARION DIAGNOSTIC CENTER, LLC
and MARION HEALTHCARE, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. BECTON
DICKINSON & COMPANY, CARDINAL HEALTH, INCORPORATED, and MCKESSON
MEDICAL-SURGICAL, INC., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 21-1513, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed
on March 24, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants MARION DIAGNOSTIC CENTER, LLC and MARION
HEALTHCARE, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          R. Stephen Berry, Esq.
          BERRY LAW PLLC
          1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 850
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 296-3020
          Facsimile: (202) 296-3038
          E-mail: sberry@berrylawpllc.com

               - and -             

          Kenneth E. Notter III, Esq.
          MOLOLAMKEN LLP
          The Watergate, Suite 500
          600 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20037
          Telephone: (202) 556-2000
          Facsimile: (202) 556-2001
          E-mail: knotter@mololamken.com

               - and -

          Steven F. Molo, Esq.
          Allison M. Gorsuch, Esq.
          MOLOLAMKEN LLP
          300 North LaSalle Street, Suite 5350
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 450-6700
          Facsimile: (312) 450-6701
          E-mail: smolo@mololamken.com  
                  agorsuch@mololamken.com

               - and -

          Justin M. Ellis, Esq.
          Mololamken LLP
          430 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 607-8160
          Facsimile: (212) 607-8161
          E-mail: jellis@mololamken.com

BHP GROUP: Class Action Suit Over Mine Workers' Benefits Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Bonyhady, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
Simon Turner lives rent-free in One Nation's senator Malcolm
Roberts' head.

Spend any time talking to the Senator about the government's
industrial relations overhaul, which One Nation's two Senate votes
are key to approving or rejecting, and you'll hear Turner's name.

Hansard searches show Roberts has raised Turner's case no less than
a dozen times in Parliament over the last 18 months. But Turner is
not a union boss or business titan. He is a former worker at BHP's
massive Mt Arthur coal mine in the NSW Hunter Valley who was put
out of a job after being injured in 2015.

Since 2018 he has been the lead plaintiff in a class action
alleging BHP and divisions of labour hire giants Chandler Macleod
and Programmed, which provided workers to the mine, misclassified
permanent staff as casuals, costing them millions in benefits like
paid leave. Using labour hire firms is common in the mining
industry to save costs and have a flexible workforce.

Turner claims agreements that the northern district of the mining
and energy union signed are also at fault. He says union officials
signed off on pay agreements, which left the workers worse off than
the fallback industry award that does not permit casual employment.
The narrative is disputed by the CFMMEU and the companies in
different ways, but it suits One Nation, which has been critical of
both unions and big business.

"Good industrial relations is about restoring the primary workplace
relationship between the employee and employer, and stop the money
flowing to the industrial relations club that profits from
complexities," Roberts said.

Chandler Macleod's chief executive, Peter Acheson, said the company
correctly classified and paid Turner as a casual.

"Chandler Macleod is rigorously defending the proceedings," Acheson
said, noting the Fair Work Commission approved the enterprise
agreement, which had been negotiated with the CFMEU. "It is
Chandler Macleod's position that we have, and always will, pay our
employees fairly and in accordance with the relevant industrial
instruments."

The mining and energy division of the CFMMEU has long campaigned
against the use of labour hire and casual employment to put miners
onto pay rates below the industry norm but said it had also
negotiated for its members to get the best deal they could in the
time being. It said the Chandler Macleod workers at Mt Arthur had
voted up their pay deal, which reversed a set of previous wage
cuts.

"Casualisation is out of control across Australia's coal industry,
driven by big mining companies looking to cut costs," the mining
division's general secretary Grahame Kelly said.

But Turner's stoush is not good news for the government, either.

It hopes to pass an overhaul of Australia's industrial laws through
Parliament. It would make it much harder for workers like Turner
who say they have been misclassified as casuals to bring big
lawsuits. The purpose is to stop employees "double dipping" by
taking a casual loading and then also claiming leave payments,
which government modelling suggests could cost businesses tens of
billions if applied across the economy.

It fears corner stores and frock shops employing a casual on
weekend afternoons will otherwise be at risk of backpay claims if
the High Court, which is considering just who counts as a casual
and what the payment rules are, rules against employers.

The government's industrial bill also comes with a pathway for
casuals who work regular shifts for six months to convert to
permanent work if they want to, albeit with exceptions where it
would not work for the business, backed by civil penalties if
employers do not comply.

Turner argues the "double dipping" argument does not stack up
because he was paid thousands of dollars a year less than permanent
staff employed directly by BHP, which declined to comment, who were
working alongside him and his colleagues. Those BHP staff were
covered by a different enterprise agreement.

"I was in the same crew sitting next to a bloke with a BHP shirt
on, I was exposed to the same risks, got tired on night shift [the
same], except they sack us when they want to sack us," Turner
said.

He wants the backpay change gone from the bill and no changes to
the definition of casual work. Roberts says he does not want
businesses to generally be hit by "double dipping" claims but
distinguishes that from cases like Turner's.

One Nation was expected to reveal its amendments to the bill on
March 15, and ahead of that employers are ratcheting up their
campaign, with 10 groups including representatives of farmers,
retailers, restaurants, builders and miners issuing a rare joint
statement urging the crossbench to support the government.

Noting unemployment remains high and economic growth low, chief
executives of groups including the Business Council of Australia
and Australian Industry Group say the bill will make it easier for
businesses to hire staff.

"A failure to vote on the bill will increase uncertainty and stifle
business confidence at the worst possible time -- just before the
JobKeeper scheme ends and as businesses are making critically
important decisions on whether to retain staff," the statement
reads.

ACTU secretary Sally McManus hit back, saying the employers were
trying to advance their own self-interest at workers' expense. The
crossbench, she said, had a choice.

"If they vote for this bill in full knowledge of the damage it will
do to permanently suppress wages and make jobs more insecure, they
will show they are not on the side of working people and I doubt
this will be forgotten," McManus said.

Anxiety is increasing for those in the government and unions
because the three other Senate crossbenchers, Rex Patrick, Jacqui
Lambie and Stirling Griff, are largely waiting to see what deals
the government strikes with One Nation before fully engaging
themselves, though each have raised concerns.

With Labor and the Greens set against the bill, its fate is in the
crossbenchers' hands. And One Nation have proven mercurial on
industrial relations in the past.

The party told the government it would support its 2019 Ensuring
Integrity bill, which would've allowed militant unions to be
deregistered, but backflipped at the last minute, insisting it had
made no such promises.

Furious government figures made their displeasure known in the
press at the time. Minister for Industrial Relations Christian
Porter said he was baffled by One Nation's decision to propose
amendments, which the government agreed to, before later voting
down the whole bill.

"I've actually not seen anything like it," Porter said, long before
he went on leave from his portfolios in early March after
vigorously denying rape allegations. "It is exceedingly strange."

Whether this sees a repeat is anyone's guess. [GN]


BLUEBIRD BIO: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of April 13 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of bluebird bio, Inc. (NASDAQ:
BLUE), EHang Holdings Limited (NASDAQ: EH), fuboTV, Inc. (NYSE:
FUBO), and Jianpu Technology, Inc. (NYSE: JT). Stockholders have
until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead
plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at
the link provided.

bluebird bio, Inc. (NASDAQ: BLUE)

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


Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 13, 2021

Bluebird is a biotechnology company that engages in researching,
developing, and commercializing transformative gene therapies for
severe genetic diseases and cancer. The Company's gene therapy
programs include, among others, LentiGlobin (bb1111) for the
treatment of sickle cell disease ("SCD").

In May 2020, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, bluebird
announced that the Company expected to submit a U.S. Biologics
Licensing Application ("BLA") to the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") for LentiGlobin for SCD in the second half
of 2021.

On November 4, 2020, bluebird disclosed that it would no longer
apply for FDA approval of its LentiGlobin product as a treatment
for SCD in the second half of 2021 as expected. Instead, citing
"feedback" from the FDA requiring the Company to provide additional
data "to demonstrate drug product comparability" for LentiGlobin
for SCD, "alongside COVID-19 related shifts and contract
manufacturing organization COVID-19 impacts," bluebird adjusted its
submission timing to late 2022.

On this news, bluebird's stock price fell $9.72 per share, or
16.6%, to close at $48.83 per share on November 5, 2020.

The complaint, filed on February 12, 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) 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.


For more information on the bluebird bio class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/Blue

Ehang Holdings Limited (NASDAQ: EH)

Class Period: December 12, 2019 to February 16, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 19, 2021

On February 16, 2021, analyst Wolfpack Research published a
scathing report entitled "EHang: A Stock Promotion Destined to
Crash and Burn." In this report, Wolfpack Research wrote that EHang
is "an elaborate stock promotion, built on largely fabricated
revenues based on sham sales contracts with a customer [Shanghai
Kunxiang Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. ("Kunxiang")] who appears
to us to be more interested in helping inflate the value of its
investment in EH . . . than about buying its products." Wolfpack
Research wrote that it had "gathered extensive evidence" to support
its report, "including behind-the-scenes photographs, recorded
phone calls, and videos of on-site visits to EH's various
facilities . . . ." Wolfpack Research also noted that "in just 14
months as a publicly traded company, EH's PR team has put out 50
press releases . . . . However, EH's constant stream of press
releases are easily proven untrue." Finally, Wolfpack Research
wrote that it "obtained Chinese court records which show that EH's
ADRs may already be in serious jeopardy due to legal issues in
China."

On this news, the price of EHang's ADS fell from its February 12,
2021 close of $124.09 to a February 16, 2021 close of $46.30 per
share, a one day drop of $77.79 per share or approximately 62.7%.

The complaint, filed on February 17, 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 Company's purported regulatory approvals in
Europe and North American for its EH216 were for use as a drone,
and not for carrying passengers; (ii) its relationship with its
purported primary customer is a sham; (iii) EHang has only
collected on a fraction of its reported sales since its ADS began
trading on NASDAQ in December 2019; (iv) the Company's
manufacturing facilities were practically empty and lacked evidence
of advanced manufacturing equipment or employees; and (v) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.


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

fuboTV, Inc. (NYSE: FUBO)

Class Period: March 23, 2020 to January 4, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 19, 2021

The complaint, filed on February 17, 2021, alleges that during the
Class Period defendants disseminated false and misleading
statements that misrepresented Fubo's financial health and its
operating condition. These misleading statements included
representations relating to a variety of Fubo's business operations
and performance metrics, including, among others, Fubo's ability to
grow subscription levels and future profitability, seasonality
factors, cost escalations and potentially shrinking addressable
market, ability to attract and generate advertising revenue, the
Company's valuation, and its prospects of entering the arena of
online sports wagering.

Investors learned the truth gradually through a series of research
reports beginning on December 23, 2020. Those reports revealed,
among others things, that (i) Fubo's growth in subscriber and
profitability was unsustainable past the one-time seasonal surge;
(ii) Fubo's offering of products would be subject to cost
escalation; (iii) Fubo could not successfully compete and perform
as sports book operator and could not capitalize on its online
sports wagering opportunity; (iv) Fubo's data and inventory was not
differentiated to allow Fubo to achieve its long-term advertising
growth goals; (v) Fubo's valuation was overstated in light of its
total revenue and subscription levels; and (vi) the acquisition of
Balto Sports did not provide the stated synergies and internal
expertise, and did not expand the Company's addressable market into
sports wagering.


Upon the publication of the research reports, the price of Fubo
securities declined 54% from a close of $52.59 on December 23, 2020
to a close of $24.24 on January 4, 2021.

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

Jianpu Technology, Inc. (NYSE: JT)

Class Period: May 29, 2018 to February 16, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 19, 2021

On February 16, 2021, Jianpu announced the results of its review
into "transactions carried out by the Credit Card Recommendation
Business Unit" with third-party business entities. The Company
concluded that previously reported revenue and associated expenses
had been inflated due to "certain transactions [that] involved
third-party agents (including both upstream agents and downstream
suppliers) with undisclosed relationships and some transactions
[that] lacked business substance." Jianpu stated that it
"anticipates the total amount of overstated revenue for the fiscal
years 2018 and 2019 to be approximately, RMB 90 million and RMB 164
million, respectively, representing approximately 4.5% and 10.1% of
the total revenue previously reported."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.60, or 13%, to
close at $3.94 per share on February 16, 2021.

The complaint, filed on February 17, 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
certain of the Company's transactions carried out by the Credit
Card Recommendation Business Unit involved undisclosed
relationships or lacked business substance; (2) that, as a result,
Jianpu's revenue and costs and expenses for fiscal 2018 and 2019
were overstated; (3) that there were material weaknesses in
Jianpu's internal control over financial reporting; (4) that, as a
result of the foregoing, the Company's fiscal 2018 Form 20-F was
reasonably likely to be restated; 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 Jianpu Technology class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/JT

About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.: 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.comwww.bespc.com [GN]


BLUEBIRD BIO: Glancy Prongay Reminds of April 13 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming April 13, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired bluebird bio, Inc. ("bluebird" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: BLUE) securities between May 11, 2020 and November 4,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you suffered a loss on your bluebird 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/bluebird-bio-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.

In May 2020, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, bluebird
announced that the Company expected to submit a U.S. Biologics
Licensing Application ("BLA") to the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") for LentiGlobin for sickle cell disease in
the second half of 2021.

On November 4, 2020, post-market, bluebird disclosed that it would
delay its BLA submission to late 2022 due to "feedback" from the
FDA that requires the Company to provide additional data "to
demonstrate drug product comparability" for LentiGlobin for sickle
cell disease, as well as "COVID-19 related shifts and contract
manufacturing organization COVID-19 impacts."

On this news, bluebird's stock price fell $9.72 per share, or
16.6%, to close at $48.83 per share on November 5, 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 supporting bluebird's BLA submission for LentiGlobin
for SCD was insufficient to demonstrate drug product comparability;
(2) 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; (3) 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 (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 bluebird securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than April 13,
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.

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


BPROTOCOL FOUNDATION: Holsworth Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Timothy C. Holsworth filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled TIMOTHY C. HOLSWORTH, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
BPROTOCOL FOUNDATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-2810, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New
York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 15,
2020, the lawsuit is brought on behalf of investors who purchased
Bancor Network Tokens in the United States, to recover the
consideration paid for the BNT tokens, together with interest
thereon, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

According to the complaint, the scheme worked as follows: First,
Bancor issued a "whitepaper" to investors that described in highly
technical terms the supposed utility to which BNT would be placed.
The Bancor whitepaper, however, omitted the disclosures that
securities laws and the SEC have long deemed essential to investor
protections in initial public offerings, including use of "plain
English" to describe the offering; a required list of key risk
factors; a description of key information and incentives concerning
management; warnings about relying on forward -- looking
statements; an explanation of how the proceeds from the offering
would be used; and a standardized format that investors could
readily follow. Without these critical disclosures, investors in
BNT tokens were thus left to fend for themselves -- precisely the
opposite of what the securities laws require.

Investors purchase these tokens with the idea that their value will
increase as the network in which the token can be used is expanded
based upon the managerial efforts of the issuer and those
developing the project. Because such "security tokens" are properly
classified as securities under federal and state law, the issuers
of these tokens, including Bancor, were required to file
registration statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission. Bancor, however, failed to do so. By selling these
unregistered tokens to investors, Bancor reaped millions of dollars
in profits.

Mr. Holsworth seeks a review of the Court's Order dated February
22, 2021 and Judgment dated February 23, 2021, granting Defendants'
motion to dismiss the case.

The appellate case is captioned as Holsworth v. BProtocol
Foundation, Case No. 21-634, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, filed on March 22, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Timothy C. Holsworth, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Philippe Z. Selendy, Esq.
          SELENDY & GAY PLLC
          1290 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10104
          Telephone: (212) 390-9000
          E-mail: pselendy@selendygay.com

Defendants-Appellees BProtocol Foundation, Eyal Hertzog, Yehuda
Levi, Guy Benartzi, and Galia Benartzi are represented by:

          Alexander Spiro, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          51 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212) 849-7000
          E-mail: alexspiro@quinnemanuel.com

BRINK'S INC: Hamlet Seeks LLV Messengers' Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, DANAE HAMLET, on behalf of herself and all similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff v. BRINK'S, INCORPORATED, Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00724-RDB (D. Md., March 22, 2021) arises from the
Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an LLV Messenger
from approximately June 17, 2019 to February 26, 2021.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint to recover from the Defendant's
unlawful failure to pay overtime compensation for all hours worked
over 40 in a workweek. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated LLV Messengers generally worked more than 50
regularly scheduled hours each work. However, the Defendant failed
to compensate them at one and one-half times their regular rates of
pay for all hours they worked over 40 in a workweek, the suit
says.

The Plaintiff seeks a complete and accurate accounting of all
compensation to which she and other similarly situated LLV
Messengers are entitled, backpay equal to the unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages equal to their unpaid overtime
compensation, reasonable attorneys' fees as well as costs and
disbursements, and other relief as maybe just and proper.

Brink's, Incorporated is a private security and protection company
that offers secure logistical support to businesses, including
armored vehicle transportation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Molly A. Elkin, Esq.
          Sara L. Faulman, Esq.
          Ryan C. Cowdin, Esq.
          MCGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP
          1101 Vermont Ave., N.W. Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20005
          Tel: (202) 833-8855
          E-mail: mae@mselaborlaw.com
                  slf@mselaborlaw.com
                  rcc@mselaborlaw.com


BRISTOW GROUP: August 6 Class Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
To all persons or entities who, between February 8, 2018 and
February 12, 2019, inclusive, purchased or otherwise acquired
Bristow Group Inc. ("Bristow") Common Stock, and were damaged
thereby (the "Settlement Class"):

THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

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

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs in the Action have reached a
proposed settlement of the Action for $6,250,000 in cash (the
"Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims, both
known and unknown, in the Action.

A hearing will be held on August 6, 2021 at 2:00 p.m., before the
Honorable Keith P. Ellison at the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas, United States Courthouse, Courtroom
3176, 515 Rusk Avenue, Houston, TX 77002, to determine (i) whether
the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with
prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and
described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated
January 27, 2021 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii)
whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair
and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an
award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be
approved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. The Notice and Proof of
Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form"), can be downloaded from the
website maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.BristowSecuritiesSettlement.com. You may also obtain copies of
the Notice and Claim Form by contacting the Claims Administrator at
In re Bristow Group Inc. Sec. Litig., Case No. 4:19-cv-00509 (KPE),
c/o Angeion Group, 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210, Philadelphia, PA
19103, by emailing info@BristowSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by
calling toll free at 844-749-0019.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later
than July 6, 2021. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not
submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in
the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will
nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the
Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than July 16, 2021, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the
Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and
delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they
are received no later than July 16, 2021, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.

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

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:

In re Bristow Group Inc. Sec. Litig., Case No. 4:19-cv-00509 (KPE)
c/o Angeion Group 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210 Philadelphia, PA
19103
844-749-0019
www.BristowSecuritiesSettlement.com
info@BristowSecuritiesSettlement.com

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

SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
Barry Barnett
Michael C. Kelso
1000 Louisiana, Suite 5100
Houston, TX 77002
Tel: (713) 651-9366
bbarnett@susmangodfrey.com
mkelso@susmangodfrey.com

and

KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
Ira M. Press
Thomas W. Elrod
250 Park Avenue, Suite 820
New York, NY 10177
Tel: (212) 371-6600
ipress@kmllp.com
telrod@kmllp.com

BY ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS [GN]


C.R. LAURENCE: Villa Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ROSALINDA VILLA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. C.R. LAURENCE CO., CRH AMERICAS, and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV07321, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California in the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on April 1, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-02836 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code, the California Business and Professions
Code, and wage orders from the California Department of Industrial
Relations, Industrial Welfare Commission including failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to authorize
and/or permit rest periods, failure to authorize and/or provide
cool down/recovery periods, failure to provide safe working
conditions, failure to provide timely and uninterrupted meal
periods, failure to pay all earned wages due at discharge, failure
to provide accurate and itemized wage statements, and unlawful
business practices.

C.R. Laurence Co. Inc. is a provider of architectural metals, glass
fittings and professional-grade glazing supplies, headquartered in
Vernon, California.

CRH Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of building products and
materials based in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Karin M. Cogbill, Esq.
         Elaisha Nandrajog, Esq.
         HOPKINS & CARLEY
         A Law Corporation
         The Letitia Building
         70 S. First Street
         San Jose, CA 95113-2406
         Telephone: (408) 286-9800
         Facsimile: (408) 998-4790
         E-mail: kcogbill@hopkinscarley.com
                 enandrajog@hopkinscarley.com

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

Cleanspark, Inc. (NASDAQ:CLSK)

Investors Affected: December 31, 2020 - January 14, 2021

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Cleanspark, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) that the Company had overstated its customer and
contract figures; (2) that several of the Company's recent
acquisitions involved undisclosed related party transactions; 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.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/cleanspark-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=13647&from=1

Astrazeneca Plc (NYSE:AZN)

Investors Affected: May 21, 2020 - November 20, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Astrazeneca Plc. 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.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/astrazeneca-plc-loss-submission-form/?id=13647&from=1

Exxon Mobil Corporation (NYSE:XOM)

Investors Affected: February 28, 2018 - January 14, 2021

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Exxon Mobil Corporation. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Exxon forced its employees to
use unrealistic assumptions regarding the timelines for well
drilling in the Permian Basin; (ii) the foregoing assumptions
served to artificially inflate the value of the Company's well
operations in the Permian Basin; (iii) the foregoing conduct, when
revealed, subjected Exxon to a heightened risk of regulatory
investigation and oversight; and (iv) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/exxon-mobil-corporation-loss-submission-form/?id=13647&from=1

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

CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]


CLEARVIEW AI: 7th Cir. Refuses to Stay Remand in BIPA Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to Reuters' Alison Frankel, "If you want to know why
defendants would rather litigate class actions in federal court
than state court, look no further than the Senate Judiciary
Committee's 2005 report on the Class Action Fairness Act."

"CAFA, as you know, allows defendants to remove class actions filed
in state court to federal court, as long as the cases involve at
least 100 plaintiffs, one of whom must be from outside of the
defendant's home state, and potential liability of at least $5
million.

"Why not just allow those class actions to be litigated in state
court? Because -- at least according to the Senate Judiciary
Committee at the time -- state courts can't be trusted to apply
class action rules consistently. State judges all too often
exercise "inadequate supervision" over class action litigation and
proposed settlements, effectively ceding control to plaintiffs
lawyers.

"I have a less jaundiced view of class action lawyers and state
court judges than the Judiciary Committee did in 2005. But I also
don't doubt that for some causes of action, plaintiffs lawyers will
fight to keep class actions in state court. Surely, for instance,
it's not a coincidence that more than 80% of the class actions
asserting claims under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
Act are originally filed in state court, according to a 2019
Seyfarth Shaw study.

"Cook County Circuit Court, in particular, is a magnet for BIPA
class actions, said study co-author Gerald Maatman, thanks to
judges who allow wide-ranging discovery, a plaintiffs-friendly jury
pool, and relaxed standards of class certification. "The preference
for state court is a reflection of (those) dynamics," Maatman said
in an email.

"I'm offering this background as context for a decision on March 9
by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that promises to make it
easier for plaintiffs in BIPA class actions to litigate in state
court, which is where the vast majority of them want to be.

"The appeals court denied a request by the facial recognition
software company Clearview AI to stay the issuance of its mandate
in Thornley v. Clearview AI, a BIPA class action. In the Jan. 14
decision Clearview AI sought to stay, the 7th Circuit affirmed the
remand of the class action to Cook County state court, ruling that
plaintiffs lawyers at Silver Golub & Teitell had carefully crafted
the complaint to allege only a generalized regulatory violation of
the state privacy statute – not a concrete injury that would
establish constitutional standing to sue in federal court. The
March 9 one-word denial of Clearview AI's motion means the case
will move ahead in state court.

"I emailed a Clearview AI spokeswoman and Clearview AI counsel Lee
Wolosky of Jenner & Block about the stay denial but didn't hear
back.

"As I've previously reported, the company told the 7th Circuit that
it intended to seek U.S. Supreme Court review of the remand
decision. Clearview AI argued that its case provided an opportunity
for the Supreme Court to clarify constitutional standing
requirements after 2016's Spokeo Inc v. Robins. Plaintiffs lawyer
David Golub told the 7th Circuit in his brief opposing the stay
that Clearview AI's motion appeared to be simply a delay tactic,
since it would be "bizarre" for a class action defendant actually
to ask the Supreme Court to expand its rules on standing to sue for
mere statutory violations.

"Golub told me there's a particular reason why he and his clients
wanted to keep the Clearview AI class action in state court. The
company is facing a plethora of federal lawsuits that were
consolidated in a multidistrict litigation last December. The MDL
includes cases asserted under the privacy laws of many different
states, Golub said. So if Clearview had succeeded in keeping his
clients' class action in federal court it would have been swallowed
up in a complex MDL. In state court, Golub said, the case can move
much more quickly.

"Golub said BIPA plaintiffs can plead their way out of federal
court because of the idiosyncrasy of Illinois standing law and
state-law precedent on BIPA claims. As the 7th Circuit has
acknowledged in other BIPA rulings, Illinois has more lenient
standing requirements than federal courts when it comes to alleging
an injury. And in 2019's Rosenbach v. Six Flags, the Illinois
Supreme Court specifically held that plaintiffs can bring BIPA
cases based only on bare statutory violations, without alleging an
actual injury.

"That's how Golub very deliberately pled the Thornley class action,
which claims only that Clearview AI violated BIPA's statutory
prohibition on profiting from the unauthorized sale of biometric
data. As the 7th Circuit said in its January decision affirming the
remand to state court, "allegations matter."

"By refusing to delay the remand, the appeals court underlined that
conclusion. Not every class action plaintiff who would prefer state
court will be able to tailor pleadings to get around CAFA. But BIPA
plaintiff who heed the 7th Circuit's ruling in Thornley can." [GN]


CLEMSON UNIVERSITY: Bailey Glasser Mulls Title IX Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
WYFF reports that Clemson University announced it was eliminating
the men's varsity intercollegiate track and field and cross country
teams at the end of the 2020-21 academic year.

Some members of the track and field program have obtained legal
counsel since that announcement was made.

On March 12, Arthur Bryant, of counsel at Bailey Glasser LLP, sent
a letter to Clemson President Jim Clements which can be read
below:

BREAKING NEWS: By cutting the Men's Track Team, @ClemsonUniv is in
violation of Title IX. We have retained counsel and are ready to
pursue a class action suit against the university if necessary.
@SaveClemsonXCTF @NCAA @theACC @ClemsonPrez
pic.twitter.com/SeL3SK4Iuz
-- Russell Dinkins (@DancingDinks) March 12, 2021

"Unless Clemson agrees to preserve the men's track and field and
cross country teams or has some plans for compliance with Title IX
we do not yet know, we will seek a preliminary injunction
preserving and continuing these teams," Bryant wrote in the
letter.

WYFF News 4 has reached out to Clemson University for comment and
have not yet heard back.

In February 2021 a Federal Civil Rights complaint was filed against
Clemson University for discontinuing the men's track and field and
cross country programs.

The complaint alleges that Clemson University is violating Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on
the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and
activities receiving federal financial assistance.

Athlete and activist Russell Dinkins worked alongside current and
former Clemson athletes, alumni and parents to create the
complaint, and believes that by cutting the men's track and field
program, Clemson is directly targeting African American athletes on
campus and the number of opportunities African American males
receive therein.

"Clemson University is cutting a sport that has a large Black
student population and the Black students are overrepresented on
the track team in comparison to the other teams on campus," Dinkins
said. "So you have the one team that doesn't produce revenue or
doesn't produce profits, rather, that has a high degree of
diversity, that's the one sport that's getting cut, that's a
problem and it has a discriminatory impact."

Dinkins' complaint joins a long list of opposition to the cutting
of the track team, both locally and on a national scale.

Current and former student-athletes have created "@SaveClemsonXCTF"
social media accounts to garner attention and build support.

South Carolina Senator Marlon Kimpson wrote an open letter to
Clemson University President Clements regarding the discontinuing
of the men's track and field and cross country teams and called for
an investigation into Clemson University's decision by the South
Carolina General Assembly, writing in part:

"I am disturbed with Clemson University's decision to discontinue
its men's cross country and track and field program. In my view,
based on the current demographics of the program, cutting it will
have a generational effect on African American males."

Competing track and field and cross country teams across the
country including Florida State, Duke University, and most recently
the University of Tennessee men's track team have expressed their
support for Clemson's track and field and cross country programs.
[GN]


CLOVER HEALTH: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of April 6 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of AstraZeneca PLC (NASDAQ:
AZN), iRhythm Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: IRTC), Tyson Foods, Inc.
(NYSE: TSN), and Clover Health Investments Corp. (NASDAQ: CLOV,
CLOVW). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the
court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each
case can be found at the link provided.

AstraZeneca PLC (NASDAQ: AZN)

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

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 29, 2021

AstraZeneca is one of the largest biopharmaceutical companies in
the world and was one of the early front-runners in the race to
develop a COVID-19 vaccine. In April 2020, the Company partnered
with Oxford University to develop a potential recombinant
adenovirus vaccine for the virus, later dubbed AZD1222.

On November 23, 2020, AstraZeneca issued a release announcing the
results of an interim analysis of its ongoing trial for AZD1222.
The announcement immediately began to raise questions among
analysts and industry experts. AstraZeneca disclosed that the
interim analysis involved two smaller scale trials in disparate
locales (the United Kingdom and Brazil) that, for unexplained
reasons, employed two different dosing regimens. One clinical trial
provided patients a half dose of AZD1222 followed by a full dose,
while the other trial provided two full doses. Counterintuitively,
AstraZeneca claimed that the half dosing regimen was substantially
more effective at preventing COVID-19 at 90% efficacy than the full
dosing regimen, which had achieved just 62% efficacy.

In the days that followed, additional revelations were made
regarding problems with AstraZeneca's AZD1222 clinical trials. For
example, the differing dosing regimens were revealed to be due to a
manufacturing error rather than trial design. Also, the
half-strength dose had not been tested in people over the age of 55
- despite the fact that this population was the most vulnerable to
COVID-19. Moreover, certain trial participants received their
second dose later than originally planned. U.S. regulators stated
that if AstraZeneca could not clearly explain the discrepancies in
its trial results, the results would most likely not be sufficient
for approval for commercial sale in the United States.

As negative news reports continued to reveal previously undisclosed
problems and flaws in AstraZeneca's clinical trials for AZD1222,
the price of AstraZeneca ADSs fell to $52.60 by market close on
November 25, 2020, a 5% decline over three trading days in response
to adverse news.

The complaint, filed on July 26, 2021, alleges that defendants
misrepresented facts regarding the Company's ongoing AZD1222
clinical trials and concealed problems that had arisen in the
trials, including a dosing error which had been discovered early on
by the Company but not disclosed to investors.

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

iRhythm Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: IRTC)

Class Period: August 4, 2020 to January 28, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 2, 2021

iRhythm offers a portfolio of ambulatory cardiac monitoring
services on its platform, called the Zio service. iRhythm receives
revenue for its Zio service primarily from third-party payors,
which include commercial payors and government agencies, such as
the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS").
Reimbursement from the CMS and other third-party payors is
therefore critical to the Company's business.

On January 29, 2021, Medicare Administrative Contractor Novitas
Solutions published actual reimbursement rates under the CMS' 2021
Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. A Baird analyst commented that
these rates were "way lower than" the former codes, citing one
example where iRhythm was previously reimbursed around $311, but
was now receiving just $42.68.

On this news, the price of iRhythm common stock closed at $168.42,
down approximately 33% from its January 28, 2021 close of $251.00.
The 33% drop represents a one-day loss in market capitalization of
approximately $2.4 billion.

The complaint, filed on February 1, 2021, alleges that throughout
the Class Period and in violation of the Exchange Act, defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts to investors.
Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose
to investors that: (1) iRhythm's business would suffer as a result
of the CMS' rulemaking; (2) reimbursement rates would in fact
plummet; (3) a lack of national pricing in the CMS rule and fee
schedule would cause uncertainty and weakness in the Company's
business; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

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

Tyson Foods, Inc. (NYSE: TSN)

Class Period: March 13, 2020 to December 15, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 5, 2021

On December 15, 2020, New York City Comptroller Scott M. Stringer
("Comptroller Stringer") called on the SEC to open an investigation
into Tyson. In his letter to the SEC, Comptroller Stringer
described Tyson's various failures to carry out its stated
coronavirus protection policies.

On this news, the price of Tyson shares fell $1.78 per share, or
2.5%, to close at $68.25 per share on December 15, 2020.

The complaint, filed on February 2, 2021, alleges that defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Tyson knew, or should have
known, that the highly contagious coronavirus was spreading
throughout the globe; (2) Tyson did not in fact have sufficient
safety protocols to protect its employees in its facilities; (3) as
a result, Tyson employees contracted and spread the coronavirus
within the facilities; (4) as a result of the foregoing, Tyson
would face negative impact to its production, including complete
shutdowns of certain facilities; (5) due to the failure to protect
its employees, Tyson would suffer financial harm related to its
lowered production; and (6) as a result, defendants' public
statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

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

Clover Health Investments Corp. (NASDAQ: CLOV, CLOVW)

Class Period: Securities purchased between October 6, 2020 to
February 4, 2021 and/or pursuant or traceable to the Company's
registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the
December 2020 Merger.

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 6, 2021

Clover Health provides healthcare insurance services and purports
to use proprietary technology to collect, structure, and analyze
health and behavioral data.

On January 7, 2021, Clover merged with SPAC Social Capital
Hedosophia Holdings Corp. III and Clover's common shares began
trading on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "CLOV," closing at
$15.90 per share, and on January 11, Clover's redeemable warrants
began trading on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "CLOVW,"
closing at $3.36 per warrant.

On February 4, 2021, Hindenburg Research issued a report stating
that prior to the merger, Clover has been under active
investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice for issues ranging
from kickbacks to marketing practices to undisclosed third-party
deals. Clover did not reveal that it was under active investigation
by the DOJ.

On this news, shares of Clover common shares (CLOV) plummeted from
their February 3, 2021 closing price of $13.95 per share to close
at $12.23 per share on February 4, 2021, and Clover warrants
(CLOVW) fell $0.18 per warrant, to close at $3.39 per warrant on
February 4, 2021.

The complaint, filed on February 5, 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) 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.

For more information on the Clover Health class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/clover

              About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

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]


CLOVER HEALTH: KSF Reminds of April 6 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadlines in the following securities class action
lawsuits:

Penumbra, Inc. (PEN)
Class Period: 8/3/2020 - 12/15/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: March 16, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-pen/

Nutanix, Inc. (NTNX)
Class Period: 3/1/2018 - 5/30/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: March 22, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-ntnx/

iRhythm Technologies (IRTC)
Class Period: 8/4/2020 - 1/28/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: April 2, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-irtc/

Clover Health Investments, Corp. f/k/a Social Capital Hedosophia
Holdings Corp. III (CLOV, CLOVW, IPOC)
Class Period: 10/6/2020 - 2/4/2021 and/or in connection with the
December 2020 merger of Clover and Social Capital III.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: April 6, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD, MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-clov/

If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above.

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

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

To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.

Contact:

Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN]


COLKER'S UNION: Fails to Compensate All Hours Worked, Keslick Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTO KESLICK v. COLKER'S UNION OIL, LLC; DVORAH COLKER; and DOES
1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV09662 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., March 11, 2020) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated alleging that the Defendants failed to
compensate for all hours worked, failed to pay minimum wages,
failed to pay overtime, and failed to provide accurate itemized
wage statements in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff started working for Colker on June 1996 as an
"Attendant". At all times during his employment with Colker, he was
classified as an hourly, non-exempt employee and was paid on a
biweekly basis.

It is the Plaintiff's position that Colker has violated the
following Labor Code Sections against the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated aggrieved employees.

According to the complaint, Colker did not provide the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated aggrieved employees with the minimum
wages to which they were entitled for work performed "off the
clock" and as such did not compensate the Plaintiff and others for
all hours worked, pursuant to California Labor Code.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sevag Nigoghosian, Esq.
          500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 956-1111
          Facsimile: (818) 956-1983

COLUMBIA PIPELINE: Merger Litigation Dismissal Bid Denial Appealed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Robert C. Skaggs, Jr., Stephen P. Smith, and TransCanada
Corporation filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the
lawsuit entitled IN RE COLUMBIA PIPELINE GROUP, INC. MERGER
LITIGATION, Case No. 2018-0484-JTL, in the Court of Chancery of the
State Of Delaware.

The Plaintiffs in this case are former stockholders of Columbia
Pipeline Group, Inc. On July 1, 2016, TransCanada Corporation
acquired the Company under an agreement and plan of merger dated
March 17, 2016. Each share of Columbia common stock was converted
into the right to receive $25.50 in cash, subject to each
stockholder's right to eschew the consideration and seek
appraisal.

During the sale process, Robert Skaggs, Jr., served as Columbia
Pipeline's Chief Executive Officer and as chairman of its board of
directors. Steven Smith served as the Company's Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer. The Plaintiffs contend that
Skaggs and Smith wanted to retire in 2016 and engineered a sale of
the Company so that they would receive their change-in-control
benefits. The Plaintiffs contend that once TransCanada emerged as a
committed bidder, Skaggs and Smith persistently favored TransCanada
during the sale process. The Plaintiffs detail a series of actions
that Skaggs and Smith took which inferably undercut the Company's
bargaining leverage with TransCanada and prevented the Company from
developing other transactional alternatives. As a result, during
the final phases of the negotiations, TransCanada was able to lower
its bid below the range it had offered to obtain exclusivity,
demand an answer within three days, and threaten to announce
publicly that merger negotiations had terminated unless the Company
accepted the lowered bid. Faced with the bad situation that Smith
and Skaggs had created, the Board entered into the Merger
Agreement, the suit says.

The Plaintiffs contend that by taking these actions, Skaggs and
Smith breached their fiduciary duties. The Plaintiffs contend that
TransCanada knew that Skaggs and Smith were breaching their duties,
in part because their actions were so extreme, and exploited the
resulting opportunity, making TransCanada potentially liable for
aiding and abetting the breaches.

The Defendants now request that the Court certify an interlocutory
appeal from the Court's March 1, 2021 Memorandum Opinion, denying
their motion to dismiss the case.

The appellate case is captioned as IN RE COLUMBIA PIPELINE GROUP,
INC. MERGER LITIGATION, Case No. 99,2021, in the Supreme Court of
the State of Delaware, filed on March 26, 2021.[BN]

CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Dure Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MARIE DURE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., and John Does
1-25, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01526 (E.D.N.Y., March 23, 2021)
is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant sent her a collection
letter on or about February 4, 2021 in an attempt to collect an
alleged debt she owed from T-Mobile, USA that was incurred
primarily for personal, family or household purposes, specifically
telecommunication services. The Plaintiff alleges that the letter
is deceptive because it implies that in exchange of 35% of the
balance the consumer will achieve some form of settlement, when in
actuality it is unclear what form of settlement the letter is
offering. Accordingly, the Defendant has violated 15 U.S.C. Section
1692e by making false and misleading representation and by failing
to delineate to which listed amount the "adjustment" may be
applied.

As a result of the Defendant's alleged deceptive, misleading and
false debt collection practices, the Plaintiff has been damaged.
Thus, the Plaintiff brings this complaint for herself and other
similarly situated individuals seeking to recover from the
Defendant actual damages, statutory damages, costs and attorneys'
fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the
Court may deem just and proper.

Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. is a debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext. 107
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com


CORELOGIC CREDCO: Judge Puts FCRA Class Action Lawsuit on Hold
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cyrus Farivar, writing for Yahoo!News, reports that in November
2018, Marco Antonio Fernandez, returned home after a yearlong Navy
deployment in South Korea and searched for an apartment near his
next posting in Fort Meade, Maryland.

Fernandez, whose national security work had already earned him a
top-secret clearance, had little to worry about when he was asked
to undergo a tenant screening -- a process involving credit,
criminal records and eviction checks. But the screening's
algorithm-based software rejected him for an apartment: It found he
had a drug conviction and three misdemeanors for petty theft.
That's because it confused him with Marco Alberto Fernandez
Santana, an alleged Mexican drug trafficker.

The correct Fernandez sued RentGrow, a tenant screening firm, in a
proposed class-action filed in Baltimore in April 2019, and has now
also similarly sued CoreLogic Credco, a division of a larger
property analytics firm, CoreLogic, in federal court in San Diego
last July. In both cases, Fernandez says the groups violated the
51-year-old Fair Credit Reporting Act, which allows consumers to
see and challenge data held by private companies about them.
Fernandez' lawyers said in court papers that the "inaccurate
reporting will follow Plaintiff for the rest of his career as he is
reinvestigated every five years to maintain his Top Secret security
clearance."

The judge in San Diego has put the case on hold until the Supreme
Court rules in a related case that was set to be heard in March.
Across the country in Baltimore, RentGrow has also asked that the
judge issue a stay.

Housing law advocates say that Marco Antonio Fernandez is one of
thousands of people who are mistakenly flagged by tenant screening
software that culls criminal records data from many sources and
that is made by CoreLogic, RentGrow, RealPage, AppFolio and a
handful of other companies. This industry has accelerated over the
last two decades as the rental market has increased and the
digitization and real estate analytics market has boomed. Nearly
all landlords now use some sort of tenant screening software as a
way to find who they consider to be the highest-quality tenants.

"The status quo disproportionately impacts vulnerable populations,"
said Nicol Turner Lee, a senior fellow in governance studies and
the director of the Center for Technology Innovation, at the
Brookings Institution, who has studied algorithmic bias. "I think
first and foremost we need to solidify privacy law: We have a
better grasp on what is being collected, how long and being
transparent about that data. That's fundamental."

It's big business, too: Real estate tech and tenancy screening
firms have drawn the interest of Wall Street investors in recent
years. Data from PitchBook, a financial data firm, shows that the
number of private equity deals in this area has jumped in total
value from $1.7 billion in 2018 to $6.9 billion in 2019 and $6.6
billion in 2020.

Some companies have learned they want to stay away. Last July,
CoreLogic formally announced that it would divest itself from this
part of its business, possibly because of lawsuits, and possibly
because this division wasn't making enough money. As of February,
CoreLogic told investors it is entirely out of the tenant screening
business.

Other companies, however, only see its potential. Stone Capital and
Insight Partners acquired CoreLogic for about $6 billion in
February, while another private equity firm, Thoma Bravo, acquired
RealPage for $9.6 billion in December. Meanwhile, AppFolio was
recently dubbed the fastest-growing company in America, according
to Fortune magazine. Stone Capital, Insight Partners and Thoma
Bravo did not respond to requests for comment.

Legal tests
But as the industry has grown, so have the lawsuits. Scores of
people have sued alleging similar mistakes by these companies in
recent years. And this may be the year the industry is forced to
change.

The relatively new subset of credit reporting, the $3 billion
tenant screening industry, which has both grown and gone largely
unregulated since its inception, is about to be tested in new ways.
In 2021, a notable lawsuit in Connecticut that could stop how this
type of software is used has a good chance of going to trial. At
the same time, California legislators are trying to figure out how
to reduce algorithmic bias in industries like housing.

This credit reporting issue doesn't just touch housing, but other
kinds of credit-based background searches as well. Fernandez' San
Diego case has been put on hold until lawyers know the outcome of
Transunion v. Ramirez in the Supreme Court. The case involves a man
from Fremont, California, who tried to obtain a car loan, but was
erroneously flagged — like Fernandez — for being on a federal
list that prevents American companies from doing business with
them. This list is usually reserved for wanted criminals and terror
suspects.

The Supreme Court is set to hear oral argument in Transunion on
March 31. The justices are being asked to decide whether
class-action status should have been granted, and whether members
of that class who did not suffer the same injury as the plaintiff,
Sergio Ramirez, should receive the same amount in damages as him.

Standing up
In 2016, Carmen Arroyo, a medical assistant from Windham,
Connecticut, had a simple request for her landlord: She wanted to
bring her adult son, Mikhail, home.

Months earlier, Mikhail had been electrocuted while working atop a
utility pole, and fell 30 feet to the ground. The accident left him
in a coma for six-months, during which he could barely speak, walk
or care for himself. After he recovered somewhat, Carmen Arroyo
wanted to move the two of them from her one-bedroom apartment, into
a two-bedroom apartment in the same complex, ArtSpace Windham, just
east of Hartford.

When Arroyo filled out the new application, she assumed that the
process would be perfunctory. Mikhail has lived with her before.
But, she soon learned that the property manager, WinnResidential,
uses CoreLogic's CrimSafe service and had examined her son's
criminal background.

WinnResidential quickly rejected her, saying that Mikhail had
"disqualifying" records. Arroyo could not figure out what the
obstacle was. Her leasing agent refused to answer.

"So now I'm not just angry, but I'm trying to figure it out and
play detective here because I'm not getting any answers here," she
said. "Everywhere I turned to was a dead end. There were no answers
to my questions on why. All of this while I'm trying to work a
40-hour shift and take care of my son at the hospital. It was a lot
for me. It makes a person just so upset but at the same time makes
you feel like, 'What is going on?'"

WinnResidential did not respond to requests for comment.

Arroyo contacted the Connecticut Fair Housing Center, a legal
advocacy group in Hartford, to see if it could help. But the
lawyers there quickly learned that the landlord really did not know
why the Arroyos had been rejected.

"We obtained documentation from the background check that the
landlord had received from CoreLogic, and we noticed that they were
not misleading us when they said 'they had no idea,'" said Salmun
Kazerounian, one of Arroyo's lawyers at the center.

Arroyo's lawyers eventually determined that Mikhail had been
charged in Pennsylvania in 2014 with retail theft for $150, but
that the charge was ultimately dropped. Arroyo knew nothing about
the charge, and Mikhail was not able to speak about it.

Arroyo's lawyers sued on her behalf not only under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, where monetary damages and settlements are common,
but also under the Fair Housing Act, a key pillar of the Civil
Rights Act of 1968.

The lawyers say that by making claims concerning tenant screening
software under the Fair Housing Act, believed to be for the first
time, there is a strong likelihood that CoreLogic may be compelled
to changes it software and practices. That's because a critical
guidance issued in 2016 by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development said that denying rent based on criminal history could
violate the Fair Housing Act.

The legal theory in Arroyo's lawsuit goes like this: Because
Latinos and African Americans are arrested, convicted and
incarcerated at higher rates than whites, members of those groups
suffer an "unlawful disparate impact" if CoreLogic disqualifies
them as prospective tenants based on their criminal history.

In August 2018, CoreLogic's attorneys argued in a motion to dismiss
the case that it was not at fault, because it is simply an outside
party: It does not make an affirmative or negative decision to rent
a given apartment; only the landlord does that. However, two years
later, the judge did not find this argument persuasive.

"RPS [CoreLogic Rental Property Solutions] and WinnResidential
acted hand-in-glove to deny Mr. Arroyo housing. RPS allowed
screening on the basis of charges that did not lead to a conviction
and allowed its customer to conceal from its line staff the basis
for an 'unqualified' classification," wrote U.S. District Judge
Vanessa Bryant. "In so doing RPS was an integral participant in the
denial of housing by WinnResidential to persons charged with an
offense even though the charges were dismissed."

Eric Dunn, of the National Housing Law Project and a member of the
Arroyo legal team, celebrated the ruling.

"The screening companies have been pushing an idea that using
decision-only screening shields landlords from discrimination
claims on the theory that if landlords don't even know why they are
denying an applicant, then how can they be doing so
discriminatorily?" he emailed.

"Of course, as this litigation and many other criminal history
screening cases have shown, rental screening algorithms often
produce results that disproportionately and unnecessarily exclude
BIPOC [Black, Indigenous, people of color] applicants or members of
other protected classes, "

For now, Arroyo's lawsuit is scheduled to go to trial in August.

Internal fears
Even the creators of these tenant screening programs are starting
to raise concerns. Richard Leurig, who worked at CoreLogic for over
a decade, until 2017, used to run the Rental Property Solutions
division, which dealt with tenant screening. CoreLogic was one of
the early pioneers in tenant screening, but lost market share to
newer rivals over time.

"When I went to run it [in 2015], they said you have to meet with
the attorneys because we have these ongoing lawsuits," he recalled,
noting that when he stepped into the role, he was tasked with
determining whether this was a viable business model for CoreLogic
to be in anyway.

"I guess I felt like the captain of a sinking ship," Leurig said,
noting that using a patchwork of criminal data from a myriad of
sources was a "fundamentally unsolvable problem."

Government intervention
Within the last few years, the Federal Trade Commission has pursued
lawsuits against two companies, concluding with a $3 million
settlement with RealPage in October 2018 and a $4.3 million
settlement with AppFolio in December.

RealPage was reminded, as the Fair Credit Reporting Act requires,
to "maintain reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible
accuracy." AppFolio, for its part, in addition to adhering to the
act, was no longer allowed to include "nonconviction criminal or
eviction records older than seven years." In the formal settlement
filings submitted to federal courts in Texas, and Washington, D.C.,
neither company admitted any wrongdoing.

"When you have an increase in the use and the increase in the
companies that are furnishing these reports, it's reasonable to see
that you would see more of a widespread problem," said Tiffany
George, an attorney with the FTC's division of privacy and identity
protection.

"I think this will continue to be an area of focus for the
commission, particularly in light of the wave of evictions as part
of the pandemic."

These companies, including CoreLogic, which either did not respond
to requests for comment or declined to make anyone available for an
interview, referred questions to the Consumer Data Industry
Association, a trade group that represents these companies and
traditional credit reporting agencies, including Experian,
TransUnion and Equifax. That association defended their members'
algorithmic processes.

"There will be errors," said Eric Ellman, a senior vice president
at the association. "But all of the data that we have seen shows
that background checks for employment and background checks for
tenant screening are highly accurate and highly reliable."

In a written response, the association noted that the FTC
acknowledged in a 2004 report that such consumer reporting agencies
have "market incentives to maintain and improve the accuracy and
completeness of the reports they sell."

However, that same report also noted: "Consumers who were the
subject of inaccurate reports had little or no recourse."

In its statement, the association also said that its member
consumer reporting agencies "already have a high degree of
accuracy." But it stated that it supported efforts to "improve the
accuracy of public records at the source, where the records are
first created."

Changing laws
For years, there have been some calls for audits of such
algorithms, including in a 2019 bill in Congress and even some
proposed legislation in New York City. But none have gotten off the
ground. Bluntly, it's not always clear how a meaningful algorithmic
audit would even be conducted.

But, in December, a member of the California state Assembly
proposed what is believed to be the first serious attempt in any
state to regulate algorithmic bias in not only housing, but also
lending, hiring and more. It first puts the burden on the companies
that made the software themselves, and requires them to explain
what they have done in the design of their system.

The bill, the "Automated Decision Systems Accountability Act,"
seeks to compel companies to explain before a watchdog group how
their algorithms are being tested to mitigate against possible bias
or adverse impact on a protected class, such as minorities or
women.

"This is dipping the toe in the water of algorithmic regulation,"
explained Vinhcent Le, an attorney with the Greenlining Institute,
an advocacy organization in Oakland, California, that helped write
the bill.

The bill's author, Ed Chau, a Democrat who represents Monterey
Park, a city just east of Los Angeles, said in an email that such
algorithms have historically been opaque to most people. As of
early March, the bill had not yet been heard in committee.

"Establishing transparency and accountability measures for these
systems is increasingly urgent," Chau wrote. "If we fail to act
now, it will become exceedingly difficult to implement these
regulations." [GN]


CORTEC PRECISION: Ponce Seeks Minimum Wages & OT Under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RAMON PONCE, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. CORTEC PRECISION SHEET METAL,
INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. 21 CV378025 (March 11, 2020) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums
and unpaid minimum wages under the California Labor Code.

The Defendants employed the Plaintiff and other persons as
hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of California,
including the County of Santa Clara.

The  Plaintiff and the other class members worked over eight hour
in a day and/or 40 hours in a week during employment with the
Defendants. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants failed to
pay them for all regular and/or overtime wages earned and for
missed meal periods and rest breaks in violation of the California
law.

Cortec manufactures and distributes sheet metal products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265—1021

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend Rough Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended February 14, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Rough v. Costco
Wholesale Corp.

In May 2019, an employee filed a class action against the Company
alleging claims under California law for failure to pay overtime,
to provide itemized wage statements, to timely pay wages due to
terminating employees, to pay minimum wages, and for unfair
business practices. Rough v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No.
2:19-cv-01340; E.D. Cal.).

Relief is sought under the California Labor Code, including civil
penalties and attorneys' fees.

The Company has moved for partial summary judgment, and the parties
have filed competing motions regarding class certification.

In August 2019, Rough filed a companion case in state court seeking
penalties under PAGA. Rough v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No.
FCS053454; Sonoma County Superior Court).

Relief is sought under the California Labor Code, including civil
penalties and attorneys' fees.

The state court action has been stayed pending resolution of the
federal action.

Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label
products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was
formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale
Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah,
Washington.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Jadan Settlement Gets Court Approval
------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended February 14, 2021, that the settlement
in the class action suit entitled, Jadan v. Costco Wholesale Corp.
received court approval in January 2021.

In January 2019, a former seasonal employee filed a class action,
alleging failure to provide California seasonal employees meal and
rest breaks, proper wage statements, and appropriate wages. Jadan
v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 19-CV-340438; Santa Clara
Superior Court).

The complaint seeks relief under the California Labor Code,
including civil penalties and attorneys' fees.

In October 2019, the parties reached an agreement on a class
settlement, which received court approval in January 2021.

Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label
products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was
formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale
Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah,
Washington.

CSI ELECTRICAL: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Huerta to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant CSI Electrical Contractors Inc. filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled GEORGE HUERTA, v. CSI
ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-06761-BLF,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Jose.

The lawsuit is a wage and hour class and PAGA action arising out of
the California Flats Solar Project. Plaintiff George Huerta and the
proposed class members brought suit against non-settling Defendant
CSI Electrical Contractors, Inc., asserting five class claims: (1)
failure to pay wages for hours worked under Cal. Labor Code Section
1197; (2) wage statement and record-keeping violations under Cal.
Labor Code Section 226; (3) failure to pay waiting time wages under
Cal. Labor Code Section 203; (4) violation of Cal. Labor Code
Section 2802; and (5) violation of California's Unfair Competition
Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, et seq. Huerta
separately brought a claim for the recovery of civil penalties
under the California Private Attorney General Act, Cal. Labor Code
Section 2698, et seq.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge
Beth Labson Freeman entered an order holding that the Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification is granted as to the Unpaid Wages
Class (Security Time), Unpaid Wages Class (Controlled Travel Time),
Unpaid Wages Class (Paragraph 5(A) Travel Time), Unpaid Wages Class
(Meal Period Time), Termination Pay Subclass, and Wage Statement
Subclass.

The Defendant seeks a review of the order entered by Judge
Freeman.

The appellate case is captioned as George Huerta v. CSI Electrical
Contractors Inc., Case No. 21-80029, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 26, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent GEORGE HUERTA, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated and as a representative
plaintiff, is represented by:

          Lonnie C. Blanchard, III, Esq.
          5211 East Washington Blvd., No 2262
          Commerce, CA 90040
          Telephone: (213) 599-8255
          E-mail: lonnieblanchard@gmail.com

               - and -

          Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Esq.
          THE DION-KINDEM LAW FIRM
          2945 Townsgate Road, Suite 200
          Westlake Village, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 883-4900
          E-mail: peter@dion-kindemlaw.com

Defendant-Petitioner CSI ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., is
represented by:

          Daniel Benjamin Chammas, Esq.
          Min Kyung Kim, Esq.   
          FORD & HARRISON, LLP
          350 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 237-2400
          E-mail: dchammas@fordharrison.com
                  mkim@fordharrison.com

DELTA AIR: Reep Suit Seeks Proper Wage Pay for Airline Staff
------------------------------------------------------------
RANDAL REEP, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-01005-CC (N.D. Ga., March 11, 2020)
is a civil class action brought pursuant to the Uniformed Services
Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994.

The lawsuit is brought by Plaintiff on behalf of a nationwide Class
of all persons similarly situated, including current and former
employees of Delta Air Lines, Inc. (DAL), who were or are currently
serving in the United States Armed Services or National Guard and
who took short-term military leave during their employment with DAL
but were not paid their normal wages or salaries by DAL during such
periods of military leave.

Plaintiff Reep is a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the State of Florida. Reep enlisted with Florida Air National Guard
on March 10, 1989, was commissioned and trained as an F-15 pilot,
and presently holds the rank of rank of Lieutenant Colonel. Reep
was employed by DAL from 1998 through 2016.

DAL is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of
Delaware with its principal place of business in the State of
Georgia.

Delta Air is one of the major airlines of the United States and a
legacy carrier. It is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Lawler, Esq.
          PILOT LAW, P.C.
          850 Beech Street, Suite 713
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (866) 512-2465
          Facsimile: (619) 231-4984
          E-mail: blawler@pilotlawcorp.com

               - and -

          Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq.
          Crystal L. Matter, Esq.
          STONEBARGER LAW, P.C.
          101 Parkshore Dr., Suite 100
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Telephone: (916) 235-7140
          E-mail: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com
                  cmatter@stonebargerlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph Coomes, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF A. JOSEPH COOMES, LLC
          990 Hammond Drive, Suite 840
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Telephone: (404) 220-9994
          Facsimile: (404) 665-3090
          E-mail: ajc@jcoomeslaw.com

DELTA GALIL: Seeks Review of Arbitration Bid Denial in Figueroa
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant PENNSYLVANIA V.F. CORPORATION filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled FRANCISCO FIGUEROA, on
behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, v. DELTA GALIL
USA, INC., a Delaware corporation, PENNSYLVANIA VF CORPORATION a
Pennsylvania corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
3:18-cv-07796-RS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
seeks to certify claims for (1) failure to pay wages for off the
clock work performed as a result of security checks when employees
enter and/or leave the facility, (2) the Defendant's failure to
provide lawfully compliant meal and rest breaks under California
law, (3) and failure to pay the regular rate of pay for overtime
compensation.

Pennsylvania VF Corporation seeks a review of the Court's Order
dated February 16, 2021, denying Defendants' motion to compel
arbitration and motion for summary judgment.

The appellate case is captioned as Francisco Figueroa v. Delta
Galil USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 21-15497, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 19, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Pennsylvania V.F. Corporation Mediation
Questionnaire was due on March 26, 2021;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by April 19, 2021;

   -- Transcript is due on May 17, 202l;

   -- Appellant Pennsylvania V.F. Corporation opening brief is due
on June 28, 2021;

   -- Appellee Francisco Figueroa answering brief is due on July
26, 2021; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee FRANCISCO FIGUEROA, on behalf of himself, all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SHAUN SETAREH
          9665 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 430
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com

               - and -

          Farrah Grant, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          E-mail: farrah@setarehlaw.com    

               - and -

          Thomas Alistair Segal, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          315 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 315
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          E-mail: thomas@setarehlaw.com  

Defendant-Appellant PENNSYLVANIA V.F. CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania
corporation, is represented by:

          Lonnie Domonic Giamela, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS
          444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 330-4500
          E-mail: lgiamela@laborlawyers.com

DOMETIC CORP: Skadden Arps Attorneys Discuss 11th Circuit Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Beisner, Esq., Kent Hiebel, Esq., Jordan Schwartz, Esq., Nancy
Wuamett, Esq., and Geoffrey Wyatt, Esq., of Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom LLP, in an article for JD Supra, report that as
discussed in the Spring 2017 issue of The Class Action Chronicle,
courts have struggled to define the ascertainability requirement
that is implicit in Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Several courts, including the U.S. Courts of Appeals for
the First, Third and Fourth Circuits, have required proof of
administrative feasibility -- i.e., that the identification of
class members will be a manageable process that does not require
significant individual inquiry -- as a prerequisite to class
certification. Other courts, such as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for
the Second, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Circuits, have
rejected that approach, finding that ascertainability does not
mandate proof of administrative feasibility.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently weighed
in on this issue in Cherry v. Dometic Corp., No. 1:16-cv-22482-RNS
(11th Cir. Feb. 2, 2021), flatly rejecting an administrative
feasibility requirement despite the apparent embrace of that
requirement in earlier, nonprecedential opinions.

In Cherry, the defendant, Dometic, manufactured gas-absorption
refrigerators. Some of the refrigerators were subject to a recall
due to a defect that increased the risk that the appliances would
leak certain chemicals and cause a fire. Dometic estimated that
0.01% of its refrigerators contained that defect. The putative
class representatives were 18 owners of recalled Dometic
refrigerators. They alleged that the defect was significantly more
widespread than Dometic reported, and that almost every
refrigerator sold between 1997 and 2016 had a design defect.

The primary issue before the district court at the class
certification stage was whether the proposed class satisfied Rule
23's ascertainability requirement. Dometic argued that the class
representatives offered no evidence that their proposed method of
identification of prospective class members would be workable. In
response, the class representatives argued -- citing the Ninth
Circuit's decision in Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 844 F.3d
1121, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 2017) -- that administrative feasibility
was not a precondition for certification under Rule 23. They also
contended that the proposed class was ascertainable because there
were objective criteria for identifying it. The district court
agreed with Dometic, denied class certification and dismissed the
case.

The class representatives appealed. The Eleventh Circuit reversed
and remanded, holding that "administrative feasibility is relevant
under Rule 23(b)(3), but it is not a prerequisite for
certification." In so doing, the court deviated from its prior
unpublished decisions that applied a heightened standard for
ascertainability and required proof of administrative feasibility.
See, e.g., Karhu v. Vital Pharms., Inc., 621 F. App'x 945, 949
(11th Cir. 2015) (holding that the plaintiff's proposal to use the
company's sales data to establish class membership was insufficient
because the defendant sold primarily to distributors and retailers,
and records would not identify class members).

The Cherry court found that an administrative feasibility
requirement did not follow from the text of Rule 23(a) because the
feasibility of identifying class members had nothing to do with the
qualifications of the putative class representatives, the
practicability of joinder or the existence of common questions of
law or fact. It also found that the administrative feasibility
requirement did not follow from Rule 23(b). It explained that
administrative feasibility is relevant to the court's inquiry under
Rule 23(b)(3)(D), which requires consideration of whether a class
action is manageable and "superior to other available methods" of
resolution, but not dispositive. According to the court, Rule 23 is
a balancing test, and the court must balance manageability against
other considerations. In other words, a lack of administrative
feasibility in identifying class members does not by itself doom
certification.

The Eleventh Circuit further emphasized that if a district court
reaches Rule 23(b), its inquiry should be comparative. It should
first ask, "Would a class action create more manageability problems
than its alternatives?" Then, "How do the manageability concerns
compare with the other advantages or disadvantages of a class
action?" Thus, while the Eleventh Circuit's ruling in Cherry
precludes class action defendants from defeating class
certification based on a threshold administrative feasibility
requirement, the decision still allows defendants in the Eleventh
Circuit to argue that administrative feasibility and manageability
concerns weigh against certification.

Notably, the U.S. Supreme Court still has not addressed the circuit
court split regarding Rule 23's ascertainability requirement,
despite multiple opportunities to do so. Cherry could present
another opportunity for it to resolve the growing split if the
defendant seeks review of the ruling.

That said, Cherry extends a trend in appellate decisions away from
the more rigorous approach to ascertainability taken by the First,
Third and Fourth Circuits that arguably began with the Seventh
Circuit's ruling in Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC, 795 F.3d 654
(7th Cir. 2015) (decided shortly after the Eleventh Circuit's
unpublished ruling in Karhu, noted above). Since Mullins took issue
with the more rigorous approach to ascertainability, other
appellate rulings have generally followed its approach to the
issue. Similarly, some judges on the Third Circuit have raised
questions about the rigorous approach taken in its pre-Mullins
cases. See, e.g., City Select Auto Sales Inc. v. BMW Bank of N. Am.
Inc., 867 F.3d 434, 444 (3d Cir. 2017) (Fuentes, J., concurring)
(urging court to abandon heightened ascertainability standard);
Byrd v. Aaron's Inc., 784 F.3d 154, 172 (3d Cir. 2015) (Rendell,
J., concurring) ("Our heightened ascertainability requirement
defies clarification. Additionally, it narrows the availability of
class actions in a way that the drafters of Rule 23 could not have
intended."). It may be that the Supreme Court is awaiting further
developments in the hopes that the appellate courts will
consolidate around a uniform approach to ascertainability.

But there are several policy considerations advanced by the
approach taken by the First, Third and Fourth Circuits that argue
against the conclusion the Eleventh Circuit reached and that would
justify eventual Supreme Court review and lead to reversal of this
trend. For example, a driving consideration in the Seventh
Circuit's decision in Mullins was a policy concern that a strong
ascertainability requirement would render class treatment
unavailable or infeasible in certain contexts. But the Supreme
Court has repeatedly cautioned that the class action rule is
supposed to be a neutral procedural rule that does not "guarantee
an affordable procedural path to the vindication of every claim."
Am. Express Co. v. Italian Colors Rest., 570 U.S. 228, 233 (2013).
Nor is Rule 23 intended to alter substantive rights. Accordingly,
Rule 23's requirements should not be interpreted to reflect a
policy preference that certain types of claims should be more
easily certified.

In addition, it is well known that only a small fraction of
eligible claimants (in some cases 1% or less) submit claims for
compensation in consumer class actions that have been approved. As
a result, the cost of litigating many consumer class actions is
already higher than the amount that is recovered by class members.
For this reason, it makes little sense to certify consumer classes
where proof of membership in the class at the time of settlement
would degrade into hundreds or thousands of time-consuming and
expensive trials that require the testimony of class members and
possibly other witnesses (such as family members and the like),
just to prove each claimant actually purchased or was harmed by the
product at issue. A heightened ascertainability requirement that
involves an evaluation of administrative feasibility before
certification would thus weed out unwieldly claims at the outset
and save courts and parties from expending significant resources on
a litigation where consumers stand to receive little actual
benefit.

The Eleventh Circuit's decision in Cherry by no means resolves the
split between the circuit courts on this important issue. While
litigants in individual circuits may have clarity on the contours
of Rule 23's ascertainability requirement, the issue would still
benefit from Supreme Court review to provide class action
practitioners and consumers predictability and uniformity regarding
the threshold requirements to maintain a class action.

Recent Class Action Decisions of Note
Eighth Circuit Affirms Certification of Large Class of 160,000
Retailers Alleging Fraud in Connection With Credit Card Processing
Services
Custom Hair Designs v. Central Payment Co., LLC, 984 F.3d 595 (8th
Cir. 2020)

In an opinion written by Judge William Duane Benton, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's
certification of a class of 160,000 small retailers that used the
defendant's credit card processing services. The plaintiffs brought
claims of breach of contract, fraudulent concealment and civil
racketeering, alleging that the defendant misrepresented a number
of fees, added fees with no value to retailers and inflated fees
without prior approval from issuing banks.

Following a relatively brief analysis, the court found that common
questions and answers predominated among the tens of thousands of
class members. First, despite differences in the retailers'
contracts, all of the plaintiffs alleged failure to get bank
authorization; thus, the relevant contract term was uniform.
Second, the court determined that any pricing differences among the
class would not affect liability, only damages, and that "slight
variation in actual damages does not defeat predominance if there
are common legal questions and common facts." Third, the fact that
some of the retailers' contracts authorized two different types of
fees did not defeat predominance because the inquiry was "not
highly individualized." Fourth, the fact that changes in bank rates
caused tier shifts did not defeat predominance.

The Eighth Circuit also held that the reliance requirement for
common law fraud is not present in Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO) cases. Thus, the plaintiff alleged that
overpayments from a pattern of systematic mail fraud in the
defendant's billing would satisfy RICO's causation requirements,
and the issue presented would be common to all plaintiffs. It also
rejected the defendant's claims that differences in statutes of
limitations defeated predominance, agreeing with the plaintiffs
that fraudulent concealment can toll the statute of limitations and
can be proven on a classwide basis.

Fifth Circuit Joins Sister Courts To Hold That Daubert Applies at
Class Certification Stage
Prantil v. Arkema Inc., 986 F.3d 570 (5th Cir. 2021)

Judge Patrick E. Higginbotham, writing for a panel of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, held that expert evidence
relevant to class certification must satisfy Daubert requirements,
joining multiple other courts of appeals. The plaintiffs brought a
putative class action against a manufacturer of a chemical used to
make plastics after their facilities released allegedly toxic ash
and smoke into the surrounding area following a hurricane. Although
the district court excluded one of the plaintiffs' experts, it
certified the class in reliance on the opinions of three of the
plaintiffs' other experts.

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit vacated the class certification order,
in part because the district court failed to ensure that those
other experts' opinions fully satisfied the Daubert standard that
governs the admissibility of expert evidence. In joining multiple
other appellate courts that have embraced a full Daubert inquiry at
class certification, the Fifth Circuit relied on Supreme Court
precedent requiring plaintiffs to submit "evidentiary proof" that
their claims satisfy Rule 23 and courts to conduct a "rigorous
analysis" of such proof. Applying this framework, the Fifth Circuit
reasoned that, although the district court excluded the opinions of
one expert, its analysis did not apply Daubert with "full force."
According to the Court of Appeals, this diluted approach to Daubert
was reflected by the district court's own statement expressing
doubt whether a full Daubert analysis applied at class
certification. In addition, the lower court essentially excused a
significant shortcoming of one of the experts (who opined about
chemical contamination without addressing background levels) on the
ground that the case was at class certification, not summary
judgment or trial. As such, the court concluded that the district
court was less searching at the class certification stage than it
would have been outside of the class certification stage, which was
an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the court vacated the class
certification order.

California District Court Rules Plaintiffs Lack Standing To Bring
Nationwide Class Claims in States Where They Do Not Reside
Drake v. Toyota Motor Corp., No. 2:20-cv-01421-SB-PLA, 2020 WL
7040125 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2020)

Judge Stanley Blumenfeld Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California dismissed a putative nationwide
class claims brought by residents of California and Illinois for
lack of standing. The plaintiffs alleged that the steering wheels
of cars manufactured by the defendants were defective and asserted
claims under the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA), state
warranty laws and for unjust enrichment. The court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the nationwide class claims,
reasoning that the named plaintiffs lacked standing to assert
claims under the laws of states where the plaintiffs themselves did
not reside. In so reasoning, the court explained that a defendant
does not have to wait until the class certification stage to
challenge a named plaintiff's standing to bring claims on behalf of
absent class members under the laws of those individuals' home
states. The court further explained that the plaintiffs had not
pled any cognizable injuries arising under the laws of states other
than California and Illinois and could not seek redress under such
laws. Finally, the court held that the plaintiffs could not proceed
with nationwide class claims under the MMWA because those claims
are derivative of state warranty claims that the plaintiffs lack
standing to bring. Accordingly, the court dismissed the nationwide
class claims. [GN]


EBIX INC: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of April 23 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Ebix, Inc. (NASDAQ: EBIX),
Apache Corporation (NASDAQ: APA), MultiPlan Corporation (NYSE:
MPLN), and AgEagle Aerial Systems, Inc. (NYSE: UAVS). Stockholders
have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as
lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found
at the link provided.

Ebix, Inc. (NASDAQ: EBIX)

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

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 23, 2021

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.

The complaint, filed on February 22, 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
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.

For more information on the Ebix class action case go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/EBIX

Apache Corporation (NASDAQ: APA)

Class Period: September 7, 2016 to March 13, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 26, 2021

The Class Period begins on September 7, 2016, when Apache, while
under immense pressure to show results from its new strategy and
reverse its lagging share price, announced the discovery of a new
resource play called Alpine High.

Throughout the Class Period, the defendants claimed that Alpine
High had valuable oil and gas reserves and promoted Alpine High as
the centerpiece of its development business.

The truth about Alpine High and its lack of viability emerged in a
series of disclosures between April 2019 and March 2020 that caused
Apache's stock price to decline over 83% from its Class Period
high.

Most recently, on March 16, 2020, a Seeking Alpha article published
pre-market explained that Apache was particularly challenged
amongst its peers, carrying "the highest debt-to-equity ratio among
large-cap independent [exploration and production companies]," and
noted that "[t]he company doesn't have a strong balance sheet" and
its "financial health isn't great." The article emphasized Apache's
"weak balance sheet marked by high levels of debt" of over $8
billion in 2019, "which translates into a lofty debt-to-equity
ratio of almost 250% - the highest among all large-cap independent
oil producers." Regarding Alpine High, the article observed that
low gas prices "forced Apache to shift capital away from the
wet-gas rich Alpine High play which has been driving the company's
production growth." The article also noted that "Apache also
reduced Alpine High's value by $1.4 billion."

Following this news, Apache's stock price fell $3.61 per share, or
approximately 45%, over two trading days, from a close of $8.07 per
share on March 13, 2020, to close at $4.46 per share on March 17,
2020.

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

Multiplan Corporation (NYSE: MPLN)

Class Period: Securities purchased between July 12, 2020 and
November 10, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period") and all holders
of Churchill III Class A common stock entitled to vote on Churchill
III's merger with and acquisition of Polaris Parent Corp. and its
consolidated subsidiaries (collectively, "MultiPlan"), which was
consummated in October 2020 (the "Merger").

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 26, 2021

Churchill III is a blank check company that merged with MultiPlan,
a healthcare cost specialist.

In July 2020, Churchill III announced that it had entered into a
preliminary agreement, subject to shareholder approval, to merge
with MultiPlan. MultiPlan is a New York-based data analytics
end-to-end cost management solutions provider to the U.S.
healthcare industry.

The Multiplan class action lawsuit alleges that defendants made
materially false and misleading statements in connection with the
Merger and during the Class Period regarding the business,
operation, and prospects of MultiPlan.

On November 11, 2020 – only one month after the close of the
Merger – Muddy Waters published a report on Churchill III titled
"MultiPlan: Private Equity Necrophilia Meets The Great 2020 Money
Grab" (the "Muddy Waters Report"). Among other revelations, the
Muddy Waters Report revealed that MultiPlan was in the process of
losing its largest client, UnitedHealthcare, which was estimated to
cost the Company up to 35% of its revenues and 80% of its levered
free cash flow within two years.

As a result of this news, the price of Churchill III securities
plummeted. By November 12, 2020, the price of Churchill III Class A
common stock fell to a low of just $6.12 per share, nearly 40%
below the price at which shareholders could have redeemed their
shares at the time of the shareholder vote on the Merger.

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

AgEagle Aerial Systems, Inc. (NYSE: UAVS)

Class Period: September 3, 2019 to February 18, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 27, 2021

On October 14, 2020, news broke that Amazon did not have a
partnership agreement with AgEagle, and in fact never did. The
Wichita Business Journal published a story with the headline:
"Exclusive: Who's AgEagle's big customer? We now know who it's
not."

On this news, shares of AgEagle, fell $5.13, or 36.4%, to close at
$8.96 on February 18, 2021, damaging investors.

The complaint, filed on February 26, 2021, alleges that defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose 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 AgEagle'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 AgEagle class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/UAVS

About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
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]


EBIX INC: Kessler Topaz Meltzer Reminds of April 23 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds
investors that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed against Ebix, Inc. (NASDAQ: EBIX) ("Ebix") on behalf of those
who purchased or acquired Ebix securities between November 9, 2020
and February 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Investors who purchased or acquired Ebix securities during the
Class Period may, no later than April 23, 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/ebix-inc-securities-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=ebix

Ebix supplies infrastructure exchanges to the insurance, financial,
travel, cash remittances, and healthcare industries.

The Class Period commences on November 9, 2020, when Ebix filed its
quarterly report for the period ended September 30, 2020 on a Form
10-Q with the SEC, stating in relevant part that the "Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, evaluated the
effectiveness of our 'disclosure controls and procedures' . . .
[and] have concluded that these disclosure controls and procedures
are effective."

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 Ebix's gift card business
in India. RSM 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." Additionally, 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.

Following this news, Ebix's share price fell $20.24, or
approximately 40%, to close at $30.50 on February 22, 2021.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants failed to disclose to investors 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 Ebix's internal control over the gift or
prepaid revenue transaction cycle; (3) Ebix's independent auditor,
RSM, 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, the defendants' positive statements about Ebix's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Ebix investors may, no later than April 23, 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)
info@ktmc.com [GN]


EVERETT, WA: Businesses May File Class Action Over Ordinance
------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Davis-Leonard, writing for Heraldnet.com, reports that the
signs declaring "private property" and "no trespassing" are
seemingly everywhere along Smith Avenue and the surrounding
neighborhood in downtown Everett. They are just one indication of a
larger clash between commerce and homelessness.

The area is industrial -- home to auto shops, wholesale suppliers
and specialty services, as well as Everett Station, the Everett
Gospel Mission and, often, a visible population of people living on
the streets.

Tents, tarps and shopping carts have gradually become part of the
landscape on the sidewalks and under an I-5 overpass. Dozens of
people take refuge in the corridor.

On March 10, the Everett City Council is scheduled to vote on an
ordinance that would prohibit sitting or lying on the streets and
sidewalks in a 10-block area perceived to have borne the brunt of
Everett's homelessness crisis.

The proposal comes in conjunction with a pilot "pallet shelter"
project approved by the council in February. A $1 million state
grant would fund the village of about 20 miniature homes to
temporarily shelter people seeking permanent housing.

Councilman Scott Bader suggested attaching a "no-sit, no-lie"
ordinance to the plan to locate the pallet shelters in the
neighborhood, as an olive branch to the neighborhood businesses.
After a 5-2 vote in favor, the contingency was added.

If approved, lingering along the roads in the area east of Broadway
from 41st Street to Pacific Avenue would be a misdemeanor offense.
The ordinance would also criminalize people providing food, goods,
supplies or services in the area without a permit from the city.

Residents and activists voiced opposition at two recent City
Council meetings. They argue that the no-sit, no-lie proposal would
do more harm than good. Area business owners said that they deserve
a reprieve, and the people living on the street want their needs
met, too.

A worsening problem

The debate in this downtown Everett neighborhood is not new.

"We have been at this impasse along Smith Avenue for a long time,"
said Sylvia Anderson, CEO of the Everett Gospel Mission since 2000.
The mission houses about 80 men in recovery at its shelter in the
3700 block of Smith Avenue.

Of late, Anderson said, the situation has become untenable. The
ongoing activity, she said, is beyond anything she's ever seen.

Her concerns are for the safety and well-being of the people on the
street, but she said the mission, like other area businesses, wants
a solution.

"It is impacting all of us," Anderson said. "I love the folks I
serve -- I'm tired of seeing them suffer on the street."

Jennifer Cross owns The Dog Spot, a canine daycare, boarding and
training business, a few blocks north on Smith Avenue.

In her 11 years in business, Cross' concerns have ranged from
innocuous issues with trash to moments of concern for the safety of
herself and the dozen or so people she employs.

When the homeless population swells in the neighborhood, Cross
said, The Dog Spot must combat a perception from clients that the
area is unsafe. She worries her operation may go under if that
impression becomes a reality.

Self-described as compassionate and very liberal, Cross said her
feelings that homelessness is not a crime have been at war with a
desire to maintain her livelihood.

"It's not, 'I don't want these people here,' it's just, I don't
know, how to balance making sure the neighborhood looks safe and
welcoming so I can run a successful business with a bunch of tents
out in front of my business," she said.

The no-sit, no-lie ordinance, in conjunction with the offer of
pallet housing, is the kind of solution Cross said she's been
craving. The proposal places necessary boundaries while also
offering an alternative place to go, she said.

Anderson said the Everett Gospel Mission has been in discussion
with the city to operate the shelter village on land owned by
Everett Transit behind the mission.

Along with basic amenities like a dumpster and portable toilets,
the twenty units would be surrounded by fencing and equipped with
heat, electricity and basic water service.

Anderson said she wants to see the community have the courage to
try something different for the people who have found traditional
shelter incompatible with their lifestyles.

She made it clear that the mission doesn't support criminalizing
homelessness, but she said at this point the organization is in
favor of increased housing by any means necessary. Anderson said
the mission will move meal service inside to comply with the
ordinance and continue feeding people who don't live at the
shelter.

"We need to come together as a community and give this pilot
program a chance to work and to not polarize," she said. "Not all
of us are going to get what we want, but I think we can move
forward and we haven't moved forward in a long time."

Nowhere else to go

Steve Claymore stepped out from under a blue tarp he's rigged into
a makeshift home on the sidewalk of Smith Avenue to share his
concern with the proposal. The law would make his current living
situation illegal.

Middle-aged and a lifetime Everett resident, Claymore said he lost
shelter in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis. With no place to go,
Claymore said he turned to the one area of the city where support
is offered.

The neighborhood "is not just a place where we come to congregate,
it's where we connect with the resources that are available," he
said.

Claymore worries police will profile the homeless in downtown
Everett and said he feels like the ordinance violates the rights
awarded to him by the Constitution.

He may be right. Similar no-sit, no-lie ordinances have faced legal
challenges.

In 2018, a federal court ruled that governments can't enforce laws
banning homeless people from sleeping or camping on public property
in cities where there is no alternative housing option, like
shelters or sanctioned encampments.

However, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals set the precedent
in the case Martin v. City of Boise that an ordinance may be legal
if the rule is limited to a particular time or place.

Everett officials have said the no-sit, no-lie proposal's small
geographic scope distinguishes it from other laws that have been
challenged.

The city of Boise only in February reached a $1.34 million
settlement in its case after 12 years of litigation.

Under the Everett ordinance, a person would not be cited unless
they continue to violate the rule after being notified by law
enforcement. Violators would face misdemeanor charges that could
result in up to 90 days in jail and a fine of $500.

Not far down Smith Avenue, James Carpenter ate lunch in the grass
across from the mission.

Carpenter lives on the street. He said the proposal is an unfair
effort to reject a whole group based on the bad behavior of a few
culprits.

"Not everyone out here is here because of drugs and things like
that," he said. "We are all good people. Some of us lost our way,
that's all."

Carpenter was skeptical space would be available in the limited
number of shelters. He said he'd build his own shelter if given a
place to put it.

The mission's Anderson agreed the 20 dwellings are far from enough
to house all the people living on Everett's streets, but she is
hopeful the village can be a model to duplicate across Snohomish
County.

"We have to start somewhere," Anderson said. "If we can prove we
can manage 20 (pallet shelters) and it lessens the impact on our
businesses and our neighbors, then we definitely have room to add
others."

Everett-based manufacturer Pallet is building the
composite-and-aluminum abodes. The individual shelters offer an
independent setting for people who may have struggled to be
accepted into traditional shelters.

Terms of the grant funding the project stipulate that a person
cannot be rejected from the housing solely because he or she abuses
drugs or alcohol, resists human services or has a criminal record.
There are mandated exceptions, though, for some violent crimes.

The Everett Police Department's Community Outreach and Enforcement
Team of officers and social workers will make referrals to fill the
shelters, city staff have said.

Claymore said he's on waiting lists for other housing options, but
hasn't had luck yet. If offered a pallet home he wouldn't
hesitate.

"I'd be the first one in line -- jumping up and down like a pogo
stick until they tell me to stop," Claymore said.

If he isn't one of the few dozen people chosen, Claymore said, he'd
likely head for the woods, but then access to food and water
becomes an issue. He hopes a solution can be found that doesn't
include a no-sit, no-lie law.

"We are your neighbors," he said. "We are just homeless."

'Controlled by circumstances'

At Z Sport, an automotive performance and repair shop on the corner
of Smith Avenue and 36th Street, owner Gary Watts said the no-sit,
no-lie ordinance is the last hope.

Watts said his business hangs on by its teeth because customers
fear doing business in the neighborhood.

"You remove the people off the street, remove the campers, the
sidewalk sleepers, and Smith Avenue will clean itself up very
quickly," he said.

In 2017, Watts dubbed Everett "Tweakerville" and live-streamed
video of the homeless on sidewalks outside his business. He also
made a failed write-in bid for mayor during that year's election
cycle.

Watts alleges more than 120 attempted burglaries or break-ins at
his business in the past three years. He said managers carry
firearms for safety, and he records activity at the shop around the
clock.

"It's hard for me to go out and spend a lot of time protecting the
folks that are stealing from me, protecting the folks who are
threatening my customers and employees," he said.

ML Fox Architectural Woodwork operates a custom construction shop a
few blocks from Smith Avenue. Owner Lori Fox said it feels like the
city tolerates more misbehavior in their neighborhood than
elsewhere.
"You don't see people with tents along Colby or Hewitt, right," Fox
said. "… I don't think it is fair just to squeeze people onto
Smith Avenue."

A few years ago, Fox's husband was stabbed in the arm during a
carjacking at their business. After being confronted in the past by
the homeless, Fox said, she avoids calling police to report illegal
activity saying she fears their retribution.

Fox supports the pallet project but wishes the city would choose a
different location. She said it's time to give the area businesses
a break.

"Yeah, (the homeless) probably will get pushed somewhere else,
maybe they should," she said.

After three decades on Smith Avenue, Watts said it is time for
change. He believes it's the city's responsibility to provide
citizens a safe environment to live and work.

"I'm controlled by circumstances," he said.

If the no-sit, no-lie ordinance fails, Watts said, he and other
Smith Avenue businesses are prepared to file a class-action lawsuit
against the city. He said the allegations would include more than
$50 million in lost revenue from neighborhood businesses, based on
the condition of the area.

Enforcement is months away

The City Council may approve the no-sit, no-lie proposal at a
regular meeting on March 10, but it wouldn't take effect for
months.

At a meeting, the council unanimously amended the ordinance so it
would not go into effect until the pallet housing is available.
Councilman Bader suggested the alteration and said it was always
his intention to have the two coincide.

Before the pallet village can be prepared, the mission and the city
must agree to terms on a management plan. The mission will also
need land-use permits from the city.

The city set a goal to have the shelter running by June.

"We need to expedite getting the pallet shelters up," Anderson
said. The mission "is ready to go, the pallet shelter company is
ready, so we just need the city to expedite whatever it takes to
get that up and running."

As many as 30 people could call the shelter village home. Still,
the 2020 Point-In-Time Count estimating the county's homeless
population identified 300 people without shelter in Everett.

The pallet project is budgeted at just north of $1 million to build
and operate.

For that price, homeless neighborhood resident Steve Claymore said,
he could build 200 shelters. [GN]


EXTENDICARE INC: Merchant Law Group Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
CKOM News reports that Extendicare in Saskatchewan is facing a
class-action lawsuit from the Merchant Law Group, alleging the care
home operator was negligent and failed to take steps that would
have protected its residents from COVID-19.

Regina lawyer Tony Merchant said Parkside Extendicare will be a key
focus of the claim. That was where a COVID-19 outbreak resulted in
200 residents and staff falling ill, with 38 people dying.

"The class action outlines a whole series of directions that
Parkside and other Extendicare long-term care facilities received
and did not follow," Merchant said.

"We believe we can recover for the families of people who died and
for people who got COVID in these institutions because Extendicare
mishandled the treatment, mishandled the directions, mishandled
controlling the communication of COVID in their facilities in
Saskatchewan."

Merchant said the company should be held accountable for its
"careless conduct," including not having protective equipment in
place, or protocols and plans to deal with outbreaks.

Speaking with 980 CJME on March 10, Merchant said his firm has been
contacted by four families. At the time of the interview,
Extendicare was not yet aware of the lawsuit, he said.

The provincial government has ordered an investigation into the
outbreak at Parkside Extendicare by the ombudsman.

That probe will investigate infection control practices,
Extendicare's adherence to public health orders and how it
responded to positive cases, among other matters.

While the province is not named in the suit, Merchant said it too
bears responsibility.

"They would tell Extendicare, 'Fix this,' and they didn't. And then
the government wouldn't do anything to enforce their rules," he
said.

"The government as well should be held to account but not through
this litigation. It should be held in the court of conscience
because this is not only Extendicare at fault, but the system. The
system at fault also caused a loss of life in this instance." [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Suit Over Open Display Ads Market Conspiracy
----------------------------------------------------------------
RAINTREE MEDICAL AND CHIROPRACTIC CENTER LLC and RODROCK
CHIROPRACTIC PA, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. FACEBOOK, INC.; GOOGLE LLC; and ALPHABET INC., Case No.
1:21-cv-00658 (D.D.C., March 11, 2020) is as class action complaint
for equitable relief and treble damages against the Defendants for
violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act by conspiring to collude
rather than compete and has caused and will continue to cause
injury and economic harm to Plaintiff and all other similarly
situated advertisers that bid through Google's Open Bidding program
through any non-FAN ad network or demand-side platform, including
Google Ads and GDN.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants' horizontally competing
ad networks, GDN and FAN, should vigorously compete for advertisers
and publishers, but they do not. Instead, as alleged in a complaint
filed against Google on December 16, 2020 by state attorneys
general and elaborated upon in an article in the New York Times on
January 17, 2021, the Defendants conspired to allocate to one
another the advertisers and publishers affiliated with each network
and to eliminate competition between them in the open display
advertising market.

In an agreement that Google insiders codenamed "Jedi Blue,"
Facebook agreed to bid FAN's demand through Google's ad exchange,
rather than directly through multiple exchanges using a competing
technology called "header bidding." In return for that agreement,
FAN received (i) preferential treatment over other bidders,
including a guaranteed "win rate;" (ii) superior information about
the advertising opportunity, including the identity of the user
most of the time; and (iii) increased "timeouts" for Facebook to
bid before it was excluded from the auction, all of which allowed
Facebook to bid and win more often relative to non-Facebook
bidders, the suit says.

Rodrock Chiropractic is a professional association company. The
company purchased display advertising through Google Ads between
September 2018 and the present. Raintree Medical and Chiropractic
Center is a limited liability company. The Plaintiffs purchased
display advertising through Google Ads between September 2018 and
the present.

Google is a technology company that provides internet-related
services and products, including online advertising technologies,
the world’s most dominant search engine, and the world's most
visited website, YouTube. Google LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary
of Alphabet.

In 2019, spending in the United States on digital, online
advertising reached $129.34 billion, exceeding for the first time
the total spent in the U.S. on all forms of traditional print,
radio, television and billboard advertising. In 2021, digital ad
spending in the U.S. is expected to reach $198 billion, about a
third of which, or $66.2 billion, will be spent on search
advertising, in which advertisers target search engine users
searching for a particular product or service and pay to have ads
placed next to the search results. This audience is composed mostly
of users of Google, which has an 88% share of search queries in the
U.S. and a 92% share of search queries worldwide. The remaining
U.S. digital ad spend, or about $132 billion, will be spent on
display advertising, in which advertisers place images, banners, or
videos on websites likely to be viewed by the advertiser’s target
audience.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan L. Rubin, Esq.
          Daniel J. Mogin, Esq.
          Jennifer M. Oliver, Esq.
          Timothy Z. LaComb, Esq.
          MOGINRUBIN LLP
          1615 M Street, NW, Third Floor
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 630-0616
          Facsimile: (877) 247-8586
          E-mail: jrubin@moginrubin.com
                  dmogin@moginrubin.com
                  joliver@moginrubin.com
                  tlacomb@moginrubin.com

               - and -

          Richard F. Lombardo, Esq.
          Peter F. Rottgers, Esq.
          SHAFFER LOMBARDO SHURIN
          2001 Wyandotte Street
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 931-0500
          Facsimile: (816) 931-5775
          E-mail: rlombardo@sls-law.com
                  prottgers@sls-law.com

FANDUEL GROUP: Klein Moynihan Attorney Discusses Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
David O. Klein, Esq., of Klein Moynihan Turco LLP, in an article
for Lexology, reports that in a substantial development in the
world of daily fantasy sports law, a behemoth in the industry,
FanDuel, has been named in a multi-state class action lawsuit
involving its online sportsbook platform. The lawsuit alleges
various state consumer protection law violations which, the
plaintiff claims, resulted in sports bettors being induced into
risky wagers that they would not otherwise have placed.

What were the alleged consumer protection violations contained in
the daily fantasy sports law class action suit?

FanDuel has been a leading player in the online sports gaming
industry for several years now, as both daily fantasy sports and
legal sports betting has proliferated across the country. Through
its mobile application, FanDuel users have access to real-time data
related to ongoing sporting events. This data, such as a game's
score and the amount of time remaining in the game, are displayed
next to that game's betting odds and other lines that users can
wager on while a game is underway, known as "live-wagering." The
lawsuit alleges that FanDuel alternatively understates how much
time is remaining in a given sporting event or otherwise reports a
game score that is materially different from the actual score in
relation to the game time left as shown in the mobile application.
The lawsuit further claims that these inaccuracies and/or
misrepresentations were intended to, and had the effect of,
inducing bettors to place bets on outcomes (such as game totals)
which appeared to the user as far likelier than the actual game
state would dictate. Consequently, the plaintiff in the subject
lawsuit alleges that users in every state where FanDuel operates a
regulated sportsbook were injured by placing wagers that they lost
and would not have placed had FanDuel provided truthful and
accurate data at the time of the subject bets, suffering damages
reaching into the millions of dollars.

Remaining Compliant with Daily Fantasy Sports Law

While FanDuel may be reliant on a third-party contractor to provide
its real-time data services, it nevertheless is now exposed to
millions of dollars in liability as a result of alleged delays
between the data that it provided to customers and the actual state
of the game when the subject bets were placed. FanDuel is no
stranger to legal complications. Although FanDuel has found itself
in hot water again, this lawsuit offers valuable lessons concerning
the importance of accurate representations for operators of both
online sportsbooks and daily fantasy sports platforms. Daily
fantasy sports and sports betting both exist in a space where state
legislatures and gaming regulators have historically been chiefly
concerned about contest integrity and consumer protection issues.
These are markets that are still nascent, with a user base that is
both engaged and eager to participate, but not always the most
sophisticated or educated in decision-making processes. The need to
be forthright and accurate when making representations to users is
paramount. Even the most careful operators can slip up without
proper guidance. Accordingly, in order to ensure compliance with
applicable consumer protection laws and gaming regulations, it is
critical that operators work closely with knowledgeable counsel to
regularly review contest rules, as well as platform structure,
prizes, and marketing representations. [GN]


FMA ALLIANCE: Faces Klein Suit Over Deceptive Collection Letter
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER KLEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FMA ALLIANCE, LTD., and JOHN DOES 1-25,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01516 (E.D.N.Y., March 23, 2021)
alleges the Defendant of violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff has an alleged debt incurred to U.S. Bank National
Association primarily used for personal, family or household
purposes on behalf of creditors using the United States Postal
Services, telephone and Internet.

According to the complaint, the Defendant contracted with the U.S.
Bank National Association to collect the alleged debt. Subsequently
on or about June 22, 2020, the Defendant sent a collection letter
to the Plaintiff stating that due to a payment of $451.18 the
balance due at charge-off has been reduced. The Plaintiff asserts
that the letter is deceptive because he did not make a $451.18
payment since the charge-off.

The Defendant's false statement has allegedly overshadowed the
Plaintiff's Section 1692g right to have the proper balance
currently owed stated in a non-confusing or clear, non-deceptive
manner. In addition, as the letter is open to more than one
reasonable interpretation and by making a false and misleading
representation, the Defendant has violated Section 1692e.

Because the Plaintiff has been damaged by the Defendant's
deceptive, misleading and unfair debt collection practices, the
Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class action seeking to
recover from the Defendant actual and statutory damages, litigation
costs with attorneys' fees and expenses, pre- and post-judgment
interest, and other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

FMA Alliance, Ltd. is a debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext. 107
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com


FMS INC: Faces Lamm Suit Over Deceptive Collection Letter
---------------------------------------------------------
ABRAHAM LAMM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FMS, INC., and John Does 1-25, Defendant,
Case No. 7:21-cv-02478 (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2021) alleges the
Defendant of violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a
collection letter on or about April 2, 2020 in an attempt to
collect his alleged debt incurred to Synchrony Bank primarily for
personal, family or household purposes on behalf of creditors using
the U.S. Postal Services, telephone and internet. The Plaintiff
asserts that the Defendant's collection letter is deceptive because
it states that he made a $0.01 payment since the charge-off
although he didn't make that payment, thereby violating Section
1692e of the FDCPA by making false and misleading representation.

The brings this complaint as a class action for himself and other
similarly situated individuals, who have been damaged by the
Defendant's deceptive, misleading and unfair debt collection
practices, seeking for actual and statutory damages, litigation
costs, reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court may deem just
and proper.

FMS, Inc. is a debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext. 141
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com


FUBOTV INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of April 19 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on March 10 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
fuboTV Inc. ("fuboTV" or "the Company") (NYSE: FUBO) for violations
of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between March 23,
2020 and January 4, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before April 19, 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. 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]


GATEWAY PLASTICS: Fails to Properly Pay OT, Holloway Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY HOLLOWAY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GATEWAY PLASTICS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00360-SCD (E.D. Wis., March 22, 2021) is a class
and collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for
its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Wisconsin Wage and Hour Laws.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as an hourly machine
operator at the Defendant's Mequon factory since March 22, 2018.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant employed a common policy
or practice requiring him and other similarly situated factory
workers to clock out at the beginning of a break and to clock in
when returning to work after a break, and refused to compensate
them for breaks lasting less than 30 minutes in length. AS a
result, despite working in excess of 40 hours per workweek while
performing their duties for the Defendant, the Plaintiff and other
factory workers were not properly paid for all hours they worked,
including overtime compensation at one and one-half times their
regular rates of pay for hours worked more than 40 in a workweek,
the suit says.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint for himself and other similarly
situated factory workers seeking to recover from the Defendant all
unpaid wages at the applicable agreed-upon wage and/or overtime
premium rates, all liquidated damages and/or civil penalties, all
costs and attorneys' fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and
other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

Gateway Plastics, Inc. is a manufacturer with a manufacturing plant
located in Mequon, Wisconsin that specializes in plastic injection
moldings among other services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
          Timothy P. Maynard, Esq.
          Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
          HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
          222 East Erie St., Suite 210
          Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
          Tel: (414) 271-8650
          Fax: (414) 271-8442
          E-mail: smurshid@hq-law.com
                  tmaynard@hq-law.com
                  ljohnson@hq-law.com


GEICO INSURANCE: Prudhomme Seeks 5th Cir. Review in Insurance Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Eric Prudhomme and Elvin Jack filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Prudhomme et al., v.
Geico Insurance Co. et al., Case No. 6:15-CV-98, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette.

The case involves the "valuation" that two GEICO entities,
Government Employees Insurance Company and GEICO General Insurance
Company, placed on vehicles determined to be total losses. Two
insureds, Plaintiffs Eric Prudhomme and Elvin Jack, contend that
the GEICO Defendants undervalued their vehicles when they made
claims for their respective total losses. The Plaintiffs allege
that the GEICO Defendants' use of the CCC One Market Valuation
Report system violates Louisiana statutory law.

The Plaintiffs are seeking a review of the Court's Order granting
Defendants' opposed motion for leave to appeal under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(f).

The appellate case is captioned as Eric Prudhomme v. Government
Employees Insurance, Case No. 21-30157, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on Mar. 24, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners Eric Prudhomme and Elvin Jack, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Kenneth W. Dejean, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH DEJEAN
          417 W. University
          Lafayette, LA 70506-0000
          Telephone: (337) 235-5294
          E-mail: kwdejean@kwdejean.com

               - and -

          Stephen B. Murray, Jr., Esq.
          MURRAY LAW FIRM
          650 Poydras Street
          Poydras Center
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 525-8100
          E-mail: smurrayjr@murray-lawfirm.com

               - and -

          Kenneth David St. Pe, Esq.
          Law Office of Kenneth D St Pe
          311 W. University Avenue
          Lafayette, LA 70506
          Telephone: (337) 534-4043  
          E-mail: kennethstpe@aol.com   

               - and -

          John Randall Whaley, Esq.
          WHALEY LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
          6700 Jefferson Highway, Building 12
          Baton Rouge, LA 70806
          Telephone: (225) 302-8810
          E-mail: jrwhaley@whaleylaw.com

Defendants-Respondents Government Employees Insurance Company and
Geico General Insurance Company are represented by:

          Stephen R. Barry, Esq.
          BARRY & COMPANY, L.L.C.
          612 Gravier Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130-0000
          Telephone: (504) 525-5553
          E-mail: sbarry@barrylawco.com

               - and -

          Dan W. Goldfine, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL
          2415 E. Camelback Road
          Phoenix, AZ
          Telephone: (480) 824-7890
          E-mail: dgoldfine@swlaw.com     

               - and -

          Margaret K. Heitkamp, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL
          555 E. Wells Street
          Milwaukee, WI
          Telephone: (414) 273-2100
          E-mail: margaret.heitkamp@huschblackwell.com   

               - and -

          Mark J. Neal, Esq.
          NEAL LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 14657
          Monroe, LA 71207
          Telephone: (318) 807-0926
          E-mail: mneal@neallawfirm.net    

               - and -

          Michael T. Raupp, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL, L.L.P.
          4801 Main Street
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 983-8000
          E-mail: michael.raupp@huschblackwell.com

               - and -

          Dominique Savinelli, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL, L.L.P.
          120 S. Riverside Plaza
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 655-1500   
          E-mail: dominique.savinelli@huschblackwell.com

GENESIS ENGINEERING: Misclassifies Service Employees, Curtis Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES CURTIS, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GENESIS ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 8:21-cv-00722-GJH (D. Md., March 22, 2021) is a
class and collective action complaint brought against the Defendant
seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Maryland Wage and Hour Law for its alleged failure to pay wages
and overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a temporary hourly
"Intern" in approximately June 2019, and he was promoted to
Procurement Specialist in approximately August 2019 as a full-time
employee until his termination of employment in February 2021.

The Plaintiff claims that he and other similarly situated service
employees were misclassified by the Defendant as exempt from
overtime compensation. Although he primarily performed non-exempt
work tasks throughout his employment with the Defendant,
approximately 50-60 hours per week, he was never paid any salary,
including overtime at one and one-half times of his regular rates
of pay for hours he worked over 40 in a workweek.

The Plaintiff also added that the Defendant ignored his complaint
about his unpaid overtime compensation. Instead, the Defendant's
supervisor Ryan Willbourn docked the Plaintiff's pay under the
false pretense that the Plaintiff left work early during weeks in
which he worked only about 40 hours.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff and members of the Maryland-SCA Subclass
are intended third-party beneficiaries under applicable federal
contracts. Because the Defendant failed to pay them for all hours
worked at the applicable SCA rate, the Defendant breach the
applicable federal service contracts. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks all
unpaid prevailing wages plus any additional damages provided in
applicable public contracts and all consequential damages resulting
from the breach, the suit added.

Genesis Engineering Solutions, Inc. provides aerospace design and
engineering services, primarily for NASA. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Goodley, Esq.
          GOODLEY LAW LLC
          One Liberty Place
          1650 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Tel: (215) 394-0541
          E-mail: james@goodleylaw.net


GERBER PRODUCTS: Baby Foods Contain Toxic Heavy Metals, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MUSLIN PIERRE-LOUIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY, Case No.
2:21-cv-04791 (D.N.J., March 11, 2021) is a consumer class action
brought individually by the Plaintiff individually and on behalf of
all persons, all of whom purchased one or more of certain baby
foods manufactured by Gerber.

The Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises, labels,
distributes, and sells baby food products under the brand name
Earth's Best throughout the United States.

According to the complaint, the Defendant does not list heavy
metals as an ingredient on the Products' labels nor does it warn of
the potential presence of heavy metals in the Products. Hain also
does not disclose that the ingredients of its supposedly organic
Products contain inorganic arsenic, the suit contends.

The complaint further asserts that, unbeknown to the Plaintiff and
members of the Class, and contrary to the representations on the
Products label, the Products contain heavy metals, including
inorganic arsenic, cadmium and lead at levels above what is
considered safe for babies, which, if disclosed to the Plaintiff
and members of the Class prior to purchase, would have caused
Plaintiff and members of the Class not to purchase or consume the
Products. As a result, the Products' labeling is deceptive and
misleading, the suit adds.

The Plaintiffs and the Class thus bring claims for consumer fraud
and seek damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, interest,
costs, and attorneys' fees.

Gerber is an American manufacturer of Baby Food Products. Gerber
claims to be one of the "world’s most trusted name in baby
food."

The Gerber products at issue are: Gerber Toddler Mashed Potatoes &
Gravy with Roasted Chicken Meal, Gerber Toddler Pick-ups Chicken &
Carrot Ravioli Meal, Gerber Toddler Spaghetti Rings in Meat Sauce
Meal, Gerber Toddler Spiral Pasta in Turkey, Meat Sauce Meal,
Gerber Toddler Pick-ups Chicken & Carrot Ravioli.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew R. Mendelsohn, Esq.
          Adam M. Slater, Esq.
          Julia S. Slater, Esq.
          MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN, LLC
          103 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 228-0391

GOOGLE LLC: Lords Sues Over Alleged Illegal Online Casino Games
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHELLIE LORDS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. GOOGLE, LLC and GOOGLE PAYMENT CORP., Case No.
5:21-cv-01725 (N.D. Cal., March 11, 2021) is a class action arising
from Google's profiting from illegal gambling games developed by
DoubleU Games Co., Ltd. and offered, sold, and distributed by
Google through its Google Play Store for consumers to download and
play.

Google offers, sells, and distributes casino-style slot machines,
casino-style table games, and other common gambling games to
consumers through Google Play, which allegedly constitutes illegal
gambling pursuant to the law of various states.

Plaintiff Lords is an adult citizen and resident of the state of
Washington.

Google LLC is the primary operating subsidiary of the publicly
traded holding company, Alphabet Inc. GPC provides in-app payment
processing services to Android app developers and consumers through
Google Play. Google requires app developers who distribute their
apps on Google Play to use its billing system if they offer in-app
purchases of digital goods, and to pay a service fee from a
percentage of the purchase.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 788-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
          E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com

               - and -

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
          Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW
          FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          1 West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
          E-Mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                  alperstein@kolawyers.com
                  cardoso@kolawyers.com

GOOGLE LLC: Must Face Class Action Over Incognito Mode Browsing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg reports that Google failed to kill a lawsuit alleging
that it secretly scoops up troves of internet data even if users
browse in "Incognito" mode to keep their search activity private.

The consumers who filed the case as a class action alleged that
even when they turn off data collection in Chrome, other Google
tools used by websites end up amassing their personal information.
A federal judge on March 12 denied the Alphabet unit's initial
request to throw out the case.

"The court concludes that Google did not notify users that Google
engages in the alleged data collection while the user is in private
browsing mode," US District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose,
Califor­nia, wrote in her ruling.

The ruling comes as Google and Apple Inc. face intense scrutiny by
lawmakers over their data gathering practices. Google has said it
will next year eliminate third-party cookies that help advertisers
keep tabs on consumers' web activity and won't employ alternative
methods to track individuals.

"We strongly dispute these claims and we will defend ourselves
vigorously against them," Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda said
in a emailed statement. "Incognito mode in Chrome gives you the
choice to browse the internet without your activity being saved to
your browser or device. As we clearly state each time you open a
new incognito tab, websites might be able to collect information
about your browsing activity during your session."

Three Google users filed a complaint in June claiming the company
carries on a "pervasive data tracking business." Google collects
browsing history and other web activity data even after users
employ safeguards to protect their data such as using "Incognito"
private browsing mode, according to the complaint. [GN]


GORMAN GROUP: Spiciarich Suit Seeks Initial OK of Settlement Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW SPICIARICH, JOEL
O'NEIL, and IAN ANDERSON, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. THE GORMAN GROUP, LLC; GORMAN BROS., INC.;
ALBERT MARK GORMAN, individually; and PAUL ANTHONY GORMAN,
individually, Case No. 1:20-cv-00646-CFH (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. granting preliminary approval of the Joint Stipulation of
      Settlement and Release (Settlement Agreement);

   2. conditionally certifying the following settlement class under

      Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a); and (b)(3) for purposes of
      effectuating the settlement:

      "All persons employed by Gorman in New York during the time
      period of June 9, 2014 through January 20, 2021 who were
      compensated by Gorman for unpaid travel time in June 2020 and

      September 2020;"

   3. appointing Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP as Class Counsel;

   4. approving the Plaintiffs' Notice of Class and Collective
      Action Lawsuit Settlement and Fairness Hearing;

   5. granting preliminary approval of the retention of A.B. Data,

      Ltd. to administer the settlement process and distribute the

      Notice of Class and Collective Action Lawsuit Settlement and

      Fairness Hearing;

   6. approving the Plaintiffs' proposed schedule for final
      settlement approval; and

   7. granting such other, further, or different relief as the
      Court deems just and proper.

Gorman Group is located in Albany, New York and is part of the
highway, street, and bridge construction contractors industry.

A copy of Plaintiff's motion dated March 22, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cPh3BF at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
          Hunter G Benharris, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 300-0375

GRIDDY ENERGY: Plans to File for Bankruptcy Amid Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Scurria and Alexander Gladstone, writing for Wall Street
Journal, report that upstart Texas power retailer Griddy Energy
LLC, devoid of customers and facing litigation after charging hefty
amounts during the winter freeze that swept the state last month,
is planning to file for bankruptcy, people familiar with the matter
said.

Griddy is preparing to wind down its business through a bankruptcy
filing that could come within days, according to people familiar
with the matter. Texas regulators have already barred Griddy from
the state power market after the company passed steep increases in
electricity prices on to customers during the February energy
crisis.

While most consumers in Texas buy electricity at fixed rates from
municipal utilities and power retailers, Griddy offered access to
variable electricity prices that skyrocketed during the extreme
winter weather. When spot prices briefly shot up to $9,000 per
megawatt hour during the winter freeze, compared with an average
last year of less than $22, Griddy customers complained of
receiving exorbitant bills, part of a broader backlash over how
regulators and market participants handled the weather emergency.
[GN]



HEDDEN ENTERPRISES: Plaintiff's "Oversized Brief" Request Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Zotter, Jr., Esq., writing for The Ukiah Daily Journal,
reports that from our "Judicial Editor" file comes a 2012 case out
of Tampa, Florida, in which the plaintiffs filed a motion asking
the judge to permit them to file an "oversized brief." Federal
courts and, especially, appellate courts, have strict page limits
because judges (okay, their clerks) have to read so many thousands
of pages each month that life would become unmanageable without
putting a cap on how much litigants have to say. They seem to fall
in love with their own cases, and just can't seem to bring
themselves to edit their own work.

In this case, the litigants were a group of people suing Hedden
Enterprises, a technology company of some kind, about overtime pay.
They submitted their request to federal District Judge Stephen
Merryday (who has the happiest name on the bench). But this time,
District Judge Merryday wasn't having a . . . well, okay, I won't
say it.

Specifically, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking to be allowed to
exceed the 25-page limit on motions. In this case, they were asking
to have their overtime case certified as a class action, which can
substantially increase the defendant's liability, and give the
plaintiffs better bargaining leverage. Judge Merryday explained
that, "The motion [to file an oversized brief]states, 'The complex
factual and legal issues involved[ ] make it difficult to meet the
page limitation of twenty-five [ ] pages.'" The plaintiffs then
submitted a proposed 29-page motion. Judge Merryday explained that,
the request to file an oversized brief was "Based on the mistaken
premise that this FLSA collective action presents atypically
complex issues . . . ."

But he was not impressed by that logic. As he explained in his
order denying the request, "A review of the proposed,
twenty-nine-page motion's commencement confirms that a modicum of
informed editorial revision easily reduces the motion to
twenty-five pages without a reduction in substance." And he cited
this example taken from that "commencement":

"Compare this:

"Plaintiffs, ZACHARY BELLI, BENJAMIN PETERSON, ERIC KINSLEY, and
LARRY JOHNSON, (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiffs"),
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated ("Class
members"), by and through the undersigned counsel and pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, (the "FLSA"), 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b) files this motion seeking an order [move] (1) [to]
conditionally certifying this case as a collective class action;
(2) [to] requir[e]ing the Defendant, HEDDEN ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a
INFINITY TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS (hereinafter "Defendant"), to produce
and disclose all of the names[,] and last known addresses[,] and
telephone numbers of the [each] potential C[c]lass M[m]embers so
that notice may be implemented; and (3) [to] authoriz[e]ing notice
by U.S. First Class mail to all [of this action to each] similarly
situated persons employed by Defendant within the past three (3)
years[.] to inform them of the pendency of this suit and to inform
them of their right to opt-in to this lawsuit. In support of this
Motion, Plaintiffs sets forth the following facts and provides this
Court with a Memorandum of Law in support of the Motion, and
asserts as follows:

"To this:

"Plaintiffs move (1) to conditionally certify a collective action;
(2) to require the Defendant to produce the name, address, and
telephone number of each potential class member; and (3) to
authorize notice of this action to each similarly situated person
employed by Defendant within three years."

The second version, of course, is a re-write of the original,
eliminating the strike-outs and brackets. In case your copy of this
doesn't show the strike-out type, Judge Merryday eliminated every
word in his "Before" example that doesn't appear in the "After"
one. The words that appear in brackets convert the tense of the
verbs or substitute an occasional word for clarity.

Merryday concludes by telling the plaintiffs that they have a week
to file a 25-page brief, by "concentrating on eliminating
redundancy, verbosity, and legalism." He helpfully cites a book by
the well-known advocate for better, clearer legal writing, Bryan
Garner.

Heck, that one paragraph he re-wrote for them might have done the
trick all by itself. The original was definitely written by a
lawyer, because it uses some of the common "tells" from legal
writing -- putting the parties' names in ALL CAPS (which wastes a
lot of space all by itself) and putting number in parentheses after
spelling them out.

And the best part was . . . the judge didn't even have to read the
whole original version to find an example of what to cut.

Frank Zotter, Jr. is a Ukiah attorney. [GN]


HYLANDS INC: Allen Appeals Ruling in Fraud Suit to 9th Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Kim Allen, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit titled Kim Allen, et al. v. Hylands, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-01150-DMG-MAN, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.  

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
allege breach of express warranty, and violations of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the California Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, the California's Unfair Competition Law and the False
Advertising Law. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants'
products did not perform as stated on the product packaging because
they cannot relieve certain symptoms as represented.

The Plaintiffs seek a review of the Court's Order and Judgment
dated February 23, 2021, entered in favor of Defendants against
Plaintiffs as to all of their claims on the unfair business
practice prong of the Unfair Competition Law as to all nine
products at issue.

The appellate case is captioned as Kim Allen, et al. v. Hylands,
Inc., et al., Case No. 21-55289, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 26, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Kim Allen, Melissa Nigh, Nancy Rodriguez, Diana
Sisti, Sherrell Smith, Daniel Xenos and Yuanke Xu Mediation
Questionnaire was due on April 2, 2021;

   -- Appellants Kim Allen, Melissa Nigh, Nancy Rodriguez, Diana
Sisti, Sherrell Smith, Daniel Xenos and Yuanke Xu opening brief is
due on May 24, 2021;

   -- Appellees Hylands, Inc. and Standard Homeopathic Company
answering brief is due on June 23, 2021; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants KIM ALLEN, DANIEL XENOS, SHERRELL SMITH,
NANCY RODRIGUEZ, YUANKE XU, DIANA SISTI, and MELISSA NIGH, on
behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the
general public, are represented by:

          Michael Houchin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006

               - and -

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com  

Defendant-Appellee HYLANDS, INC., a California corporation, and
STANDARD HOMEOPATHIC COMPANY are represented by:

          Yuchen Guo, Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
          555 S. Flower Street, 41st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 892-9294
          E-mail: andy.guo@nortonrosefulbright.com    

               - and -

          Jeffrey B. Margulies, Esq.
          FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP
          555 South Flower Street, 41st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 892-9200
          E-mail: jeff.margulies@nortonrosefulbright.com  

               - and -

          Spencer Stephen Persson, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          865 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566
          Telephone: (213) 633-8634
          E-mail: spencer.persson@nortonrosefulbright.com

IMMUNOVANT INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of April 20 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on March 10 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Immunovant, Inc. (NASDAQ: IMVT) ("Immunovant" or "the Company") for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between 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.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]


IMMUNOVANT INC: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of April 20 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on March 15 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.

Penumbra, Inc. (NYSE:PEN)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/penumbra-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=13646&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 16, 2021
Class Period: August 3, 2020 - December 15, 2020

Allegations against PEN include that: (1) that the Jet 7 Xtra Flex
had known design defects that made it unsafe for its normal use;
(2) that Penumbra did not adequately address the risk of the Jet 7
Xtra Flex causing serious injury and deaths, which had in fact
already occurred; (3) that the Jet 7 Xtra Flex was likely to be
recalled due to its safety issues; and (4) as a result, Penumbra's
public statements as set forth above were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

Immunovant, Inc. f/k/a Health Sciences Acquisitions Corporation
(NASDAQ:HSACW)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/immunovant-inc-f-k-a-health-sciences-acquisitions-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=13646&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 20, 2021
Class Period: October 2, 2019 - February 1, 2021

Allegations against HSACW include that: (i) 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; (ii) IMVT-1401 was less safe than the
Company had led investors to believe, particularly with respect to
treating TED and WAIHA; (iii) the foregoing foreseeably diminished
IMVT-1401's prospects for regulatory approval, commercial
viability, and profitability; and (iv) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

AgEagle Aerial Systems, Inc. (NYSE:UAVS)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/ageagle-aerial-systems-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=13646&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 27, 2021
Class Period: September 3, 2019 - February 18, 2021

Allegations against UAVS include 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 AgEagle's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis 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]


INFUCARE RX: Faces Marc Irwin Suit Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARC IRWIN SHARFMAN, M.D., P.A., a Florida corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. INFUCARE RX LLC, a Pennsylvania
limited liability company, and INFUCARE RX PENNSYLVANIA INC., a
Pennsylvania corporation, Defendants, Case No.
6:21-cv-00525-WWB-DCI (M.D. Fla., March 23, 2021) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants sent an unsolicited
facsimile on or about March 11, 2021 using a telephone facsimile
machine, computer, or other device in an attempt to advertise the
commercial availability and/or quality of the Defendants' Specialty
and Non-Specialty Infusion Services. Allegedly, the Defendants did
not obtain the Plaintiff's "prior express invitation or permission"
to send the fax.

According to the complaint, the Defendants faxed the same and other
unsolicited facsimile advertisements without the required opt-out
language to the Plaintiff and at least 40 other recipients without
obtaining first their "express invitation or permission".

As a result of the Defendants' alleged unlawful conduct, the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals have been
damaged by causing them to lose paper and toner consumed in the
printing of the Defendant's faxes, intruding into their seclusion,
and invading their privacy. Thus, on behalf of itself and other
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff seeks actual and
statutory damages, pre-judgment interest, litigation costs, and
other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

The Corporate Defendants provide comprehensive and unparalleled
clinical therapy management services to patients with complex
conditions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Tel: (847) 368-1500
          Fax: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com



J.J. MARSHALL: Court Junks Gartrell Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACARA MONIQUE GARTRELL,
etc., v. J.J. MARSHALL & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No.
3:19-cv-00442-TJC-JBT (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Timothy J.
Corrigan entered an order that the motion for class certification
is no longer a viable motion and is therefore terminated.

J.J. Marshall provides recovery of account receivables and debt
collection services.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 22, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cQlr3f
at no extra charge.[CC]


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: SDCERA Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANK HALL, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. JOHNSON &
JOHNSON, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-01833-FLW-TJB (D.N.J.), the Lead
Plaintiff San Diego County Employees Retirement Association asks
the Court to enter an order

   1. certifying the case as a class action pursuant to Federal
      Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3);

   2. appointing Lead Plaintiff SDCERA as Class Representative;
and

   3. appointing Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Class
Counsel.

SDCERA provides retirement and beneficiary services.

Johnson & Johnson is an American multinational corporation founded
in 1886 that develops medical devices, pharmaceuticals, and
consumer packaged goods.

A copy of the Lead Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March
22, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3wrcAg2 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Lead Plaintiff SDCERA is represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN,
          BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
          E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          Arthur C. Leahy, Esq.
          Robert R. Henssler Jr., Esq.
          Nathan R. Lindell, Esq.
          Laura M. Andracchio, Esq.
          Hillary B. Stakem, Esq.
          Matthew J. Balotta, Esq.
          Alexander Mendoza, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
          & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
                  artl@rgrdlaw.com
                  bhenssler@rgrdlaw.com
                  nlindell@rgrdlaw.com
                  landracchio@rgrdlaw.com
                  hstakem@rgrdlaw.com
                  mbalotta@rgrdlaw.com
                  amendoza@rgrdlaw.com

KELSEY-SEYBOLD: Chapman Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Premiums
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELIA CHAPMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KELSEY-SEYBOLD MEDICAL GROUP, PLLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-00942 (S.D. Tex., March 23, 2021)
brings this complaint against the Defendant for its alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal
Act.

The Plaintiff began working for the Defendant on or about July 25,
2016 until the present as a non-exempt medical billing auditor in
which her primary duties involve reviewing medical billing
records.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was converted into an
overtime eligible hourly paid employee to reduce the amount of pay
owed to her a she was no longer working significant overtime when
the Defendant experienced a business downturn on or about September
2020. But prior to that, she routinely worked in excess of 40 hours
per workweek as a salaried employee. However, the Defendant did not
pay her overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times
her regular rate of pay for all hours she worked over 40 during
each and every workweek, the suit says.

The Plaintiff seeks damages for the Defendant's failure to pay her
overtime premium pay during the 3-year period between December 15,
2017 and the date she was converted to an hourly paid employee in
or around September 2020, as well as liquidated damages, legal
fees, costs, post-judgment interest, and other relief to which the
Plaintiff may be justly entitled.

Kelsey-Seybold Medical Group, PLLC provides medical services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          SHELLIST LAZARS SLOBIN LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: (713) 621-2277
          Fax: (713) 621-0993
          E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net
                  marbuckle@eeoc.net


KRIEGER LAW: Almada Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in FDCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jeffrey A. Almada filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled JEFFREY A. ALMADA, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated class members v. KRIGER
LAW FIRM, A.P.C., Case No. 3:19-cv-02109-TWR-MDD, in the U.S.
District Court for Southern California, San Diego.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks remedies for Krieger's violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act with regard to its attempts to unlawfully and
abusively collect a debt allegedly owed by the Plaintiff.

Mr. Almada seeks a review of the Court's Judgment dated March 8,
2021, granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment, denying his
motion for summary judgment, denying as moot his motion for class
certification, and granting his sealing motion.

The appellate case is captioned as Jeffrey Almada v. Krieger Law
Firm, A.P.C., Case No. 21-55275, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 24, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Jeffrey A. Almada Mediation Questionnaire was due
on March 31, 2021;

   -- Appellant Jeffrey A. Almada opening brief is due on May 26,
2021;

   -- Appellee Krieger Law Firm, A.P.C. answering brief is due on
June 28, 2021; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant JEFFREY A. ALMADA, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated class members, is represented by:

          Yana A. Hart, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          E-mail: yana@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com  

Defendant-Appellee KRIEGER LAW FIRM, A.P.C. is represented by:

          John Paul Girarde, Esq.
          MURPHY, PEARSON, BRADLEY & FEENEY
          88 Kearny Street
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 788-1900
          E-mail: jgirarde@mpbf.com

LINCOLN NATIONAL: Vida Longevity Fund Suit v. LLANY Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 9, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that
the class action suit entitled, Vida Longevity Fund, LP v. Lincoln
Life & Annuity Company of New York (LLANY), is still ongoing.  

Vida Longevity Fund, LP v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New
York, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, No. 1:19-cv-06004, is a putative class action that was
filed on June 27, 2019.  

Plaintiff alleges that LLANY charged more for non-guaranteed cost
of insurance than was permitted by the policies.  

Plaintiff seeks to represent all current and former owners of
universal life (including variable universal life) policies who own
or owned policies issued by LLANY and its predecessors in interest
that were in force at any time on or after June 27, 2013, and which
contain non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are
similar to those of Plaintiff's policies.  

Plaintiff also seeks to represent a sub-class of such policyholders
who own or owned "life insurance policies issued in the State of
New York."  

Plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of the policyholder class and
sub-class.  

Lincoln National said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."

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

The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance
services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities,
accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group
benefits, individual and group retirement plans. Lincoln National
Life Insurance serves customers in the United States. The company
is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana.


LINEN USA: Underpays Laundry Attendants, Rojas Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
ANA D. ROJAS, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff
v. LINEN USA, LLC, AJAM SERVICES LLC, DANIEL E. CANELO, and AURI B.
MATEO, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-21095-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., March 22, 2021) seeks to recover money damages from the
Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for its alleged
unpaid minimum and overtime wages.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempted,
full-time laundry attendant from approximately July 15, 2019 to the
present March 5, 2021.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action
asserting that despite working more than 40 hours every week and
was not able to take bona fide lunch periods, the Defendants did
not compensate her for all hours she worked, including overtime
hours. Although she was paid for almost all her working hours, but
at the regular rate only. As a result, the Defendant allegedly
failed to pay her minimum wages and overtime compensation at the
rate of one and one-half times her regular rate for every hour that
she worked over 40.

Linen USA, LLC is a dry-cleaning establishment that provides
laundry services to commercial accounts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Tel: (305) 446-1500
          Fax: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


LITTLE BEACH: Martinez Sues Over Unpaid Wages & Benefits for Cooks
------------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMUNDO HERNANDEZ MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LITTLE BEACH HOUSE MALIBU,
LLC; SOHO HOUSE WEST HOLLYWOOD LLC; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV12279 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., April 1, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code, the
California Business and Professions Code, and the Private Attorney
General Act of 2004 including failure to pay wages, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to provide all required information upon
hiring, failure to provide paid sick, failure to provide meal and
rest periods, failure to provide itemized wage statements, failure
to indemnify, waiting time penalties, and unfair competition.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt cook from
on or about April 2016 until on or about January 26, 2020.

Little Beach House Malibu, LLC is a social club in Malibu,
California.

Soho House West Hollywood LLC is a social club in West Hollywood,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                                   
          
         
         Kaveh S. Elihu, Esq.
         Jacob Karczewski, Esq.
         Daniel J. Friedman, Esq.
         EMPLOYEE JUSTICE LEGAL GROUP, P.C.
         3055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100
         Los Angeles, CA 90010
         Telephone: (213) 382-2222
         Facsimile: (213) 382-2230

LLOYD'S LONDON: Town Kitchen Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Town Kitchen LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled TOWN KITCHEN LLC, individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CERTAIN
UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON KNOWN AS SYNDICATE ENH 5151, NEO
2468 XLC 2003, TAL 1183, TRV 5000, AGR 3268, ACS 1856, NV A 2007,
HDU 382, PPP 1980, AMA 1200, ASC 1414 AND VSM 5678; INDIAN HARBOR
INSURANCE COMPANY; and HDI GLOBAL SPECIAL TY SE, Defendants, Case
No. 1:20-cv-22832-FAM, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.

The lawsuit is one of many in a long line of insurance disputes
stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic and its related effects on
businesses. Plaintiff Town Kitchen, LLC operates a restaurant at
7301 SW 57th Court, Suite 100, South Miami, Florida 33143.
Defendant Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London issued all-risk
commercial property insurance policy AVS011418900 to Plaintiff.
Plaintiffs submitted an insurance claim, and on July 7, 2020,
Defendants denied the claim. The Plaintiff sued for breach of
contract and a declaratory judgment.

The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Court's Order dated
February 26, 2021, granting Defendants' motion to dismiss the
case.

The appellate case is captioned as Town Kitchen LLC v. Certain
Underwriters at LLOYD'S, LONDON, et al., Case No. 21-10992, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on
March 26, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- The appellant's brief is due on or before May 5, 2021;

   -- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of
the appellant's brief;

   -- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
before April 9, 2021 as to Appellant Town Kitchen LLC; and

   -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
before April 23, 2021 as to Appellee HDI Global Specialty SE.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant TOWN KITCHEN LLC, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated, is represented by:

          Michael Elliot Criden, Esq.
          Linda Caryn Grossman, Esq.
          Kevin Bruce Love, Esq.
          CRIDEN & LOVE, PA
          7301 SW 57th Ct Ste. 515
          South Miami, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 357-9000
          E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com
                  lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
                  klove@cridenlove.com  

               - and -

          Jason S. Mazer, Esq.
          CIMO MAZER MARK PLLC
          100 SE 2nd St Ste 3650
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 374-6480
          E-mail: jmazer@cmmlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
          NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, PC
          570 Lexington Ave 19th Fl.
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 702-7054
          E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com   

Defendants-Appellees CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON, Known
As Syndicate ENH 5151, NEO 2468 XLC 2003, TAL 1183, TRV 5000, AGR
3268, ACS 1856, NVA 2007, HDU 382, PPP 1980, AMA 1200, ASC 1414 and
VSM 5678; INDIAN HARBOR INSURANCE COMPANY; and HDI GLOBAL SPECIALTY
SE, are represented by:

          John D. Mullen, Esq.
          Jason Alexander Phifer, Esq.
          Sarah Beth Van Schoyck, Esq.
          PHELPS DUNBAR, LLP
          100 S Ashley Dr Ste 2000
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 472-7550
          E-mail: john.mullen@phelps.com
                  sarah.vanschoyck@phelps.com

MALLINCKRODT PLC: Castillo Suit Consolidated w/ Generic Pricing MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 25, 2020, that the putative class action
suit entitled, Cesar Castillo, Inc., et al. v. Actavis Holdco U.S.,
Inc., et al., has been consolidated with Generic Pricing MDL.

In February 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and more than thirty other pharmaceutical manufacturers
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, captioned Cesar Castillo, Inc., et al. v. Actavis
Holdco U.S., Inc., et al.

The lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of all persons or
entities that directly purchased certain generic drugs from
defendants or from one of defendants' direct customers-where the
direct customer is alleged to be a completely involved
co-conspirator-between July 1, 2009, and the present.

The complaint has similar allegations as the 1199SEIU National
Benefit Fund litigation and seeks damages for violations of
Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act.

This lawsuit has been consolidated with the Generic Pricing MDL.

Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments,
Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company
was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United
Kingdom.


MALLINCKRODT PLC: City of Marietta Putative Class Suit Closed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 25, 2020, that the putative class action
suit entitled, City of Marietta v. Mallinckrodt ARD LLC, has been
administratively closed in light of the Chapter 11 Cases.

In February 2020, the City of Marietta, Georgia filed a putative
civil class action complaint against the Company in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia relating to the
price of Acthar Gel. The complaint, which pleads one claim for
unjust enrichment, purports to be brought on behalf of third-party
payers and their beneficiaries as well as people without insurance
in the U.S. and its Territories who paid for Acthar Gel from four
years prior to the filing of the Complaint until the date of trial.


The case is proceeding as City of Marietta v. Mallinckrodt ARD LLC.


Marietta alleges that it has paid $2 million to cover the cost of
an Acthar Gel prescription of an employee and that the Company has
been unjustly enriched as a result.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter, and
has moved to dismiss the complaint.

The Company's motion to dismiss was pending when the Company filed
the Chapter 11 Cases.

On October 16, 2020, the court ordered the case administratively
closed in light of the Chapter 11 Cases.

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

Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments,
Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company
was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United
Kingdom.


MALLINCKRODT PLC: Court Stays Employee Stock Purchase Plan Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 25, 2020, that the trial court entered
an order acknowledging the automatic stay of the Employee Stock
Purchase Plan Securities litigation as to the Company pursuant to
Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code.

In July 2017, a purported purchaser of Mallinckrodt stock through
Mallinckrodt's Employee Stock Purchase Plans (ESPPs) filed a
derivative and class action lawsuit in the Federal District Court
in the Eastern District of Missouri, captioned Solomon v.
Mallinckrodt plc, et al., against the Company, its CEO, its former
CFO, its Controller Kathleen A. Schaefer, and current and former
directors of the Company.

On September 6, 2017, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its complaint
in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
and refiled virtually the same complaint in the D.C. District
Court.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Mallinckrodt stock between November
25, 2014, and January 18, 2017, through the ESPPs.

In the alternative, the plaintiff alleges a class action for those
same purchasers/acquirers of stock in the ESPPs during the same
period. The complaint asserts claims under Section 11 of the
Securities Act and for breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentation,
non-disclosure, mismanagement of the ESPPs' assets and breach of
contract arising from substantially similar allegations as those
contained in the Shenk class action lawsuit.

Stipulated co-lead plaintiffs were approved by the court on March
1, 2018. Co-lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 4,
2018 having a class period of July 14, 2014 to November 6, 2017.
The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

On July 6, 2018, this matter was stayed by agreement of the parties
pending resolution of the Shenk class action lawsuit.

The defendants intend to vigorously defend themselves in this
matter.

On October 13, 2020, the trial court entered an order acknowledging
the automatic stay of this litigation as to the Company pursuant to
Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code, and the Company has requested
an order from the Bankruptcy Court enjoining proceedings against
the individual named defendants.

Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments,
Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company
was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United
Kingdom.


MALLINCKRODT PLC: Shaver Putative Class Suit Stayed
---------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 25, 2020, that the putative class action
suit entitled, Laura Shaver v. Mallinckrodt Canada ULC, et al., No.
VLC-S-S-205793, has been stayed.

On June 1, 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
Mallinckrodt plc, Mallinckrodt Canada ULC, the Canadian Ministry of
Health ("Province") and the College of Pharmacists of British
Columbia in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, captioned Laura
Shaver v. Mallinckrodt Canada ULC, et al., No. VLC-S-S-205793.

The action purports to be brought on behalf of any persons (1)
prescribed Methadose for opioid agonist treatment in British
Columbia after March 1, 2014, (2) covered by Pharmacare Plan C
within British Columbia who were prescribed Methadose for opioid
agonist treatment after February 1, 2014, (3) who transitioned from
compounded methadone to Methadose for opioid agonist treatment in
British Columbia after March 1, 2014, or (4) covered by Pharmacare
Plan C within British Columbia who were transitioned from
compounded methadone to Methadose for opioid agonist treatment
after February 1, 2014.

The suit generally alleges that the Province's decision to grant
Methadose coverage under Pharmacare Plan C and remove compounded
methadone from coverage under Pharmacare Plan C had adversely
affected those being treated for opioid use disorder.

The suit asserts that the Province, the College and the
Mallinckrodt defendants failed to warn patients about, and made
false representations concerning, the efficacy of Methadose and the
risks of switching from compounded methadone to Methadose.

The suit seeks general, special, aggravated, punitive and exemplary
damages in an unspecified amount, costs and interest and injunctive
relief against the Province, the College and the Mallinckrodt
defendants. Pursuant to two orders granted by the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice (Commercial List) on October 15, 2020, the Chapter
11 proceedings commenced by Mallinckrodt plc and Mallinckrodt
Canada ULC pursuant to the U.S. Bankruptcy Code were recognized and
given effect in Canada.

Among other things, the Canadian Court has stayed all proceedings
against the Mallinckrodt defendants, including the British Columbia
class action proceedings.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. At
this stage, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the
expected amount or range of cost or any loss associated with this
lawsuit.

Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments,
Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company
was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United
Kingdom.


MDC PARTNERS: Wilhelm Balks at Proposed Merger Deal With Stagwell
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT WILHELM v. MDC PARTNERS INC., MARK J. PENN, CHARLENE
BARSHEFSKY, WADE OOSTERMAN, ASHA DANIERE, DESIRÉE ROGERS, BRADLEY
J. GROSS, and IRWIN D. SIMON, Case No. 2:21-cv-02219 (C.D. Cal.,
March 11, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff against MDC
Partners and the members of MDC's Board of Directors for their
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R.

The suit seeks to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction,
pursuant to which MDC  will be acquired by Stagwell Media LP
(Stagwell) and its business will merge with the business of the
subsidiaries of Stagwell that own and operate a portfolio of
marketing services companies (the "Stagwell Subject Entities").

Stagwell currently owns approximately 19.4% of the Company's
outstanding shares. On December 21, 2020, MDC and Stagwell issued a
joint press release announcing that they had entered into a
transaction agreement dated December 21, 2020 (the "Merger
Agreement") to merge MDC with Stagwell. Under the terms of the
Merger Agreement, the Transaction will be effected using an "Up-C"
partnership structure, to permit additional basis step-up and
depreciation for the combined company. Pursuant to the Transaction,
MDC will be converted into a limited liability company that holds
both Stagwell's subsidiaries and MDC's operating assets and
Stagwell will contribute its operating businesses to MDC as so
converted. The limited liability company will be owned in part by a
newly-formed NASDAQ-listed company incorporated in Delaware ("New
MDC"), and in part by Stagwell.

On February 8, 2021, MDC filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement
with the SEC. The Registration Statement, which recommends that MDC
stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits or
misrepresents material information concerning the Company's and
Stagwell's financial projections and the financial analyses
supporting the fairness opinions provided by the financial advisors
to the special committee of the Board ("Special Committee"), Moelis
& Company LLC and Canaccord Genuity Corp., the suit says.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants authorized the issuance
of the false and misleading Registration Statement in violation of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

In short, unless remedied, MDC's public stockholders will be
irreparably harmed because the Registration Statement's alleged
material misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making
a sufficiently informed voting decision on the Proposed
Transaction.

The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the Proposed
Transaction unless and until such Exchange Act violations are
cured.

Formed in 1986, MDC is a leading global marketing and
communications network, providing marketing and business solutions
that realize the potential of combining data and creativity. The
Individual Defendants are officers and directors of the Company.

Stagwell is a private equity firm that manages investment in new
media and digital marketing services. Stagwell was founded in 2015
by defendant Penn, who is a limited partner and has served as
managing partner of Stagwell since its inception. The Stagwell
companies have over 3,700 employees operating in more than 20
countries across North America, Asia, Europe and South
America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          9100 Wilshire Blvd. No. 725 E.
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 208-2800
          Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
          E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com

MIAMI POOL: Fails to Pay Pool Technicians' Overtime, Rojas Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE M. ROJAS, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff
v. MIAMI POOL TECH, INC., and CARLOS HERNANDEZ, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-21090-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 22, 2021)
brings this collective action complaint to recover money damages
from the Defendants as a result of its alleged failure to pay
overtime wages and retaliation in violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a non-exempted,
full-time, hourly-paid pool technician from January 2008 through
March 31, 2018.

The Plaintiff asserts that although he regularly worked more than
40 hours per week for a total of 63 hours weekly, the Defendant
paid him at his regular rate only. The Defendant failed to pay his
overtime hours at one and one-half times his regular rate of pay
for all hours he worked over 40 in a workweek. Additionally, the
Defendant paid him weekly with checks and paystubs that did not
provide information about the number of days and hours worked. The
Defendant also failed to maintain accurate and complete time
records of hours worked by the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated pool technicians, the suit alleges.

Miami Pool Tech, Inc. is a company specialized in commercial and
residential pool remodeling, maintenance, and related services.
Carlos Hernandez is the owner/partner and operator of Miami Pool
Tech. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Tel: (305) 446-1500
          Fax: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


MILWAUKEE, WI: Kreuziger Bid to Certify Class Tossed w/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN KREUZIGER v.
MILWAUKEE COUNTY and MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT, Case
No. 19-CV-1747-JPS-J (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge JP Stadtmueller
entered an order that:

   1. the Defendants' motion to bar Plaintiff's expert be and the
      same is hereby denied; and

   2. the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class pursuant to Federal

      Rule of Civil Procedure 23 be and the same is hereby denied
      without prejudice.

The Court says that it will deny the Defendants' motion at this
juncture, and permit the Plaintiff's expert witness's disclosures.
However, the Defendants may seek to disqualify Plaintiff's expert
from testifying by either a motion to disqualify or via a motion in
limine. Further, the Court will deny without prejudice the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

On November 27, 2019, the Plaintiff Kreuziger brought this action
against the Defendants Milwaukee County and Milwaukee Metropolitan
Sewerage District. The Plaintiff filed a complaint on both his
behalf and on behalf of a purported class of similarly situated
individuals pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 23.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated both his property
rights and the property rights of the purported class members under
both federal and Wisconsin law.

Milwaukee County is located in the U.S. state of Wisconsin. MMSD is
a regional government agency that provides water reclamation and
flood management services for about 1.1 million people in 28
communities in the Greater Milwaukee Area.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 22, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rKaeFC at no extra charge.[CC]

MINNEAPOLIS, MN: ACLU Protester Class Action v. PD Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Declan Desmond, writing for Bring Me The News, reports that the
city of Minneapolis, as well as the police department and its
leaders, will now face a second lawsuit over their handling of the
2020 George Floyd protests.

On March 12, a federal judge struck down some motions to dismiss
the class-action lawsuit, which was filed last July by the American
Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota (ACLU-MN) and a Boston law firm
on behalf of several protesters.

With the ruling, the case can officially move forward.

The suit alleges that the "Minneapolis Police Department and the
Minnesota State Patrol used unnecessary and excessive force to
suppress people's First Amendment rights to assemble peacefully and
speak out against injustice," a release says.

"Peaceful protesters were tear-gassed, pepper-sprayed and shot at
with hard foam bullets and flashbangs to intimidate them and quash
the protests," ACLU-MN says, adding that officers "often fired
without giving warning," and failed to give protesters time to
comply.

"All the named plaintiffs suffered injuries, including severe
bruising from projectiles, and eye and vocal issues from tear gas,"
the release adds.

Named in the original suit were the city of Minneapolis, its police
department (MPD) and its chief, Medaria Arradondo, "in his
individual and official capacity."

Police union head Lt. Bob Kroll and the Minnesota State Patrol were
also included in the lawsuit.

All parties filed a motion to dismiss, and a couple of the motions
were successful. In the March 12 ruling, the judge sided with the
State Patrol, while affirming the city's claim that the plaintiffs
had not made a convincing case that Chief Arradondo should be sued
in his capacity as an individual.

However, he will remain part of the lawsuit "in his official
capacity" as chief.

Meanwhile, Kroll -- who's accused of using "incendiary" rhetoric to
encourage misconduct by some MPD officers during the protests --
was not successful in his motion to dismiss. The judge disagreed
with his argument that he was a "private actor" per his role as
union chief and protected under the First Amendment.

In her ruling, Judge Susan Richard Nelson wrote:

". . . the Court finds that the Amended Complaint plausibly alleges
that an unofficial custom regarding the use of unconstitutional
force against peaceful protesters existed at the time of the George
Floyd protests, and that the custom was either tacitly authorized
by municipal policymakers or policymakers were deliberately
indifferent to it," wrote U.S. District Judge Susan Richard
Nelson.

This marks the second victory for those suing local law enforcement
over the 2020 protests. Late in February, another federal judge
denied motions to dismiss a lawsuit from photojournalist Linda
Tirado, who was blinded in one eye by a foam bullet while covering
the events. [GN]



MINNESOTA ASSOCIATION: Fellows Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Mark Fellows, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Mark Fellows, Alicia Bonner,
and Catherine Wyatt, Plaintiffs v. Minnesota Association of
Professional Employees, Defendants, Case No. 0:20-cv-01128-SRN, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs, individually and on
behalf of the proposed class of all agency fee-payers whose money
was taken by Minnesota Association of Professional Employees
("MAPE" or "the Union") in violation of their First Amendment
rights, sue for the return of their money under 42 U.S.C. Section
1983.

The Minnesota Public Employment Labor Relations Act authorizes
exclusive representatives, such as MAPE, to require employees who
are not union members to pay agency fees to the union as a
condition of their employment. The Act provides that "[t]he
employer shall deduct the fee from the earnings of the employee and
transmit the fee to the exclusive representative 30 days after the
written notice was provided [by the exclusive representative]." The
collective bargaining agreements between MAPE and the State of
Minnesota applicable during the relevant time covered by this
complaint -- including the current 2019-2021 collective bargaining
agreement -- allegedly contain a provision requiring the State of
Minnesota to deduct agency fees from non-members on behalf of
MAPE.

From times prior to May 2014 to on or around June 27, 2018, and
acting under color of state law, MAPE compelled employees who were
not union members to pay agency fees to MAPE by causing the State
of Minnesota to deduct agency fees from those employees' earnings
and without their consent. This includes having the State of
Minnesota deduct agency fees from the Plaintiffs' earnings at times
during which they were nonmembers of MAPE and without their
consent, added the suit.

The Plaintiffs are seeking a review of the Court's Order and
Judgment dated February 12, 2021, granting Defendants' motions to
dismiss.

The appellate case is captioned as Mark Fellows, et al v. Minnesota
Association of Professional Employees, Case No. 21-1684, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on
March 25, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Mark Fellows, Alicia Bonner, and Catherine
Wyatt, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Craig S. Krummen, Esq.
          GREENBERG & TRAURIG
          90 S. Seventh Street, Suite 3500
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 259-9719
          E-mail: krummenc@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          William L. Messenger, Esq.
          NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION
          8001 Braddock Road
          Springfield, VA 22160-0000
          Telephone: (703) 321-8510
          E-mail: wlm@nrtw.org   

               - and -

          Jeffrey Michael Schwab, Esq.
          Daniel Robert Suhr, Esq.
          LIBERTY JUSTICE CENTER
          208 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1690
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 637-2280
          E-mail: jschwab@libertyjusticecenter.org
                  dsuhr@libertyjusticecenter.org

               - and -

          Douglas Seaton, Esq.
          UPPER MIDWEST LAW CENTER
          8421 Wayzata Boulevard
          Golden Valley, MN 55426
          Telephone: (612) 428-7001
          E-mail: doug.seaton@umwlc.org  

Defendant-Appellee Minnesota Association of Professional Employees
is represented by:

          Brendan D. Cummins, Esq.
          Justin D. Cummins, Esq.
          CUMMINS & CUMMINS
          920 Second Avenue, S., Suite 1245
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 465-0108
          E-mail: brendan@cummins-law.com
                  justin@cummins-law.com

               - and -

          Scott A. Kronland, Esq.
          Amanda C. Lynch, Esq.
          Patrick Casey Pitts, Esq.
          ALTSHULER & BERZON
          177 Post Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421-7151
          E-mail: skronland@altber.com
                  alynch@altshulerberzon.com
                  cpitts@altshulerberzon.com

MONDELEZ INT'L: Class Cert. Ruling Appealed in McMorrow Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Mondelez International, Inc. filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled PATRICK MCMORROW, et al., v.
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 3:17-cv-02327-BAS-JLB, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 22, 2021, the
Hon. Judge Cynthia Bashant entered an order:

   1. denying the Defendant's motion to exclude the expert
      testimony of Colin Weir;

   2. denying the Defendant's motion to exclude the expert
      testimony of Michael J. Dennis;

   3. denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion to strike
      the testimony of Drs. McFadden and Wilcox;

   4. denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion to strike
      the testimony of Dr. Itamar Simonson;

   5. granting the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class
      certification.

This consumer class action against Mondelez International, Inc. is
one of six virtually identical lawsuits brought by the same counsel
against six major food manufacturers that were assigned to six
different California district judges. These lawsuits allege that
the defendants' products (here, belVita breakfast biscuits) are
misrepresented as "nutritious" or otherwise "healthful" because
they contain "excessive" and "toxic" amounts of added sugar.

The Defendant seeks a review of the order entered by Judge
Bashant.

The appellate case is captioned as Patrick McMorrow, et al v.
Mondelez International, Inc., Case No. 21-80019, in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 22, 2021.[BN]

Defendant-Petitioner Mondelez International, Inc. is represented
by:

          Dean N. Panos, Esq.
          Michael T. Brody, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          353 North Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 222-9350
          Facsimile: (312) 527-0484
          E-mail: dpanos@jenner.com
                  mbrody@jenner.com

               - and -

          Kate T. Spelman, Esq.
          Alexander M. Smith, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 3600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 239-5100
          Facsimile: (213) 239-5199
          E-mail: kspelman@jenner.com
                  asmith@jenner.com

MONEYGRAM INT'L: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of April 30 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on March 11 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against MoneyGram International, Inc. ("MoneyGram" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: MGI) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, and docketed under 21-cv-02161, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired MoneyGram
securities between June 17, 2019 and February 22, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities
laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased MoneyGram securities during
the Class Period, you have until April 30, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

MoneyGram, together with its subsidiaries, provides cross-border
peer-to-peer payments and money transfer services in the United
States and internationally. The company operates through two
segments, Global Funds Transfer and Financial Paper Products.

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) XRP, the
cryptocurrency that MoneyGram was utilizing as part of its Ripple
Labs, Inc. ("Ripple") partnership, was viewed as an unregistered
and therefore unlawful security by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC"); (ii) in the event that the SEC decided to
enforce the securities laws against Ripple, MoneyGram would be
likely to lose the lucrative stream of market development fees that
was critical to its financial results throughout the Class Period;
and (iii) as a result, Defendants' public statements were
materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.

On December 22, 2020, the SEC filed a lawsuit against Ripple,
alleging that Ripple's cryptocurrency XRP is an unregistered
security in violation of the securities laws.

The SEC alleged a brazen scheme in which Ripple received legal
advice as early as 2012 that XRP could be considered an investment
contract and therefore a security that needs to be registered under
the securities laws. Nevertheless, Ripple decided to ignore this
advice and assume the risk of initiating a large-scale distribution
of XRP without registration.

Relying on Ripple's own statements, the SEC points out that
Ripple's stated business plan has been to sell XRP to as many
speculative investors as possible, and any non-speculative or
non-investment use of the cryptocurrency represents a very small
and inconsequential piece of the enterprise.

In fact, the SEC alleged specifically that the major non-investment
use of the XRP cryptocurrency—transferring money on Ripple's On
Demand Liquidity ("ODL") platform—is not market-driven but
subsidized by Ripple itself.

In order to convince anyone to use ODL to transfer money, the SEC
alleged, Ripple had to make a $50 million equity investment and pay
significant financial compensation to an entity that the SEC's
Complaint refers to only as the "Money Transmitter." Of course, the
"Money Transmitter" is MoneyGram.

In addition, the SEC's Complaint describes how MoneyGram itself
took part in the sale of unregistered XRP securities on the open
market.

On December 23, 2020, MoneyGram issued a press release entitled:
"MoneyGram Statement on the SEC Action Against Ripple." The press
release stated: "The Company has not currently been notified or
been made aware of any negative impact to its commercial agreement
with Ripple but will continue to monitor for any potential impact
as developments in the lawsuit evolve. MoneyGram has had a
commercial agreement with Ripple since June 2019; this agreement
represents the use of Ripple's foreign exchange (FX) blockchain
trading platform (ODL) for the purchase or sale of four currencies.
MoneyGram has continued to utilize its other traditional FX trading
counterparties throughout the term of the agreement with Ripple,
and is not dependent on the Ripple platform to accomplish its FX
trading needs." / "As a reminder, MoneyGram does not utilize the
ODL platform or RippleNet for direct transfers of consumer funds
– digital or otherwise. Furthermore, MoneyGram is not a party to
the SEC action."

On February 22, 2021, MoneyGram filed its annual report on Form
10-K with the SEC for the year ended December 31, 2020 (the "2020
10-K"), which was signed by defendants W. Alexander Holmes, the
Company's Chief Executive Officer, and Lawrence Angelilli, the
Company's Chief Financial Officer (together, the "Individual
Defendants"). Attached to the 2020 10-K were certifications
pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 signed by the Individual
Defendants attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the
disclosure of any material changes to the Company's internal
control over financial reporting and the disclosure of all fraud.

The 2020 10-K stated the following about Ripple, in pertinent part:
"On December 22, 2020, the SEC filed a lawsuit against Ripple
alleging that they raised over $1.3 billion through an
unregistered, ongoing digital asset offering in violation of the
registration provisions of the Securities Act of 1933.
Subsequently, substantially all of the U.S.-based digital asset
exchanges removed XRP from their platforms. MoneyGram ceased
transacting with Ripple under the commercial agreement in early
December 2020 and has not since resumed trading. It is possible
that MoneyGram will not resume transacting with Ripple under the
commercial agreement and will be unable to receive the related
market development fees in 2021 and beyond. Per the terms of the
commercial agreement, the Company does not pay fees to Ripple for
its usage of the ODL platform or the related software and there are
no clawback or refund provisions." / "The 'Transaction and
operations support' line on the Consolidated Statements of
Operations includes market development fees of $50.2 million and
$11.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2020 and December
31, 2019, respectively." (Emphases added.)

Also, on February 22, 2021, MoneyGram issued a press release on its
financial results for its fourth quarter and full year ended
December 31, 2020. The press release stated, in pertinent part:
"Assuming the global economic environment were to remain consistent
with the fourth quarter the Company is providing the following
outlook:" / "For the first quarter of 2021, the Company anticipates
reporting total revenue of approximately $300 million on the
strength of its money transfer business and continued triple-digit
cross-border MoneyGram Online growth, partially offset by an
estimated $8 million reduction in gross investment revenue." / "In
addition, the Company is not planning for any benefit from Ripple
market development fees in the first quarter. Due to the
uncertainty concerning their ongoing litigation with the SEC, the
Company has suspended trading on Ripple's platform. In the first
quarter of 2020, the Company realized a net expense benefit of
$12.1 million from Ripple market development fees." / "Based on the
combination of these factors, the Company anticipates reporting
Adjusted EBITDA of approximately $50 million in the first quarter
of 2021." (Emphases added.)

On this news, MoneyGram securities fell 33.2%, from a closing price
on February 19, 2021 of $10.87 per share, to a closing price on
February 23, 2021 of $7.26 per share, damaging investors.

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

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


MONEYGRAM INT'L: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of April 30 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of MoneyGram International, Inc. (NASDAQ:
MGI) investors that acquired shares between June 17, 2019 and
February 22, 2021. Investors have until April 30, 2021 to seek an
active role in this litigation.

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

It is alleged in this complaint that MoneyGram made misleading and
false statements to the market. MoneyGram was utilizing XRP, the
cryptocurrency associated with its Ripple partnership, which was
considered as an unregistered and therefore unlawful security by
the SEC. MoneyGram was likely to lose a significant revenue stream
if the SEC took enforcement action against Ripple based on market
development fees it received due to the partnership. MoneyGram's
revenues from these development fees was critical to its financial
results. MoneyGram's public statements were false and materially
misleading throughout the class period. Investors suffered damages
when the market learned the truth about MoneyGram.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 30,
2021.

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

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

Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]


MONEYGRAM INT'L: Schall Law Firm Reminds of April 30 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on March 11 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
MoneyGram International, Inc. ("Moneygram" or "the Company")
(NASDAQ:MGI) 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 June 17,
2019 and February 22, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before April 30, 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. MoneyGram was utilizing XRP, the
cryptocurrency associated with its Ripple partnership, which was
considered as an unregistered and unlawful security by the SEC. If
the SEC took enforcement action against Ripple, the Company was
likely to lose a significant revenue stream based on market
development fees it received due to the partnership. In fact, the
Company's revenue from these development fees was critical to its
financial results. 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 MoneyGram,
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]


MULTIPLAN CORP: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of April 26 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on March 15 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against MultiPlan Corporation f/k/a Churchill Capital
Corp. III ("Churchill III" or the "Company") (NYSE: MPLN; MPLN.WS;
CCXX; CCXX.WS; CCXX.U) and certain of its officers, directors, and
sponsors. The class action, filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, and docketed under
21-cv-01965, is on behalf of a class consisting of: (i) all
purchasers of Churchill III securities between July 12, 2020 and
November 10, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"); and (ii) all
holders of Churchill III Class A common stock entitled to vote on
Churchill III's merger with and acquisition of Polaris Parent Corp.
and its consolidated subsidiaries (collectively, "MultiPlan")
consummated in October 2020 (the "Merger").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Churchill III securities
during the Class Period and/or a holder of Churchill III Class A
common stock entitled to vote on the Merger, you have until April
26, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S.
Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.

Churchill III was formed in October 2019 as a blank check company.
A blank check company is sometimes referred to as a special purpose
acquisition vehicle, or "SPAC," and does not initially have any
operations or business of its own. Rather, it raises money from
investors in an initial public offering and then uses the proceeds
from the offering to acquire a business or operational assets,
usually from a private company that does not publicly report
financial or operating results. As a result, investors in blank
check companies rely on the skill, transparency, and honesty of the
blank check company's sponsor to spend the offering proceeds to
acquire a fundamentally sound target company that offers attractive
risk-adjusted returns for investors.

On or about February 14, 2020, Churchill III completed its initial
public offering, selling 110 million ownership units to investors
for gross proceeds of $1.1 billion. Each unit was priced at $10 and
consisted of one share of Class A common stock and one-fourth of
one warrant to purchase Class A shares. Each whole warrant entitled
the holder to purchase one share of Churchill III Class A common
stock at $11.50 per share.

In July 2020, Churchill III announced that it had entered into a
preliminary agreement, subject to shareholder approval, to merge
with MultiPlan, a New York-based data analytics end-to-end cost
management solutions provider to the U.S. healthcare industry.
MultiPlan's customers include large national insurance companies,
provider-sponsored health plans, bill review companies,
Taft-Hartley plans, and other entities that pay medical bills in
the commercial healthcare, government, workers' compensation, auto,
medical, and dental markets.

On October 7, 2020, shareholders voted to approve the Merger at a
special shareholders meeting.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading because Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) 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 the
Company's sales and 80% of its levered cash flows by 2022; (ii)
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; (iii) 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 the Company to cut
its take rate by up to half in some cases; (iv) as a result of all
the foregoing, MultiPlan was set to continue to suffer from
revenues and earnings declines, increased competition, and
deteriorating pricing dynamics following the Merger; (v) as a
result of all the foregoing, MultiPlan was forced to seek continued
revenue growth and to improve its competitive positioning through
pricey acquisitions, including through the purchase of HST for $140
million at a premium price from a former MultiPlan executive only
one month after the Merger; (vi) as a result of all 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; and (vii) as a result of all
the foregoing, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On November 11, 2020, just one month after the close of the Merger,
short research investment firm Muddy Waters published a report on
Churchill III titled "MultiPlan: Private Equity Necrophilia Meets
The Great 2020 Money Grab" (the "Muddy Waters Report"). The Muddy
Waters Report was based on extensive non-public sources such as
interviews with former MultiPlan executives and other industry
experts, as well as proprietary analysis. The Muddy Waters Report
revealed that MultiPlan was in the process of losing its largest
client, UnitedHealthcare, which was estimated to cost the Company
up to 35% of its revenues and 80% of its levered free cash flow
within two years.

According to the Muddy Waters Report, MultiPlan was in significant
financial decline because of its fundamentally flawed business
model, which profited from excessively high healthcare costs.
UnitedHealth had purportedly launched a competitor, Naviguard, to
reduce its business with MultiPlan and bring the over-priced and
conflicted services offered by MultiPlan in-house. The Muddy Waters
Report also accused MultiPlan of obscuring its deteriorating
financial position in presentations to investors by, among other
things, manipulating cash reserves to show inflated earnings
figures in the years leading up to the Merger. The Muddy Waters
Report also stated that MultiPlan had suffered from material,
undisclosed pricing pressures that had caused it to slash the "take
rate" it charged customers in half in some instances and falsely
characterized revenue declines as "idiosyncratic" when in fact they
were due to sustained, negative pricing trends afflicting
MultiPlan's business.

The Muddy Waters Report further stated that MultiPlan's four
previous private equity firm owners had "loot[ed] the business" for
cash in the lead up to the Merger. According to the Muddy Waters
Report, the sale to Churchill III was necessitated because
MultiPlan's private equity owners could not find anyone else
willing to buy the failing business after these deep cuts, which
had resulted in deteriorating service quality and increased
customer complaints. The Muddy Waters Report quoted two former
MultiPlan executives who spoke about the private equity stewardship
of the Company right before the Merger, which had purportedly left
Churchill III's unwitting shareholders "hold[ing] the bag."

The Muddy Waters Report stated that the decline in MultiPlan's
sales left the Company "no choice but to try to buy some form of
revenue growth to mask eroding fundamentals." Indeed, MultiPlan had
just recently announced the acquisition of healthcare technology
company HST for $140 million, which performed similar functions to
those offered by Naviguard. The Muddy Waters Report described HST
as "an attempt to buy an inferior, significantly smaller Naviguard
stand-in, and at a premium price" from a former MultiPlan
executive.

As a result of this news, the price of Churchill III securities
plummeted. By November 12, 2020, the price of Churchill III Class A
common stock fell to a low of just $6.12 per share, nearly 40%
below the price at which shareholders could have redeemed their
shares at the time of the shareholder vote on the Merger.

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

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


NEW YORK: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Gulino Suit re Jorle
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment
dated February 19, 2021, entered in the lawsuit styled GULINO, ET
AL. v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE
CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the
New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant, the
Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New
York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
Section 2000e et seq., by requiring Plaintiffs to pass certain
racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a
license to teach in New York City public schools. Judge Constance
Baker Motley, to whom the case was originally assigned, certified
the plaintiff class on July 13, 2001, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).

On December 5, 2012, the Court decertified the Plaintiff class to
the extent it sought damages and individualized injunctive relief
in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011). The class survived, however, to
the extent Plaintiffs sought relief that may be awarded under Rule
23(b)(2), including a declaratory judgment regarding liability and
class-wide injunctive relief.

The Defendant seeks a review of the Court's Judgment, classifying
Carmen Jorle as a member of the Plaintiff class in this action, and
holding that she is entitled to monetary and injunctive relief from
Defendant as compensation for the injuries she suffered as a result
of what the Court found to be the Defendant's discrimination.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board of
Education, Case No. 21-673, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, filed on Mar. 25, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Carmen Jorle is represented by:

          Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          180 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 806-1245
          E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com

Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District
of the City of New York is represented by:

          James Edward Johnson, Esq.
          CORPORATION COUNSEL
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-2500

NIDEC MOBILITY: June 10 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC; Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.; Spector
Roseman & Kodroff, P.C.; and Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios,
LLP ("Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel") on March 15 disclosed that
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division ("Court") has approved the following
announcement of a proposed class action settlement with Nidec
Mobility Corporation (formerly known as Omron Automotive
Electronics Co., Ltd., and hereinafter referred to as "NMOJ") for
$1.4 million, and the proposed distribution of the proceeds of that
settlement.

The lawsuit claims that NMOJ conspired to suppress and eliminate
competition for Power Window Switches by agreeing to raise, fix,
maintain, and stabilize prices, rig bids, and allocate markets and
customers for Power Window Switches sold in the United States, in
violation of federal antitrust laws.

The settlement affects those who purchased Power Window Switches in
the United States from January 1, 2003 through April 13, 2020
directly from any of the following entities (or their subsidiaries
or affiliates): Nidec Mobility Corporation, Toyo Denso Co. Ltd.,
and Weastec, Inc.

A hearing will be held on June 10, 2021, at 10:30 a.m., before the
Honorable Sean F. Cox, United States District Judge, at the
Theodore Levin United States Courthouse, 231 West Lafayette
Boulevard, Detroit, MI 48226, Courtroom 817 (or such other
courtroom as may be assigned for the hearing, or if the Court
believes that it is appropriate, remotely by telephone or other
electronic means), for the purpose of determining whether to
approve: (1) the proposed settlement with NMOJ; (2) the proposed
plan of distribution of the settlement fund to members of the
settlement class; and (3) Settlement Class Counsel's requests for
an award of attorneys' fees, reimbursement of litigation costs and
expenses, and a service award to the Class Representative.

A Notice of Proposed Settlement (the "Notice") was mailed to
potential Settlement Class members on or about March 4, 2021. The
Notice describes in more detail the litigation and options
available to NMOJ Settlement Class members with respect to the NMOJ
settlement. The Notice and other important documents related to the
settlement can be accessed at
www.AutoPartsAntitrustLitigation.com/PowerWindowSwitches, or by
calling 1-877-299-1574 or writing to Power Window Switches Direct
Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, P.O. Box 2312, Portland, OR
97208-2312. Those who believe they may be a member of the NMOJ
Settlement Class, are urged to obtain a copy of the Notice.

SOURCE: United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan Southern Division

URL: www.AutoPartsAntitrustLitigation.com/PowerWindowSwitches  

SOURCE United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan Southern Division

http://www.autopartsantitrustlitigation.com/PowerWindowSwitches
[GN]


NISSAN NORTH: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Hays Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled LAURA FRANCES HAYS, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. NISSAN
NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 4:17-cv-00353-BCW, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge
Brian C. Wimes entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification;
      and

   2. certifying the class as to the remaining claims pursuant
      to the following definition:

      "All persons in Missouri who (1) currently own or lease a
      Class Vehicle, or (2) who previously paid for repairs to
      rust in a front floor panel; of a Class Vehicle. Class
      Vehicles include model years 2002-2006 Nissan Altimas and
      model years 2004-2008 Nissan Maximas."

Hays filed this action against the Defendant Nissan North America
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, stemming
from an alleged defect in 2002-2006 models of Nissan Altima and
2004-2008 models of Nissan Maxima vehicles (Class Vehicles).

The Defendant now seeks a review of the Order entered by Judge
Wimes.

The appellate case is captioned as Laura Hays v. Nissan North
America, Case No. 21-8004, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit, filed on March 22, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent Laura Frances Hays, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jeffrey Joseph Burns, Esq.
          Tim Dollar, Esq.  
          DOLLAR & BURNS
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 876-2600
          E-mail: jjb@dollar-law.com

               - and -

          Matthew L. Dameron, Esq.
          Amy R. Jackson, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & DIRKS
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 945-7135
          E-mail: matt@williamsdirks.com
                  amy@williamsdirks.com
                   
               - and -

          Todd E. Hilton, Esq.
          Norman Siegel, Esq.
          STUEVE & SIEGEL
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          E-mail: hilton@stuevesiegel.com
                  siegel@stuevesiegel.com

Defendant-Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc.

          David Brent Dwerlkotte, Esq.
          William Sampson, Esq.
          Holly P. Smith, Esq.
          SHOOK & HARDY
          2555 Grand Boulevard
          Kansas City, MO 64108-2613
          Telephone: (816) 474-6550
          E-mail: dbdwerlkotte@shb.com
                  wsampson@shb.com
                  hpsmith@shb.com  

               - and -

          H. Grant Law, Esq.
          Amir Nassihi, Esq.
          SHOOK & HARDY
          555 Mission Street, Suite 2300
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 544-1900
          E-mail: hlaw@shb.com
                  anassihi@shb.com

NVIDIA CORP: California Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that on
March 2, 2021, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed
with prejudice a putative class action asserting claims under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a technology company and
certain of its executives. Iron Workers Loc. 580 Jt. Funds v.
NVIDIA Corp., No. 18-CV-07669-HSG, slip op. (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2,
2021). Plaintiffs alleged that the company made misrepresentations
regarding its sales of graphic processing units ("GPUs") for
computer gaming and the proportion of such sales that were actually
made to cryptocurrency miners—for which demand was allegedly more
volatile. As discussed in our prior post, the Court dismissed
plaintiffs' original complaint for failure to adequately allege
misrepresentations or scienter, but granted leave to replead. After
plaintiffs amended their complaint, defendants moved again to
dismiss and also moved to strike certain allegations attributed to
a confidential witness. The Court denied the motion to strike but
concluded that the amended complaint failed to cure the prior
deficiencies with respect to scienter, and therefore dismissed the
complaint with prejudice.

As a threshold matter, the Court addressed defendants' motion to
strike certain allegations attributed to a newly identified
confidential witness, who defendants argued had signed a
declaration "disavowing key statements attributed to him." Id. at
11. Defendants argued that these allegations were therefore
"unreliable and immaterial," but the Court disagreed, holding that
it was improper to resolve the factual dispute at the
motion-to-dismiss stage, particularly as plaintiffs cited the
disputed statements in support of their scienter argument, which
was the subject of the motion to dismiss. Id. at 11-12.

With respect to scienter, the Court noted that under the PSLRA,
confidential witnesses "must be described with sufficient
particularity to establish their reliability and personal
knowledge" and their statements "must themselves be indicative of
scienter." Id. at 14. The Court further observed that the scienter
allegations in the amended complaint were "largely based on
accounts of the same former employees detailed in the [prior
complaint]," which the Court had already found did not adequately
support a strong inference of scienter. Id. at 14-15. Specifically,
the amended complaint identified one new confidential witness and
added new statements by two previously identified confidential
witnesses, which plaintiffs used to argue that defendants had
"access to copious sales and technical usage data showing [a]
dramatic surge in cryptocurrency-related sales." Id. at 15.

The Court held that none of these allegations raised the required
strong inference of scienter. For example, plaintiffs alleged,
based on confidential witness statements, that one executive had
access to a database which "expressly identified crypto-miners as
purchasers of large blocks of [the company's] GPU products," that
the executive received information through regular meetings, and
that regional managers' reports "showed that over 60% of [the
company's] GPU sales … were to miners." Id. at 15-17. While the
amended complaint attempted to add certain details, such as
allegations that confidential witnesses participated in meetings
with the executive, the Court concluded that the amended complaint
still failed to specifically allege that the executive actually
received information that was contrary to the alleged
misstatements. Id. at 17.

As in its prior decision, the Court also considered and rejected
plaintiffs' argument under the "core operations" theory, in which
"in rare circumstances" certain corporate officers may be deemed to
have knowledge of the critical core operations of the company. Id.
at 20. The Court again held that merely alleging that gaming was
the company's "core business" was insufficient to establish
scienter. Moreover, the Court emphasized that the data in question
regarding the use of the company's products by cryptocurrency
miners involved end users -- who were not the company's direct
customers -- and the amended complaint failed to include
"particularized allegations indicating [defendants'] detailed
involvement with this level of secondary data." Id. at 20-21.

Because the Court determined that the amended complaint failed to
adequately allege scienter, the Court declined to consider
plaintiffs' allegations regarding falsity. Moreover, the Court
noted that leave to amend had previously been granted, and
therefore denied further leave to amend as futile. [GN]


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Insurer No Duty to Defend Against Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Grzincic, writing for Reuters, reports that Zurich American
Insurance Co had no duty to defend Ocwen Financial Corp against a
2015 consumer class action that ultimately settled for $21.5
million, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held on March 12.
The three-judge panel affirmed that there was no potential for
coverage because Zurich's insurance policies clearly excluded
Tracee Beecroft's claim that Ocwen's unrelenting "robocalls" to her
cellphone violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act, and her common-law privacy rights,
causing her such physical and emotional distress that she suffered
a stress-induced miscarriage. [GN]



ONTRAK INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of May 3 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on March 10 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Ontrak, Inc. ("Ontrak" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: OTRK) 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 November
5, 2020 and February 26, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before May 3, 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. Ontrak's largest customer gauged the
Company's performance on the basis of reaching the lowest cost per
medical visit possible rather than patient outcomes or medical cost
savings. This customer found the Company's program to be
ineffective and was likely to terminate its contract. Because this
customer represented a significant portion of the Company's
revenue, the loss of this contract would have a significant impact
on its financial results. 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 Ontrak,
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]


ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Pomerantz Law Investigates Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors Ormat
Technologies, Inc. ("Ormat" or the "Company")(NYSE: ORA). Such
investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980.

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

On March 1, 2021, before the market opened, Hindenburg Research
("Hindenburg") published a report entitled "Ormat: Dirty Dealings
in 'Clean' Energy." According to the Hindenburg report, the Company
"has engaged in what we believe to be widespread and systematic
acts of intentional corruption," adding that it "expect[s] the
blowback to these revelations to be severe, threatening Ormat's
contracts in its most lucrative markets." In the report, Hindenburg
claims to have "uncovered evidence tying Ormat to corruption with
senior government officials" and "direct evidence tying Ormat to
corruption with senior Guatemalan government officials", further
noting that "Ormat paid contractors in Kenya tied to corrupt
government officials."

On this news, Ormat's stock price fell $1.00 per share, or 1.1%, to
close at $84.67 per share on March 1, 2021.

That same day, after the market closed, Ormat responded to the
report and acknowledged that "[t]he Company is aware of claims
being investigated in Israel regarding Ravit Barniv, an Ormat Board
member, and Hezi Kattan, the Company's General Counsel and Chief
Compliance Officer." Though the "claims involve Ms. Barniv's and
Mr. Kattan's work at another company, prior to joining Ormat," the
Company announced that it would "transfer the responsibility for
the Company's compliance function to other members of the Ormat
management team until these issues are resolved."

On this news, Ormat's stock price fell another $1.68 per share, or
nearly 2%, to close at $82.99 per share on March 2, 2021.

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

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


PAUL INVESTMENT: Underpays Construction Workers, Torres Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEJANDRO TORRES, and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. THE PAUL INVESTMENT GROUP LLC, a/k/a UNDISPUTED
SERVICES, a/k/a UNDISPUTED PAINTING SERVICES, a/k/a UNDISPUTED
CLEANING SERVICES LLC, BENITO PAUL, and SHERLENE MAXINE,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-21087-XXXX (S.D. Fla,
March 22, 2021) brings this complaint as a collective action
against the Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a general
construction worker from approximately November 7, 2017 through
December 23, 2018.

The Plaintiff asserts that despite consistently working a minimum
of 54 hours every week, the Defendant denied him of overtime
compensation at one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for
all hours he worked over 40 in a workweek. Allegedly, the Defendant
unlawfully deducted 2.5 hours of lunch break in his weekly total
hours worked, did not counted as hours worked his minimum of 14
travel time hours weekly, and failed to pay him for 3 Saturdays and
a Sunday or a total 24 additional overtime hours.

In addition, the Defendant failed to keep proper and accurate
records of the Plaintiff's hours worked, failed to post any notice,
and paid the Plaintiff on a bi-weekly basis with checks without
paystubs providing basic information about days and hours worked,
the wage rate paid, employment taxes withheld, etc., added the
suit.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover overtime pay for every hour over 40
that he worked during his employment with the Defendants, as well
as an additional amount of liquidated damages, costs, and
reasonable attorney's fees, and other relief as the Court deems
equitable and just.

The Paul Investment Group LLC provides construction services to
commercial and residential customers in Miami-Dade County. The
Individual Defendants are owners/partners and managers of the
Corporate Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Tel: (305) 446-1500
          Fax: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


PHILADELPHIA, PA: Underpays Employees, Labor Group Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
AFSCME DISTRICT COUNCIL 33, LOCAL 427, by its guardian ad litem,
CHARLES CARRINGTON, PRESIDENT; KASHIF CAMPBELL; TIMOTHY JACKSON,
DAMON RANDOLPH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, its Officials,
Agents, Employees and Assigns; JIM KENNEY, in his official capacity
as Mayor of the City of Philadelphia; ROB DEBOW, in his official
capacity as Finance Director of the City of Philadelphia;
JACQUELINE DUNN, in her official capacity as Treasurer of the City
of Philadelphia, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01553 (E.D. Pa.,
April 1, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly implement
and oversee the OnePhilly payroll system, which deprived bargaining
unit employees of the Local 427 as well as the individually-named
Plaintiffs (1) timely, proper, and accurate payment of earned wages
and other payments due and owing to them, including the payment of
minimum wage and overtime; (2) deductions to those earned wages
authorized by the Local's bargaining unit employees and required by
taxing authorities; and (3) remittance of authorized deductions to
the appropriate entity.

AFSCME District Council 33, Local 427, is an unincorporated labor
organization and exclusive representative for collective bargaining
purposes for the sanitation workers of the Philadelphia Department
of Streets, with its headquarters at 3001 Walnut Street,
Philadelphia, Philadelphia. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                                      
                  
         John R. Bielski, Esq.
         Jessica R. Brown, Esq.
         WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON
         1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 656-3600
         E-mail: jbielski@wwdlaw.com
                 jbrown@wwdlaw.com

PLUG POWER: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, on March 10 disclosed that a securities class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
securities of Plug Power, Inc. ("Plug Power" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: PLUG) from November 9, 2020, through March 1, 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 Plug Power securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit Plug Power
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:(1) that the Company would be
unable to timely file its 2020 annual report due to delays related
to the review of classification of certain costs and the
recoverability of the right to use assets with certain leases; (2)
that the Company was reasonably likely to report material
weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting; 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.

On March 2, 2021, before the market opened, Plug filed a
Notification of Late Filing with the SEC stating that it could not
timely file its annual report for the period ended December 31,
2020 because the Company was completing a "review and assessment of
the treatment of certain costs with regards to classification
between Research and Development versus Costs of Goods Sold, the
recoverability of right of use assets associated with certain
leases, and certain internal controls over these and other areas."
The Company stated that "[i]t is possible that one or more of these
items may result in charges or adjustments to current and/or prior
period financial statements."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.68, or 7%, to close
at $48.78 per share on March 2, 2021, on unusually heavy trading
volume. The share price continued to decline by $9.48, or 19.4%,
over three consecutive trading sessions to close at $39.30 per
share on March 5, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. The
complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the
Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.

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 Plug Power securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/plugpowerinc-plug-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-378/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]


PLUG POWER: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on March 10 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

AZN Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/astrazeneca-plc-loss-submission-form?prid=13501&wire=1
PLUG Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/plug-power-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=13501&wire=1
XL Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/xl-fleet-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=13501&wire=1

* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *

Astrazeneca Plc (NYSE:AZN)

AZN Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased May 21, 2020 -
November 20, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 29, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/astrazeneca-plc-loss-submission-form?prid=13501&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
Astrazeneca Plc 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.

Plug Power Inc. (NASDAQ:PLUG)

PLUG Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased November 9, 2020
- March 1, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : May 7, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/plug-power-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=13501&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Plug
Power Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1 the Company would be unable to
timely file its 2020 annual report due to delays related to the
review of classification of certain costs and the recoverability of
the right to use assets with certain leases; (2) the Company was
reasonably likely to report material weaknesses in its internal
control over financial reporting; 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.

XL Fleet Corp. (NYSE:XL)

XL Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased October 2, 2020 -
March 2, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 7, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/xl-fleet-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=13501&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, XL Fleet
Corp. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) XL Fleet's salespeople were pressured
to inflate their sales pipelines to boost the Company's reported
sales and backlog; (2) at least 18 of the 33 customers that XL
featured were inactive and had not placed an order since 2019; (3)
XL's technology had been materially overstated and offered only 5%
to 10% of fleet savings; (4) XL lacks the supply chain and
engineers to roll out new products on the announced timelines; and
(5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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

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

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


PLUG POWER: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of May 7 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors of Plug Power Inc. (NASDAQ:
PLUG). The case is currently in the lead plaintiff stage. Investors
who purchased PLUG stock or other securities between November 9,
2020 and March 1, 2021 may contact the Thornton Law Firm's investor
protection team by visiting www.tenlaw.com/cases/PlugPower to
submit their information. Investors may also email
investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917.

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

The case alleges that Plug Power and its senior executives made
misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (1)
Plug Power would be unable to timely file its 2020 annual report
due to delays related to the review of classification of certain
costs and the recoverability of the right to use assets with
certain leases; and (2) Plug Power was reasonably likely to report
material weaknesses in its internal control over financial
reporting.

Interested Plug Power investors have until May 7, 2021 to retain
counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are interested to
do so. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to be
a class member. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other
investor class members in managing the class action. If investors
choose to take no action, they can remain an absent class member.
The class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs,
investors are not represented by an attorney.

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

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

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


PORSCHE NA: Car Owners File Class Action Over Stop Sale Order
-------------------------------------------------------------
Saltz, Mongeluzzi & Bendesky, P.C. on March 10 disclosed that tens
of thousands of duped Porsche car and SUV owners in Pennsylvania
and across the U.S., who are now blocked from selling their
non-compliant, excessively polluting, high-performance models due
to a highly unusual, November 2020 manufacturer "stop sale order",
may be eligible for compensation as a result of a federal class
action lawsuit filed against Porsche.

The filing (Bruce C. Turner v. Porsche North America et al., United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
2:21-cv-00914) includes at least, five different car and SUV models
(the initial 911 and Panamera with Sport Chrono, plus Boxster,
Cayenne, and Cayman, all with Sport Chrono packages) for production
years in question from 2008-2013 in the two models to cover
2012-2016 across the five.

Mr. Turner, the plaintiff, is the owner of a 2015 Boxster coupe and
a 2016 Cayman, both of which are equipped with the Sport Chrono
performance package. According to the complaint, Porsche revealed
to its dealership network in November 2020 that when the Sport
Chrono package is in use on certain vehicles, they can emit more
Nitrogen oxides than what is legally permitted by federal
standards. Porsche instructed its dealerships to immediately stop
selling these vehicles until it can figure out how to fix the
problem. Numerous owners, including Mr. Turner, were completely
unaware of the issue, that it created adverse environmental
impacts, and has now made it impossible for them to sell their
vehicles through Porsche's highly touted "internal" re-sale
network. In fact, Mr. Turner over the past year was told by his
dealer that due to the company- imposed "Stop Sale Order" it would
not purchase his vehicles, states the complaint.

"Porsche's Stop Sale Order has indefinitely foreclosed the market
for and significantly devalued Plaintiff's and the Class' Class
Vehicles and resulted in lost sales opportunities," according to
the lawsuit.

The Plaintiff and proposed class are represented by Philadelphia
based, Saltz, Mongeluzzi & Bendesky, P.C., (www.smbb.com), along
with co-counsel Gustafson Gluek (https://gustafsongluek.com/), Fine
Kaplan & Black (http://www.finekaplan.com),and Boni Zach & Snyder
(https://bonizack.com). The Complaint seeks, among other relief,
treble damages for violations of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

The complaint notes that Porsche and its parent company, Volkswagen
Group, have a checkered history of successfully cheating industry
regulators until their corrupt acts were exposed. While best known
for its infamous emissions test-cheating scandal -- that resulted
in VW paying $14.7 billion to settle civil claims -- this latest
episode is the first focused on the auto maker's gasoline engines.

Prospective class members can contact the legal team at
porschestopsale@smbb.com for a no-cost and no-obligation
consultation. [GN]


PREMIER NUTRITION: Injunction Bid Denial in Sonner Suit Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Premier Nutrition Corporation filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled KATHLEEN SONNER, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION, FKA Joint
Juice, Inc., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 3:13-cv-01271-RS, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, in March 2013,
Vincent Mullins filed a putative class action regarding "Joint
Juice," a nutritional product manufactured, marketed, and sold by
Defendant-Appellee Premier. After substituting as the proposed
class representative and named Plaintiff, Sonner amended the
complaint in September 2014. In April 2016, the district court
certified a class of all California consumers who had purchased
Joint Juice since March 1, 2009.

The basis for the lawsuit is false advertising. In its marketing
materials, Premier touts Joint Juice as a dietary supplement
beverage that supports and nourishes cartilage, lubricates joints,
and improves joint comfort. But, according to Sonner, Joint Juice
fails to provide its advertised health benefits.

As originally pleaded, the complaint demanded injunctive relief
under the California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") and Consumers
Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), restitution under the UCL and CLRA,
and damages under an Illinois consumer protection statute. In the
first amended complaint, Sonner dropped her claim under Illinois
law and amended the CLRA claim to seek damages because Premier
failed to correct the alleged CLRA violations pursuant to
California Civil Code Section 1782. Both complaints demanded a jury
trial.

The Defendant seeks to review the Court's Order dated February 24,
2021, denying its motion for permanent injunction.

The appellate case is captioned as Kathleen Sonner v. Premier
Nutrition Corporation, Case No. 21-15526, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 24, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Premier Nutrition Corporation Mediation
Questionnaire was due on March 31, 2021;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by April 22, 2021;

   -- Transcript is due on May 24, 2021;

   -- Appellant Premier Nutrition Corporation opening brief is due
on July 1, 2021;

   -- Appellee Kathleen Sonner answering brief is due on August 2,
2021; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee KATHLEEN SONNER, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          Paula R. Brown, Esq.  
          Leslie E. Hurst, Esq.
          Thomas Joseph O'Reardon, II, Esq.  
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON LLP
          501 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-1100
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
                  pbrown@bholaw.com
                  lhurst@bholaw.com
                  toreardon@bholaw.com

               - and -

          Todd David Carpenter, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER LLP
          1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 762-1900
          E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com

Defendant-Appellant PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION, FKA Joint Juice,
Inc., is represented by:

          Angel Antonio Garganta, Esq.
          Amit Rana, Esq.
          Steven Edward Swaney, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          101 California Street, Suite 3800
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 653-3735
          E-mail: agarganta@venable.com
                  arana@venable.com
                  seswaney@venable.com

               - and -

          Jessica Grant, Esq.
          James Sigel, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-7670
          E-mail: jgrant@mofo.com
                  jsigel@mofo.com

PREMIER TRADING: Misclassifies Drivers, Wills Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
LACORAEY S. WILLS and ALBERT L. BEASLEY, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PREMIER TRADING AND
TRANSPORTATION, LLC, NORMAN RANDY COLLUM, individually, DUSTY
COLLUM, individually, and JASE COLLUM, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 5:21-cv-00246-G (W.D. Okla., March 22, 2021) bring this
complaint against the Defendants for its alleged failure to pay
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Oklahoma's Protection of Labor Act.

The Plaintiffs have worked for the Defendants as drivers, Plaintiff
Wills was from around April 5, 2018 until around June 5, 2020,
while Plaintiff Beasley was from around September 11, 2018 until
around April 2020.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant misclassified them and
other drivers as independent contractors, and failed to pay them
minimum and overtime wages and/or all wages agreed upon and earned.
Accordingly, both Plaintiffs entered into a written agreement with
the Defendants for the purpose of purchasing a vehicle from the
Defendant Premier to be used to transport crude oil on behalf of
the Defendant Premier.

Although they were identified as independent contractors, the
Defendant treated them as employees because they were not allowed
to use their vehicles to perform services with other entities, and
required them to use the Defendant Premier's fuel card to obtain
fuel for their vehicles, to obtain the financing of their vehicles
through Defendant Premier, and to purchase insurance for their
vehicles through Defendant Premier but the amounts were deducted
through their paychecks. The Defendants also refused to provide
them with the title and other documents showing ownership of the
vehicle, the suit says.

Premier Trading and Transportation, LLC is a freight trucking
company that hauls materials such as petroleum through Oklahoma and
to other states including Texas. The Individual Defendants are all
supervisors of the Corporate Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amber L. Hurst, Esq.
          Mark Hammons, Esq.
          Brandon D. Roberts, Esq.
          HAMMONS, HURTS & ASSOC.
          325 Dean A. McGee Ave.
          Oklahoma, OK 73102
          Tel: (405) 235-6100
          Fax: (405) 235-6111
          E-mail: brandon@hammonslaw.com


PREMIERE CREDIT: Echols Appeals Ruling in FDCPA Suit to 3rd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Champaine Echols filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled CHAMPAINE ECHOLS, Individually and on
behalf of All Other Similarly Situated Consumers v. PREMIERE CREDIT
OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 2-19-cv-04125, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The case is a putative class action under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA"). Plaintiff Echols alleges that Premiere
sent her a deceptive notice in order to collect a credit card debt.
The notice stated that the debt listed was current as of the date
the notice was sent, but further claimed that the debt could
"increase or decrease." A toll-free number was listed for the
recipient to call and confirm the payoff amount.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's notice created "a false
sense of urgency" to repay the debt and that it failed adequately
to convey "the amount of the debt," in violation of the FDCPA. The
Defendant responded that the notice was both accurate and adequate,
and pointed to persuasive authority from the Seventh Circuit as
endorsing its approach.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on February 18, 2021, the
District Court granted the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
in the lawsuit. The Plaintiff seeks a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Champaine Echols v. Premiere
Credit of North America LLC, Case No. 21-1534, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on March 19,
2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant CHAMPAINE ECHOLS, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated consumers, is represented by:

          Elizabeth E. Apostola, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Linker, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW
          660 Broadway
          Paterson, NJ 07514
          Telephone: (862) 227-3106
          E-mail: nl@zemellawllc.com

Defendant-Appellee PREMIERE CREDIT OF NORTH AMERICA LLC is
represented by:

          Lauren M. Burnette, Esq.
          MESSER STRICKLER
          12276 San Jose Boulevard, Suite 720
          Jacksonville, FL 32223
          Telephone: (904) 527-1172
          E-mail: lburnette@messerstrickler.com

               - and -

          Nicole M. Strickler, Esq.
          MESSER STRICKLER
          225 West Washington Street
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 334-3442
          E-mail: nstrickler@messerstrickler.com

REGENCY GP: Dieckman Appeals Ruling in Merger-Related Claims Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Adrian Dieckman filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled DRIAN DIECKMAN, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REGENCY GP
LP and REGENCY GP LLC, Defendants, Case No. 11130-CB, in the Court
of Chancery of Delaware.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Adrian
Dieckman, a purported Regency Energy Partners LP unitholder, filed
a class action complaint on June 10, 2015, related to the
Regency-ETO merger in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, on behalf of Regency's common unitholders against Regency
GP LP, Regency GP LLC, Energy Transfer LP (ET), Energy Transfer
Operating, L.P. (ETO), Energy Transfer Partners GP, L.P. (ETP GP),
and the members of Regency's board of directors.

The Regency Merger Litigation alleges that the Regency Merger
breached the Regency partnership agreement. On March 29, 2016, the
Delaware Court of Chancery granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety. Plaintiff appealed, and the
Delaware Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of
Chancery.

Plaintiff then filed an Amended Verified Class Action Complaint,
which defendants moved to dismiss.

The Court of Chancery granted in part and denied in part the
motions to dismiss, dismissing the claims against all defendants
other than Regency GP LP and Regency GP LLC. The Court of Chancery
later granted plaintiff's unopposed motion for class
certification.

Trial was held on December 10-16, 2019, and a post-trial hearing
was held on May 6, 2020. On February 15, 2021, the Court of
Chancery ruled in favor of the Regency Defendants on both
remaining
counts at issue in this litigation.

Mr. Dieckman seeks a review of the said Court's Memorandum Opinion,
dated February 15, 2021, and the Order granting in part and denying
in part Defendants' motion to dismiss, dated February 20, 2018.

The appellate case is captioned as ADRIAN DIECKMAN, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
REGENCY GP LP and REGENCY GP LLC, Defendants-Appellees, Case No.
92,2021, in the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, filed on
March 19, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant ADRIAN DIECKMAN, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Gregory V. Varallo, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 364-3601
          E-mail: Greg.Varallo@blbglaw.com

               - and -

          Christine M. Mackintosh, Esq.
          Vivek Upadhya, Esq.
          Michael D. Bell, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          123 S. Justison Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622-7081
          E-mail: cmackintosh@gelaw.com
                  vupadhya@gelaw.com  
                  mbell@gelaw.com

               - and -

          Jeroen van Kwawegen, Esq.
          Edward G. Timlin, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 554-1472
          E-mail: jeroen@blbglaw.com
                  edward.timlin@blbglaw.com  

               - and -

          Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
          James S. Notis, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          Tower 56 126 E. 56th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 905-0509
          E-mail: mgardy@gardylaw.com
                  jnotis@gardylaw.com  

Defendants-Appellees REGENCY GP LP and REGENCY GP LLC are
represented by:

          Rolin P. Bissel, Esq.
          Tammy L. Mercer, Esq.
          YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
          1000 North King Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 571-6560
          E-mail: rbissell@ycst.com
                  tmercer@ycst.com  

               - and -

          Michael C. Holmes, Esq.
          John C. Wander, Esq.
          Craig E. Zieminski, Esq.
          VINSON & ELKINS LLP
          Trammel Crow Center 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3900
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 220-7814  
          E-mail: mholmes@velaw.com
                  jwander@velaw.com
                  czieminski@velaw.com

RENEWABLE ENERGY: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of May 3 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadlines in the following securities class action
lawsuits:

Renewable Energy Group, Inc. (REGI)
Class Period: 5/3/2018 - 2/25/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: May 3, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-regi/

Velodyne Lidar, Inc. (VLDR)
Class Period: 11/9/2020 - 2/19/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: May 3, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-vldr/

Leidos Holdings, Inc. (LDOS)
Class Period: 5/4/2020 - 2/23/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: May 3, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-ldos/

Workhorse Group, Inc. (WKHS)
Class Period: 7/7/2020 - 2/23/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: May 7, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-wkhs/

If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above.

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

                           About KSF

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

To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.

Contact:

Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN]


SA POWER: Faces Suit Over 2019 Bushfire Due to Faulty Network
-------------------------------------------------------------
Australian Associated Press reports that a class action seeking an
estimated $150 million in damages has been launched on behalf of
hundreds of victims of the bushfire that raged through the Adelaide
Hills in December 2019.

Filed in the SA Supreme Court by Maddens Lawyers, it will argue
that power company SA Power Networks should have done more to
ensure its protection devices responded immediately to any faults
on its network.

Senior counsel Brendan Pendergast said the claim argues the company
should have ensured those devices, which could de-energize a
powerline brought down by a falling tree, to their most sensitive
settings.

"They had the ability and the capacity to do that and one wonders
if you don't make that adjustment on the fourth successive
catastrophic bushfire day in the Adelaide Hills, when do you
instigate that capacity," he said.

The 23,000-hectare blaze, which destroyed almost 100 homes and
damaged hundreds of other buildings and vehicles, also claimed one
life with the body of a man found in his burnt-out home in the
small town of Charleston.

Known as the Cudlee Creek fire, it was sparked when a large pine
tree fell on high-voltage conductors.

One of the live conductors then came into contact with a wire fence
and the ground, igniting the blaze.

A state government investigation found the tree was beyond the
prescribed clearance zone and that its failure could not have been
identified before the event.

Mr Pendergast said his company had made contact with about 50
victims, but with the claim operating on an "opt out" basis it
could involve up to 1000 people.

He said there was broad-based community support for the class
action and he believed the case was a strong one.

Lead plaintiff Kris Thrower, who lost his house and most of his
possessions, said the fire changed his life and the life of his
family forever.

"I worked so hard to establish myself and now I've stepped back all
the way to zero with absolutely nothing," he said in a statement on
March 11.

"It still gives me nightmares. I'd like to think that someone is
held accountable for the devastation to my life, my family's life,
the environment around us and all the animals that perished.

"Mentally, I'm anxious. I used to be one of the calmest people I
know, now every day I'm looking on the horizon for a fire.

"It changes you. My life has been flipped upside down and I
personally don't have any closure on it."

In a statement to AAP, SA Power Networks said while it had not yet
seen the detail of the claim, it would defend its actions.

"An independent government report concluded the fire start was due
to a tree falling from outside the clearance zone and that SA Power
Networks had acted in accord with its bushfire and vegetation
management procedures and equipment settings," the company said.
[GN]


SAN JOSE, CA: Engages in Widespread Law Violations, Protestors Say
------------------------------------------------------------------
NAACP OF SAN JOSE/SILICON VALLEY; SAN JOSE PEACE AND JUSTICE
CENTER; M. MICHAEL ACOSTA, AS AN INDIVIDUAL; AND JOSEPH CANAS;
LESLIE VASQUEZ; PETER ALLEN; SHAUNN CARTWRIGHT; YESSICA RILES; JOSE
GUSTAVO FLORES RODRIGUEZ; ALEX LEE; JOSEPH MALDONADO; CINDY
CUELLAR; MAHMOUDREZA NAEMEH; AND MEGAN SWIFT, ON BEHALF OF
THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. CITY OF SAN JOSE;
SAM LICCARDO; EDGARDO GARCIA; DAVID SYKES; JASON DWYER; RONNIE
LOPEZ, LEE TASSIO, JARED YUEN; SEAN MICHAEL CURRY, OFFICER FNU
DELGADO, and DOES 1-100, Case No. 5:21-cv-01705-NC (N.D. Cal.,
March 11, 2020) alleges that Defendants engaged in repeated,
widespread violations of law over the course of at least several
nights using excessive force against hundreds if not thousands of
protestors in retaliation for their First Amendment activity.

According to the complaint, the Defendants imposed a curfew without
accommodating the right to peaceable assembly and protest; declared
unlawful assemblies without adequate sound amplification and
without providing adequate notice, means and opportunity to
disperse before taking aggressive police action including the use
of highly dangerous PIW, chemical weapons and explosive grenades
hitting large numbers of protestors with batons, hands, grenades
and/or PIW and using chemical weapons on them all with unreasonable
and excessive force; failed to provide medical aid or
decontamination to persons defendants shot and/or teargassed;
unlawfully arrested and detained 70 or more people and placing
detainees at great risk of exposure to COVID-19 while on buses as
described above; and targeted perceived people of color for these
civil rights violations.

The Plaintiffs contend that San Jose City, through Mr. Garcia and
the SJPD, has failed to train its officers in the constitutional
responses to demonstrations as revealed by the above allegations.

NAACP is a nonprofit organization that works on issues related to
equal access to education, voter empowerment, criminal justice,
police misconduct, health equity, and economic growth for People of
Color.

San Jose City Mayor Sam Liccardo approved a city-wide 8:30 p.m. -
5:30 a.m. curfew, enacted to suppress First Amendment rights of
racial justice protesters without a legitimate government purpose
or adequate notice, causing the wrongful arrests of the plaintiffs
Shaunn Cartwright, Alex Lee, and class members.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel Lederman, Esq.
          RACHEL LEDERMAN & ALEXSIS C.
          Beach, Attorneys
          P.O. Box 40339
          San Francisco, CA 94140-0339
          Telephone: (415) 282-9300
          E-mail: rachel@sfbla.com

               - and -

          James B. Chanin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES B. CHANIN
          3050 Shattuck Avenue
          Berkeley, CA 94705
          Telephone: (510) 848-4752, Ext. 2

               - and -

          Tifanei Ressl-Moyer, Esq.
          LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS OF
          SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
          131 Steuart Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 543-9444
          E-mail: tresslmoyer@lccrsf.org

               - and -

          R. Michael Flynn, Esq.
          FLYNN LAW OFFICE
          1720 Broadway, Ste 430
          P.O. Box 70973
          Oakland CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 893-3226

SHOREWOOD HOME: Fails to Properly Pay Sales Clerk, Perales Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID PERALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SHOREWOOD HOME AND AUTO, INC. and MARC
MOYER, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01760 (N.D. Ill., April 1,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of
contract and violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated employees appropriate minimum wage and
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.

The Plaintiff worked as a retail sales clerk at either the
Defendant's Shorewood facility or Homer Glen, Illinois retail
location in Will County, Illinois from on or about July 15, 2019
until on or about December 16, 2020.

Shorewood Home and Auto, Inc. is a home improvement store, with its
principal place of business in Shorewood, Will County, Illinois.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                                   
          
         
         Glenn R. Gaffney, Esq.
         GAFFNEY & GAFFNEY P.C.
         1771 Bloomingdale Road
         Glendale Heights, IL 60139
         Telephone: (630) 462-1200
         Facsimile: (630) 462-7698
         E-mail: glenn@gaffneylawpc.com

SOUTHWESTERN BUILDING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Garcia Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ROSA MARIA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHWESTERN BUILDING SERVICES,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-00938 (S.D. Tex., March 23, 2021)
arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to pay the overtime premium required by
law.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a housekeeper and
cleaner from March 2020 until March 2021.

The Plaintiff asserts that despite regularly working in excess of
40 hours per week, the Defendant did pay her an overtime premium
for any of the hours she worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.
Instead, she was paid the same hourly rate for all hours she
worked.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint a collective action on behalf
of herself and other similarly situated housekeepers and cleaners
seeking to recover from the Defendant an amount equal to their
unpaid overtime wages at the applicable rate, as well as liquidated
damages in an equal amount to the unpaid overtime wages,
pre-judgment interest, all cost and attorney's fees, and other
relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

Southwestern Building Services, Inc. provides housekeeping and
cleaning services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
          Houston, TX 77018
          Tel: (713) 868-3388
          Fax: (713) 683-9940
          E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com


SPX CORPORATION: UAW Appeals Ruling in ERISA Suit to 4th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff International Union United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, filed an appeal
from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled DAVID BRASS,
RICHARD HAMILTON, CHARLES KOZITZKY, RON BEEGLE, DAVID BABCOCK, and
CARL VAN LOON, Plaintiffs v. SPX CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
3:14-cv-00656-RJC-DSC, in the United States District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina at Charlotte.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, in 2001, the
UAW along with several retired SPX union members filed two class
action lawsuits against SPX alleging it had violated the union
members' rights to lifetime health benefits. The parties eventually
negotiated a resolution to those suits, which led to the execution
and court approval of two settlement agreements in 2004. In the
Settlement Agreements, SPX agreed to provide certain health care
benefits to retirees and surviving spouses for the remainder of
their lives.

After the signing of the Settlement Agreements in 2004, SPX made
several changes affecting the provision of benefits to the
settlement groups without complaint from the UAW.

Plaintiffs/Retirees Brass, Beegle, Babcock, Van Loon, Hamilton, and
Kozitzky, along with several other retirees who have since been
dismissed from the case, filed their Complaint against SPX on Nov.
25, 2014. They brought two claims in their Complaint: (1) violation
of the settlement agreements under section 301 of the Labor
Management Relations Act ("LMRA"); and (2) violation of employee
welfare benefit plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act ("ERISA"). Following failed settlement discussions both parties
sought summary judgment. The parties have also filed motions to
strike expert witness opinions.

The Plaintiff amended its complaint to contain four claims: two
claims of violation of the Settlement Agreements' under section 301
of the LMRA, and two claims of 'violation of ERISA plans' under
Section 502(a)(1)(B) of the ERISA.

UAW seeks a review of the Order dated December 31, 2019 wherein the
Court granted Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment and
dismissed the Union's claims as a Plaintiff from this action.

The appellate case is captioned as UAW v. SPX Corporation, Case No.
21-1295, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit, filed on March 18, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE,
AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA is
represented by:

          Pamela K. Bratt, Esq.
          Michael L. Fayette, Esq.
          Sarah Riley Howard, Esq.
          PINSKY, SMITH, FAYETTE & KENNEDY, LLP
          146 Monroe Center Street, NW
          Grand Rapids, MI 49503
          Telephone: (616) 451-8496
          E-mail: mlfayette@sbcglobal.net

               - and -

          Narendra K. Ghosh, Esq.
          PATTERSON HARKAVY, LLP
          100 Europa Drive
          Chapel Hill, NC 27517
          Telephone: (919) 942-5200
          E-mail: nghosh@pathlaw.com  

Defendant-Appellee SPX CORPORATION is represented by:

          Cary Baxter Davis, Esq.
          Amanda Pickens Nitto, Esq.
          David Calep Wright, III, Esq.
          ROBINSON BRADSHAW & HINSON, PA
          101 North Tryon Street
          Charlotte, NC 28246
          Telephone: (704) 377-8386
          E-mail: cdavis@rbh.com
                  apickens@rbh.com
                  dwright@rbh.com

               - and -

          Mark Hiller, Esq.
          ROBINSON, BRADSHAW &HINSON, P.A.
          1450 Raleigh Road
          Chapel Hill, NC 27517
          Telephone: (919) 328-8814
          E-mail: mhiller@robinsonbradshaw.com

SUGARHOUSE HSP: Wade Sues Over Retaliation After Filing PFPA Leave
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALYSSE WADE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUGARHOUSE HSP GAMING, L.P. d/b/a RIVERS
CASINO PHILADELPHIA; and JOHN DOES 1-5 AND 6-10, Defendants, Case
No. 210303142 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl., April 1, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for retaliation by terminating the
Plaintiff's employment after she requested for a leave as a result
of a domestic violence incident pursuant to the Philadelphia Fair
Practices Ordinance.

The Plaintiff worked as a beverage server at Rivers Casino
Philadelphia on or around November 20, 2015 until her termination
on or around June 20, 2019.

Sugarhouse HSP Gaming, L.P. is a company that operates a casino
under the name Rivers Casino Philadelphia, located at 1001 North
Delaware Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                                   
         Drake P. Bearden, Jr., Esq.
         COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
         18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
         Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
         Telephone: (856) 727-9700

SUKKAH MIAMI BEACH: Martell Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, PROVIDENCIA MARTELL, for herself and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUKKAH MIAMI BEACH ACQUISITIONS
LLC, PEBB CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC a/k/a HAMPTON INN MID BEACH BY
HILTON, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-21094-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March
22, 2021) challenges the Defendant's alleged intentional and
willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately
August 26, 2019 to February 22, 2021 as a non-exempted, full-time,
hourly housekeeper and head-housekeeper.

The Plaintiff claims that she was misclassified by the Defendants
as Housekeeper Manager. Although she worked more than 40 hours
every week, the Defendant paid her the same salary regardless of
the number of hours she worked. The Defendant willfully failed to
pay all of her overtime compensation at one and one-half times her
regular rate of pay for all hours she worked over 40 in a workweek.
In addition, the Defendant paid her on a bi-weekly basis with
checks and paystubs that did not show the number of days and the
real number of hours she worked every week.

Moreover, the Defendant unlawfully fired the Plaintiff on or about
February 2, 2021 subsequently after the Defendant denied her
petition to be assigned light duty temporarily because she was
unable to perform physically demanding work due to her injury
suffered while doing laundry work.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover actual damages from the Defendants
in the amount due for unpaid compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 weekly with interest, as well as liquidate damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs, and other relief
as the Court deems equitable and just.

The Corporate Defendants provide hospitality services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Tel: (305) 446-1500
          Fax: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


SURGICAL CARE: Joseph Saveri Law Files Antitrust Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Joseph Saveri Law Firm has filed an antitrust class action
complaint against Surgical Care Affiliates (SCA) and United
Surgical Partners International (USPI), alleging these companies
entered into agreements not to compete for one another's
senior-level employees. These so-called "no-poach" agreements
enabled these companies to avoid paying competitive wages to retain
their senior-staff. The lawsuit was filed in federal court in
Chicago, Illinois.

The lawsuit is brought by a former employee of SCA on behalf of a
proposed class of all senior-level employees of these companies (at
minimum, "Director" and above) between May 2010 and July 2017, when
the agreements were allegedly in effect. SCA, which is owned by
United Healthgroup, Inc., is one of the largest providers of
outpatient surgery in the United States with over 230 medical care
facilities nationwide. USPI is owned by Tenet Healthcare
Corporation and owns and operates over 550 outpatient and other
medical facilities, employs 110,000 people, partners with
approximately 5,000 physicians, and serves 10 million patients
annually across 28 states.

In labor markets, workers benefit from a competitive environment:
Ideally, employers compete against one another to hire employees
who have the training and skills to enhance the employers' services
and brands, resulting in higher compensation and benefits for those
employees. In contrast, unlawful no-poach agreements suppress wages
for employees who might have sought better opportunities with
competing employers but were not hired due to the conspiracy. These
no-poach agreements further limit compensation for all senior-level
health care employees—even those who did not seek other job
opportunities—because companies adhere to a policy of internal
equity, generally compensating workers of similar titles and job
descriptions equally.

In January, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) indicted SCA for
these anticompetitive agreements. In its indictment, the DOJ
alleged SCA conspired with other health care companies to suppress
competition for senior-level employees in violation of federal
antitrust laws. The DOJ is pursuing criminal charges, separate from
civil liability that SCA and its co-conspirators may face from
employees affected by its anticompetitive conduct.

"When companies engage in these unlawful agreements, they
effectively suppress wages for workers across the entire industry.
Instead of competing with other firms to retain employees by
offering higher wages and better benefits, these companies denied
their employees access to a better life and the right to be paid
the true value of their skills and talent," says Joseph Saveri,
counsel for the plaintiff.

The case is Spradling v. Surgical Care Affiliates, LLC et al., case
number 21-cv-01324, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

                     ABOUT THE FIRM

The Joseph Saveri Law Firm is one of the country's most acclaimed,
successful boutique firms, specializing in antitrust, class
actions, and complex litigation on behalf of national and
international consumers, purchasers, and employees across diverse
industries. For further information on our practice and
accomplishments on behalf of our clients, please visit
www.saverilawfirm.com. [GN]


UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Must Face Cancer Therapy Coverage Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alia Paavola, writing for Becker's Hospital Review, reports that a
class-action lawsuit accusing UnitedHealthcare of improperly
denying a cancer treatment known as proton beam therapy moved
forward after a federal judge refused to toss the case, according
to court documents obtained by Becker's Hospital Review.

U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs denied UnitedHealthcare's
motion to dismiss the case March 8.

In the lawsuit, Kate Weissman, Richard Cole, and Zachary Rizzuto
claim UnitedHealthcare deceptively and unfairly administered their
health plans by refusing to cover proton beam therapy because it is
more expensive than traditional cancer treatments. More
specifically, the complaint alleges UnitedHealthcare breached its
fiduciary duty as a health plan by denying their requests for
pre-authorization for the treatment and improperly categorized the
FDA-approved treatment as experimental.

In its motion to dismiss, UnitedHealthcare argued that proton beam
therapy had not been proven to be more effective than traditional
radiation therapy.

UnitedHealthcare said it intends to "vigorously defend this matter"
in court.

"We are committed to providing our members coverage for safe,
proven and clinically effective health care services, which is why
we rely on guidance from medical societies, published studies and
evidence-based protocols to make these coverage decisions. We cover
cancer therapies including, for some cancers, proton beam therapy.
We continually review and update our medical policies and coverage
decisions based on the most current published clinical and
scientific evidence." [GN]


VAN BUREN COUNTY, MI: 6th Cir. Appeal Filed in Wayside Church Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Van Buren County, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled WAYSIDE CHURCH, MYRON W.
STAHL, and HENDERSON HODGENS, individually and on behalf of a class
of all others similarly situated, v. VAN BUREN COUNTY, et al., Case
No. 1:14-cv-01274, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.

The Plaintiffs brought this action in 2014 as a "plaintiff class"
and "defendant class" action to obtain damages for all former
property owners in the State whose real property was sold at tax
auction with the municipality keeping the surplus.

The Defendants seek a review of the Court's Order dated February
16, 2021, granting in part and denying in part their motion to
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellate case is captioned as Wayside Church, et al. v. Van
Buren County, et al., Case No. 21-1272, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on March 18, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees WAYSIDE CHURCH, an Illinois Not-For-Profit
(Ecclesiastical) Corporation; MYRON W. STAHL, and HENDERSON
HODGENS, individually and on behalf of a class of all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          David H. Fink,Esq.
          FINK BRESSACK
          38500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 350
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
          Telephone: (248) 971-2500

               - and -

          Christina Marie Martin, Esq.
          PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION
          4440 PGA Boulevard, Suite 307
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: (561) 691-5000  

Defendants-Appellants VAN BUREN COUNTY, in its individual Michigan
municipal capacity and on behalf of a class of all other Michigan
counties similarly situated; and KAREN MAKAY, in her individual
official capacity as Treasures of Van Buren County and on behalf of
a class of all other Treasurers of Michigan Counties similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Theodore W. Seitz, Esq.
          DYKEMA
          201 Townsend Street, Suite 900
          Lansing, MI 48933
          Telephone: (517) 374-9100
          E-mail: tseitz@dykema.com

VELODYNE LIDAR: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of May 3 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Velodyne Lidar, Inc.
("Velodyne" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: VLDR) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired Velodyne securities between November 9, 2020 and February
19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are
encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/vldr.

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

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, and failed to
disclose material adverse facts. Specifically, the complaint
alleges that some Velodyne directors failed to maintain an attitude
of respect, honesty, integrity, and candor with the Company's
officers and directors, and that Velodyne has began investigations
into this matter.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/vldr or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz
& Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Velodyne
you have until May 3, 2021 to request that the Court appoint you as
lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

Contact:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]


WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Judge Tosses Property Tax Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Ferretti, writing for The Detroit News, reports that a
federal judge has dismissed a class-action lawsuit against the
city, Wayne County and state officials that argued Detroit property
owners were "illegally" prevented from appealing property tax
assessments.

U.S. District Court Judge Nancy Edmunds on March 12 granted a
request from the defendants to dismiss the case and its claims of
due-process rights violations, saying the federal court lacks
jurisdiction since "there is a state remedy that is plain, speedy,
and efficient."

Detroit Assessor Alvin Horhn, in a statement, said the case never
had merit.

"We're pleased that the judge recognized how quickly the city
provided a simple and efficient solution to make sure every
homeowner that wanted to appeal their assessment had the time they
needed to do it," Horhn said. "In fact, Detroit has the most robust
process in Michigan for homeowners to appeal their assessment if
they feel they are inaccurate."

Rami Naji Fakhouri of the Chicago law firm Goldman Ismail Tomaselli
Brennan & Baum LLP, which filed the lawsuit last year, said in an
email on March 8 that his clients disagree with the court's
decision and plan to appeal it.

"In fact, the City admitted in court filings that it mailed more
than 263,000 assessment notices to Detroit homeowners just four
days before the printed appeal deadline in 2017," he wrote.
"Detroiters deserve their day in court, and we look forward to
continuing the effort to hold Defendants accountable for their
due-process violations in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit."

Activists, experts and city officials gathered in February 2020 to
announce the lawsuit and urged reforms to compensate tens of
thousands of overtaxed Detroit homeowners.

The lawsuit said all homeowners in Detroit were mailed their tax
assessments in 2017 too late to have a reasonable chance to file a
tax appeal. The failure to timely mail tax notices, the lawsuit
claimed, violated homeowners' constitutional rights.

The class action represented owner-occupants who got "deficient"
property tax notices in 2017 and sought to allow residents to
appeal their 2017 assessments and recover damages. They also wanted
the county to halt foreclosures of any properties that did not get
proper notice to appeal.

In 2017, the city completed an $8.4 million citywide property
reappraisal. The effort was ordered by the state after a Detroit
News investigation in 2013 highlighted overassessment problems.

Officials, at the time, admitted the notices did go out late but
that the window to appeal was extended by two weeks so homeowners
had the same amount of time to file.

The lawsuit also alleged "unjust enrichment" by Wayne County, which
has oversight of Detroit's property assessments. A spokesman for
the county could not be immediately reached late on March 12.

In 2016, the ACLU of Michigan and the NAACP Legal Defense and
Education Fund sued the Wayne County Treasurer to stop the tax
auction, noting the city's inflated tax assessments. Those claims
were thrown out when a Wayne County Circuit judge ruled the
Michigan Tax Tribunal had oversight, not the court.

The Detroit News published an investigation in January 2020 that
found City Hall overtaxed homeowners by at least $600 million
between 2010 and 2016 after officials failed to accurately bring
down property values in the years following the recession.

Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan has acknowledged past overassessments but
said he cleaned up the practice and lowered values after he took
office in 2014. [GN]


WESTERN DISTRIBUTING: Medina Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CESAR MEDINA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WESTERN DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, INC. dba
WESTERN DISTRIBUTING TRANSPORTATION CORP., and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive, Case No. 20CV003244, was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California in the County of Monterey to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on April 1,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-02393 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code, the California Wage Theft Prevention Act,
and the California Business and Professions Code including failure
to pay all earned wages, failure to pay all earned overtime wages,
failure to permit paid 10-minute rest periods, failure to provide
30-minute meal periods, failure to timely pay all wages and
compensation, failure to pay all earned wages and compensation upon
termination of employment, failure to provide lawful wage
statements, failure to indemnify for work-related expenses, and
unfair business practices.

Western Distributing Company, Inc., doing business as Western
Distributing Transportation Corp., is a wine wholesaler and
importer, headquartered in Denver, Colorado. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Steven W. Moore, Esq.
         David F. Faustman, Esq.
         Tyreen Torner, Esq.
         Steven Wong, Esq.
         FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
         345 California Street, Suite 2200
         San Francisco, CA 94104-2670
         Telephone: (415) 364-5540
         Facsimile: (415) 391-4436
         E-mail: swmoore@foxrothschild.com
                 dfaustman@foxrothschild.com
                 ttorner@foxrothschild.com
                 swong@foxrothschild.com

WORKHORSE GROUP: Faces Kinney Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN KINNEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. WORKHORSE GROUP INC., DUANE HUGHES, and STEVE
SCHRADER, Case No. 2:21-cv-02207 (C.D. Cal., March 11, 2020) is a
securities class action on behalf of all persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Workhorse securities between July
7, 2020 and February 23, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period")
seeking to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

In 2016, the U.S. 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.

According to the complaint, on March 13, 2020, Workhorse filed its
annual report on Form 10-K with the SEC for the year ended December
31, 2019 (the "2019 10-K") which was signed by the Individual
Defendants. Attached to the 2019 10-K were certifications pursuant
to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) signed by the Individual
Defendants attesting to the accuracy of the financial statements
and the disclosure of all fraud.

On February 23, 2021, while the market was open, the USPS issued a
press 4 release entitled "U.S. Postal Service Awards Contract to
Launch Multi-Billion-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 $14.87 per share, or 47%, to close at $16.47 per
share 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 per share, a fall of over 50% from the
previous open, damaging investors, the suit says.

The New York Times published an article on February 24, 2021,
entitled 20 "Losing Bid for Postal Contract Proves Costly for
Electric-Vehicle Maker." The subtitle 21 read: "Workhorse, a small
truck maker with big ambitions, was counting on the deal for a
surge in revenue. Its shares lost $2 billion in value."

As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions,
and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

The Plaintiff purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period
and was damaged upon the revelation of the alleged corrective
disclosure.

Defendant Workhorse is a technology company engaged in the
development and manufacturing of electric delivery vehicles.
Workhorse is incorporated in Nevada and maintains its principal
executive offices at 100 Commerce Drive, Loveland, Ohio. The
Individual Defendants are officers of the company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 405-7190
          Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ &
          GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com

XL FLEET: 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.

CONTACT:

Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]


XL FLEET: Robbins Geller Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on March 10 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the Southern District of New York
on behalf of purchasers of XL Fleet Corp. (NYSE:XL) securities
between October 2, 2020 and March 2, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The case is captioned Suh v. XL Fleet Corp., No.
21-cv-02002, and is assigned to Judge Lorna G. Schofield. The XL
Fleet class action lawsuit charges XL Fleet and certain of its
executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased XL Fleet securities during the Class Period
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the XL Fleet class action
lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest
financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who
is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead
plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing
the XL Fleet class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a
law firm of its choice to litigate the XL Fleet class action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery of the XL Fleet class action lawsuit is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff
of the XL Fleet class action lawsuit or have questions concerning
your rights regarding the XL Fleet class action lawsuit, please
provide your information here or contact counsel, J.C. Sanchez of
Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the XL Fleet class
action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than May 7,
2021.

XL Fleet provides vehicle electrification solutions for commercial
and municipal fleets in North America, offering hybrid and plug-in
hybrid electric drive systems. XL Fleet formed via the merger of XL
Hybrids, Inc. and Pivotal Investment Corporation II ("Pivotal"),
which closed on or about December 22, 2020. Pivotal was a special
purpose acquisition company ("SPAC").

The XL Fleet class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the
Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) XL Fleet's salespeople were
pressured to inflate their sales pipelines to boost XL Fleet's
reported sales and backlog; (ii) at least 18 of the 33 customers
that XL Fleet featured were inactive and had not placed an order
since 2019; (iii) XL Fleet's technology had been materially
overstated and offered only 5% to 10% of fleet savings; (iv) XL
Fleet lacked the supply chain and engineers to roll out new
products on the announced timelines; and (v) as a result of the
foregoing, defendants' positive statements about XL Fleet's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On March 3, 2021, Muddy Waters Research 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 [Fleet]'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 [Fleet] featured were inactive." Muddy Waters
also claimed that XL Fleet 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 [Fleet]
engineers to deliver on the promised timeline." On this news, XL
Fleet's share price fell approximately 13%, damaging investors.

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

Contacts:

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]


XL FLEET: Rosen Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on March 9
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of XL Fleet Corp. (NYSE: XL) between
October 2, 2020 and March 2, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 7,
2021.

SO WHAT: If you purchased XL Fleet securities during the Class
Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the XL Fleet class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2055.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. 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.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan
of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) XL Fleet's salespeople were
pressured to inflate their sales pipelines to boost the Company's
reported sales and backlog; (2) at least 18 of the 33 customers
that XL Fleet featured were inactive and had not placed an order
since 2019; (3) XL Fleet's technology had been materially
overstated and offered only 5% to 10% of fleet savings; (4) XL
Fleet lacks the supply chain and engineers to roll out new products
on the announced timeline; and (5) 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. According to the suit, these true details were
disclosed by a market research firm.

To join the XL Fleet class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2055.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

CONTACT:

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016

Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827

lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]


XL FLEET: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on March 11 disclosed
that a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed on
behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
XL Fleet Corp. ("XL Fleet" or the "Company") (NYSE: XL) securities
between October 2, 2021 and March 2, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

All investors who purchased shares of XL Fleet Corp. and incurred
losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.

If you have incurred losses in the shares of XL Fleet Corp., you
may, no later than May 7, 2021, request that the Court appoint you
lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf
Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in the
shares of XL Fleet Corp.

On March 3, 2021, Muddy Waters Research 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 stock 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.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com.

Contact:

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Kevin Cooper, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com, kcooper@whafh.com or
classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774

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


ZINUS: Mattress Class Action Lawsuit Set to Go to Trial in 2022
---------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Campbell, writing for azfamily.com, reports that it was the
first night Luken and Jackson Richie got to sleep in their new
beds, and for the three and five-year-old brothers, it was a big
deal.

"They got their new jammies, their best blankets, their best
stuffed animals, we made their bed and took their pictures," their
mom, Amanda Richie, recalled.

Amanda and Josh Richie, of Prescott, said goodnight to their boys
and turned off the lights. Within 15 minutes, the children were out
of their new beds, and complaining about skin irritation.

"They came out and they're like, "Mama, we're itchy! We're itchy!"
Richie said.

Luken, the 3-year-old, has severe respiratory issues and allergies,
so there was no time to waste.

"The one thing that's different is the mattress, so we took them
out really fast," Amanda said.

She couldn't see what was causing the problem, until she shined a
flashlight on the new mattresses.

"They literally lit up," she said. "They were like disco balls,
just knives of glass all over."

Amanda went back inside the house and quickly realized there was
fiberglass everywhere. Microscopic strands of plastic and glass
fibers had been unleashed in her home when she washed the removable
mattress covers.

"It had a little white pull tag to make it easier to open," she
said. "There's no mother on earth that wouldn't take a zippered
white cover and wash it."

From painting walls to professional HVAC cleaning, the Richies
spent more than a week deep cleaning every inch of their home while
their boys stayed with family members.

"We started going item through item, and the further you went into
it, you realized the extent of it," Josh said.

"You'd feel it," Amanda added. "It would start stabbing your face,
little tiny itchy dots. You'd feel it. You'd cough. You'd sneeze."

The young family had to get rid of so much. The clothes, the washer
and dryer, furniture, and precious memories were all hauled away by
the truckload.

"I could picture my kids as babies with those toys and we're just
throwing them in the dumpster," Josh said.

According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission,
fiberglass is a common component in a variety of products and is
often used to add strength and fire-resistance.

"CPSC has mandatory requirements for mattresses and mattress pads,"
Patty Davis, a spokesperson for the agency said in an email. "The
regulations are performance standards, not design standards, so
they do not specify the use of specific materials or individual
components."

On the agency's website, SaferProducts.gov, there are a slew of
complaints similar to the Richie family's experience. Lloyd Cueto,
an attorney who represents a family from the St. Louis, Missouri
area, filed a class action lawsuit against mattress manufacturer
Zinus, alleging design defects and inadequate warning labels.

Amanda Chandler and Robert Durham claim a Zinus mattress "released
extremely large amounts of dangerous glass fibers which then caused
serious and potentially life-threatening injuries to their family
of five."

"They really are just horror stories," Cueto told 3 On Your Side.

"The very existence of a zipper invites you to unzip it," he said.
"It's kind of pandora's box. Once it's open, there's no putting it
back together."

When asked about the lawsuit and the zipper on the product, a
spokesperson for Zinus said the company values its customers and
takes feedback seriously. The company also pointed 3 On Your Side
to its website, which says "the mattress cover isn't washable…so
please always leave the cover on."

In court documents, Zinus argues fiberglass is "a useful and safe
fire-retardant material."

The class action lawsuit is set to go trial next year. Since Cueto
filed it in March 2020, he says his office has been flooded
hundreds of calls from dozens of states regarding fiberglass
contamination, either from removable mattress covers or covers that
don't properly contain the fibers.

"It's industry-wide," Cueto said. "We're seeing it from over half a
dozen different manufacturers."

Cueto anticipates filing additional lawsuits, but did not say
against which mattress manufacturers.

The CPSC says it is important for consumers to follow
manufacturers' instructions for washing and drying any product,
including mattress pads. Amanda bought her mattresses second-hand
and the labels had been removed, so she doesn't know who made them
or if the manufacturer put an warnings in writing. Still, she wants
answers.

"If it is so dangerous, why is it removable?" she asked.

Amanda also wants to see manufacturing changes to save others from
this nightmare that's costing her family tens of thousands of
dollars and a little boy's priceless security blanket.

"I knew he was going to put his face on it, so I had to let it go,
and when I did, I was literally on my hands and knees in my front
yard crying putting it in a bag," Amanda said. "It was just
overwhelming. It wasn't the blanket. It was just not being able to
keep your family safe." [GN]


ZOOM VIDEO: Judge Dismisses Part of Zoombombing Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for itnews, reports that a US judge
dismissed large parts of a lawsuit accusing Zoom Video
Communications of violating users' privacy rights by sharing
personal information with Facebook, Google and LinkedIn, and
letting malevolent intruders join Zoom meetings in a practice
called Zoombombing. [GN]

[*] Casual Employment Reforms May Cut Class Action Payouts
----------------------------------------------------------
David Marin-Guzman, writing for Australian Financial Review,
reports that the government's casual employment reforms would cut
mine workers' compensation in several multimillion-dollar
underpayment class actions by as much as 50 per cent, lawyers say.

A key part of the industrial relations reforms that are before the
Senate would retrospectively allow employers to offset casuals' 25
per cent loading from any permanent entitlements owed as a result
of employing them regularly and long-term.

Although the provision will not affect already decided court cases,
they will affect class actions already in train for more than $150
million in underpayments over six years and targeting major
labour-hire companies in the mining sector.

The casual reforms are set to be a major point of contention in the
crossbench's support for the bill, with One Nation's Malcolm
Roberts closely aligned with mine workers involved in the class
actions.

Lawyer Rory Markham, whose firm Adero is leading the litigation,
said the offset provisions could cut workers' claimed backpay by
between a third and a half, with the average mine worker in the
actions owed $12,000 leave but earning $6000 loading.

"If the proposed amendments to the Fair Work Act are adopted, they
should not have retrospective effect," he said.

"Any retrospective application strips Australian workers who are
currently owed compensation under existing Australian law as set by
the Federal Court."

The Senate bill scrutiny committee said it was concerned about the
"adverse impact" of the reforms' retrospectivity which had not been
addressed.

The class actions were fuelled by a Federal Court ruling that held
a long-term casual mine worker who worked regular shifts was a
permanent staffer entitled to leave, redundancy and other benefits
on top of his loading.

Employers say the decision allows "double dipping" and some legal
experts say it could apply to a broad range of businesses that use
casuals regularly, with the Morrison government estimating
employers could face up to $39 billion in backpay.

However, unions argue the ruling is largely limited to the unique
circumstances of the mining sector where labour-hire firms employ
staff as casuals on regular rosters approved 12 months in advance.

"There is no material link between the need to create certainty for
small and medium businesses and the current state of the law," Mr
Markham said.

The bill also defines casual for the first time in law as based on
whether their job description includes an advance commitment of
work regardless of their actual pattern of work.

Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry workplace director
Scott Barklamb said the reforms were necessary to bring certainty
to business and encourage the hiring of casuals during the
recovery.

"It's probably never been more important to ensure options of
casual employment are available to allow businesses to navigate the
uncertain situation going forward," he said.

"Casual employment is also an important path for young people and
we remain very concerned of the scarring effect of the economic
situation on young Australians entering the labour market."

Casuals accounted for two-thirds of the workers who lost their job
at the height of the pandemic, representing more than 500,000 of
the newly unemployed.

Mr Barklamb said that many of those casual jobs had not returned
and many businesses had not bounced back such as in tourism,
hospitality, arts and recreation. [GN]


[*] Courts to Rule on COVID-19 Class Actions Against Cruise Lines
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Boryga, writing South Florida Sun Sentinel, reports that a
year ago, before anyone knew how COVID-19 would obliterate our way
of life, we got a taste by following the saga of thousands of
cruise passengers stranded at sea. As desperate ships full of these
sick and dying Americans and foreign nationals circled the coasts
of the U.S., debates raged about what to do. Eventually, the
passengers were accepted like war-torn refugees.

They became some of the first positive COVID-19 cases in our
nation, and the first to die. Now, the legal system is trying to
decide whom to blame.

A wave of federal lawsuits filed by former passengers over the last
year provides an account of how cruise lines were cryptic about
admitting whether the virus was on board, how they dealt with
passengers presenting early symptoms and how some gave out free
drinks to keep the party going despite sick people filling the
infirmary.

The suits also raise tough questions: How much did cruise lines
know in the early days of a rapidly evolving pandemic? How much
responsibility do the passengers shoulder for stepping on board in
the first place?

Many of these debates are playing out in South Florida because some
cruise lines force passengers, no matter where they are from, to
file lawsuits in our federal court. Thus far, a handful of cases
against lines like Celebrity Cruises, Holland America and Princess
Cruises have been dismissed or narrowed down by federal judges
across the country.

Legal experts say cruise lines are protected by language tucked
into tickets that strips passengers of rights and century-old laws
that rule the open seas and ensure cargo more than top-dollar
paying cruisers. The unprecedented nature of a global pandemic also
works in the cruise lines' favor, said Robert Jarvis, a law
professor at Nova Southeastern University and former attorney on
behalf of cruise lines.

"Cruise lines are not responsible for acts of God."

Ivonne Dome, who spent weeks stranded on a Celebrity Cruise ship
with her husband, Robert, say they get the bizarre nature of what
ships confronted. But she said that didn't give them the right to
make empty promises, shield the truth of the situation and placate
passengers instead.

"They didn't fully disclose the risk of what we could all be
facing," said Dome, 54. "They encouraged people to go out and be
together and go to the pool and join the DJ and the dancers and
have a good time."

Three days after the Domes finally disembarked in March 2020,
Robert Dome, 64, tested positive for COVID-19. Ten days after that,
he died in a New Jersey hospital.

'Trip of a lifetime'
The story of the Domes' cruise trip starts out like the stories of
countless others recounted in the pages of over a dozen federal
court complaints reviewed by the South Florida Sun Sentinel.

Passengers, often dedicated cruisers like the Domes, arrived to
ports as far flung as Fort Lauderdale, San Francisco and Argentina
in late February and early March with plans to hit locales in South
America, Hawaii and the Caribbean.

"This was supposed to be the trip of a lifetime," said Dome, whose
14-day trip included stops around South America.

In the back of the minds of some passengers were the mishaps that
had happened on the Diamond Princess and Grand Princess, two ships
that were the first to experience outbreaks in early February and
became examples for how quickly COVID-19 can spread on a ship.

Dome, who works in the fashion industry and has colleagues in Asia,
said she was aware of the virus early on. In the days leading up to
boarding the Celebrity Eclipse on March 1 in Argentina, she tried
to cancel her trip, she said. But according to her, Celebrity
representatives said she would not get any money back.

Attorneys for other passengers suing ships said their clients faced
similar burdens.

Representatives for Celebrity, Holland America and Princess cruise
lines declined to comment on the lawsuits.

But in court filings they have argued that in late February and
early March little was known about asymptomatic spread of the
virus, testing was in short supply and guidance from federal
officials, such as the CDC, was changing on a near-daily basis. In
essence, they were doing the best they could.

RELATED: Eight months after all cruises were canceled, customers
still wait for refunds. Here's what you can do. »
Dome had been on many cruises before, including Celebrity ships.
She comes from a family of cruise superfans, including parents and
siblings who take multiple trips a year.

She decided to let her guard down. "There was no reason for me not
to trust them," she said of the cruise line.

On Feb. 5, 2020, Celebrity sent an email to passengers
acknowledging the coronavirus and promising to stop crew members or
passengers from boarding the March 1 trip if they had traveled
through parts of Asia.

They pledged to provide a sanitary environment on board and said
the captain of the ship would make daily announcements to remind
everyone of how to "stay healthy."

But Dome said that as soon as she boarded, the virus never came up.
"Everything was wonderful and there was never any mention of
COVID," she said. "We were going into a beautiful trip visiting
beautiful places."

A 'false sense of reality'
What started as fun in the sun changed once ships were out on the
sea. Passengers began to feel ill and ports of call began to close
their doors. Meanwhile, on land, officials fretted.

On March 7, former Vice President Mike Pence and Florida Gov. Ron
DeSantis sat among cruise line executives in Port Everglades for a
closed-door meeting about the virus. When they emerged, they
stopped short of telling people not to cruise. "It is safe for
healthy Americans to travel," Pence said.

The very next day, the U.S. Department of State and the CDC
recommended for U.S. citizens not to travel by cruises given the
CDC's findings about the "increased risk of infection of COVID-19
in a cruise ship environment."

On March 13, Royal Caribbean, Celebrity's parent company, suspended
all future cruises for all lines, including Celebrity. By March 14,
the CDC issued its first no-sail order. On March 15, the Celebrity
Eclipse was barred from making what was supposed to be its final
stop in Chile because officials there were concerned people on
board might be infected.

According to court filings from other passengers who filed suit
against Celebrity, there were whispers of infected passengers
aboard the Eclipse as early as March 9, 2020. Dome said she did not
catch wind of sick passengers until she visited the ship's
infirmary after the canceled stop in Chile to pick up blood
pressure medication she was low on.

She said the small reception area was filled wall to wall. "You
could tell at that point there were people that were sick," she
said. "What they had, you don't know, but you start wondering."

The Eclipse never put in place any quarantine or social distancing
measures after the stop at Chile was canceled, according to
numerous complaints filed by former passengers.

On March 17, 2020, the captain sent a letter to passengers saying
they would be rerouted to disembark in San Diego. In the meantime,
the ship would offer a "full schedule of entertainment, activities
and dining options" to passengers and free booze. "All guests on
board remain healthy and happy," the letter said.

The approach stood in contrast to measures taken on other ships
where infections seemed to be piling up faster.

RELATED: 'We are excited to be home': Cruise ships dock at Port
Everglades after coronavirus concerns »
A Princess Cruise ship that was stranded in early March put in
place cabin quarantines, canceled activities and delivered all
meals, according to federal court filings in California,

On a Holland America ship that departed Argentina on March 8, 2020,
and later became stranded, federal court filings in Washington said
room isolation started on March 22. Later, a separate ship was sent
to house passengers who were not experiencing COVID-19 symptoms.
Both ships quarantined until they were allowed to disembark in Port
Everglades on April 3, 2020, after a heated standoff with local
officials.

Even so, passengers who filed lawsuits against Princess Cruises and
Holland America said both companies downplayed the severity of
possible exposures on their ships before implementing their
quarantines.

Meanwhile, on the Celebrity Eclipse, with the drinks flowing, Dome
and other passengers described an increased party-like atmosphere.
Dome said she started to question if ship leaders were telling the
truth and began feeling uncomfortable in dining rooms.

Her husband, she said, never lost faith. On March 21, 2020,
hundreds of passengers gathered shoulder to shoulder on the ship's
deck to honor pandemic workers risking their lives on land. Robert
Dome was among them.

Looking back, Dome said she can't blame him. Over and over, cruise
staff repeated that there were no cases of COVID-19 on the boat,
she said. "It was a complete false sense of reality," she said.

Representatives for Celebrity Cruise declined to comment on their
actions during the course of the trip.

Cases mount
As passengers were finally accepted on land, many migrated back to
their homes in various states. Very few passengers, even those who
presented symptoms, took a COVID-19 test on board a ship. But many
ended up testing positive in hospitals almost immediately after
they got home, according to court filings.

Dome said her husband began to present slight symptoms before he
got off the Celebrity Eclipse on March 30, 2020. On April 2 he was
diagnosed with COVID-19. Dome and her two sons, who had picked her
and her husband up from the airport after they arrived home, also
tested positive. On April 12, Robert Dome died.

Gerald Paul of Georgia, another passenger on the Eclipse, died even
sooner. According to a complaint filed by his wife, Paul, 74, was
feverish and fatigued by the time he got off the ship. On April 2,
he died of COVID-19.

Alcides Landivar, another passenger on the Eclipse, returned home
to Miami after the trip and tested positive for COVID-19 on April
4, according to a federal complaint he filed.

While the ship was stranded at sea, he didn't have enough insulin
and suffered blood clots in his femoral artery, according to his
complaint. On April 15, his right leg was amputated above the
knee.

The families of all three passengers filed lawsuits against
Celebrity in February in South Florida. They are represented by
Michael Winkleman, a Miami maritime attorney who has filed about
100 COVID-19 related class action, negligence or wrongful death
lawsuits against cruise lines since March 2020.

Some cases have been dismissed and others have reached settlements.
Most are still pending. Winkleman is optimistic about his clients'
chances but isn't shy about recognizing the uphill battle they
face.

"I don't think the law has developed particularly well or favorably
as it relates to passengers," he said. "In a million ways, when you
get hurt on sea, it is completely different than when you get hurt
on land."

'He thought he was safe'
Many of the earliest COVID-19-related lawsuits filed against cruise
lines were class action lawsuits with thousands of passengers
signed onto them who argued that the companies put their lives at
risk by setting sail and not doing enough to control the spread of
the virus.

The cruise lines in court filings said they did their best to
address the situation, given how there was little known at the
start of the pandemic. But passengers said cruise lines could have
been more forthcoming about the challenges they were facing. "I
think that it was their responsibility to let customers know and
then let the customer decide," Dome said.

So far judges have sided with the cruise lines.

Large class action cases have been cut down to include only
plaintiffs with proof they actually got the virus on a stranded
ship or shortly after disembarking.

In February, a class action suit against Holland America was cut
down by a Washington judge who said the decision to sail in early
March of 2020 was not "outrageous" but instead was made "in the
early weeks of what would become a global pandemic, when much
remained unknown about COVID-19."

The remaining cases circulating through the federal courts are
those on behalf of passengers who say they have proof of catching
COVID-19. The strongest cases, like Dome's, include wrongful death
claims on behalf of family members who died shortly after getting
off the ships.

If they were to go the distance and establish liability, it could
create ripple effects for the rest of an industry that is hoping to
set sail from the U.S. soon, said Raul Chacon, a law professor at
the University of Miami.

"I would expect cruise lines would probably look at that case to
determine whether they face any exposure in the actions they take
or fail to take to protect passengers."

But so far, legal experts are dubious. They say claims will be
complicated by the fact that most plaintiffs will be hard-pressed
to prove exactly where they contracted COVID-19 because of the lack
of available testing before and during their voyage. In court
filings, cruise lines have already pushed back on claims that a
passenger was infected on a ship by pointing out that some
passengers were never tested on the ship. [GN]


[*] Illinois House Committee Advances BIPA House Bill 559
---------------------------------------------------------
Sean G. Wieber, Esq., Patrick R. O'Meara, Esq., and Nicholas P.
Matosian, Esq., of Winston & Strawn LLP, in an article for Mondaq,
report that an Illinois House Judiciary Committee advanced House
Bill 559, which would require potential plaintiffs to give
employers a 30-day opportunity to cure alleged violations of the
Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) prior to filing a lawsuit.
BIPA, passed in 2008, regulates the collection and use of biometric
information. As it currently stands, no actual injury is required
to bring a BIPA lawsuit, which means plaintiffs can collect
$1,000-$5,000 in liquidated damages per violation if the defendant
fails to comply with BIPA's technical provisions, which, at a high
level, require entities that collect biometric information to have
a policy regarding its collection and destruction and to obtain
informed, written consent from the individuals whose information is
being collected.

According to House Minority Leader Jim Durkin, who introduced the
Bill, this framework has led to a "cottage industry for a select
group of lawyers to file class action lawsuits." While Facebook's
$650 million BIPA verdict has grabbed headlines, proponents argue
that BIPA litigation has also hit small business and non-profits
such as the Salvation Army, and that damages awards can be "enough
to put any small business into insolvency." A common target of BIPA
lawsuits are companies that use timeclocks that employ fingerprint
or hand geometry technology to monitor employees' time at work.

The Bill's central revision would force a would-be plaintiff to
send the allegedly violating party notice of its alleged BIPA
violation. The would-be defendant would then have 30 days to cure
the error. If the employer fails to cure the deficiency within that
time frame, then, and only then, could a lawsuit be filed.
According to Durkin, this change strikes "an appropriate balance
between the rights of privacy and the employees."

Opponents of the bill argue that it will "prioritize corporate
profits over personal privacy" and that it would "present a massive
step back for Illinois" as neighboring states are "modeling
legislation around BIPA." The California Consumer Privacy Act
(CCPA), a similar (though broader) law that passed in 2020,
however, includes a 30-day notice-and-cure opportunity like the one
proposed here: "If within the 30 days the business actually cures
the noticed violation…no action for individual statutory damages
or class-wide statutory damages may be initiated against the
business." Cal Civ. Code § 1798.150(b). Since the CCPA became
effective, the amount of CCPA litigation has paled in comparison to
the amount of BIPA litigation over the same period, possibly due to
the presence of the notice-and-cure provision. Because it should be
relatively easy for most defendants to come into compliance with
BIPA (e.g., the violation would likely be cured by having the
employee sign a consent form), the amount of BIPA litigation could
decrease dramatically if this Bill became law. [GN]


[*] Ireland Government to Pave Way for Class Action Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Collins, writing for Independent.ie, reports that class
action suits, allowing groups of consumers to sue traders who cause
"mass harm", will soon be possible in Ireland. The Government is
bound by a 2020 EU directive to change the law to allow
non-profits, such as consumer organisations, to sue companies --
for instance, in the case of a major data breach.

The rules must be in place by 2023.

The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is putting out a
public consultation today to ask for help in designing the rules.

"This will be a first in Irish law, as such procedures are not
currently in place here," said Robert Troy, the Minister for Trade
Promotion, Digital and Company Regulation.

"This directive is an important development to improve consumers'
access to justice, contribute to fairer competition, and create a
level playing field for businesses operating in the internal
market.

"Once implemented, when the rights of a large number of consumers
are violated by the same business, a qualified entity can launch a
representative action on their behalf before a court."

The EU directive, which became law last year, aims to cover a range
of sectors, including financial services, travel and tourism,
energy, telecommunications and the environment.

It would allow non-profits, such as consumer organisations, to take
domestic or cross-border suits against companies that breach EU
consumer protection laws.

Those bodies would have to be approved by the Government in
advance.

Ultimately, companies could face fines and be forced to pay all
legal costs if they are found to have breached EU rules.

The US and UK have mature class-action systems but Ireland is one
of several EU countries where there are no clear rules.

Ryanair is currently facing a potential class action suit in the US
as a result of issues with its pilots and an ­Alabama-based
pension fund.

UK law firm SPG law is fighting a case against Ryanair, KLM, and
Air France for refusing to issue refunds to customers on foot of
pandemic-related flight cancellations.

A record number of people have also joined the law firm's class
action against British Airways for a 2018 security breach leading
to a data leak affecting 380,000 customers.

Lawyers say Ireland could be a natural jurisdiction for future
class action lawsuits, now that the UK has officially left the EU.

The Government has some room for manoeuvre in interpreting the EU
rules, including the option to allow courts to dismiss a settlement
if it judges it to be "unfair".

They can also set limits on court or administrative costs, or offer
legal aid to consumer organisations or other groups taking the
class action suits.

The deadline for submissions is Friday, May 7.

"My department and relevant stakeholders have a significant job of
work to do to design the procedural mechanism for collective
representative actions required by this directive", said Mr Troy.
"I therefore urge all interested bodies, not-for-profit
organisations, consumers, and businesses to consider the objectives
of the directive and to make their views known on how the directive
should be implemented in Ireland and what forms the new procedural
mechanism might take." [GN]


[*] Securities Class Actions v. Non-U.S. Issuers Up 27% in 2020
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for Law.com, reports that while the total number
of federal securities class actions was down year-over-year in
2020, the percentage of total cases targeting issuers based outside
the U.S. jumped from 15% in 2019 to just over 27% last year. A
group of securities litigators from Dechert recently crunched the
numbers of the case filings, did some analysis of the underlying
allegations and dug into the dispositive decisions issued involving
non-U.S. issuers over the past year. You can download a copy of
their report for yourself here.

Law.com caught up with partner Angela Liu to discuss the Dechert
team's findings. She pointed out that companies headquartered in
China were the most frequent targets based outside the U.S. The 28
Chinese companies hit with securities class actions in the U.S. was
more than double the next highest, with Canadian companies being
hit with 12 such suits. Liu also pointed out that the market
capitalizations of the target companies were all over the map, with
nearly as many small cap non-U.S. companies valued at $250 million
or less (14) targeted as those valued in the tens of billions (15).
[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 ***