/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210712.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, July 12, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 132

                            Headlines

20/20 EYE: Faces Fraguada Data Breach Suit in S.D. Florida
3M COMPANY: C.D. California Issues Final Order in Holloway Suit
7-ELEVEN INC: Settles Franchisee Class Actions Following Mediation
ACELRX PHARMA: Howard G. Smith Reminds of August 9 Deadline
ACELRX PHARMA: Robbins LLP Reminds of August 9 Deadline

ALLISTER ADEL: Luckey Files Suit in D. Arizona
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Suit Over Cleaning Products Price Gouging
AMAZON.COM INC: Hogan BIPA Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
AMERICAN AUTOMOTIVE: Wood Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
AMERICAN HONDA: Removes Softly Suit to District of New Jersey

AMICA MUTUAL: Massachusetts Court Remands Wickberg Class Suit
ANGLO AMERICAN: Seeks to Delay Class Action Proceedings
APEX ASSET: Faces Day Suit Over Misleading Debt Collection Letter
ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of July 13 Deadline
ASP FARM SERVICES: Guzman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

ATHIRA PHARMA: Faruqi & Faruqi Investigates Securities Claims
ATHIRA PHARMA: Kahn Swick Reminds of August 24 Deadline
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Bailey Suit Moved From S.D. Ill. to E.D. Mo.
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Potzner Suit Moved From S.D. Ill. to E.D. Mo.
BAYLOR SCOTT: Class Cert. Discovery Deadline Extended to Oct. 15

BEACH ENERGY: May Face Shareholder Suit Over Misleading Projections
C. DAVID: Hanover Asserts No Duty to Defend in HomeAdvisor Suit
CALIFORNIA: Order on Discovery Disputes in Ashker v. Cate Issued
CAMBRIA COUNTY, PA: Offers Refunds to Exit Overcharges Lawsuit
CAPITAL VACATIONS: Barney Sues Over Unsolicited Voice Messages

CDM FEDERAL: Faces Barragan Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
CENLAR AGENCY: Suit Brought Over Mortgage Calls Settles $620K
CET INCORPORATED: Class of Employees Certified in Kammer FLSA Suit
CHAMPLAIN TOWERS: Faces Class Action Over Collapsed Condo Complex
CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Klein Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 30 Deadline

CLEARVIEW AI INC: Faces Hurvitz Suit Over Illegal Biometric Use
CLEARVIEW AI INC: Hurvitz Suit Moved from E.D.N.Y. to N.D. Illinois
CONTINUUM GLOBAL: Fails to Properly Pay Wages, Dickson Suit Claims
CULTIVATION TECHNOLOGIES: Wins Bid to Ban Own Counsel in Fincanna
DAPPER LABS: Friel Files Suit in S.D. New York

DERUYTER BROTHERS: Court Okays Labor Class Action Settlement
DHL EXPRESS: Martin TCCWNA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
DIDI GLOBAL: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of September 7 Deadline
DIDI GLOBAL: Investors Mull Class Action Over Cybersecurity Review
DIDI GLOBAL: Lawyers Prepare Class Action Lawsuits Over IPO

DIDI GLOBAL: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
DIDI GLOBAL: Rosen Law Reminds of September 7 Deadline
ELEPHANT INSURANCE: Dismissal of Suit Over Sales Tax, Fees Affirmed
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Dickerson Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Indiana
FACEBOOK INC: Briefing Ends in User & Advertiser Antitrust Suit

FIRST INTERSTATE: Morris FDCPA Suit Transferred to D. Montana
FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Power Tailgate Recall
FRERES DU SACRE-COEUR: Settles Sexual Abuse Class Actions for $60M
GEO GROUP: Court Denies Bid to Decertify Class in Nwauzor Suit
GERBER PRODUCTS: Abbott Sues Over Baby Foods' Heavy Metal Content

GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Narrows Claims in AP-Fonden Securities Suit
GONDOLA IND.: Fails to Pay All Hours Worked, Velazquez Suit Says
GORMAN GROUP: Spiciarich Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
GRANITE SERVICES: Huffman PMWA Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania
GROUP HEALTH: Plavin Must File Class Cert. Bid by July 1, 2022

HUSKY ENERGY: Parties Agree on $1M Settlement in Explosion Suit
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Kona, Ioniq Battery Defects
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Lawsuit on Dangerous Battery Defects
INCEPT CORPORATION: Underpays Call Center Employees, Scaggs Claims
INTELLISOURCE LLC: Kansas Court Narrows Claims in Stacker FCRA Suit

J. ALEXANDER'S: Brodsky & Smith Investigates Securities Claims
JASON'S PREMIER: Velasco Sues Over Lease Operators' Unpaid OT
JUUL LABS: Mendones Product Liability Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
KLOECKNER METALS: Delgado Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses
KOHL'S STORES: C.A. Reinstates Putative Class Action Lawsuit

KROGER COMPANY: Seeks July 16 Extension on Class Cert. Response
KUSHISM INC: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
LAKESIDE RECOVERY: Faces Vallian FDCPA Suit in N.D. Texas
LDJ AMERICAN: Faces Charman Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Call Ads
LEARJET INC: Wood Seeks Extension to Respond to Clarification Bid

LG ELECTRONICS: Suit Moved from Circuit Ct. to Hawaii Federal Ct.
LLOYD'S LONDON: Underwriters Face Business Interruption Class Suit
MARYLAND: Unemployment Benefits Extended Following Lawsuits
MDL 1720: Merchant Trade Groups and Walmart Allowed to Intervene
MELTECH INC: Deadline for Class Cert Bid Response Set for August 2

MEMORIAL HERMANN: Phlegm Sues Over Denied FMLA Leave, Termination
MIDLAND CREDIT: Booth Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Griffis FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
MONARCH RECOVERY: Sept. 10 Extension to File Class Cert Bid Sought
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Townsend Suit Over Student-Athletes' TBI

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Liable to Student-Athletes' TBIs, Gee Claims
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Meyers Sues Over Utica Student-Athletes' TBIs
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Friday Suit Moved from State. Ct. to W.D.N.C.
NCAA: Sorenson Files Suit in Southern District of Indiana
NETGAIN TECHNOLOGY: Faces Lee Suit Over Data Breach in S.D. Calif.

NEW JERSEY: Galicki Suit Seeks to Certify Class
OREGON: Bobo Case Proceedings Stayed Pending Resolution in Maney
OREGON: Seeks to Stay Orr Proceedings Pending Resolution in Maney
PROVENTION BIO: Bragar Eagel Announces Class Action Filing
PURDUE PHARMA: Bedford OxyContin Class Suit Transferred to Calif.

QBE INSURANCE: Responds to Business Interruption Class Action
RANDALL-REILLY LLC: Bustillos Sues Over Unsolicited Message Ads
REKOR SYSTEMS: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of August 30 Deadline
RGS FINANCIAL: Ezagui Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
RITE AID: Stafford Putative Class Suit Underway

RK UNIONTOWN: Faces Bregan Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Agrees to Pay US$69.MM Fines Amid Class Actions
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Class Actions Over PFOF Practice Among IPO Risks
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Moves to Deny Customers' Class Certification
ROBINHOOD: Court Enters Briefing Schedule on Order Flow Litigation

ROCK 'N PLAY: Plaintiffs' Reply Brief on Class Cert. Due Oct. 1
ROCKET COMPANIES: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of August 30 Deadline
ROCKET COMPANIES: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Aug. 30 Deadline
ROCKET COMPANIES: Schall Law Reminds of August 30 Deadline
ROCKET COMPANIES: Vincent Wong Reminds of August 30 Deadline

RTO INFO CO: Dickens Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
SAE KYU OH: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SCRIPPS HEALTH: Rubin Files Suit in S.D. California
SJK FASHION: Fails to Pay All Hours Worked, Sosa Suit Alleges
ST BASIL'S HOMES: Class Action Over COVID Deaths Ongoing

ST. AMBROSE UNIVERSITY: Montelongo Suit Removed to S.D. Iowa
ST. LOUIS, MO: Cody Seeks Time Extension to File Class Cert. Bid
SUNRISE SENIOR: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Clarke Suit Claims
SUNY ALBANY: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Duguid
TANDEM CORP: Goes Into Administration While Facing Class Action

TEACHERS INSURANCE: Faces Haley ERISA Suit Over Retirement Accounts
TESLA INC: Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set for Oct. 8
TS EXPRESS: Faces Hardin Employment Suit in California State Ct.
UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Regarding Indian Residential Schools
USAA LIFE: Life Insurance Policy Class Suit Costs $90M Settlement

VIBRANTCARE REHABILITATION: Beckwith Suit Goes to E.D. California
VIBRANTCARE REHABILITATION: Williams Suit Goes to E.D. California
VIRGIN GALACTIC: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of July 27 Deadline
VIRGINIA: Judge Wants Unemployment Insurance Claims Issue Resolved
WASHINGTON PRIME: Pomerantz Law Investigates Securities Claims

WATERSONG REALTY: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Baran Suit Claims
WINN AND SIMS: S.D. California Doe's Bid to Reopen Class Suit
YANGTZE RIVER: Bid to Dismiss Claims in Behrendsen Granted in Part
[*] Global Corp Exposure to Rule 10b-5 Suit Amounts to $37.7B in 2Q
[*] Insurance Companies Face COVID-19 Suit Over Business Losses


                            *********

20/20 EYE: Faces Fraguada Data Breach Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
MYRMARIS FRAGUADA on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. 20/20 EYE CARE NETWORK, INC., and ICARE HEALTH
SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 0:21-cv-61302-RAR (S.D. Fla., June 23,
2021) alleges that Defendants failed to properly safeguard current
and former patients' personally identifiable information (PII),
including patients' names, dates of birth, social security numbers,
and protected health information (PHI), including patients' member
identification numbers and health insurance information.

Eye Care is a large corporation that acts as a third-party plan
administrator with respect to hearing and vision insurance, and
assists insurance companies and patients with claims processing,
credentialing of professionals, and linking patients with
in-network providers. Eye Care is an integrated specialty network
and administrator backed by private equity firm Pine Tree Equity
IV, LP, that invested in Eye Care and, in whole or in part,
controls Eye Care in connection with its administration and
management of more than 55 ophthalmology and optometry locations
across the state of Florida.

On January 11, 2021, Eye Care was alerted to suspicious activity in
its Amazon Web Services ("AWS") environment. Over a month later, it
confirmed that as a result of "insider wrongdoing," S3 buckets
hosted in AWS had been accessed, data in those buckets had been
downloaded, and then all data in the S3 buckets was deleted (the
"Data Breach"), the suit says.

In total, the Data Breach may have compromised the PII and PHI of
more than 3.2 million individuals ("Class Members"). Shockingly,
Eye Care did not begin notifying the individual victims of the Data
Breach until May of 2021. For example, Plaintiff was first notified
about the alleged Data Breach in a letter dated May 28, 2021.

Eye Care did not adequately safeguard Plaintiff's data, and now
she, and millions of other individuals, are the victims of a
significant Data Breach that puts them at a significantly increased
risk of identity fraud and negatively will impact them for years,
the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms, and to prevent their
future occurrence, on behalf of themselves and all similarly
situated persons whose PII and PHI were compromised as a result of
the Data Breach.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          Dorothy P. Antullis, Esq.
          Maxwell H. Sawyer, Esq.
          Alexander C. Cohen, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
          E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
                  dantullis@rgrdlaw.com
                  msawyer@rgrdlaw.com
                  acohen@rgrdlaw.com
                  Bryan L. Bleichner

               - and -

          CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-7300
          E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com

3M COMPANY: C.D. California Issues Final Order in Holloway Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
issued a Final Order and Judgment in the lawsuit titled JASON
HOLLOWAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00708-RGK
(KKx) (C.D. Cal.).

The Court, for purposes of the Final Order and Judgment, adopts all
defined terms as set forth in the Stipulation of Class Action
Settlement and Release Agreement filed in the Action.

The Court has jurisdiction over all claims asserted in the Action,
Plaintiff, the Class Members, and Defendant 3M Company.

The Court finds that the Settlement was made and entered into in
good faith and approves the Settlement as fair, adequate and
reasonable to all Class Members. Any objections, which were
submitted, timely or otherwise, have been considered and are
overruled. Any Class Members, who have not timely and validly
requested exclusion from the Class, are thus bound by the
Judgment.

Class Notice

Notice to Class Members, as set forth in the Stipulation, has been
completed in conformity with the terms of the Stipulation and
Preliminary Approval Order as to all Class Members, who could be
identified through reasonable effort. The Court finds that said
notice was the best notice practicable under the circumstances. The
Notice Packets provided due and adequate notice to Class Members of
the proceedings and of the matters set forth therein, including the
Settlement, and the manner by which objections to the Settlement
could be made and Class Members could opt out of the Settlement.
The Notice Packets fully satisfied the requirements of due
process.

Objections and Requests for Exclusion

One objection to the Settlement was submitted by Class Member Paul
Castellano in accordance with the requirements set forth in the
Stipulation and Notice of Settlement. The Court has considered this
objection and overrules it. The objection does not raise valid
concerns about the Stipulation, the Motion for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement, or the Motion for Attorneys' Fees and
Costs and Class Representative Service Award.

The Court finds that 12 Class Member(s) submitted a valid and
timely Request for Exclusion and therefore shall not be bound by
the terms of the Stipulation. These class members are: Wester
Taylor-Bridgeman, Cam Pham, David Haro, Bronson Mach, Jose
Trujillo, Jose Olivas Jr., Charlie Marin, Alex Zambrano, Al
Pacheco, Gary White, Ramiro Rodriguez, and Mark Schlott.

Release of Claims and Injunction

The Plaintiff and all other Class Members, except the 12 Class
Member(s) identified above, will have, by operation of this
Judgment, fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished, and
discharged the Released Parties from all Released Claims as defined
by the Stipulation.

Payments Pursuant to the Stipulation

The Court finds that the Maximum Settlement Amount, the Net
Settlement Amount, and the methodology used to calculate and pay
each Class Member's Individual Settlement Awards are fair and
reasonable, and authorizes the Settlement Administrator to pay the
Individual Settlement Awards to the Class Members in accordance
with the terms of the Stipulation.

If an Individual Settlement Award check remains uncashed after 180
days from issuance, the Settlement Administrator shall pay over the
amount represented by the Individual Settlement Award check to the
State Controller's Office Unclaimed Property Fund, with the
identity of the Class Member to whom the funds belong. In such
event, the Class Member shall nevertheless remain bound by the
Settlement.

The Plaintiff will be paid a Class Representative Service Award in
the amount of $7,000 from the Maximum Settlement Amount in
accordance with the terms of the Stipulation. The Court finds this
amount of be fair and reasonable and sufficiently supported.

The Class Counsel will be paid $449,500 as their attorneys' fees
and an amount to be determined by application (Bill of Costs) to
the Clerk of Court for reimbursement of costs and expenses from the
Maximum Settlement Amount in accordance with the terms of the
Stipulation. The Court finds these amounts to be fair and
reasonable and sufficiently supported.

The California Labor and Workforce Development Agency will be paid
$37,500 as penalties under the Private Attorneys' General Act.

Simpluris, Inc., will be paid Settlement Administration Costs in
the amount of $14,000.

Other Provisions

The Parties will implement the Settlement according to its terms.

The Court reserves exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the
Action, Plaintiff, the Class Members, and Defendant for purposes of
supervising the implementation, enforcement, construction,
administration and interpretation of the Settlement and this
Judgment.

The Court enters judgment for the Plaintiff and the Class Members
in accordance with the terms of the Stipulation, and this order is
a final and appealable order.

If the Settlement does not become final and effective in accordance
with its terms, this Judgment will be rendered null and void and
shall be vacated and, in such event, all related orders entered and
all releases delivered in connection herewith also will be rendered
null and void.

A full-text copy of the Court's Final Order and Judgment dated June
28, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3rh6c8j4 from
Leagle.com.


7-ELEVEN INC: Settles Franchisee Class Actions Following Mediation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Stowe, writing for Inside Retail, reports that 7-Eleven has
agreed to settle franchisee class actions following mediation.

A statement from the convenience chain confirmed the settlement but
gave no insight into the details of the agreement.

"7-Eleven can confirm that a non-binding in principle agreement to
settle the class actions has been reached, subject to terms of a
settlement deed being agreed and subject to approval of the Federal
Court of Australia.

"The settlement follows mediation between the parties on 24, 25 and
29 June 2021," said 7-Eleven.

It's been a rollercoaster ride since the class actions were mooted
back in 2017.

In February 2018 Stewart Levitt, senior partner at Levitt Robinson
Solicitors which was acting for the franchisees, filed a claim in
the Federal Court.

The group of current and former franchisees alleged misleading and
deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct and contract breaches by
7-Eleven, and alleged the ANZ bank had provided loans that were
unsustainable.

Levitt Robinson believed "substantial damages" could be available.

However, the law firm had its knuckles metaphorically rapped when
it was forced to retract statements made to franchisees in 2017.

In 2019 the class action hit a road block when the court accepted
an undertaking from the convenience chain.

According to Lawyerly, an in-principle settlement was approved in
August 2020 between ANZ and the applicants.

The class actions against the 7-Eleven continued with a trial set
for winter 2021. Lawyerly reported in May this year a judge
rejected a proposal by the convenience chain for a pre-trial ruling
and mediation took place in late June.

Levitt Robinson has been contacted for comment. [GN]

ACELRX PHARMA: Howard G. Smith Reminds of August 9 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
August 9, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the case
filed on behalf of investors who purchased AcelRx Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. securities between March 17, 2020 and February 12, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

Investors suffering losses on their AcelRx investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

AcelRx is a pharmaceutical company that develops therapies for the
treatment of acute pain. One of its lead product candidates is
DSUVIA, which has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") for the management of acute pain in adults
that is severe enough to require an opioid analgesic in certified
medically supervised healthcare settings.

On February 16, 2021, AcelRx disclosed that it had received a
warning letter from the FDA concerning promotional claims for
DSUVIA. Specifically, the FDA concluded that certain of AcelRx's
promotional communications "make false or misleading claims and
representations about the risks and efficacy of DSUVIA," and
"[t]hus . . . misbrand Dsuvia within the meaning of the Federal
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) and make its distribution
violative."

On this news, AcelRx's stock price fell $0.21 per share, or 8.37%,
to close at $2.30 per share on February 16, 2021, thereby injuring
investors.

The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) AcelRx had
deficient disclosure controls and procedures with respect to its
marketing of DSUVIA; (2) as a result, AcelRx had been making false
or misleading claims and representations about the risks and
efficacy of DSUVIA in certain advertisements and displays; (3) the
foregoing conduct subjected the Company to increased regulatory
scrutiny and enforcement; and (4) as a result, Defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired AcelRx securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than August 9, 2021
to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet
certain legal requirements. To be a member of the class action you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or
if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact
Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070
Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone
at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com. [GN]


ACELRX PHARMA: Robbins LLP Reminds of August 9 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP reminds investors that a
class action has been filed on behalf of all purchasers of AcelRx
Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:ACRX) securities between March 17, 2020
and February 12, 2021, against the Company for remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. AcelRx is a pharmaceutical company
that develops and commercializes therapies for the treatment of
acute pain. The Company's lead product candidate is DSUVIA, a 30
mcg sufentanil sublingual tablet for the treatment of
moderate-to-sever acute pain.

If you suffered a loss due to AcelRx Therapeutics, Inc.'s
misconduct, click
https://robbinsllp.com/acelrx-pharmaceuticals-inc-july-21-2/.

AcelRx Therapeutics, Inc. (ACRX) Had Deficient Disclosure Controls
with Respect to Marketing its Lead Drug Candidate DSUVIA

According to the complaint, during the relevant period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) AcelRx had deficient disclosure controls and procedures
with respect to its marketing of DSUVIA; (ii) as a result, AcelRx
had been making false or misleading claims and representations
about the risks and efficacy of DSUVIA in certain advertisements
and displays; (iii) this conduct subjected the Company to increased
regulatory scrutiny and enforcement; and (iv) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading.

On February 16, 2021, AcelRx disclosed that, on February 11, 2021,
the Company received a warning letter from the FDA concerning
promotional claims for DSUVIA. Specifically, having "reviewed an
'SDS Banner Ad' (banner) (PM-US-DSV-0018) and a tabletop display
(PM-US-DSV-0049) (display)," the FDA concluded that "[t]he
promotional communications, the banner and display, make false or
misleading claims and representations about the risks and efficacy
of DSUVIA," and "[t]hus . . . .  misbrand DSUVIA within the meaning
of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) and make its
distribution violative." The earning letter "request[ed] that
AcelRx cease any violations of the FD&C Act" and "submit a written
response to th[e] letter within 15 days from the date of receipt."

On this news, AcelRx's stock price fell $0.21 per share, or 8.37%,
to close at $2.30 per share on February 16, 2021. The stock now
trades at around $1.27.

If you purchased shares of AcelRx Therapeutics, Inc. (ACRX) between
March 17, 2020 and February 12, 2021, you have until August 9,
2021, to ask the court to appoint you lead plaintiff for the
class.

All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.

Robbins LLP is a nationally recognized leader in shareholder rights
law. To be notified if a class action against AcelRx Therapeutics,
Inc. settles or to receive free alerts about companies engaged in
wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today.

Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

Contact:
Lauren Levi
Robbins LLP
5040 Shoreham Place
San Diego, CA 92122
llevi@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]

ALLISTER ADEL: Luckey Files Suit in D. Arizona
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allister Adel. The
case is styled as Samuel Luckey, Michael Calhoun, Arizona Attorneys
for Criminal Justice, on behalf of themselves and those similarly
situated v. Allister Adel, in her official capacity as County
Attorney for Maricopa County, Case No. 2:21-cv-01168-JJT--ESW (D.
Ariz., July 7, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.

Allister's -- https://www.allisteradel.com/ -- first priority as a
prosecutor is to do justice. She is an award-winning litigator
prosecuting felonies and advocating for victims' rights.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jared G Keenan, Esq.
          Victoria Lopez, Esq.
          ACLU - Phoenix, AZ
          P.O. Box 17148
          Phoenix, AZ 85011
          Phone: (602) 650-1854
          Email: jkeenan@acluaz.org
                 vlopez@acluaz.org

               - and -

          Somil Bharat Trivedi, Esq.
          ACLU - Washington DC
          915 15th St. NW, 7th Fl.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: (202) 904-7727
          Email: strivedi@aclu.org


AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Suit Over Cleaning Products Price Gouging
---------------------------------------------------------------
Happi reports that a lawsuit accuses Amazon of jacking up prices on
critical products during the height of the coronavirus pandemic.
The class-action lawsuit, filed by the law firm Hagens Berman,
accuses Amazon of "exploiting consumers in their most vulnerable
hour" by hiking prices on medical items, cleaning products, canned
food and other necessary supplies during the pandemic.

The lawsuit was expanded to potentially include all Amazon shoppers
across the US who purchased such products.

According to the lawsuit, American consumers turned to Amazon and
other online retailers at the height of the coronavirus pandemic in
the spring of 2020, when stay-at-home orders and the threat of the
disease made it difficult to purchase much-needed food and
supplies.

"In this environment -- consistent with the directions of
government and public health officials -- consumers have
understandably turned to online purchasing, and Amazon in
particular, to fulfill their essential needs," the lawsuit says.
"Without venturing into public and risking exposure to themselves
and others, with just a few clicks Americans can purchase consumer
goods from Amazon that will be delivered to their homes."

The lawsuit alleges the e-commerce giant significantly hiked up
prices of various goods. The cost of face masks, for example,
jumped 500%, the lawsuit alleges, from $20 to $120. Disinfectant
cost went up by 100%, according to the lawsuit. Other items whose
costs drastically went up on Amazon were pain relievers, flour and
cold remedies, according to the lawsuit.

The complaint, first filed in April 2020 in California's Northern
District Court, says some items went up by as much as 1,000%.

"Some of the unlawful increases were on sales of products supplied
by third parties, sales which Amazon controls and reaps huge
profits from," according to the lawsuit.

Though there is no federal law explicitly making price-gouging
illegal, many states have outlawed the practice during an
emergency, like a natural disaster or pandemic.

"Amazon is the functional seller of these products and is
responsible when price-gouged sales violate the law. But in
addition, Amazon has inflated prices on its own inventory of
products, which Amazon supplies and sells directly to consumers,"
according to the complaint.

Amazon in May said Congress should pass a federal law against price
gouging to make one clear standard and definition. [GN]

AMAZON.COM INC: Hogan BIPA Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANGELA HOGAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Case No.
21-2-08004-5 SEA, was removed from the Superior Court of Washington
for King County to the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington on July 6, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-00905 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by failing to properly
develop a publicly available written policy governing the retention
of biometric data; collecting, storing, and using biometric data
without providing the notice required and without obtaining
informed written consent; and profiting from the biometric data by
using the data to train Amazon's Rekognition technology.

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

The Defendant is represented by:          
                            
         Ryan Spear, Esq.
         Nicola C. Menaldo, Esq.
         Ellie Chapman, Esq.
         PERKINS COIE LLP
         1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
         Seattle, WA 98101-3099
         Telephone: (206) 359-8000
         Facsimile: (206) 359-9000
         E-mail: RSpear@perkinscoie.com
                 NMenaldo@perkinscoie.com
                 EChapman@perkinscoie.com

AMERICAN AUTOMOTIVE: Wood Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed American Automotive Alliance
LLC. The case is styled as Laraine Wood, individually and on behalf
of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v.
American Automotive Alliance LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-01176-CDB (D.
Ariz., July 7, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

American Auto Alliance -- http://americanautoalliance.us/-- is a
family owned and operated vehicle shipping business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nathanael Melvin Brown, Esq.
          BROWN PATENT LAW
          15100 N 78th Way, Ste. 203
          Scottsdale, AZ 85260
          Phone: (602) 529-8347
          Email: nathan.brown@brownpatentlaw.com


AMERICAN HONDA: Removes Softly Suit to District of New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of GEORGE SOFTLY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN
HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, filed a
notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of New Jersey
Burlington County Law Division (Case No. BUR-L-1592-20) to the U.S.
District court for the District of New Jersey on July 2, 2021. The
clerk of court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
1:21-cv-13314.

The case alleges violation of the Class Action Fairness act of
2005.

American Honda Motor Co. is a North American subsidiary of the
Honda Motor Company. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gene K. Kaskiw, Esq.
          Douglas H. Amster, Esq.
          Elyse S. Tormey, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          One Roverfront Plaza, Suite 800
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Tel: (973) 718-3955

AMICA MUTUAL: Massachusetts Court Remands Wickberg Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts grants
the Plaintiff's motion to remand in the lawsuit styled ERIC D.
WICKBERG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Case No. 21-CV-10663-RWZ (D. Mass.).

The Plaintiff in the class action alleges that the Defendant failed
to pay the full value for vehicles it deemed a "total loss" under
its policies because it did not include the cost of registration,
title, and inspection fees ("Regulatory Fees") associated with
purchasing a new vehicle. The Defendant removed the case and the
Plaintiff now moves to remand.

For the Court to have jurisdiction of the case, the Class Action
Fairness Act requires that the total claims of all class members
exceed $5 million.

As alleged in his complaint and stated in his memorandum in support
of the instant motion, the Plaintiff seeks less than $200 per class
member in Regulatory Fees. The Defendant alleges that, by the time
this case is resolved, there could be as many as 15,000 class
members. While this assumption would result in close to $3 million
in damages, it is still well short of the amount required. Thus,
the Defendant has failed to meet its burden at this preliminary
stage.

Hence, the Plaintiff's motion to remand is allowed. The Defendant's
motion to dismiss is, therefore, denied as moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 28, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/j366k4pw from Leagle.com.


ANGLO AMERICAN: Seeks to Delay Class Action Proceedings
-------------------------------------------------------
Law firms Mbuyisa Moleele and Leigh Day have announced that, as
Anglo American South Africa goes to Court to delay proceedings in
the class action lawsuit in relation to lead poisoning in Kabwe,
Zambia, a key witness has come forward for the victims.

The witness, Dr Ian Lawrence, was a doctor at the Kabwe mine from
1969 until the early 1970s. His statement sheds light on the extent
to which Anglo knew about the dangers of lead poisoning in Kabwe as
early as 1970, and crucially counters Anglo's argument that it
bears no responsibility for the lead poisoning in the community.

Anglo has made a second extension request for filing its response
to the class action and claimed that the Company holds no documents
of relevance pertaining to the operation of the Kabwe mine.

However, evidence obtained by the victim's lawyers relating to the
archiving process in the Zambian State mining archives indicates
that key documents relating to managerial decisions were copied to
Anglo's head office in Johannesburg and must therefore be retained
there.

Anglo's failure to retain key documents pertaining to the Kabwe
mine is surprising given the implications of Dr. Lawrence's
evidence.

According to Dr Lawrence's affidavit: "Mine Management were
certainly aware of the risk of lead poisoning to their employees;
the blood levels of all staff were checked regularly."

His corroborating statement goes on to say:

". . . I became deeply concerned at the number of deaths amongst
children under the age of five in the residential township where
local employees lived . . . the difference in the number of deaths
between mine children and local children was reasonably
significant, so much so that I could not understand why no-one else
had raised the issue or carried out an investigation."

Dr Lawrence stated that he took around 500 blood samples from
children under the age of five attending the Township Clinic in
1969-70, virtually all of which exceeded safe blood lead levels
(BLLs). Many results were severe enough to cause serious brain
damage and death.

Dr Lawrence detailed these findings in a report he submitted to the
Kabwe mine's Chief Medical Officer. In 1970, once Anglo was alerted
to Dr Lawrence's findings, the Company commissioned Professor Lane
and a Dr King from the University of Manchester, UK to investigate
the veracity of Dr Lawrence's claims and produce a report of their
findings.

In 1971, prompted by the deaths of eight Kabwe children from
suspected lead poisoning, Dr A.R.L Clark, a doctor on the mine,
followed Dr Lawrence's investigation with an MD thesis under the
supervision of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
Between 1973 and 1974, Dr Clark surveyed the BLLs of children in
Kabwe and found these to be up to 20 times the current limit set by
the US Centre for Disease Control.

Mbuyisa Moleele and Leigh Day argue that Dr Lawrence's report, the
Lane/ King report and the Clark thesis are all critical documents
which demonstrate conclusively that the problem of lead poisoning
of children in Kabwe already existed during Anglo's alleged period
of control.

However, Anglo's lawyers say that neither they nor Anglo are in
possession of the Lane/King report. Anglo's failure to produce the

Lane/King report is particularly important as Anglo has also
alleged that their evidence shows that the Claimants do not have an
arguable case.

The hearing to decide whether the extension will be granted is
taking place at the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South
Africa on 5th and 6th July.

Zanele Mbuyisa of Mbuyisa Moleele said:

"Dr Lawrence's testimony is a powerful contribution to our fight
for justice for the people of Kabwe. It supports our argument that
Anglo failed to take adequate steps to protect the local
community.

Anglo continues to attempt to distance itself from its
responsibility to the people of Kabwe in direct contrast to its
commitments to provide remediation as part of the Anglo American's
Human Rights Policy."

Richard Meeran of Leigh Day said:

"Given its significant organisational expertise, Anglo needs to
explain the circumstances in which it disposed of all these
important Kabwe documents. In any event, it is crystal clear from
the work of Drs Lawrence and Clark that a huge problem of lead
contamination of the environment and poisoning of local children
occurred under Anglo's watch before ZCCM came on the scene." [GN]

APEX ASSET: Faces Day Suit Over Misleading Debt Collection Letter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RIKAIDA DAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. APEX ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC and JOHN DOES
1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02940 (E.D. Penn., July 1, 2021)
is a class action complaint brought against the Defendants seeking
damages and declaratory relief for their alleged violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has an alleged debt
incurred to Valley Forge OB/Gyn – Axia, who contracted with the
Defendant to collect the alleged debt. Subsequently on or about
March 3, 2021, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a collection letter
that directs the Plaintiff to send disputes to their office.
However, the Defendant's letter confused and misled the Plaintiff
as to how to properly dispute the debt and exercise her rights
because there are two contradictory addresses identified as to
where to send a dispute. The top of the letter indicates the
Defendant's address, but the bottom states an address of the
creditor, the suit says.

Because of the Defendant's alleged deceptive, misleading and false
debt collection practices, the Plaintiff has been damaged.

Apex Asset Management LLC is a debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Antraig Garibian, Esq.
          GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          1800 JFK Blvd., Suite 300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Tel: (215) 326-9179
          E-mail: ag@garibianlaw.com


ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of July 13 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on July 4 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Array Technologies, Inc. f/k/a ATI Intermediate
Holdings, LLC ("Array" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:ARRY) and certain
of its officers and directors. The class action, filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
and docketed under 21-cv-05658, is on behalf of:

(a) all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased
or otherwise acquired Array securities between October 14, 2020 and
May 11, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), against Array and the
Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder; and

(b) all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Array common stock pursuant, or traceable, or both, to: (i) the
registration statement and prospectus (the "IPO Materials") issued
in connection with the Company's October 2020 initial public
offering (the "IPO"); or (ii) the registration statement and
prospectus (the "December 2020 SPO Materials") issued in connection
with the Company's December 2020 offering (the "December 2020
SPO"); or (iii) the registration statement and prospectus (the
"March 2021 SPO Materials") issued in connection with the Company's
March 2021 offering (the "March 2021 SPO"); or (iv) any combination
of the IPO, December 2020 SPO, or March 2021 SPO (collectively, the
"Offerings") against, among others, certain of the Company's
officers and directors, for violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Array securities during the
Class Period and/or pursuant or traceable to the Offerings, you
have until July 13, 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.

Array describes itself as one of the world's largest manufacturers
of ground-mounting systems used in solar energy projects. According
to its U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings, Array's
principal product is an integrated system of steel supports,
electric motors, gearboxes, and electronic controllers commonly
referred to as a single-axis "tracker." Trackers move solar panels
throughout the day to maintain an optimal orientation to the sun,
which significantly increases their energy production.

The complaint alleges that, in the Offerings, Defendants made no
mention of issues revolving around, inter alia, material negative
impacts of rising steel and freight costs on its operations.
Furthermore, subsequent to the Offerings and during the Class
Period, Defendants repeatedly and consistently painted a materially
misleading picture of the Company's business and prospects that did
not reflect these rising costs. After the Offerings, and subsequent
to the Class Period, Array disclosed that it was experiencing
increases in steel prices and substantial increases in the cost of
both ocean and truck freight that in turn were having a material
impact on its margins for the foreseeable future. This caused Array
to miss profit expectations and withdraw its full-year outlook.

Specifically, on May 11, 2021, after the close of trading, Array
shocked the market by reporting, inter alia, lower revenues
year-over-year and lower margins as a result of increased steel and
shipping costs in a press release and a Form 8-K filed with the
SEC. During a conference call with investors after the close of
trading on May 11, 2021, after Defendants were asked by an analyst
for the "decision-making process for not hedging steel," the
Company's Chief Financial Officer responded that "in the past, that
has not been our strategy. We had been . . . let[ting our
suppliers] take that risk on."

In reaction to these disclosures, analysts cut their ratings on the
Company's stock citing concern about its shrinking profit margins.
For example, Barclays downgraded Array stock from "Overweight" to
"Underweight" noting concerns about volumes, margins, and earnings
power. Piper Sandler downgraded its rating to "Neutral" from
"Overweight" and similarly cited concerns regarding lack of
visibility on revenues and margins.

On this news, the Company's stock dropped $11.49 per share on May
12, 2021 to close at $13.46 per share on unusually high trading
volume. By the commencement of the action, Array common stock was
trading at a significant decline from its value at the time of the
Offerings.

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

ASP FARM SERVICES: Guzman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asp Farm Services.
The case is styled as Jorge Guzman, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Asp Farm Services, a limited liability
company, Case No. BCV-21-101538 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., July
7, 2021).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."

Asp Farm Services is a Farm in Delano, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seung L. Yang, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
          Phone: 213-232-3128
          Fax: 213-232-3125
          Email: seung.yang@moonyanglaw.com


ATHIRA PHARMA: Faruqi & Faruqi Investigates Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against Athira Pharma, Inc.
("Athira" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:ATHA) and reminds investors of
the August 24, 2021 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in
a federal securities class action that has been filed against the
Company.

If you suffered losses exceeding $50,000 investing in Athira stock
purchased pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public
offering conducted in September 2020 (the "IPO" or "Offering");
and/or between September 18, 2020 and June 17, 2021 (the "Class
Period") and would like to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi &
Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330
(Ext. 1310). You may also click here for additional information:
www.faruqilaw.com/ATHA.

There is no cost or obligation to you.

Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading minority and Woman-owned national
securities law firm with offices in New York, Delaware,
Pennsylvania, California and Georgia.

The lawsuits allege that defendants issued materially false and
misleading information and failed to disclose: (1) that CEO Dr.
Leen Kawas had published research papers containing improperly
altered images while she was a graduate student; (2) that this
purported research was foundational to Athira's efforts to develop
treatments for Alzheimer's because it laid the biological
groundwork that Athira was using in its approach to treating
Alzheimer's; (3) that, as a result, Athira's intellectual property
and product development for the treatment of Alzheimer's were based
on invalid research; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis.

On June 18, 2021, Athira shares plummeted 39% to $11.15, well below
the $17.00 IPO price, after the Company disclosed that its Board
decided to place Chief Executive Kawas on leave pending a review of
actions stemming from research Dr. Kawas conducted while at
Washington State University.

The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Athira's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. [GN]

ATHIRA PHARMA: Kahn Swick Reminds of August 24 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until August 24, 2021 to file lead plaintiff applications
in securities class action lawsuits against Athira Pharma, Inc.
("Athira" or the "Company") (NasdaqGS: ATHA), if they purchased the
Company's securities between September 18, 2020 through June 17,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period") and/or pursuant to the
Company's September 2020 initial public offering. These actions are
pending in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington.

What You May Do

If you purchased securities of Athira and would like to discuss
your legal rights and how these cases might affect you 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 or via email
(lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-atha/ to learn more. If
you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in the class actions, you
must petition the Court by August 24, 2021.

                       About the Lawsuits

Athira and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period and/or in the
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in conjunction with
the initial public offering, violating federal securities laws.

On June 17, 2021, the Company disclosed that the Board of Directors
had placed President and Chief Executive Officer Leen Kawas "on
temporary leave pending a review of actions stemming from doctoral
research [Kawas] conducted while at Washington State University,"
and that the Company's COO had "assumed day-to-day leadership
responsibilities for the Company, effective immediately." That same
day, STAT News reported that the investigation of Kawas related to
allegations that she altered images in four separate research
papers as the lead author while she was a graduate student.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $7.09 per share, or
nearly 39%, to close at $11.15 per share on June 18, 2021, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

The cases, filed on the same day, are Wang v. Athira Pharma, Inc.,
21-cv-00861, Jawandha v. Athira Pharma, Inc., 21-cv-00862 and Slyne
v. Athira Pharma, Inc., 21-cv-00864.

About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

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

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

BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Bailey Suit Moved From S.D. Ill. to E.D. Mo.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KEITH LYLE BAILEY, individually and as Trustee of
the EFFIE BAILEY LAND TRUST, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, BAYER CROPSCIENCE,
INC., CORTEVA, INC., CARGILL INCORPORATED, BASF CORPORATION,
SYNGENTA CORPORATION, WINFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC, UNIVAR SOLUTIONS,
INC., PIONEER HI-BRED INTERNATIONAL, INC., FEDERATED CO-OPERATIVES
LTD., CHS INC., NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS INC., GROWMARK INC., SIMPLOT
AB RETAIL SUB, INC., and TENKOZ, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00512, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri on July 6, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-00812-SEP to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of state
antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws in the U.S. by
engaging in an anticompetitive scheme and unlawful conspiracy to
deprive farmers the opportunity to purchase crop inputs such as
seed and crop protection chemicals like fungicides, herbicides, and
insecticides at transparent, competitive prices from electronic
platforms. They have been forced to continue paying
supra-competitive prices for crop inputs purchased from inefficient
brick-and-mortar retailers, subject to the Defendants'
confidentiality requirements, the suit says.

Bayer CropScience LP is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG,
headquartered in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

Bayer CropScience Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG,
headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.

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

Cargill, Incorporated is an American privately held global food
corporation based in Minnetonka, Minnesota.

BASF Corporation is a multinational pharmaceutical, seed, and
chemical company, headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey.

Syngenta Corporation is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Wilmington, Delaware.

Winfield Solutions, LLC is a company that manufactures and
distributes seed and crop protection products, headquartered in
Arden Hills, Minnesota.

Univar Solutions, Inc. is a global chemical and ingredients
distributor based in Illinois.

Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. is a producer of seeds for
agriculture, headquartered in Johnston, Iowa.

Federated Co-operatives Ltd. is a crop inputs retailer
headquartered in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

CHS Inc. is a regional agricultural cooperative, headquartered in
Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota.

Nutrien AG Solutions, Inc. is a crop inputs wholesaler based in
Colorado.

GROWMARK, Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in
Illinois.

Simplot AB Retail Sub, Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered
in Idaho.

Tenkoz Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in Georgia.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
          
         Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
         Lauren Guth Barnes, Esq.
         Abbye R. K. Ognibene, Esq.
         HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
         55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
         Cambridge, MA 02142
         Telephone: (617) 482-3700
         Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
         E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com
                 lauren@hbsslaw.com
                 abbyeo@hbsslaw.com

                - and –

         Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq.
         HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
         455 North Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 2410
         Chicago, IL 60611
         Telephone: (708) 628-4949
         Facsimile: (708) 628-4950
         E-mail: dank@hbsslaw.com

                - and –

         James R. Dugan, II, Esq.
         David S. Scalia, Esq.
         TerriAnne Benedetto, Esq.
         THE DUGAN LAW FIRM
         One Canal Place
         365 Canal Street, Suite 1000
         New Orleans, LA 70130
         Telephone: (504) 648-0180
         Facsimile: (504) 648-0181
         E-mail: jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com
                 dscalia@dugan-lawfirm.com
                 tbenedetto@dugan-lawfirm.com

                - and –

         Mitchell A. Toups, Esq.
         MITCHELL A. TOUPS, LTD.
         WELLER, GREEN, TOUPS & TERRELL, L.L.P.
         Post Office Box 350
         Beaumont, TX 77704
         Telephone: (409) 832-1800
         Facsimile: (409) 832-8577
         E-mail: matoups@wgttlaw.com

                - and –

         Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
         Seth M. Pavsner, Esq.
         HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP
         112 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 213-8311
         E-mail: fschirripa@hrsclaw.com

                - and –

         James Williams, Esq.
         CHEHARDY SHERMAN WILLIAM, LLP
         Galleria Boulevard, Suite 1100
         Metairie, LA 70001
         Telephone: (504) 833-5600
         Facsimile: (504) 833-8080
         E-mail: jmw@chehardy.com

BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Potzner Suit Moved From S.D. Ill. to E.D. Mo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled GEORGE POTZNER, 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., PIONEER HI-BRED INTERNATIONAL, INC., FEDERATED
CO-OPERATIVES LTD., CHS INC., NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS INC., GROWMARK
INC., SIMPLOT AB RETAIL SUB, INC., and TENKOZ, INC., Case No.
3:21-cv-00535, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri on July 6, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-00813-SEP to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of state
antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws in the U.S. by
engaging in an anticompetitive scheme and unlawful conspiracy to
deprive farmers the opportunity to purchase crop inputs such as
seed and crop protection chemicals like fungicides, herbicides, and
insecticides at transparent, competitive prices from electronic
platforms. These farmers have been forced to continue paying
supra-competitive prices for crop inputs purchased from inefficient
brick-and-mortar retailers, subject to the Defendants'
confidentiality requirements, the suit alleges.

Bayer CropScience LP is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG,
headquartered in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

Bayer CropScience Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG,
headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.

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

Cargill, Incorporated is an American privately held global food
corporation based in Minnetonka, Minnesota.

BASF Corporation is a multinational pharmaceutical, seed, and
chemical company, headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey.

Syngenta Corporation is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Wilmington, Delaware.

Winfield Solutions, LLC is a company that manufactures and
distributes seed and crop protection products, headquartered in
Arden Hills, Minnesota.

Univar Solutions, Inc. is a global chemical and ingredients
distributor based in Illinois.

Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. is a producer of seeds for
agriculture, headquartered in Johnston, Iowa.

Federated Co-operatives Ltd. is a crop inputs retailer
headquartered in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

CHS Inc. is a regional agricultural cooperative, headquartered in
Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota.

Nutrien AG Solutions, Inc. is a crop inputs wholesaler based in
Colorado.

GROWMARK, Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in
Illinois.

Simplot AB Retail Sub, Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered
in Idaho.

Tenkoz Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in Georgia.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
          
         Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
         FEGAN SCOTT LLC
         150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 741-1019
         Facsimile: (312) 264-0100
         E-mail: beth@feganscott.com

                - and –

         Jonathan D. Lindenfeld, Esq.
         FEGAN SCOTT LLC
         140 Broadway, 46th Floor
         New York, NY 10005
         Telephone: (332) 216-2101
         Facsimile: (312) 264-0100
         E-mail: jonathan@feganscott.com

BAYLOR SCOTT: Class Cert. Discovery Deadline Extended to Oct. 15
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENJAMIN KUNZE, et. al.,
v. BAYLOR SCOTT & WHITE HEALTH, et. al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01276-N
(N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge David C. Godbey entered an order
granting the joint motion for extension of class certification
discovery deadline.

The class certification discovery deadline is extended to October
15, 2021, says Judge Godbey.

Baylor Scott is a not-for-profit health care system in Texas.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hsWi0T at no extra charge.[CC]


BEACH ENERGY: May Face Shareholder Suit Over Misleading Projections
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Elouise Fowler, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that Beach Energy may face a shareholder class action for
potentially misleading the market over its rosy projections of
Western Flank oil reserves in north-east South Australia.

The $2.9 billion oil and gas company is under investigation by law
firm Slater and Gordon for failing to properly model the decline of
the Western Flank basin and is seeking shareholders to sign onto
the action.

The Western Flank oil and gas field has substantially out-performed
over the last five years, after Beach consistently underestimated
the difficult-to-model terrain's possible oil production.

But in February and April this year Beach downgraded its August
2020 fiscal outlook, with chief executive Matt Kay declaring he
could now be certain the resource was in decline.

"Let's not sugar coat it, we are now witnessing decline from these
fields," Mr Kay told The Australian Financial Review at the time.

"We always knew this day would come, the challenge was predicting
when."

Slater and Gordon's class action team think Beach management did or
should have known at the time they gave FY21 guidance in August
2020 that "it did not adequately take account of a number of
factors which would impact the company's financial performance."

Those factors include: "The accuracy of the modelling system used
to assess reserves on the Western Flank of the Cooper Basin; and
that the Western Flank had begun, or would soon begin, to come into
decline.

On 17 August 2020, Beach Energy said it expected FY21 underlying
earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, and amortisation of
$900 million to $1 billion and production of 26.0 million to 28.5
million barrels of oil equivalent, and updated its five-year
outlook target.

Outlook downgraded
But by February it had downgraded its outlook and on 30 April 2021,
further downgraded its expected FY21 underlying EBITDA to $850
million to $900 million and downgraded FY21 production to 25.2 -
25.7 MMboe and withdrew its five-year outlook target.

The April announcement wiped $900 million off Beach's market
capitalisation, and it has largely maintained the 24.7 per cent
share price drop, closing at $1.26 on July 2.

Slater and Gordon think the failure to model and notify the market
could support allegations that during the claim period between 17
August 2020 and 29 April 2021, Beach Energy broke the Corporations
Act twice.

First, by possibly engaging in "misleading or deceptive conduct . .
. by providing and maintaining the FY21 guidance and subsequent
updated outlook statements which lacked reasonable grounds".

Second, by potentially contravening "its obligations of continuous
disclosure of price-sensitive information by failing to withdraw
the FY21 guidance and subsequent updated outlook statements or to
disclose the matters which affected the achievement of that
guidance."

If the claim proceeds, Slater and Gordon propose to take a
percentage of the amount of any award or settlement that may be
recovered. [GN]

C. DAVID: Hanover Asserts No Duty to Defend in HomeAdvisor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY and THE HANOVER AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. C. DAVID VENTURE MANAGEMENT, LLC; VENTURE STREET,
LLC; GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-00790 (E.D. Va., July 6, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for declaratory judgment.

In this case, Hanover seeks a declaration that it owes no duty to
defend or indemnify Defendants C. David Venture Management, LLC and
Venture Street, LLC in the putative class action lawsuit styled In
Re HomeAdvisor, Inc. Litigation, Civil Action No. 16-CV-01849, in
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
There is no coverage available for the claims asserted against the
Defendants in the HomeAdvisor Lawsuit because the claims do not
allege damages within the meaning of the Commercial General
Liability (CGL) or Excess/Umbrella Policies issued by Hanover.

Hanover Insurance Company is an insurance company, with its
principal place of business located in Worcester, Massachusetts.

The Hanover American Insurance Company is an insurance company,
with its principal place of business in Worcester, Massachusetts.

C. David Venture Management, LLC is a consulting firm, with its
principal place of business at 6809 Lemon Road, McLean, Virginia.

Venture Street, LLC is a limited liability company, with its
principal place of business at 6809 Lemon Road, McLean, Virginia.

Great American Insurance Company is an insurance company, with its
principal place of business at 301 E. Fourth Street, Cincinnati,
Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Margaret Fonshell Ward, Esq.
         DOWNS WARD BENDER HAUPTMANN & HERZOG, P.A.
         Executive Plaza III, Suite 400
         11350 McCormick Road
         Hunt Valley, MD 21031
         Telephone: (410) 584-2800
         E-mail: mward@downs-ward.com

CALIFORNIA: Order on Discovery Disputes in Ashker v. Cate Issued
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, Eureka Division, entered an
order relating to two discovery disputes in the lawsuit entitled
TODD ASHKER, et al., Plaintiffs v. MATHEW CATE, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 09-cv-05796-CW (RMI) (N.D. Cal.).

Pending before the Court are two disputes presented in the form of
a discovery dispute letter brief. However, only one of the two
disputes actually concerns discovery, the other dispute is
something else entirely, something more akin to the substance of an
enforcement motion. In short, for the reasons stated by the
Plaintiffs, their request for an additional 2.5 hours of deposition
time for the questioning of a particular prison guard (attended
with certain admonitions addressed to that witness and to defense
counsel) is granted; while, for the reasons stated by the
Defendants, the Plaintiff's request for the enforcement-type relief
that has been shoehorned into this discovery dispute letter brief
is denied.

The lawsuit is a class-action case brought on behalf of a class of
California prisoners that resulted in a comprehensive settlement
agreement wherein the Defendants agreed to implement certain
reforms intended to address the constitutional concerns raised in
the operative complaint. The agreement provides for certain
monitoring periods wherein the Parties would exchange documents and
information such that the Plaintiffs and the Court can monitor and,
if necessary, enforce the Defendants' compliance with the various
provisions of the settlement agreement.

Among other aspects, certain matters pertaining to the monitoring
and enforcement issues in the case have been referred to Judge
Illman by the presiding judge. One such matter is the question of
whether one particular person's current housing situation (in a
particular unit with fewer liberties and fewer, if any, programming
opportunities as compared to other units) is in fact legitimate and
necessary, or whether it is the product of the Defendants'
retaliation against that person (hereafter referred to the
"forthcoming enforcement motion.").

In anticipation of preparing and filing the forthcoming enforcement
motion, the Plaintiffs made certain discovery requests which this
Court granted over the Defendants' objections. As part of this
pre-motion discovery, the Plaintiffs have deposed a particular
prison guard who has been designated as an expert by the
Defendants, and who has produced an expert report. The essence of
the dispute is simple--the deposition was left open for various
reasons and the parties now dispute the appropriate length and the
substantive scope of its continuation.

The Plaintiffs seek to depose the Guard for another 2.5 hours,
while the Defendants suggest limiting the continuation of the
deposition to 1 hour. Part of the Parties' dispute is founded on
their differing interpretations as to the proper scope and subject
matter limits that might be permissible for this deposition.

Furthermore, aside from Defense Counsel's view about the limits on
the scope of this deposition, the Guard himself would frequently
refuse to answer certain questions pertaining to imprisoned
persons' involvement in some other currently-pending case.
Additionally, the Plaintiffs also note that certain subsequent
developments and revelations, all of which came to light after the
Guard's deposition, necessitate the continuation of this
deposition, if only for that reason.

Judge Illman notes that much of the substance of the instant
dispute is rooted in the Defendants' objection to the Guard being
questioned about anything falling "outside the scope of [the
Guard's] duties as an expert, his report, and his expert opinion."
This objection is now overruled and the Judge holds that, while the
scope will not be unlimited, the Guard can also be questioned about
matters going to his credibility in general, and matters relevant
to the reliability of the opinions expressed in his report.

Therefore, while the Plaintiffs do not have leave to conduct a
limitless fishing expedition into any and all matters within the
Guard's knowledge, the Plaintiffs will be permitted to ask any
questions for which there is an articulable relevance to the
Guard's credibility or to the reliability of his stated opinions.
Anything less would hamstring the Plaintiffs unfairly, Judge Illman
notes.

Furthermore, the Defendants are instructed to direct the Guard not
to refuse to answer questions (as he did before) that fall within
the permissible scope herein defined. This case has a protective
order in place, and the Plaintiffs' counsel are officers of this
Court; therefore, issues such as confidentiality, privacy, and
institutional security concerns can be addressed through the
provisions of the protective order.

As such, the witness is not permitted to unilaterally decide what
he will and will not answer on those bases. In the event that the
Guard's intransigence continues at the continuation of this
deposition, the Plaintiffs are encouraged to bring that to the
Court's attention such that it can be appropriately addressed.
Accordingly, in line with the scope of questioning described, the
Plaintiffs' request to re-open and continue the deposition of the
Guard for an additional 2.5 hours is granted.

Additionally, the Plaintiffs seek an order from the Court directing
the Defendants to allow a certain person (imprisoned in one
particular prison unit) to enjoy certain privileges and liberties
that are not available in that unit. Clearly, this is not a
discovery dispute, Judge Illman states. In fact, he notes, while
not a complete overlap, this request goes a long way toward the
relief that seems to be the focus of the forthcoming enforcement
motion.

Despite the fact that some of the Plaintiffs' suggestions in this
regard appear compelling--as the Defendants have pointed out, the
settlement agreement in the case has not given the Court unlimited
powers of supervision and control regarding the Defendants'
administration of the state's prison system. Instead, the agreement
provides for certain reforms coupled with monitoring and
enforcement of those reforms through certain specified mechanisms
such as document production and enforcement motions.

In this regard, the Defendant's convincingly point out that if the
Plaintiffs believe that the Defendants have violated the settlement
agreement regarding this individual's privileges--or his housing
situation--they should either file an ordinary enforcement motion
as provided for in the settlement agreement, or "they should file
their forthcoming enforcement motion, prove retaliation, and argue
that this Court under the settlement agreement can order CDCR to
house that person] in another unit."

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' request for an order directing the
Defendants' to provide the person in question with privileges and
liberties associated with a unit other than that in which he is
currently housed is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 28, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4fv7buns from Leagle.com.


CAMBRIA COUNTY, PA: Offers Refunds to Exit Overcharges Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Griffith at The Tribune-Democrat reports that local townships
and boroughs are lining up to accept refunds for court filing fees
that will remove Cambria County from a potentially expensive class
action lawsuit over alleged overcharges.

East Carroll, Croyle and Conemaugh townships are among the first to
approve an agreement to release the county from further liability
under the lawsuit, which was filed by two Delaware County school
districts.

The lawsuit stems from a little-known provision in state law that
limits civil court filing fees to $10 for municipalities. The
Cambria County prothonotary's office has traditionally charged
boroughs, townships, school districts and the City of Johnstown its
standard fees collected from the public, county Solicitor William
G. Barbin said.

Barbin's office sent letters to 35 taxing bodies that had
prothonotary fees in the past four years. The letters offer refunds
totaling $3,137.50 if the municipalities agree to release the
county from the class action suit.

"When the municipalities approve it, we'll send that list down to
Commonwealth Court and ask them to dismiss the suit against Cambria
County," Barbin said.

Cambria County commissioners will have to take a final vote before
refunds can be issued, Barbin said.

Refunds range from 50 cents for Geistown Borough and Cambria and
Washington townships to $807.50 for East Carroll Township. The City
of Johnstown would receive $85 under the proposal.

East Carroll Township Secretary Mary Jane Rowland had not reviewed
the situation but said property liens for sewer work and nuisance
properties were among the fees incurred.

Jackson Township Manager David Hirko said nuisance property actions
accounted for most of the fees behind his municipality's proposed
$330.50 refund, adding supervisors were expected to approve the
settlement at their meeting.

"We're not part of the lawsuit," Hirko said. "We'll just take the
refund."

In May, Barbin said some eastern Pennsylvania counties charge more
than $300 to file a complaint.

"In Cambria County, it costs $110 to $115, and $60 to $75 of our
$115 is fees that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court puts on," he said.
"That's out of our control. The prothonotary charges $40 to file a
complaint."

The county is not presenting the proposed settlement as a "take it
or leave it" offer, Barbin said.

"They could still receive input from the municipalities," he said.
[GN]


CAPITAL VACATIONS: Barney Sues Over Unsolicited Voice Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELINE BARNEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL VACATIONS LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 4:21-cv-00459-BP (W.D. Miss., July 1, 2021) is a class
action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant transmitted a prerecorded
voice solicitation to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number
ending in 6225 on or about June 24, 2021. The Defendant's
prerecorded voice message constitutes telemarketing and/or
advertising because they promote the Defendant's business and
services, specifically a "dream vacation". The Plaintiff asserts
that she never provided her prior express written consent to the
Defendant to be contacted by prerecorded message.

As a result of the Defendant's unsolicited prerecorded messages,
the Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons have allegedly
suffered harm in the form of invasion of privacy, aggravation,
annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, conversion,
inconvenience and disruption to their daily life.

Thus, the Plaintiff seeks actual and statutory damages, treble
damages, an injunction requiring the Defendant to cease all
unsolicited call activity without obtaining consent first, and
other relief as the Court deems necessary.

Capital Vacations LLC markets and sells timeshares and vacations in
Brandon Missouri, Hollywood, Florida, Myrtle Beach and other
locations. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Martin L. Daesch, Esq.
          ONDERLAW, LLC
          110 E. Lockwood Avenue
          St. Louis, MI 63119
          Tel: (314) 963-9000
          E-mail: daesch@onderlaw.com

                - and  -

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Tel: 954-400-4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

CDM FEDERAL: Faces Barragan Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ISABEL BARRAGAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CDM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-02174 (S.D. Tex., July 2, 2021) arises
from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff, who worked for the Defendant as a construction
manager and PA TAC Terminal Trainer, claims that although he worked
more than 40 hours per week, 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 in excess of 40 per workweek.
Instead, the Defendant paid her straight time only regardless of
the number of hours she worked.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint, for himself and for other
similarly situated construction workers, to recover all unpaid
regular and overtime wages, liquidated damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and
all other relief as the Court finds proper.

CDM Federal Programs Corporation provides various disaster and
emergency relief construction, cleanup and related services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          SHELLIST LAZARZ 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

CENLAR AGENCY: Suit Brought Over Mortgage Calls Settles $620K
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Petrishen at Telegram & Gazette reports that a class-action
lawsuit over mortgage collection calls brought by a Gardner man
recently settled for more than $600,000, records show.

Ely Gemborys of Gardner alleged in federal court last year that
Cenlar Agency Inc. of New Jersey, one of the nation's largest
mortgage subservicing companies, called him at least four times a
week to collect a debt in 2017 in violation of state law.

Former Attorney General Martha Coakley in 2011 deemed more than two
calls or texts a week to be a violation of consumer protection law,
even if the creditor uses a "predictive dialer" or does not leave a
message.

Gemborys alleged in his lawsuit that Cenlar attempted to call him
at least four times a week for all of 2017, despite him repeatedly
telling the agency he could not afford to pay his mortgage debt and
asking them to stop calling.

Court records show Cenlar agreed to settle the case for $612,500,
with $10,000 going to Gemborys, about $140,000 to his lawyers and
the rest to a class consisting of 11,699 potential claim members.

Gemborys' law firm, Lemberg Law LLC of Wilton, Connecticut, wrote
in court documents that the average claim would be at least $52,
with the figure likely higher since not all eligible members would
likely apply.
According to a website set up to facilitate the case, potential
class members had to submit claims by April 20 in order to be
eligible for payment.

Lawyers for Cenlar had originally indicated the case could be worth
up to $100 million in arguing for it to proceed under the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005, an act that expands federal
jurisdiction over class-action lawsuits worth more than $5
million.

Stephen Taylor, a partner at Lemberg Law LLC, which represented
Gemborys, wrote in an email that Cenlar lawyers' statement was a
hypothetical calculation that Cenlar did not concede was accurate
and that Lemberg Law did not agree with.

The statement, he noted, was made for legal reasons including
removing the case to federal court from Worcester Superior Court.
Two lawyers for Cenlar, Krystle S. Tadesse and Thomas J.
Cunningham, did not return emails seeking comment.

Gemborys' lawyers wrote in court filings that the $612,500
settlement was an "excellent result" that compensates potential
class members at a rate double a statutory minimum for the alleged
violations.

"We are gratified that the judge approved another solid settlement
reached by Lemberg Law on behalf of Massachusetts consumers,"
Sergei Lemberg, the law firm's founder, wrote in an email.

U.S. District Court Judge Timothy S. Hillman granted final approval
of the settlement June 23, records show. [GN]

CET INCORPORATED: Class of Employees Certified in Kammer FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana,
Hammond Division, approved the parties' stipulation for conditional
class certification in the lawsuit entitled EUGENE KAMMER,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. CET INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-83-PPS-JPK (N.D.
Ind.).

The lawsuit is a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards
Act brought by Eugene Kammer, who was employed by CET as a Labor
Shop Foreman at Arcelor's Burns Harbor, Indiana Facility, seeking
overtime compensation. Presently before the Court is the joint
Stipulation and Motion for Step-One Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The action is brought on behalf of current and former individuals
employed by Defendant CET, who allegedly were not paid overtime as
required by the FLSA for work they performed for the Defendant
("Straight Time Workers"). CET is a consulting engineering firm
that provides services to its clients, including assigning workers
to work for third-party client companies. The named Plaintiff,
Eugene Kammer, alleges that he and other similarly situated workers
were paid the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including
those in excess of 40 hours in an individual workweek.

The one-count complaint states a claim under the FLSA and requests
that the case proceed as a collective action under 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b) on behalf of all other similarly situated hourly
employees paid straight time for overtime, who worked for CET
during the past three years.

In this case, the Defendant consents to an order conditionally
certifying the case as a collective action under the FLSA as
follows: "all individuals who were employed by CET Incorporated
during the last three years, including those assigned by CET to
work for third-party clients of CET at the client's worksite, who
were paid their straight time hourly rate of pay for all hours
worked, including those hours worked in excess of 40 in a single
workweek."

The Defendant has also consented to the Notice and Consent to Join
forms, attached as Exhibit A. These will be sent to the putative
collective members, which are the individuals CET employed at any
time during the period three years prior to this Court order and
the present, who were paid their straight time hourly rate of pay
for all hours worked.

District Judge Philip P. Simon says he is cognizant that
notwithstanding this stipulation to conditional certification, the
parties acknowledge that nothing in the stipulation prejudices
CET's right to later argue that the Plaintiff and any opt-in
plaintiffs are not similarly situated within the meaning of 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b), and that the conditionally certified
collective should be decertified, which the Defendant reserves the
right to do at an appropriate time in the future. Additionally, the
parties reserve the rights to challenge or defend the propriety of
collective action certification at any point during the
litigation.

Pursuant to the parties' agreement, it is ordered that this matter
is conditionally certified as a collective action under the FLSA,
and the Stipulation and Motion for Step-One Notice Pursuant to 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b) is granted.

Exhibit A is approved as the authorized Notice and Consent to Join
forms to be sent to all individuals who were employed by CET
Incorporated during the last three years, including those assigned
by CET to work for third-party clients of CET at the client's
worksite, who were paid their straight time hourly rate of pay for
all hours worked, including those hours worked in excess of 40 in a
single workweek.

The parties have also stipulated to the following notice process
and schedule, and it is ordered:

   a. No later than seven (7) days after the Court enters an
      order granting this Stipulation and Motion, the Defendant
      will provide the Plaintiff's counsel with a list of the
      individuals the Defendant employed at any time during the
      period three years prior to the Court's order and the
      present who were paid their straight time hourly rate of
      pay for all hours worked (the Putative Collective Members);

   b. Within fourteen (14) days of the Defendant's production of
      the list, the Plaintiff's counsel will send the approved
      Notice and Consent to Join form to the Putative Collective
      Members via U.S. mail and email;

   c. Also within fourteen (14) days of the Defendant's
      production of the list, te Plaintiff's counsel will send
      the approved Notice and Consent to Join form to the
      Putative Collective Members for whom the Defendant did not
      produce a personal email address via text message;

   d. If an email containing the Notice and Consent to Join form
      is returned as undeliverable, the Plaintiff's Counsel will
      promptly notify the Defendant's Counsel and the Counsel
      will have two (2) business days to produce that Putative
      Collective Member's last known personal phone number;

   e. Putative Collective Members will have sixty (60) days from
      the date the Notices and Consent to Join forms are mailed
      to return a copy of the Consent to Join form to the
      Plaintiff's Counsel for filing (the Opt-in Period);

   f. For any mailed Notice and Consent to Join forms returned as
      undeliverable with a forwarding address. The Plaintiff's
      counsel will mail the court-approved Notice and Consent to
      Join forms to the forwarding address provided; and

   g. The Plaintiff's Counsel will file Consent to Join forms
      within five (5) business days of the date they are received
      by the Plaintiff's Counsel or delivered to the Plaintiff's
      Counsel's law office, whichever is earlier. All Consent to
      Join forms received electronically during the Opt-in Period
      or postmarked during the Opt-in Period will be deemed
      timely for filing purposes.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated June 28,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/rfvsm4e5 from
Leagle.com.


CHAMPLAIN TOWERS: Faces Class Action Over Collapsed Condo Complex
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sara E. Teller at legalreader.com reports that Champlain Towers
South, a Miami, Florida condo complex, suddenly collapsed with many
of the residents inside. Some made it out, while others are still
missing amongst the debris. Now, the residents and their families
are questioning why the complex unexpectedly came tumbling to the
ground, and lawsuits are being filed against the association on
their behalf.

Raysa Rodriguez left a distressing voicemail on the brother's phone
just moments after Champlain Towers South came crashing down. She
yelled in a panic, "The whole entire building is gone!" Luckily,
Rodriguez escaped alive and is now pursuing a lawsuit against the
condo association.

"I want the people to grieve, but a lawsuit needs to be filed
that's why we filed it," said Adam Moskowitz, who represents her in
a class action.

Rodriguez lived on the ninth floor and reported her friends, Dick
Augustine and Elaine Sabino, who lived one floor above, were still
missing.  Her lawsuit is one of at least four that have been filed
since the collapse.

"The first thing that they want to know is why did this happen and
how do we prevent it from happening again," said attorney Robert
Mongeluzzi, who represents the family of Harry Rosenberg, another
Champlain Towers resident, still missing. Rosenberg lived on the
second floor, and his daughter and son-in-law were in the condo
with him at the time.

"The families have not had a voice or set of eyes in that process
at all," Mongeluzzi added.

The portion of the condo complex that was still standing after the
tragedy was leveled in a controlled explosion meant to allow search
and rescue crews to continue their efforts to find missing
residents inside at the time. Miami-Dade Mayor Daniella Levine Cava
said the demolition was "executed exactly as planned and left
officials optimistic about the safely sifting through the rubble.
There is hope that there are voids that will allow us to continue
the search and rescue operation."

Governor Ron DeSantis added, "Concerns about the remaining part of
the building left few options but demolition. Residents of the
building who survived fled with whatever they had with them and had
not been permitted to enter the teetering structure. Passports,
wedding rings, cherished photos were left behind. At the end of the
day, that building is too unsafe to let people go back in. I know
there's a lot of people who were able to get out, fortunately, who
have things there. We're very sensitive to that. But I don't think
that there's any way you could let someone go back up into that
building given the shape that it's in now."

A spokesperson for the Champlain Towers South Condominium
Association responded to the litigation, "While we cannot comment
on pending litigation, our focus remains on caring for our friends
and neighbors during this difficult time. We continue to work with
city, state, and local officials in their search and recovery
efforts, and to understand the causes of this tragedy. Our profound
thanks go out to all of the emergency rescue personnel -
professionals and volunteers alike - for their tireless efforts."
[GN]

CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Klein Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 30 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on July 4 disclosed that class action complaints
have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the following
companies. There is no cost to participate in the suit. If you
suffered a loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Churchill Capital Corp IV (NYSE:CCIV)
Class Period: January 11, 2021 - February 22, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 30, 2021

The CCIV lawsuit alleges that Churchill Capital Corp IV made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Lucid was not prepared to deliver vehicles by
spring of 2021; (2) Lucid was projecting a production of 557
vehicles in 2021 instead of the 6,000 vehicles touted in the run-up
to the merger with Churchill; 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. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

Learn about your recoverable losses in CCIV:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/churchill-capital-corp-iv-loss-submission-form?id=17370&from=1

Aterian, Inc. (NASDAQ:ATER)
Class Period: December 1, 2020 - May 3, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 12, 2021

The ATER lawsuit alleges that throughout the class period, Aterian,
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's organic growth is
plummeting; (ii) the Company's recent, self-lauded acquisitions
were overpayments for flawed assets from questionable sources;
(iii) Aterian's purported artificial intelligence software is a
flawed product that lacks customer interest; (iv) Aterian uses
rebate programs and paid or artificial reviews to pump up their
product offerings; and (v) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

Learn about your recoverable losses in ATER:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/aterian-inc-loss-submission-form?id=17370&from=1

Provention Bio, Inc. (NASDAQ:PRVB)
Class Period: November 2, 2020 - April 8, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 20, 2021

The complaint alleges Provention Bio, Inc. made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
the teplizumab Biologics License Application ("BLA") was deficient
in its submitted form and would require additional data to secure
U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval; (ii) accordingly, the
teplizumab BLA lacked the evidentiary support the Company had led
investors to believe it possessed; (iii) the Company had thus
overstated the teplizumab BLA's approval prospects and hence the
commercialization timeline for teplizumab; and (iv) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

Learn about your recoverable losses in PRVB:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/provention-bio-inc-loss-submission-form?id=17370&from=1

Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.

CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]

CLEARVIEW AI INC: Faces Hurvitz Suit Over Illegal Biometric Use
---------------------------------------------------------------
AARON HURVITZ, for himself and others similarly situated v.
CLEARVIEW AI, INC.; HOAN TON-THAT; RICHARD SCHWARTZ; ROCKY MOUNTAIN
DATA ANALYTICS LLC; THOMAS MULCAIRE; AND MACY'S, INC., Case No.
1:21-cv-03373 (E.D.N.Y., June 23, 2021) is a class action for
damages and other legal and equitable remedies resulting from the
actions of the Clearview Defendants, Macy's and all other private
entities similarly situated to Macy's, and the other Defendants for
their unlawful creation and/or use of the Biometric Database
consisting of the Biometrics of millions of American residents,
including residents of New York.

The complaint says that without providing any notice and without
obtaining any consent, the Defendants covertly scraped three
billion photographs of facial images from the Internet -- including
facial images of millions of American residents and then used
artificial intelligence algorithms to scan the face geometry of
each individual depicted in the photographs in order to harvest the
individuals' unique biometric identifiers and corresponding
biometric information (Biometrics). Further, the Clearview
Defendants created a searchable biometric database that contained
the Biometrics and allowed users of the Database to identify
unknown individuals merely by uploading a photograph to the
database, says the suit.

The Clearview Defendants did not develop their technology out of a
desire for a safer society. Rather, they developed their technology
to invade the privacy of the American public for their own profit,
the Plaintiff alleges.

While the Clearview Defendants have touted their actions and the
Biometric Database as being helpful to law enforcement and other
government agencies, the Clearview Defendants have made their
Biometric Database available to public and private entities and
persons, alike. What the Clearview Defendants' technology really
offers is a massive surveillance state. Anyone utilizing the
technology could determine the identities of people as they walk
down the street, attend a political rally or enjoy time in public
with their families. One of Clearview's financial backers has
conceded that Clearview may be laying the groundwork for a
"dystopian future," the Plaintiff adds.

Plaintiff Aaron Hurvitz is and has been, a resident of New York,
residing in the Eastern District of New York.

Defendant Clearview AI, Inc. is a private, for-profit Delaware
corporation, headquartered in New York, New York. Clearview markets
its technology throughout the United States, including in New York.
Clearview obtains the images that underlie its technology from
millions of internet-based platforms and websites, including, on
information and belief, based on the magnitude of platforms and
websites involved, platforms and websites of New York companies or
companies who operate servers in New York.

Defendant Hoan Ton-That is a founder and the Chief Executive
Officer of Clearview and an architect of its alleged illegal
scheme. The Defendant Richard Schwartz is a founder and the
President of Clearview and an architect of its alleged illegal
scheme.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Karen Newirth, Esq.
          LOEVY & LOEVY
          311 N. Aberdeen, 3rd Floor
          Chicago, IL 60607
          Telephone: (312) 243-5900
          E-mail: karen@loevy.com

CLEARVIEW AI INC: Hurvitz Suit Moved from E.D.N.Y. to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Hurvitz v. Clearview AI, Inc.
et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02960 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 23,
2021.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:21-cv-03373 to the proceeding.

The suit is brought over alleged personal injury violation. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman.

The Defendants include Hoan Ton-That, Richard Schwartz, Rocky
Mountain Data Analytics LLC, Thomas Mulcaire, and Macys, Inc.

Clearview AI is an American facial recognition company, providing
software to companies, law enforcement, universities, and
individuals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Drury, Esq.
          Karen Anne Newirth, Esq.
          LOEVY & LOEVY
          311 N. Aberdeen, 3rd FL.
          Chicago, IL 60607
          Telephone (312) 243-5900
          E-mail: drury@loevy.com
                  karen@loevy.com

CONTINUUM GLOBAL: Fails to Properly Pay Wages, Dickson Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
FREDRICA DICKSON, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONTINUUM GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-01528-K (N.D. Tex., July 1, 2021) is a
collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged unlawful company-wide employment policies that violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a customer service
representative from June 2017 to March 2020.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant did not compensate her and
other similarly situated employees for all hours they performed
compensable work for the Defendant, specifically for the time they
spent performing pre-shift and post-shift duties which are integral
and indispensable part of their principal duties. In addition, the
Defendant did not include the non-discretionary bonuses in their
regular rate of pay for the purpose of determining their overtime
wages, the Plaintiff says.

As a result, despite regularly working more than 40 hours per week,
the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were not
properly paid overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half
times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of
40 per week, alleges the suit.

Continuum Global Solutions, LLC operates several customer service
call centers across the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P.
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Tel: (713) 523-0001
          Fax: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com

                - and –

          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          The Heritage Building, Suite 250
          34555 Chagrin Boulevard
          Moreland Hills, OH 44022
          Tel: 216-696-5000
          Fax: 216-696-7005
          E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  lori@lazzarolawfirm.com


CULTIVATION TECHNOLOGIES: Wins Bid to Ban Own Counsel in Fincanna
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled FINCANNA CAPITAL CORP., Plaintiff and
Cross-defendant v. CULTIVATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Cross-complainants, and Respondents. CATANZARITE LAW
CORPORATION, Objector and Appellant. RICHARD MESA et al.,
Plaintiffs v. CULTIVATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant and
Respondent. CATANZARITE LAW CORPORATION, Objector and Appellant,
Case No. G058700, Consolidated with Case Nos. G058942 & G058931
(Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District,
Division Three, entered an opinion affirming the disqualification
of Catanzarite Law Corporation.

The three consolidated appeals concern Cultivation Technologies,
Inc.'s (CTI) motion to disqualify its own legal counsel, the
Catanzarite Law Corporation, in related cases. The trial court
granted CTI's disqualification motion relating to two lawsuits,
deciding Catanzarite could not represent the following parties (1)
CTI; (2) three CTI subsidiaries (Coachella Manufacturing, LLC,
Coachella Distributors, LLC, and DS Gen, LLC, hereafter
collectively referred to as CTI Subsidiaries); and (3) a group of
CTI shareholders bringing a derivative lawsuit.

Background Facts

In 2012, Richard Probst and Richard O'Connor were the controlling
shareholders and directors of Mobile Farming Systems, Inc., (MFS),
an agricultural technology company selling hydroponic growing
systems. Anticipating MFS's products and technology would be in
high demand during the expected "medical marijuana boom" the
corporation convinced new investors to purchase MFS common stock.
In 2015, the MFS board reported to investors that MFS intended to
form a subsidiary, CTI, to purchase several acres of land and build
a 100,000 square foot building in Coachella, California, to process
marijuana and gain "up to $10,000,000 of high margin annual
revenues." The MFS shareholders (who invested over $3 million)
believed MFS acquired 28 million shares of CTI common stock and the
new corporation would be a wholly owned subsidiary of MFS.

As promised, Probst and O'Connor incorporated CTI, and these two
MFS directors, and along with Amy Cooper, became CTI's appointed
board of directors. However, for reasons that are unclear, CTI did
not become MFS's subsidiary, angering MFS's shareholders. In
addition, CTI not only refused to acknowledge MFS's 28 million
shares but also issued 23 million shares of common stock to CTI's
"Founders." The "CTI Founders Common Stock" shares were held by
Probst, O'Connor, Cooper, TGAP Holdings, LLC, EM2 Strategies LLC,
I'm Rad LLC, Cliff Higgerson, Aroha Holdings Inc., and Scott Unfug.
Soon thereafter, CTI's board members began fighting amongst
themselves.

In October 2015, Cooper resigned as president, secretary, and board
member of CTI. In February 2016, CTI's remaining board members
removed O'Connor from the board. This was the starting point of the
rift between CTI shareholders, creating two factions, the O'Connor
Faction (comprised of O'Connor, Cooper, and a group of CTI/MFS
shareholders) and the Probst Faction (Probst and the remaining CTI
directors). These two groups became locked in a struggle for
control over the corporation.

The Probst Faction issued additional shares, gaining more votes for
themselves plus more investors. In 2016, the Probst Faction, which
included CTI's controlling board of directors, entered into several
agreements with FinCanna Capital Corp. (FinCanna), a Canadian
royalty corporation. Over the next two years, FinCanna loaned CTI
nearly $6 million to develop cannabis cultivation, distribution,
and extraction operations in California. In 2018, CTI was unable to
make its loan payments to FinCanna and several CTI directors
resigned.

Meanwhile, the O'Connor Faction and some disgruntled MFS
shareholders hired Catanzarite. In total, Catanzarite filed six
lawsuits within a one-year period:

   (1) The Pinkerton Action. Denise Pinkerton v. Cultivation
       Technologies, Inc., et al., OCSC No. 30-2018-01018922;

   (2) The MFS Action. Mobile Farming Systems, Inc. v.
       Cultivation Technologies, Inc., et al., OCSC
       No. 30-2019-01046904;

   (3) The Mesa Action. Mesa, et al. v. Probst, et al., OCSC
       No. 30-2019-01064267;

   (4) The Cooper Action. Cooper, et al., v. Cultivation
       Technologies, Inc., OCSC No. 30-2019-01072443;

   (5) The FinCanna Action Cross-complaint. FinCanna
       v. Cultivation Technologies, Inc., et al., OCSC
       No. 30-2019-01072088; and

   (6) The Scottsdale Action. Cultivation Technologies, Inc.
       v. Scottsdale Insurance Company, OCSC
       No. 30-2019-01096233.

The Appellate Court notes that immediately before filing the
Scottsdale Action, Catanzarite amended the complaints in the first
two derivative actions transforming them into direct actions
against individuals, who were part of the Probst Faction (the
Pinkerton and MFS Actions). Additionally, after filing the
Scottsdale Action, Catanzarite dismissed the Cooper Action on Sept.
13, 2019.

The FinCanna Action

The complaint alleged that in 2016, FinCanna loaned nearly $6
million dollars to CTI. FinCanna asserted it attempted to
renegotiate the deal, but after several key CTI members resigned,
CTI's attention and resources were devoted to litigation and its
management was in disarray, which posed further threat to
FinCanna's chances of recovery. FinCanna asked the court to appoint
a receiver to protect its interests in CTI and order an injunction
to stop any interference in the receivership.

FinCanna's complaint specifically referred to the upheaval created
by the MFS Action. It explained that in April 2019, it foreclosed
on property used as collateral for some of the loan proceeds
(recovering nearly $3.9 million). Thereafter, four board members
and CTI's CEO resigned, leaving two directors. FinCanna explained
it filed the lawsuit because it believed that after these
resignations, CTI's operations became impaired and the ability to
recover the money owed (over $4 million due to owed interest) was
"placed in serious risk."

First Disqualification Motion in the FinCanna Action

Horwitz + Armstrong filed a motion on behalf of CTI, the
cross-complainant in the FinCanna Action, to recuse and/or
disqualify the purported attorneys of record. Horwitz argued CTI
did not retain Catanzarite to represent it and there were
unwaivable conflicts of interest. In support of the motion, Probst
filed a declaration, on behalf of himself and CTI's duly elected
board of directors, who have authorized the filing of the
disqualification motion.

On November 15, 2019, the court granted the motion but did not rule
on the evidentiary objections on the grounds they were not directed
at evidence that the court considers material to its disposition of
this motion.

The court cited authority holding an attorney cannot avoid the
disqualification rule by unilaterally converting a present client
into a former client before the hearing on the disqualification
motion.

Second Disqualification Motion in the FinCanna Action

Less than a week later, Horwitz filed a motion to recuse and/or
disqualify Catanzarite from representing the CTI Subsidiaries in
the FinCanna Action. The motion asserted CTI and the CTI
Subsidiaries should be treated as the same client for conflict
purposes. Horwitz explained that after the court's disqualification
ruling, it asked Catanzarite to voluntarily withdraw from
representing the CTI Subsidiaries. Catanzarite refused, stating it
intended to appeal the prior disqualification order.

Catanzarite filed an opposition, confirming it intended to file an
appeal. It argued Horwitz filed an abusive disqualification motion
brought solely for the improper and strategic purpose to leave the
CTI Subsidiaries without their counsel of choice. The hearing was
scheduled for January 2020.

Two Disqualification Motions in the Mesa Action

Catanzarite's appellant's appendix does not include one of the
disqualification motions filed in the Mesa Action. On its own
motion, the Appellate Court augmented the record on appeal to
include missing documents. Horwitz filed a motion on behalf of CTI.
Several members of the Probst Faction, who were named defendants in
the Mesa Action (Beck, Miguel Motta, Robert Bernheimer, Robert
Kamm, Eric Mathur, Robert Schmidt, and Jason Pitkin, hereafter
referred collectively and in the singular as Beck), filed a motion
to "join in" CTI's motion. Beck was represented by attorneys from
O'Hagan Meyer LLC.

The Appellate Court's record contains Catanzarite's oppositions to
these motions, filed on behalf of the Mesa Action plaintiffs.
Catanzarite addressed the merits of CTI's motion. However,
Catanzarite argued Beck's motion was procedurally improper because
the November disqualification order stayed all the lawsuits, and
Beck did not ask for permission to file the joinder motion.

On Jan. 10, 2020, the court considered the two disqualification
motions filed in the Mesa Action, as well as the CTI Subsidiaries'
motion filed in the FinCanna Action. It ruled as follows: The
motions to disqualify Catanzarite in the four related cases are
granted in the Mesa Action and the FinCanna Action and denied in
the Pinkerton Action and the MFS Action.

As for the CTI subsidiaries, the court ruled as follows: The
FinCanna plaintiff sued CTI and its three wholly-owned
subsidiaries, alleging that plaintiff loaned CTI $5.9 million and
that CTI still owes plaintiff about $4.7 million. Thus, all four of
the defendants and cross-complainants have a unity of interest in
the FinCanna Action, warranting Catanzarite's disqualification from
representing the subsidiaries, on the heels of being disqualified
from representing CTI.

The court denied the motion with respect to the Pinkerton Action.
It noted the case was originally a derivative action on behalf of
MFS, but Catanzarite amended the complaint and CTI was no longer a
party in this lawsuit. The court concluded CTI, therefore, lacked
standing to seek Catanzarite's disqualification from representing
MFS shareholders against defendants other than CTI "even if the
allegations involve the world of CTI."

Likewise, the court determined CTI lacked standing in the MFS
Action.

The court denied Beck's joinder motion as being untimely filed. The
court granted Catanzarite's requests for judicial notice and ruled
on some of Catanzarite's evidentiary objections. The court stayed
the Mesa Action pending the appeal. It vacated all future motions
scheduled in the case including a motion to appoint a receiver.

Appellate Procedural History

Catanzarite, representing itself, filed a notice of appeal from the
November disqualification order (G058931 [the FinCanna Action]),
and it filed two notices of appeal challenging the January order
(G058700 [additional disqualification in FinCanna Action]; G058942
[disqualification in the Mesa Action]). The Appellate Court granted
Catanzarite's request to consolidate its two appeals related to the
FinCanna Action (G058700 & G058942), and on the Appellate Court's
own motion consolidated Catanzarite's appeal from the
disqualification order in the Mesa Action (G058931). None of
Catanzarite's clients filed appeals. CTI filed its respondent's
brief in support of the disqualification orders.

Discussion

The case raises issues related to motions to disqualify
Catanzarite, a law firm filing six lawsuits while simultaneously
representing two corporations, three corporate subsidiaries, and a
group of minority shareholders of both corporations. Specifically,
the corporate entities are the following: (1) MFS, the plaintiff in
the MFS Action, (2) CTI, the cross-complainant and defendant in the
FinCanna Action, (3) CTI Subsidiaries, the cross-complainants and
defendants in the FinCanna Action, and (4) CTI, the plaintiff in
the Scottsdale Action. The minority shareholders groups include
members of the O'Connor Faction as follows: (1) Pinkerton, a MFS
shareholder and plaintiff in the Pinkerton Action; (2) Mesa,
Cooper, Mebane and a class action of shareholders, all plaintiffs
in the Mesa Action; (3) Cooper and Mebane, who are MFS/CTI
shareholders and plaintiffs in the Cooper action.

No party appealed from the orders denying Catanzarite's
disqualification in the MFS and Pinkerton Actions. Catanzarite,
representing itself, seeks to reverse the disqualification orders
regarding the firm's representation of CTI, CTI Subsidiaries, and
the Mesa Action plaintiffs.

Presiding Justice Kathleen E. O'Leary, writing for the Panel, notes
that the trial court disqualified Catanzarite from representing CTI
on the grounds it was simultaneously representing "two client
adversaries." On appeal, Catanzarite asserts the court abused its
discretion in making this ruling because the moving party lacked
standing and its clients did not have adversarial interests. The
Appellate Court concludes that both lack merit.

Judge O'Leary holds that the trial court correctly determined it
need not "reach the issue" of which shareholder faction rightfully
controlled CTI. The Appellate Court agrees. The undisputed nature
of the lawsuits, involving parties with conflicting interests, and
a corporation with adversarial directors, supported mandatory
disqualification as a matter of law.

Catanzarite also asserts that the trial court exacerbated its abuse
of discretion by finding it was representing interests adverse to
CTI. Catanzarite suggests its legal maneuverings, undertaken on
behalf of the O'Connor Faction, actually benefitted the
corporation.

The record plainly shows MFS shareholders (the O'Connor Faction)
hired Catanzarite to regain shares and control of CTI through
litigation and by removing and replacing the Probst Faction from
CTI's then board of directors, Judge O'Leary notes. Indeed, it is
undisputed that within six months, Catanzarite filed three separate
shareholder derivative actions all designed to give its clients
more control over CTI and to revoke business decisions made by
directors from the Probst Faction.

Judge O'Leary finds that Catanzarite's involvement in these
derivative actions, in which a corporation must remain neutral,
highlights critical issues regarding its fiduciary duty of loyalty.
She adds that particularly troubling was Catanzarite's active role
in helping its clients forcibly remove CTI's directors, after
Catanzarite was unable to achieve this same result in the MFS
Action's section 709 hearing.

The Appellate Court found other evidence of Catanzarite's
conflicting loyalties after comparing the complaints Catanzarite
prepared for the Mesa Action (a derivative lawsuit) with the one
used for CTI in the FinCanna Action. Large sections appear to have
been cut and pasted from one to the other. Perhaps Catanzarite
believed the mirror complaints filed on behalf of different clients
were appropriate due to its theory the derivative action, filed "on
behalf of" CTI, would necessarily benefit the corporation.

Judge O'Leary adds that Catanzarite's decision to reuse the same
derivative type claims in a cross-complaint, filed directly by the
corporation in a different lawsuit against a third party, was
plainly disloyal to the corporation (regardless of whether the
directors were recently replaced).

Catanzarite appears to be arguing concurrent representation was
possible because after the O'Connor Faction asserted control of the
corporation, these shareholders effectively became insiders of the
corporation, Judge O'Leary notes. She holds that this is twisted
logic. A shareholder only needs to file a derivative action, on the
company's behalf, when the insiders who control the company refuse
to do so. By filing the derivative action, Catanzarite implicitly
acknowledged its clients are outsiders with interests adverse to
CTI's directors. Having sided with the O'Connor Faction early on,
the appearance of impropriety compels disqualification, she points
out.

The Mesa Action Plaintiffs

Catanzarite maintains the trial court abused its discretion in
disqualifying it as counsel for the Mesa Action plaintiffs. The
Appellate Court notes that the Mesa Action plaintiffs did not file
an appeal. The Appellate Court does not know if these shareholders
agreed with the court's ruling and have retained new counsel. CTI's
respondent's brief does not address the issue. In any event, the
Appellate Court concludes the court's ruling was correct with
respect to the Mesa Action plaintiffs.

Judge O'Leary opines that the Appellate Court disagrees with the
notion Catanzarite was representing CTI in the Mesa Action.
Nevertheless, disqualification was appropriate.

In reaching this conclusion, the Appellate Court rejects
Catanzarite's argument the court abused its discretion by failing
to determine whether the Probst Faction or the O'Connor Faction
controlled CTI and had authority to retain counsel.
Disqualification in the Mesa Action was appropriate under either
scenario.

Disposition

The Appellate Court affirms the court's orders disqualifying
Catanzarite from representing CTI, CTI Subsidiaries, and the group
of shareholder plaintiffs in the Mesa Action. Respondent will
recover its costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated June 28, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2u79smfm from Leagle.com.

Catanzarite Law Corporation, Kenneth J. Catanzarite --
kcatanzarite@catanzarite.com -- and Nicole M. Catanzarite-Woodward
-- ncatanzarite@catanzarite.com -- for Objector and Appellant.

Horwitz + Armstrong, John R. Armstrong -- john@armstronglawgroup.co
-- and Alexander Avakian -- akian@www.pklaw.com -- for Defendant,
Cross-complainant, and Respondent.


DAPPER LABS: Friel Files Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dapper Labs, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Jeeun Friel, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. Dapper Labs, Inc., Roham
Gharegozlou, Case No. 1:21-cv-05837 (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Securities
Fraud.

Dapper Labs -- https://www.dapperlabs.com/ -- is a consumer-focused
Flow blockchain product made for fun and games and supports digital
collectibles.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kenneth Patrick Herzinger, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          101 California Street, Ste. 48th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 856-7040
          Email: kennethherzinger@paulhastings.com



DERUYTER BROTHERS: Court Okays Labor Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Insurance Journal reports that Yakima County Superior Court has
approved a $1 million settlement that provides retroactive overtime
pay for workers at a Lower Yakima Valley dairy.

The settlement wraps up a class-action lawsuit filed in 2016 by
Jose Martinez-Cuevas and Patricia Aguilar on behalf of nearly 300
workers of DeRuyter Brothers Dairy of Outlook.

Martinez-Cuevas and Aguilar alleged that they worked nine to 12
hours a day, six hours a week without rest breaks, meal pay or
overtime pay.

Most of the wage claims were resolved in a $600,000 settlement
approved in 2017. That settlement left unresolved a challenge to
state law that exempted the workers from overtime pay.

The case went to the Washington Supreme Court, which ruled last
fall that the overtime exemption for the dairy workers was
unconstitutional. However, the question of whether the DeRuyter
workers were entitled to retroactive overtime pay went back to
Yakima County Superior Court.

The case was set for a hearing, but a settlement was reached, said
Andrea Schmitt, an attorney for Columbia Legal Services, which
represented the workers.

Former owners Jacobus and Geneva DeRuyter sold the dairy but will
still fulfill the settlement terms.

The DeRuyter's lawyer said the original complaint challenged state
law on overtime, but didn't claim DeRuyter violated the law as
written at the time. [GN]

DHL EXPRESS: Martin TCCWNA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled NOAM MARTIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. DHL EXPRESS (USA), INC., Case No.
MER-L-001161-21, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Mercer County, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey on July 6, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
3:21-cv-13363-PGS-TJB to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged practice of sending a
written notice falsely imposing an additional charge for import
duties to purchasers of international goods in violation of the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the New Jersey Truth in Consumer
Contract, Warranty and Notice Act.

DHL Express (USA), Inc. is a mail and logistics company, with its
principal address at 1210 South Pine Island Road, Plantation,
Florida. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
                            
         Steven P. Benenson, Esq.
         PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN P.C.
         100 Southgate Pkwy., PO Box 1997
         Morristown, NJ 07962-1997
         Telephone: (973) 538-4006
         Facsimile: (973) 538-5146
         E-mail: spbenenson@pbnlaw.com

DIDI GLOBAL: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of September 7 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired DiDi Global Inc. ("DiDi" or the
"Company") (NYSE: DIDI): (a) American Depositary Shares ("ADSs" or
"shares") pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement
and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued
in connection with the Company's June 2021 initial public offering
("IPO" or the "Offering"); and/or (b) securities between June 30,
2021 and July 2, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). DiDi
investors have until September 7, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff
motion.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://www.frankcruzlaw.com/cases/didi-global-inc/ to
participate.

DiDi purports to be the world's largest mobility technology
platform. The Company claims to be the "go-to brand in China for
shared mobility," offering a range of services including ride
hailing, taxi hailing, chauffeur, and hitch.

On or about June 30, 2021, DiDi sold about 316.8 million ADSs in
its IPO for $14 per share, raising nearly $4.5 billion in new
capital.

On July 2, 2021, the Cyberspace Administration of China ("CAC")
stated that it had launched an investigation into DiDi to protect
national security and the public interest. It also reported that it
had asked DiDi to stop new user registrations during the course of
the investigation.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.87, or
approximately 5.3%, to close at $15.53 per share on July 2, 2021,
on unusually heavy trading volume.

Then, on July 4, 2021, DiDi reported that the CAC ordered
smartphone app stores to stop offering the "DiDi Chuxing" app
because it "collect[ed] personal information in violation of
relevant PRC laws and regulations." Though users who previously
downloaded the app could continue to use it, DiDi stated that "the
app takedown may have an adverse impact on its revenue in China."

On July 5, 2021, The Wall Street Journal reported that the CAC had
asked the Company as early as three months prior to the IPO to
postpone the offering because of national security concerns and to
"conduct a thorough self-examination of its network security."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.04 per share, or
19.6%, to close at $12.49 per share on July 6, 2021, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

By the commencement of this action, the Company's stock was trading
as low as $12.06 per share, a nearly 14% decline from the $14 per
share IPO price.

The Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and
omitted to state material adverse facts. 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
DiDi's apps did not comply with applicable laws and regulations
governing privacy protection and the collection of personal
information; (2) that, as a result, the Company was reasonably
likely to incur scrutiny from the Cyberspace Administration of
China; (3) that the CAC had already warned DiDi to delay its IPO to
conduct a self-examination of its network security; (4) that, as a
result of the foregoing, DiDi's apps were reasonably likely to be
taken down from app stores in China, which would have an adverse
effect on its financial results and operations; 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.

If you purchased DiDi securities during the Class Period, you may
move the Court no later than September 7, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.
If you purchased DiDi securities, have information or would like to
learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank
R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles,
California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

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

Contacts

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

DIDI GLOBAL: Investors Mull Class Action Over Cybersecurity Review
------------------------------------------------------------------
Li Qiaoyi and Hu Yuwei, writing for Global Times report that
China's cyberspace regulator said on July 4 that it has ordered app
stores to remove the nation's most widely used ride-hailing app
Didi Chuxing, due to confirmed reports of "serious violations of
law and regulation" in the collection and use of personal
information.

Coming after the company was put under a review for cybersecurity
on July 2 -- just two days after its massive IPO in the US, the
latest order further underscored Chinese regulators' resolve to
crack down on illegal activities on online platforms and enhance
the protection of data security, analysts said.

The Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) also told Didi to
rectify problems in strict accordance with the law and relevant
national standards to ensure the security of users' personal
information, the CAC said in an announcement on July 4.

On July 2, China's cybersecurity review office said that it has
launched a review into Didi. During the review period, new user
registration would be suspended "to prevent the expansion of
risks," it said.

Didi quickly responded to the July 4 announcement, saying it would
strictly comply with the requirements and make improvements for a
secured service.

Didi halted new user registrations on July 3, and the app will be
taken down for rectification in strict accordance with relevant
rules, the company said in a statement on July 4.

Users who have downloaded the app can use it without interference.


The swift regulatory actions came just days after the ride-hailing
platform raised $4.4 billion in its IPO on the New York Stock
Exchange on June 30.

Its shares ended up 1 percent on the first day before soaring
nearly 16 percent on July 1.

But after the cybersecurity review announcement, shares plunged as
much as nearly 11 percent before finishing down 5.3 percent on July
2.

Investors in Didi's US shares were apparently caught off guard by
the review, and the company might be the target of a class action
lawsuit.

Hao Junbo, chief lawyer at the HAO Law Firm in Beijing, told the
Global Times on July 4 that some of Didi's investors have reached
out to his law firm and are considering participating in a class
action suit to seek compensation.

The regulatory actions against Didi, coming as China stepped up
crackdown on illegal activities on online platforms including
anti-monopoly and privacy law violations, showed Chinese regulators
determination to strengthen protection for personal information and
data, analysts said.

Reckoning the review as a timely move to institute a firewall to
ensure data security, which is of vital significance to national
security as a whole, Dong Shaopeng, a senior research fellow at the
Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University of
China, called for delisting of Didi's newly floated shares.

Ride-hailing firms manage large amounts of data regarding national
transport infrastructure, flows of people and vehicles, among other
types of information that involve national security, according to
Dong.

The rise of "data sovereignty" versus the US government's vigilance
against Chinese firms ought to be a wake-up call for national
security awareness to be given priority when it comes to
fundraising plans in areas that might pose threats to China's
national security, Dong told the Global Times on July 4.

Didi's global annual active users for the 12 months ended on March
31 stood at 493 million, according to the company. [GN]

DIDI GLOBAL: Lawyers Prepare Class Action Lawsuits Over IPO
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that China's new cybersecurity regulator has bolded
the fine-print risks in prospectuses. The government is
investigating China's Full Truck Alliance (YMM.N), better known as
Manbang, and online recruiter Kanzhun (BZ.O), known as Boss Zhipin,
both of which listed in New York in June, after hammering
ride-sharing app Didi (DIDI.N) just days after it raised $4.4
billion there.

The Didi crackdown is dramatic in its timing, but familiar in its
methods. U.S. investors have been repeatedly burned in floats by
companies from industries at risk of upcoming regulatory action.
That included the assault on the peer-to-peer credit industry in
2019, which happened shortly after some such lenders had started
trading, and more recently the private tutoring sector. In each
case the moves destroyed billions in secondary market value.

Now there are two new twists: the rise of a cybersecurity regulator
looking to demonstrate its clout, and what may be a broader push by
Beijing to quietly discourage domestic companies from listing in
the United States. For example, Reuters reported that
Tencent-backed (0700.HK) Waterdrop (WDH.N) faced pushback from
insurance regulators, but listed anyway -- it has traded poorly
since. Media reported officials put similar pressure to scrap U.S.
plans on podcast app Ximalaya (XIMA.N). Of the 25 Chinese companies
that listed in New York this year, 17 are underwater, with a median
negative return of 22% per a Breakingviews analysis using Refinitiv
data. The MSCI China Information Technology index is off 8% this
year.

Lawyers are preparing class action lawsuits over the Didi IPO. But
shareholders have no call to be surprised. Beijing's crackdown on
tech giants like Alibaba (9988.HK) and Ant has been anything but
secretive, and its goals - reducing monopolistic behaviour,
financial risk and the abuse of personal data - are clear enough.
Didi flagged the data security law passed in June as a risk in its
prospectus.

There are more regulator risks in the pipeline. In addition to the
Chinese tech crackdown, Washington has passed legislation to delist
Chinese firms that don't comply with auditor oversight by 2024. If
Beijing's is forcibly cooling Wall Street's appetite for Chinese
IPOs, it is probably doing investors a favour.

- The Cyberspace Administration of China said on July 4 that it had
ordered smartphone app stores to stop offering Didi Global's app
after finding that the ride-hailing giant had illegally collected
users' personal data.

- On July 2 the CAC announced an investigation into Didi to
"protect national security and the public interest" after just
three days of secondary trading following the company's listing on
the New York Stock Exchange. The stock price closed down 5% at
$15.53 on that day, but remained above the initial public offering
price of $14 per share.

- In response to the regulatory action, Didi said it will "strive
to rectify any problems, improve its risk prevention awareness and
technological capabilities, protect users' privacy and data
security, and continue to provide secure and convenient services to
its users." It said the suspension may adversely impact revenue.

- The CAC on July 7 published a separate announcement saying it is
opening an investigation into the Full Truck Alliance, also known
as Manbang, which debuted in New York on June 23, and online
recruiter Kanzhun, commonly known as Boss Zhipin, which began
trading on Nasdaq on June 11. [GN]

DIDI GLOBAL: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on July 4
disclosed that it is investigating potential securities claims on
behalf of shareholders of DiDi Global Inc. (NYSE: DIDI) resulting
from allegations that DiDi may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased DiDi securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2113.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.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On July 2, 2021, the Cyberspace Administration
of China stated it had launched an investigation into DiDi to
protect national security and the public interest. It also reported
that it had asked DiDi stop new user registrations during the
course of the investigation. On this news, the Company's American
Depositary Shares ("ADS") price fell 5% to close at $15.53 per ADS
on July 2, 2021.

Then, on July 4, 2021, Reuters published an article entitled "Didi
app suspended in China over data protection" which detailed that
"China's cyberspace administration said on July 4 it had ordered
smartphone app stores to stop offering the ride-hailing firm Didi
Global Inc's app after finding that Didi had illegally collected
users' personal data."

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 4 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.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

Contacts:
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]

DIDI GLOBAL: Rosen Law Reminds of September 7 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of DiDi Global Inc. (NYSE:DIDI) pursuant and/or
traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus
(collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection
with DiDi's June 2021 initial public offering (the "IPO"). A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 7,
2021.

SO WHAT: If you purchased DiDi 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 DiDi class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2113.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 September 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, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. 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 4 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) DiDi "had the problem of
collecting personal information in violation of relevant PRC
[People's Republic of China] laws and regulations"; (2) DiDi's app,
DiDi Chuxing (Travel), would face an imminent cybersecurity review
by the Cyberspace Administration of China ("CAC"); (3) the CAC
would require all Chinese app stores to remove DiDi Chuxing; and
(4) as a result, defendants' statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

To join the DiDi class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2113.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. [GN]

ELEPHANT INSURANCE: Dismissal of Suit Over Sales Tax, Fees Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
John Huetter, writing for Repairer Driven News, reports that two
policyholders have appealed their class-action lawsuit after the
Massachusetts Suffolk County Superior Court ruled this spring that
Plymouth Rock Assurance correctly excluded titling, registration
and inspection costs from totaled-vehicle ACVs.

The lower Massachusetts court's decision regarding the regulatory
expenses echoes a 2020 Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision on
taxes and fees associated with getting a replacement Texas
vehicle.

The Fifth Circuit in April 2020 ruled that the U.S. Western
District of Texas was right to reject a class-action lawsuit
against Elephant Insurance. Two Texans had sued the insurer "due to
Defendant's practice of refusing to pay full ACV Sales Tax and
mandatory transfer fees to first-party total-loss insureds on
physical damage policies containing comprehensive and collision
coverages."

The appellate court agreed that the policy and Texas law held that
Elephant didn't owe those costs.

The expenses disputed in Singleton and Cooper v. Elephant and
Konsevick and Bartini v. Plymouth Rock might not have been enough
to tip many vehicles into the repairable category, even though both
Texas and Massachusetts have total loss thresholds of 100 percent.
But knowing the case law might still be helpful to body shops if
they or their customers have questions on these points.

The plaintiffs in Singleton v. Elephant argued that at an average
vehicle value of $15,000, buying a replacement vehicle would hit a
consumer with $937.50 worth of Texas sales tax per claim -- not
counting local taxes. Also, the state would have imposed a minimum
of $35.50 in title and tag transfer fees.

The plaintiffs in Konsevick v. Plymouth Rock said the insurer had
included Massachusetts sales tax in its ACV calculations. But they
felt the insurer should have covered at least $100 in other state
charges related to getting a replacement vehicle.

Massachusetts charges a minimum $85 in title-related fees, and
another $25 if the totaled vehicle had a lien, according to the
lawsuit. It said registration transfer fees are $25, and a new
registration was $60. Getting a vehicle inspection in Massachusetts
costs at least 35.

The Fifth Circuit's March 2020 decision acknowledged that
"purchasing and registering the replacement vehicle requires the
payment of taxes and fees to the state" and noted that the Texas
plaintiffs appealing the case argued that insurance is meant to
restore people to the status quo before their loss.

"But what controls is the text of the specific policy in question,
not the purpose of insurance generally," the court wrote. That
policy has a limit of liability, it said.

The Elephant policy didn't define actual cash value except to say
it was "determined by the market value, age and condition." So the
Fifth Circuit looked to Texas law, which it says defines actual
cash value as fair market value and defines fair market value as
the price involved when a willing buyer buys something from a
willing seller.

"This definition plainly excludes taxes and fees that are remitted
to the state," the 3-0 per curiam opinion states. "That the state
collects taxes and fees from the buyer is irrelevant to the
question of fair market value because those amounts are not part of
the price paid to the seller. Appellants rightly observe that
negotiating parties may consider the tax rate when agreeing on a
price, but that indicates only that taxes are a factor that
influences market value, not that taxes should be added to the
price when calculating market value."

Suffolk County Justice Robert Gordon said the Plymouth Rock
standard policy doesn't define actual cash value. But he noted that
Massachusetts regulations say an insurer calculating cash value
must consider retail book value; "the price paid for the vehicle
plus the value of prior improvements to the motor vehicle at the
time of the accident, less appropriate depreciation"; deductions
for "prior unrelated damage"; and "the actual cost of purchase" for
a similar vehicle on sale now.

Since the "Standard Policy" language is controlled by the state,
Massachusetts legal precedent holds that the courts shouldn't
automatically evaluate ambiguities against the insurer and in favor
of the policyholder, according to Gordon. (Normally, ambiguities in
a contract are viewed in favor of the person who didn't write it.)

"As an initial matter, the Standard Policy does not expressly
define 'ACV,' and is devoid of any other terms therein suggesting
that ACV is meant to include regulatory fees," Gordon wrote. "The
Court does not construe the Policy's silence as to regulatory fees
as necessarily excluding them from ACV; but it does interpret such
silence to mean that the Policy does not require the determination
of ACV to include them." (Emphasis his.)

"The absence of any language in the Policy requiring regulatory
fees to be factored into ACV is consistent with the fact that the
'value' of a vehicle, at the time of a collision or otherwise,
never includes the costs of its title, registration and inspection,
because the value of those items is non-transferable." (Emphasis
his.)

According to Gordon, the plaintiffs argued that regulatory fees are
part of the "actual costs of purchase" mentioned in Massachusetts
law because you can't buy and operate a car without them. But he
ruled that cost meant the amount paid to the seller.

"As set forth ante, regulatory fees do not add value to an
automobile, are not transferrable to a purchaser, and must be paid
to the Commonwealth rather than the seller." Thus, "actual cost"
excluded those fees. (Emphasis Gordon's.)

Exploring Tesla FSD, other prepaid features not yet activated
Another potential ACV question might arise from automakers' ability
to update a vehicle's software over the air and tie features to a
VIN number.

This means, for example, that an OEM could drive options sales by
allowing customers to prepay for a future feature at a discount
today, or perhaps at the same price but with the convenience of
having that digital capability immediately unlocked at launch.

The latter is happening today with digitally distributed video
games; customers buy and download them in advance. At the appointed
release date, the software company flips a switch, the prepurchased
game goes live, and the gamer can immediately start playing while
fellow enthusiasts are still standing in store lines or waiting for
files to download.

The former is also happening today. Tesla, one of the pioneers of
over-the-air vehicle software updates, has said that its current
vehicles carry the necessary hardware for "Full Self-Driving." The
company is just working on the software and waiting on regulators.

But it has been letting consumers purchase the feature anyway and
lock in a price. At some point in the future, Tesla promises, it'll
be ready to unlock the feature for all those preorder adopters.

Until then, customers have spent thousands on an option for their
vehicle that they can't use yet — but will be able to someday.

This raises an interesting total loss question, we realized after
reviewing a related post on the Tesla Motors Club message board.

The user "RiatGray" on June 12 that a beloved 2017 Tesla Model S
had been damaged to the point they felt it was unclear if it would
be a total loss or a repairable vehicle. They observed: "I know I'm
going to loose FSD upgrade . . . that's was 7k last summer. I
bought it late. And I don't think I'll be able to buy another MS
(don't have that kind of money right now)."

We wondered if the user was right about this or not in the
circumstances of a total loss. Could a Full Self-Driving preorder
be transferred to a new Tesla if the existing Tesla were totaled?
Would Tesla refund the money? Or would the thousands spent be part
of a total loss valuation and settlement?

So we thought we'd throw the question out there to a few
knowledgeable folks and see what they had to say.

A query to a media inquiry email on Tesla's website was unreturned.
We also unsuccessfully put the question to Twitter Tesla CEO Elon
Musk, who sometimes is receptive to tweet Q&A exchanges. We then
asked a Tesla Vehicle Support representative via the company's
customer chat option.

"Full self driving beta among other upgrades can only be returned
via tesla.com within 48 hours of purchase at this time," the Tesla
rep replied.

So a refund was impossible after the first 48 hours, and the
customer would need to file a claim for the FSD upgrade cost with
their insurer?

"That's correct, because I don't have access to verify
configurations at this time, this would be the course of action to
address this concern," the Tesla rep replied.

We also asked the Insurance Information Institute how an intangible
prepaid feature like this would be handled in a total loss claim.
It seemed like an extended warranty paid in full upfront might be
another example of such a scenario, we suggested.

"Certainly an interesting question, which hasn't been posed
before," media relations Vice President Loretta Worters wrote in an
email. "You are correct that if there is property damage (other
than the vehicle itself), it would be covered under the property
portion of your auto policy, such as an infant car seat.

"If there is a feature on the car that has been damaged, I would
imagine it would be an obligation of the insurer to pay for that
damage, irrespective if it isn't in use at this time."

But Worters suggested we contact insurers that cover Teslas about
the parameters of their individual policies.

We tried the Top 6 carriers, but received no answers other than
State Farm saying it had nothing to share. The Independent
Insurance Agents & Brokers of America also didn't respond to an
email asking about how this issue would be handled with the
insurers.

Total loss valuation experts in various parts of the country had
differing takes when the question was put to them.

"So unused warranty is returned," North Carolina-based Collision
Safety Consultants CEO Billy Walkowiak wrote in an email June 28.
"If they bought the $10,000 fully automatic self driving then
that's added value. I argued once that the customer purchased his
new Tesla and got free super charging for life. Once it was totaled
it was not transferable. He could sue the other driver but his
company didn't owe him.

New York-based ZB Claim Services President John Walczuk was
skeptical FSD could be recouped.

"Regarding the issue you have presented I would guess that such an
option might be viewed in the same light as an extended warranty,"
Walczuk wrote in an email June 28. "Unfortunately we do not have
any parameters in which we could measure its value.

"When measuring an extended warranty and its residual value, that
is not part of the actual vehicle total loss or ACV that an
insurance carrier covers, but you can calculate the unused portion.
It is a separately pursued amount, not covered by the insurance
carrier.

"If you were to purchase a vehicle and the manufacturer states 100
thousand miles and you total at 50,000 there is no value to pursue.
Why would this be different?

"Questions such as transfer ability would enter any discussion as
to the future viability of the unknown. Is it saleable such as a
door from a salvaged vehicle? Is it a module that could be plugged
into another Tesla? WE are talking about software with this Tesla
offering.

"My take is ZERO value if your Tesla is totaled.

"My position would be zero value, unless saleable and usable on
another vehicle. This is not a child seat, where the manufacturer
of the item has made the carrier aware that they will be liable if
the safety features are compromised and the carrier has said we are
not fighting that fight.

"This is an easy one and I would want to be on the carriers side as
far as value."

Texas-based Auto Claim Specialists general manager Robert McDorman
felt such an option would be a covered loss.

"Options such as Tesla Full Self-Driving options are a covered loss
and part of the Actual Cash Value settlement process," he wrote in
an email June 29.

"Extended Service Contracts and Pre-Paid Maintenance if these do
not have a prorated cancelation clause then this loss is also a
covered loss. I deal in this area daily on the GAP claims we
handle."

Auto Damage Experts President Barrett Smith suggested it might need
to be an additional aspect of coverage agreed to by the insurer up
front.

"Under first party- the insurer owes for the Actual Cash Value of
the vehicle and as such, they would need be made aware of the added
monetary risks, and agree to cover them, and affix a premium for
same," Smith wrote in an email on July 2.

"Under third-party, the at-fault party would owe for all costs
associated with the loss, including economic damages such as
Diminished Value, Extended warrantees etc."

He noted in a June 29 email that certain physical upgrades to a
vehicle might need additional coverage.

"Generally, under first party coverage, accessories, (permanently
affixed/attached), may be covered if the policy had a certain
allowance, or special endorsement for 'optional equipment coverage'
to cover such things as custom lighting, wheels/tires, exhaust,
sound systems etc.," Smith wrote. "Other personal items may be
covered under one's home owner coverage. Child car seats are likely
to be covered."

Auto Damage Experts operations president David Smith felt the
upgrade would be part of an appraisal.

"If I was appraising the value it would definitely be taken into
account," David Smith wrote in an email on July 1. "It is a value
add."

So all that's some food for thought. As more OEMs gain the
capability to sell customers digital rather than physical features,
it'll be interesting to see how these items tend to shake out in
claims where the vehicle isn't repairable. [GN]

ENHANCED RECOVERY: Dickerson Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Indiana
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enhanced Recovery
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Rochelle Dickerson, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Enhanced Recovery
Company, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01981-RLY-TAB (S.D. Ind., July 7,
2021).

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

Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC -- https://www.ercbpo.com/ --
provides debt collection and asset recovery and reporting
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas E. Irons, Esq.
          Richard John Shea, Jr., Esq.
          SAWIN & SHEA, LLC
          6100 N. Keystone Avenue, Suite 620
          Indianapolis, IN 46220
          Phone: (317) 255-2600
          Fax: (317) 255-2905
          Email: tirons@sawinlaw.com
                 rshea@sawinlaw.com

The Defendant appears pro se.


FACEBOOK INC: Briefing Ends in User & Advertiser Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
lawstreetmedia.com reports that Facebook Inc. has had the last word
in its bid to dismiss the case over illegal monopolization and
exclusionary conduct. The reply brief comes shortly after the
consumer and advertiser plaintiffs filed a supplemental brief to
distinguish their claims from those brought by the Federal Trade
Commission and dismissed.

Facebook opened by reminding Judge Lucy H. Koh that four other
judges have rejected similar allegations, and there are plenty of
reasons why she should follow suit. It contended that the
plaintiffs' federal monopolization claims are time barred and
neither the continuing violation doctrine nor fraudulent
concealment can save them.

The defendant next argued that the asserted market definition falls
short of plausible. The advertiser plaintiffs, it said, cannot rely
on a "social advertising" submarket because established principles
dictate that a product's unique features do not automatically
signify that it independently comprises a market or sub-market.
Similarly, Facebook argued that the users fail to allege a relevant
market or monopoly power as they have neither taken into account
cross-elasticity of demand, nor stated what products consumers view
as substitutable.

Facebook also batted down the plaintiffs' exclusionary conduct
arguments as inviable. For example, the users' deception theory is
not pleaded with particularity as required by the federal fraud
pleading standard, the defendant claims. Finally, Facebook
questioned the plaintiffs' antitrust standing, contending that they
have not alleged the requisite injury to bring certain federal
claims.

The motion to dismiss hearing is scheduled for July 15 before Judge
Koh in San Jose, California.

Interim counsel for the advertiser class is Bathaee Dunne LLP ,
Scott + Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, Ahdoot & Wolfson PC, and Levin
Sedran & Berman LLP.

Interim counsel for the consumer class is Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan LLP, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Keller Lenkner LLC,
and Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.

Facebook is represented by Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr.
[GN]

FIRST INTERSTATE: Morris FDCPA Suit Transferred to D. Montana
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Brandy Morris, Brenda Gray, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated v. First Interstate
Bank, Case No. DV-20-00528 was transferred from the Yellowstone
County State Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Montana on July 7, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00076-SPW-TJC to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.

First Interstate -- https://www.firstinterstatebank.com/ -- is a
community bank offering a variety of services including home loans,
commercial loans, wealth management, online/mobile banking, and
more.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          A. Christopher Edwards, Esq.
          A. Clifford Edwards, Esq.
          John William Edwards, Esq.
          Triel D. Culver, Esq.
          EDWARDS & CULVER
          1648 Poly Drive, Suite 206
          Billings, MT 59102
          Phone: (406) 256-8155
          Fax: (406) 256-8157
          Email: chris@edwardslawfirm.org
                 jenny@edwardslawfirm.org
                 John.Edwards@edwardslawfirm.org
                 triel@edwardslawfirm.org

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mark D. Parker, Esq.
          PARKER, HEITZ & COSGROVE, PLLC
          401 N. 31st Street, Suite 805
          PO Box 7212
          Billings, MT 59103-7212
          Phone: (406) 245-9991
          Fax: (406) 245-0971
          Email: markdparker@parker-law.com


FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Power Tailgate Recall
---------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Ford
class action lawsuit alleges a Super Duty truck power tailgate
recall failed to repair the tailgates that may suddenly open while
driving, losing anything in the beds of the trucks.

The Ford power tailgate lawsuit includes 2017-2021 Ford F-250,
F-350 and Ford F-450 Super Duty trucks equipped with electronic
tailgate latch release switches.

In December 2019, a Ford power tailgate recall was ordered for more
than 231,000 model year 2017-2019 Ford F-250, F-350 and F-450 Super
Duty trucks. Ford said the power tailgates could suddenly open
while driving.

"Water entering the electrical wiring system may cause a short
circuit resulting in the unintended switch activation and release
of the tailgate latches. This could cause unintended opening of the
tailgate either when the vehicle is not moving or is in motion." --
Ford

Ford also said "inspection of the complaint vehicle parts found
evidence of water in various electrical components, including
wiring harness connectors, eyelets, splices or the tailgate
switch."

Ford dealerships were told to add jumper pigtails to isolate the
tailgate release control circuits and to install new handle release
switches.

The Ford power tailgate recall followed a 2018 federal
investigation into model year 2017 Ford F-250 and F-350 Super Duty
tailgates that unintentionally opened.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) closed
its tailgate investigation in January 2020 based on Ford's power
tailgate recall.

However, NHTSA announced in January 2021 that Super Duty truck
owners continued to report their power tailgates suddenly opened
even though the trucks were allegedly repaired during the Ford
power tailgate recall.

The "recall query" remains open and includes about 300,000 model
year 2017-2020 Ford F-250, F-350 and F-450 Super Duty trucks with
power tailgates.

Ford Owners Claim Tailgate Recall Was Useless
According to the class action lawsuit, it's obvious the Ford
tailgate recall didn't succeed and the recall didn't even include
all the affected Super Duty trucks. The lawsuit alleges Ford
ignored model year 2020-2021 Super Duty trucks even though owners
complain the power tailgates open while driving.

The power tailgate should open only when a customer engages the
tailgate latch release switch which can be activated by depressing
a button on the key fob, in the cab of the truck above the
emergency brake release switch or on the tailgate itself.

The two plaintiffs who filed the class action lawsuit allege in
addition to water causing problems, there may be wiring system
flaws, or the tailgate latch may not be strong enough to prevent
the tailgates from mistakenly opening.

One of the plaintiff's also alleges Ford didn't let them know their
truck had been recalled. Additionally, the automaker failed to
reimburse Super Duty owners for power tailgate repairs which can
allegedly cost thousands of dollars.

The Ford power tailgate class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan: Cunningham, et
al., v. Ford Motor Company.

The plaintiffs are represented by the Miller Law Firm PC, Beasley,
Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C., and DiCello Levitt
Gutzler LLC. [GN]

FRERES DU SACRE-COEUR: Settles Sexual Abuse Class Actions for $60M
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Sherbrooke Record reports that the Frères du Sacre-Coeur has
agreed to a $60 million settlement with two class-action lawsuits
levied against the order in connection to decades of sexual abuse
by its members.

The lawyer representing the victims called it a historic
settlement. The agreement will be submitted to the court for
approval. According to a statement from the Frères du Sacre-Coeur,
the order stressed that sexual abuse against minors must be
condemned.

"Any form of abuse is in flagrant contradiction with the values and
educational mission of religious communities who want to establish
a relationship of trust with the young people they educate," said
Donald Bouchard, provincial superior of the Frères du Sacre-Coeur.
[GN]

GEO GROUP: Court Denies Bid to Decertify Class in Nwauzor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled UGOCHUKWU GOODLUCK NWAUZOR, individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated, and FERNANDO AGUIRRE-URBINA,
individually, Plaintiffs v. THE GEO GROUP, INC., a Florida
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-05769-RJB (W.D. Wash.),
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at
Tacoma denied the Defendant's motion for decertification of class
or narrowing the class definition.

These consolidated cases arise from GEO's failure to pay
immigration detainee workers in its Voluntary Work Program minimum
wage at its Northwest Detention Center, now renamed Northwest ICE
Processing Center. One of the cases is a class action, Nwauzor v.
GEO Group, Inc., U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington case number 17-5769.

On Aug. 6, 2018, the class was certified and the class defined as
"all civil immigration detainees who participated in the Voluntary
Work Program at the Northwest Detention Center at any time between
September 26, 2014, and the date of final judgment in this matter."
Plaintiffs Ugochuk Goodluck Nwauzor and Fernando Aguirre-Urbina
were appointed as class representatives. Their claims were found to
be typical of the claims of the class and Mr. Nwauzor and Mr.
Aguirre-Urbina were found to fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class. On May 17, 2021, the Plaintiff's motion to
dismiss Mr. Aguirre as a class representative due to illness was
granted.

On June 1, 2021, trial began. GEO filed this motion to decertify
the class or narrow the class definition that same day. The motion
was noted for consideration for June 25, 2021. After an 11-day
trial, jury deliberations over part of three days, and a
declaration of the jury that they could not agree on a verdict, a
mistrial was declared on June 17, 2021.

GEO argues that the class should be decertified because Mr.
Nwauzor's claims are not typical of the class and he is not an
adequate class representative. The class opposes the motion.

District Judge Robert J. Bryan states that GEO's motion to
decertify the class should be denied. GEO identifies differences in
Mr. Nwauzor's duties as a shower cleaner and the duration of his
time in the Voluntary Work Program as grounds to argue that his
claims are not typical of those of the class. The Judge finds that
GEO's assertions are unpersuasive.

According to the Order, the testimony at trial indicates that Mr.
Nwauzor's claimed injury arose from GEO's failure to pay him
minimum wage for the work he performed. Each of the other class
members claims the same injury from the same conduct. Differences
in his job duties or the time he spent in the program are not
relevant. His claims remain typical of the class.

GEO further argues that Mr. Nwauzor is not an adequate class
representative because he worked only a single job that of shower
cleaner for a short duration.

The differences between Mr. Nwauzor's job and the other jobs in the
facility and the length of time he was in the program are not a
basis to conclude that he or his counsel has any conflict of
interest with other class members, Judge Bryan opines. Further, Mr.
Nwauzor and his counsel have been vigorously pursuing the case on
behalf of the class. Mr. Nwauzor remains an adequate class
representative.

Judge Bryan also opines that GEO's motion to narrow the class
definition to include only shower cleaners should be denied because
there are no legally sufficient grounds to narrow the class.

The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of the Order to
all counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at said
party's last known address.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 28, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/39a5n7xf from Leagle.com.


GERBER PRODUCTS: Abbott Sues Over Baby Foods' Heavy Metal Content
-----------------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA ABBOTT, ERIN ABDOO, SOPHIA ALFARO, KRYSTAL LEIGH ANDERSON,
ANGELA ARROWSMITH, MEGAN ASHLEY, ELIZABETH AUSTIN, JENNIFER
BAINBRIDGE, ALYSSA MEGAN BARB, MIRIAH BARBERO, LINDSAY BARR, GRISEL
BARRETO, COURTNEY BARRON, ASHLEY BAXTER, BRITTANY BENNETT, CRISTAL
MARIE BETTIS, JULIE BLAKELEY, KELSEY BLANKENSHIP, MELISSA
BLOOMQUIST-SMITH, AMANDA BOOTS, OLIVIA BOYER, AMANDA BRATTON,
AUGUSTINA BRIONES, NICOLE BRISKY, CHEYENNE BROWNING, CELIA BRUNO,
ANA BUTKUS, MARIA CALDERON, SERENITEY CARLIN, MAYELIN CARRANZA,
ANNA CHASE, SHERAL SHAH CHHEDA, VICTORIA COKER, MELANIE COLE, JEN
COMEAU, KIMBERLY CONWAY, ADRIANNE COOPER, MICHELLE CORBETT, ANGELA
COX, ELAINE CRYER, BRANDY DAVIS, KALEY DEFORD, CHELZY DESVIGNE,
BRITTANY DISTASO, ALYCIA DONOVAN, ALANA DOYETO, JESSICA DURRETT,
SUDIPTA DUTTA, NATALYA DZYUBA, SAMANTHA EDWARDS, AMANDA FINCANNON,
THERESA MARIE FINTONIS, AYAME TATIANA GALASSINI, MARCELA GARCIA,
ANGELA GARDNER, CARISSA GELOSO, SHELBY GERACI, KELSEY GLENNON,
AUSTIN GUNDERSEN, ARUNDEEP KANWAR GURAYA, CHARITA HARRELL,
GABRIELLE HARRISON, ROBERT HART, DEBBIE HAWKINS, SHANNON
HERRINGTON, AMANDA HILL, LILLIAN HINKLE, AMANDA HOBBS-ROGERS, SAMMI
HOBDY, NICHOLE HOLLING, SHAYLAN ISAACS, JASMINE JACKSON,YUHWA JANG,
OLIVIA JOHNSON, REBECCA N. KEETON, SARA KILBURN, SARAH KNAAPEN,
RACHEL KNUDSON, KARLEEN KOZACZKA, RACHAEL KRUUP, DEANA LINEGAR,
APRIL LOCKHART, ANDREW LOHSE, LORI ANN LOUIS, SAMANTHA LUI, TRACI
MARIE LUSSIER, ELINA MAHMENS, BRITTANY MARTIN, MARQUETTA MATTHEWS,
ELIZABETH A. MCDOWELL, KALI MCGLINCH, LATOYA A. MCHENRY, LORI-ANN
MCKENZIE-HENRY, JANICE TAINA MERCADO GUADALUPE, RENEE MILLINE,
CHRISTINA MITCHELL, LOUKEVIA MOORE, AMANDA GAMBRELL MORENCY, ANDREA
MOZO, TABITHA MULLINAX, SANTEQUIA NGWU, STEPHANIE NORGAARD, LEAH M.
OSTAPCHENKO, ROBERT PARTELLO, MELINDA PASS, KRISHNA PATEL, MIA
PELLETIER, KARINA PENA, TINA MARIE PEREZ, MAURICE CARLOS PETETSON,
ASHLEY PIERCE, ALI PLILER-LOPEZ, HOLLY PLOTTS, JANINNE E. PRICE,
DEBBIE REED, SARAH RIDINGS, KASSANDRA ROMERO, MAGGIE ROUSE, TIFFANY
SALAZAR, CHRISTINA SALYERS, SHEENA SANDERS, LEA SANTOS, KIRTHI
SASIKUMAR, AMANDA SCHRAM, BRENDA SCHROEDER, JULIE SECRIST,
MICHELLELE SHORTER, CHERYL ELAINE SMITH, KINDER SMITH, EMILY
SODERBLOOM-CATHEY, ABBY SONDALL, KIRSTEN SOUTH, LAKRISHA SPIKES,
CHRISTINE STEELE, PORSCHE S. STOKES, ABBY STRATTON, RACHEL
STRATTON, ASHLEY SWENNINGSON, KYLA C. TALLEY, MARGO TEZENO, SHILOH
THOMAS, KATRINA THOMAS, RHIANNA THORNTON, DILLON TOWNZEN, RACHAEL
TREETOP, EMMA TROLINDER, MEGAN TROYER, SONJA RENEE TWIGGS, BRITTANY
(DUTTON) WALLACE, MONIQUE WARREN, BEVERLY WATKINS, JENNIFER KAY
WATTS, ACACIA WILSON, AMBER WRIGHT, LAUREN YESH, RETRENA YOUNGE,
AND CHARISSE ZAPATA, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00789-TSE-IDD (E.D. Va., July 6, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendant for breaches of implied
warranty of merchantability, express warranty, and the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and violations of various state
consumer protection laws in the U.S.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged false, deceptive and
misleading advertising, labeling and marketing of its baby food
products. The Defendant advertised and labeled its products as safe
and healthy for children. However, contrary to the Defendant's
marketing statements, the products contained high levels of toxic
heavy metals including arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury. As a
result of the Defendant's alleged misrepresentations and omissions,
the Plaintiff and the Class lost money and suffered damages. Had
they known that the Defendant's baby foods contained heavy metals,
they would not have purchased them.

Gerber Products Company is a manufacturer of baby food products,
with its principal place of business in Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                                      
                 
         Andre Barlow, Esq.
         DOYLE, BARLOW & MAZARD PLLC
         1776 K. Street, N.W., Suite 200
         Washington, DC 20006
         Telephone: (202) 589-1834
         E-mail: abarlow@dbmlawgroup.com

                - and –

         Aaron M. Zigler, Esq.
         ZIGLER LAW GROUP, LLC
         308 S. Jefferson Street, Suite 333
         Chicago, IL 60661
         Telephone: (312) 673-8427
         E-mail: aaron@ziglerlawgroup.com

                - and –

         Troy E. Walton, Esq.
         Steve Telken, Esq.
         WALTON TELKEN, LLC
         241 N. Main Street
         Edwardsville, IL 62025
         Telephone: (618) 307-9880
         E-mail: twalton@waltontelken.com
                 stelken@waltonteklen.com

GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Narrows Claims in AP-Fonden Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's second amended complaint in the lawsuit
captioned as SJUNDE AP-FONDEN, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated Plaintiff v. THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC.
et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-12084 (VSB) (S.D.N.Y.).

Lead Plaintiff Sjunde AP-Fonden ("Plaintiff" or "AP7") brings the
action against Individual Defendants Lloyd C. Blankfein Harvey M.
Schwartz, Gary D. Cohn, and Goldman, asserting violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section
240.10b-5.

Background

The case centers around Goldman's investment banking activities for
the 1Malaysia Development Berhad ("1MDB"), a sovereign wealth fund
that was ostensibly designed to stimulate economic development in
Malaysia. The Plaintiff alleges that in a 10-month period beginning
in May 2012, Goldman underwrote $6.5 billion of 1MDB debt in
connection with three bond offerings, which resulted in Goldman
earning $600 million in fees. (Id.) The Class Period for this
litigation is from Feb. 28, 2014, to Dec. 20, 2018, and concerns
statements and omissions made by the Defendants in the aftermath of
the 1MDB scandal.

Goldman is a Delaware corporation that has its principal place of
business in New York City. It is one of the world's largest
investment banks and financial service companies. Blankfein was the
CEO and Chairman of Goldman from 2006 until Sept. 30, 2018. Cohn
served as President and COO at Goldman from 2006 through 2016.
During the relevant period, Cohn chaired the firm's Business
Standards Committee. Schwartz took over as Goldman President and
COO in January 2017 until his retirement on April 20, 2018.

There are several other Goldman executives that, despite not being
defendants in the case, are relevant to the litigation. Timothy
Leissner joined Goldman in 1998, and was promoted to Goldman's
Chairman of Southeast Asia in July 2014 and left the bank in 2016.
On Aug. 28, 2018, he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate the
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 ("FCPA") and commit money
laundering, and is currently awaiting sentencing. Roger Ng worked
at Goldman from 2005 until May 2014, serving as a Managing Director
in Singapore from 2009. Prosecutors filed a three-count indictment
against Ng on Oct. 3, 2018, based on his involvement in the 1MDB
scandal. David Ryan served as President of Goldman Asia from 2011
until his resignation in July 2013.

Two other non-Goldman employees also play material roles in the
litigation. Low Taek Jho is a Malaysian national that the Plaintiff
alleges acted as a liaison between Goldman, 1MDB, and Malaysian
government officials in connection with the three bond deals at
issue in the case. Federal prosecutors indicted Low on two counts
for his involvement in the 1MDB scandal on Oct. 3, 2018. Najib
Razak served as Prime Minister of Malaysia from April 3, 2009,
until May 10, 2018.

The Class Period and Aftermath

The Plaintiff alleges a litany of misstatements and omissions the
Defendants made during the Class Period. On Nov. 1, 2018, the U.S.
Attorney for the Eastern District of New York unsealed an
indictment charging Leissner with conspiracy to violate the FCPA
and commit money laundering. Leissner had pleaded guilty to both
counts on Aug. 28, 2018, and as part of his guilty plea allocution,
he stated that it was "very much in line of its culture of Goldman
Sachs to conceal facts from certain compliance and legal employees
of Goldman Sachs, including the fact that Jho Low was acting as an
intermediary for and on behalf of Goldman Sachs, 1MDB, and
Malaysian and Abu Dhabi officials." Ng and Low were also indicted
on criminal charges in November 2018. The Defendants further allege
six corrective disclosures made in November and December 2018 that
caused Goldman stock to drop and AP7 and other class members to
suffer damages.

On Dec. 20, 2018, Plaintiff Daniel Plaut brought the securities
fraud class action lawsuit. On that same day, the Plaintiff
published a notice on Globe Newswire in accordance with the Private
Securities Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section
77z-1(a)(3)(A)(i).

On Sept. 19, 2019, the Court appointed AP7 as lead plaintiff in the
case, with Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP to serve as lead
counsel and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP ("Bernstein
Litowitz") to serve as liaison counsel. On Oct. 28, 2019, AP7--now
Lead Plaintiff in the case--filed the Second Amended Class Action
Complaint.

On Jan. 9, 2020, the Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint, along with a memorandum of law,
declaration, and exhibits. The Plaintiff submitted its memorandum
of law in opposition to the Defendants' motion to dismiss on March
13, 2020.

On Oct. 28, 2020, the Plaintiff submitted a letter requesting that
the Court take judicial notice of the Criminal Information
("Information") and Deferred Prosecution Agreement ("DPA") filed in
United States v. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Cr. No. 20-437
(MKB), a criminal action in the Eastern District of New York. The
Defendants filed a letter in opposition to the Plaintiff's request
on Nov. 9, 2020.

Discussion

The Defendants assert that Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint
suffers from three fatal defects as to its Section 10(b) claim:
that Plaintiff does not adequately plead 1) material misstatements
or omissions or falsity, 2) scienter, and 3) loss causation.

District Judge Vernon S. Broderick finds that Goldman's statements
about its risk management and controls do not constitute actionable
misstatements. Perhaps more importantly, he notes, the Plaintiff's
Second Amended Complaint is replete with factual allegations that
appear to support the idea that Goldman has risk control mechanisms
in place--mechanisms that took action and alerted Goldman's
officers that their relationships with Low and 1MDB were
ill-advised. In other words, Goldman did have systems in place to
minimize risk.

The Plaintiff cannot have it both ways here: it cannot argue on the
one hand that Goldman did not have risk control mechanisms in
place, while arguing on the other hand that the Defendants had the
requisite scienter in large part because Goldman's internal
Compliance and Legal Departments, designed to assess risk,
consistently raised red flags about the transactions at issue that
the company and its high-level officials deliberately ignored,
Judge Broderick opines. However, Judge Broderick finds that the
Plaintiff's allegations regarding Goldman's statements about its
general principles are sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

Judge Broderick states that these statements may be actionable when
paired with unlawful behavior or other actionable statements. Thus,
given that the Second Amended Complaint sufficiently pleads
allegations that Goldman did not comply with laws and ethical
principles as they relate to the 1MDB transactions, Judge Broderick
finds that these allegations can survive a motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiff next points to a statement in Goldman's 2014 Form
10-K, wherein the Defendants report the revenue the firm received
in debt underwritings in 2013. The Plaintiff concedes that Goldman
"accurately reported" the revenues in question, which generally
means that the financial statements are not actionable, see, e.g.
Fogel v. Vega, 759 F. App'x 18, 24 (2d Cir. 2018). Nevertheless,
the Plaintiff argues that the statement is still misleading because
Goldman attributed the increased revenues to leveraged finance
activity without referencing the $600 million in revenues Goldman
received under the 1MDB deals.

"Even if I disregard the clear language in Fogel, Plaintiff fails
to provide any evidence that the statement in Goldman's 2014 Form
10-K is actually false; that is, Plaintiff provides no evidence
that the increase in revenues was not attributable to leveraged
finance activity, and/or that the 1MDB revenues themselves were
heavily responsible for the increase," Judge Broderick states,
citing In re Nokia Oyj, 423 F. Supp. 2d at 392. As such, the
Plaintiff's conclusory allegation related to Goldman's statement in
its 2014 Form 10-K about its financial results cannot survive the
motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiff further challenges as false or misleading Goldman's
Sarbanes-Oxley ("SOX") Certifications that were signed during the
Class Period in which Blankfein and Schwartz affirmed, in relevant
part, that they designed and evaluated the firm's disclosure
controls and procedures, and disclosed any fraud involving people
with significant control over financial reporting.

Judge Broderick finds that the Plaintiff has not met its burden in
establishing falsity here. The Plaintiff contends the attestations
here are false because "Goldman's controls were disregarded." Yet
the certifications did not require the Defendants to certify that
they followed all of the firm's controls and procedures, and the
Plaintiff does not identify any affirmations to that effect, the
Judge points out.

The Plaintiff also challenges as false or misleading a variety of
statements concerning the connection between Goldman, Low, and
1MDB.

Judge Broderick notes that tellingly, the Defendants barely attempt
to confront these allegations, and merely argue that Goldman's
December 22, 2016 statement denied the firm's knowledge only as to
Low's involvement with 1MDB's bond transactions, rather than
knowledge of Low's connection to 1MDB and Goldman more broadly.

Even if he accepted Defendants' very narrow interpretation of
Goldman's statement, Judge Broderick holds that the Plaintiff's
allegations, taken as true, are more than sufficient to establish
falsity. He adds, among other things, that the Plaintiff adequately
pleads falsity with regard to statements about payments to third
parties. Finally, the Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that there
were several terms--aside from the amount of fees and
commissions--that allowed Goldman to assume a much lower level of
risk than it would in a normal deal.

Finally, the Plaintiff adequately pleads falsity as to a couple of
statements related to CEPSA and SRG's acquisition of Coastal
Energy, Judge Broderick holds.

Pursuant to the PSLRA, a well-pleaded securities fraud claim must
"state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference
that the defendant acted with the required state of mind."

Judge Broderick finds that the Plaintiff has not established
scienter for Schwartz, about whom there are few material
allegations in the Second Amended Complaint. However, he holds, the
Plaintiff has adequately alleged scienter as to Cohn. As with Cohn,
Judge Broderick finds that the Plaintiff adequately alleges
scienter as to Blankfein.

Given that he has found that the Plaintiff has sufficiently pled
scienter as to two Individual Defendants--Blankfein and Cohn, who
comprise two of the highest-ranking officials at Goldman--the
Plaintiff has sufficiently pled scienter as to Goldman, Judge
Broderick opines.

To demonstrate loss causation, the Plaintiff identifies in the
Second Amended Complaint a series of news reports that came out on
six separate dates in November and December 2018. The Plaintiff
argues that in response to each new disclosure, Goldman's share
price fell, with analysts linking the decline to the new
information. The Defendants argue, essentially, that these six
disclosures offered "no new news," and that only one of the six
disclosures reveals a historical fact as opposed to a development
in the investigations" against Goldman.

The Defendants further posit that, after years of news reports and
disclosures detailing investigations, potential prosecutions, and
potential fines facing Goldman in light of the 1MDB scandal,
Goldman's stock price already "would have already reflected" all
that risk such that the disclosures constitute only "the
materialization of known risks," which are not actionable.

Judge Broderick holds that the Plaintiff has no colorable Section
20(a) claim against Schwartz because the Second Amended Complaint
fails to adequately plead a primary violation under Section 10(b)
against him. However, he holds that the Plaintiff can sustain
Section 20(a) claims against Blankfein and Cohn. As noted, the
Plaintiff has adequately alleged a Section 10(b) violation as to
these two Individual Defendants.

Finally, Judge Broderick briefly addresses the Plaintiff's request
that he takes judicial notice of all admitted (and, thus,
undisputed) facts set forth in the Information and the DPA in
deciding the Motion to Dismiss. On Oct. 22, 2020, DOJ announced
that Goldman entered into a DPA in connection with DOJ's criminal
investigation into Goldman's involvement with 1MDB that charges the
firm with a count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA.

Judge Broderick states that he has found no clear guidance from the
Second Circuit as to whether he may take judicial notice of the
facts set forth in the DPA, and judges in this District have taken
different approaches. He does not agree with the Defendants that
the admissions in the DPA are purely duplicative of the allegations
in the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint.

That said, Judge Broderick has already determined that, even
without taking into account the admissions in the DPA, the
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint adequately states a claim as
to Goldman, Blankfein, and Cohn. As such, absent further guidance
from the Second Circuit, Judge Broderick declines to consider the
factual admissions contained in the DPA, though will take judicial
notice of the fact that the DPA was filed.

Conclusion

For these reasons, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in
part and denied in part.

All claims against Defendant Schwartz are dismissed.

The Defendants' motions to dismiss related to Blankfein, Cohn, and
Goldman are denied, and Blankfein, Cohn, and Goldman are directed
to file an answer to the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint
within twenty-one (21) days of the filing of this Opinion & Order.

The Defendants' motion for oral argument on this motion is denied
as moot.

The Clerk's office is directed to terminate the open motion at
Document 79.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated June 28,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/42jk96a6 from
Leagle.com.

Andrew L. Zivitz -- azivitz@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP, in Radnor, Pennsylvania, Lead Counsel for Plaintiff and
the Class.

Salvatore J. Graziano -- salvatore@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, in New York City, Liaison Counsel
for the Class.

Sharon L. Nelles -- nelless@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell
LLP, in New York City, Counsel for Defendants.


GONDOLA IND.: Fails to Pay All Hours Worked, Velazquez Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTO VELAZQUEZ v. THE LA GONDOLA INDUSTRIES, INC.; LA JACOTAN
INC.; LA GONDOLA RESTAURANT; NIR WEINBLUT and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 21STCV23400 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
June 23, 2021)  alleges that the Defendants failed to compensate
for all hours worked, failed to pay minimum wages, failed to pay
overtime, failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and
failed to pay wages when employment ends in violation of the
California Labor Code.

The Defendants first hired Plaintiff on or around July 2018.
Plaintiff's last date of employment was in or around April 2020.
The Plaintiff was hired and worked as a "driver" and was classified
as an hourly, non-exempt employee. The Defendants have allegedly
committed numerous Labor Code violations against Plaintiff and
other similarly situated aggrieved employees. The Defendants did
not provide Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved, the
Plaintiff contends.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

GORMAN GROUP: Spiciarich Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. granting final approval of the Joint Stipulation of
      Settlement and Release;

   2. certifying a settlement class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)
      and (b)(3) for purposes of effectuating the settlement;

   3. issuing final approval of the FLSA settlement;

   4. approving services awards to Plaintiffs Andrews
      Spiciarich, Joel O'Neil, Ian Anderson, and Opt-in
      Plaintiffs Timothy Murphy, Nicholas Smith, and Jared
      O'Neil as outlined in the Settlement Agreement;

   5. awarding Class Counsel's attorneys' fees and costs as
      outlined in the Settlement Agreement;

   6. approving the Plaintiffs' proposed final settlement
      procedure; and

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

Gorman is a damn highway construction/materials company.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 6, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2T2JGUT at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class, are:

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

GRANITE SERVICES: Huffman PMWA Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MICHAEL HUFFMAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GRANITE SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
and FIELDCORE SERVICE SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 2021-77, was removed
from the Court of Common Pleas of Potter County, Pennsylvania,
Civil Division, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Pennsylvania on July 6, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-01184-MWB to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to compensate
the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated workers overtime pay
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in
violation of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

Granite Services International, Inc. is a professional engineering
services company doing business in Pennsylvania.

FieldCore Service Solutions, LLC is an independent industrial field
services company, with its principal place of business in Georgia.
[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
                            
         Andrew L. Levy, Esq.
         McNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC
         100 Pine Street, PO Box 1166
         Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166
         Telephone: (717) 237-5252
         Facsimile: (717) 260-1719
         E-mail: alevy@mcneeslaw.com

GROUP HEALTH: Plavin Must File Class Cert. Bid by July 1, 2022
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN PLAVIN, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. GROUP HEALTH
INCORPORATED, Case No. 3:17-cv-01462-RDM (M.D. Pa.), the Court
entered an order that:

   1. The Defendant's request that the action be stayed is
      denied.

   2. The Defendant shall file an answer to Plaintiff's
      Complaint on or before July 16, 2021.

   3. Motions to amend the pleadings shall be filed no later
      than August 30, 2021.

   4. All fact discovery shall be completed by January 31, 2022.

   5. Reports from Plaintiff's experts related to class
      certification shall be due by April 29, 2022.

   6. Reports from Defendant's experts related to class
      certification shall be due by May 27, 2022.

   7. Supplementations to the parties' expert reports related to
      class certification shall be due by June 10, 2022.

   8. Plaintiffs motion for class certification shall be filed
      no later than July 1, 2022.

   9. All other potentially dispositive motions, as well as any
      Daubert motions, shall be filed no later than 90 days from
      the date of the Court's ruling on Plaintiff's motion for
      class certification.

  10. All reports unrelated to class certification from
      Plaintiff's experts shall be due no later than 30 days
      from the date of the Court's ruling on Plaintiff's motion
      for class certification.

  11. All reports unrelated to class certification from
      Defendant's experts shall be due no later than 60 days
      from the date of the Court's ruling on Plaintiff's motion
      for class certification.

  12. Supplementations to the parties' expert reports unrelated
      to class certification shall be due 75 days from the date
      of the Court's ruling on Plaintiff's motion for class
      certification.

Group Health provides health care services.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36onCai at no extra charge.[CC]


HUSKY ENERGY: Parties Agree on $1M Settlement in Explosion Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jimmy Lovrien at superiortelegram.com reports that a proposed
class-action settlement could make evacuees of the April 26, 2018,
Husky Energy refinery explosion eligible to receive $150 in
compensation.

According to the settlement agreement dated June 24, the
plaintiffs, Jasen Bruzek, Hope Koplin and Christopher Peterson, and
defendant Superior Refining Co. agreed to a settlement totaling
$1.05 million, which is pending approval by a judge in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

Much of Superior was forced to evacuate for 18 hours when an
explosion, likely caused by a faulty valve, caused a fire at the
refinery. The evacuations were based on the fear of a hydrogen
fluoride release, though none escaped the tank.

The settlement stems from a lawsuit the plaintiffs filed in 2018,
claiming that while Husky allowed evacuees to file claims for
evacuation expenses - transportation, lodging and lost wages - as
well as separate claims for bodily harm, the reimbursements were
"skewed" to people who could afford the up-front costs of a hotel
room.

Court documents estimate nearly 21,000 people over 18 are eligible
to file a claim, but the settlement funds would only be able to
fulfill 5,833 claims at $150 per person. A household would be
eligible for up to $300. Under certain circumstances, individuals
may receive up to $200 and households up to $400.

The documents show the settlement money would be split three ways:
$875,000 would go toward individual claims; a maximum of $169,000
would be used for administrative and notice costs, including
mailers and advertisements; and $6,000 would be awarded to the
three class representatives - the people who originally filed the
lawsuit.

If there are leftover funds, up to $75,000 would be paid to the
Superior Douglas County Family YMCA.

The case had been headed for a trial and approval of the settlement
would prevent that.

The plaintiffs also accused the refinery of displaying negligence
and cited preliminary reports from the U.S. Chemical Safety and
Hazard Investigation Board as evidence the refinery failed to
maintain equipment and that led to the blast.

While J. Gordon Rudd, Jr., the attorney for the plaintiffs,
maintained the case was "meritorious," he acknowledged it could be
difficult to prove in trial as the court said the "Class
Representatives may need to obtain individualized evidence of
causation and damages."

"Such a process would increase the possibility that class members
may not participate due to the burden of trial compared to the
relatively small individual awards or that class members who do
participate lack sufficient evidence of their losses," attorneys
wrote.

The refinery said it will "fully support" the settlement though it
does not agree with the plaintiffs' characterization of the case's
facts and procedural history.

"(Superior Refining Company) refutes that it was negligent or that
its actions caused the explosion, and would vigorously defend
itself throughout the remainder of this litigation," the company
said. "Indeed, the only so-called 'evidence' of negligence that
plaintiffs could point to in the complaint was the U.S. Chemical
Safety and Hazard Investigation Board's report, which does not
prove negligence and is not admissible at trial."

In the original complaint filed in August 2018, one evacuee said he
was unable to afford a hotel and spent the night in Canal Park with
his family, while another plaintiff said his children's school was
canceled the next day, forcing his wife to miss work and lose
wages, the complaint said.

The complaint also said one plaintiff's mother was in hospice and
had to be evacuated, after which "she was no longer eating or
talking and her health quickly deteriorated." She died May 3, 2018.
[GN]

HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Kona, Ioniq Battery Defects
------------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a
Hyundai class action lawsuit includes 2019-2020 Kona Electric and
2020 Ioniq Electric vehicles in California with defective battery
systems that caused Hyundai to recall the SUVs and cars.

According to the Hyundai class action lawsuit, the automaker should
refund 2019-2020 Kona Electric and 2020 Ioniq Electric owners and
lessees in California based on California's Lemon Law.

The Hyundai class action lawsuit alleges Kona EV and Ioniq EV
customers have complained about the battery systems just to be told
there were no repairs available.

Until Hyundai replaces the batteries, Kona Electric and Ioniq
Electric vehicle owners have been offered software updates to "have
the battery's state of charge limit lowered to 80% to mitigate the
risk of fire."

Owners and lessees were warned to park outside and away from things
that could burn, but the plaintiff says all of this has done
nothing to repair the battery defects.

The lawsuit alleges Hyundai knew of the battery problem and how
serious it was before the first recall was issued in October 2020
for 2019-2020 Hyundai Kona Electric vehicles. Hyundai said at the
time it was investigating at least 13 battery fires but hadn't
confirmed the root cause of the problem.

According to Hyundai, the electric vehicles were recalled because
they were equipped with battery cells manufactured at the LG Energy
Solutions China (Nanjing) plant.

Hyundai said the negative anode tab can be folded in the battery
cell which could allow the lithium plating on the anode tab to
contact the cathode and cause an electrical short-circuit. The
battery may catch fire while the vehicle is charging, parked or
while traveling on the roads.

The October 2020 Konda Electric recall, known as Hyundai recall
196, was followed by recall 200 which included 2020 Ioniq EVs and
allegedly added remedies for the battery problems.

Hyundai announced in March 2021 the root cause was traced to short
circuits in the battery cells that caused at least 15 fires in Kona
Electric vehicles. However, Hyundai said in March no fires had been
reported in the U.S.

Hyundai says it is still getting ready to replace the battery
system assemblies, but a dealer should be notified if a Kona EV or
Ioniq EV customer sees a warning light.

The automaker says replacement batteries will be built with
insulation coating on the cathodes in the battery cells to prevent
electrical shorts and fires.

According to previous statements from Hyundai, the recall could
cost about $900 million to replace the Kona Electric and Ioniq
Electric batteries, with about 70% of the cost to be paid by LG.

The Hyundai class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Los Angeles: Siamak Kermani, v.
Hyundai Motor America, et al.

The plaintiff is represented by O'Connor Law Group, Wirtz Law APC,
and Reallaw APC. [GN]

HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Lawsuit on Dangerous Battery Defects
---------------------------------------------------------
law.com reports that a new class action lawsuit was filed in
California court against Hyundai Motor America. The plaintiff, Mr.
Siamak Kermani, is represented by Wirtz Law APC, O'Connor Law
Group, and Reallaw APC.

The class action is on behalf of consumers throughout California,
claiming dangerous battery systems in their electric Hyundai
vehicles, caused by an electrical short inside the battery cell.
The defective batteries were produced by LG Energy Solutions, and
are at risk of catching on fire while charging, parked, and/or
driving. There is currently no fix available.

When Plaintiff and other potential Class Members have complained
about the defective and dangerous battery system, HMA refused to
remedy the issue and informed individual potential Class Members
that there was no true fix. Instead, potential Class Members,
including Plaintiff: (a) were provided with software "updates" that
did nothing to repair the defect; (b) were instructed to "have the
battery's state of charge limit lowered to 80% to mitigate the risk
of fire;" and (c) were advised not to park their vehicles indoors
without lowering the charge limit. Based on the manner and timing
in which recalls came into existence, HMA knew of this problem, its
pervasiveness, and lack of a proper fix for a significant amount of
time before the first recall was issued on or about October 13,
2020, and while Class Vehicles were being sold and leased to the
general public.

Kermani v. Hyundai Motor America Pl. Compl. 6:24.

Vehicles in the Class Action
"Class Vehicles" refer to the following:

2019-2020 Hyundai Kona Electric

2020 Hyundai Ioniq Electric

The class action seeks buy back refunds for the vehicles under
California's Lemon Law.

Attorney Richard Wirtz commented, "Unfortunately, this is the
second auto manufacturer in less than a year to sell electric cars
with defective battery systems that can catch on fire to California
consumers. The rush to market with new technology needs to be
tempered by the safety of our drivers and passengers. If auto
makers ignore safety and cannot promptly repair dangerously
defective cars to get them off the roads, then California's Lemon
Law is there to protect California buyers to get their money back."


                    About Co-Counsel

Mr. Wirtz, Mr. Michael Hassen, and Mr. Mark O'Connor are
experienced attorneys with decades of experience between them. They
specialize in consumer protection matters and have successfully
prosecuted scores of cases similar to this one.[GN]

INCEPT CORPORATION: Underpays Call Center Employees, Scaggs Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
TRACEY SCAGGS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INCEPT CORPORATION and SAM FALLETA,
Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-01285-JRA (N.D. Ohio, July 2, 2021) is
a collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for
their alleged unlawful pay practices and policies that violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant approximately in or
about November 24, 2019 as a call center employee and/or
telemarketer.

The Plaintiff and other similarly call center employees and/or
telemarketers, who were employed as either Conversational Marketing
or Accounts Specialists, were classified by the Defendant as
non-exempt employees under the FLSA and were paid on an
hourly-basis. However, despite frequently working over 40 hours per
week for the Defendants, they were not properly compensated for all
hours they worked. The Defendants purportedly did not compensate
the Plaintiff and other employees for the time they spent
performing pre-shift duties. Additionally, the Defendants did not
include the non-discretionary bonuses in their regular rate of pay
when calculating overtime compensation. As a result, the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated employees were not paid proper
overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for all hours they worked in excess of 40 per
workweek. Moreover, the Defendants failed to make, keep, and
preserve records of the unpaid work that their employees performed
while they were logged out of the Defendant's computer systems, the
suit says.

Incept Corporation operates a telemarketing company in Canton, Ohio
that provides marketing services through email, social media,
direct mailing, and other communication methods. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          Alanna Klein Fischer, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          The Heritage Bldg., Suite 250
          34555 Chagrin Boulevard
          Moreland Hills, OH 44022
          Tel: (216) 696-5000
          Fax: (216) 696-7005
          E-mail: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  alanna@lazzarolawfirm.com

INTELLISOURCE LLC: Kansas Court Narrows Claims in Stacker FCRA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John W. Broomes of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit captioned PRA'SHAWNA
STACKER, Individually and on behalf of all others, Plaintiff v.
INTELLISOURCE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-2581-JWB (D. Kan.).

The lawsuit is a class action complaint alleging violations of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). The Plaintiff is a Kansas
citizen and the Defendant is a foreign limited liability company
with its principal place of business in Colorado.

In August 2020, the Plaintiff applied online for employment with
the Defendant. The Plaintiff was hired and began employment with
Defendant in Kansas. The Defendant obtained the Plaintiff's
consumer report from a third party. On Sept. 15, 2020, the
Defendant called the Plaintiff and informed her of her termination
due to information that was in her consumer report.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the FCRA by not
providing her with a copy of the consumer report and a FCRA summary
of rights prior to her termination, and failing to allow her a
reasonable amount of time to challenge the information in her
consumer report. As a result, the Plaintiff alleges that she has
suffered damages due to the sudden loss of employment. The
Plaintiff alleges that she may have been able to retain her
employment with the Defendant if she had been given the proper
opportunity to address the information contained in the consumer
report.

The Plaintiff's complaint also contains class action allegations.
The Plaintiff's proposed class includes the following individuals:

     All employees or prospective employees of Defendant that
     suffered an adverse employment action on or after
     November 17, 2018, that was based, in whole or in part, on
     information contained in a Consumer Report, and who were not
     provided a copy of such report, a reasonable notice period
     in which to address the information contained in the
     Consumer Report, and/or a written description of their
     rights in accordance with the FCRA in advance of said
     adverse employment action.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has acted willfully in
disregarding the class's rights under the FCRA in that Defendant
has had access to legal advice and also ignored regulatory
guidance. She seeks statutory damages for each violation under the
FCRA for her and the proposed class members. She also seeks
punitive damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.

The Defendant now moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's class
allegations on the basis that this Court does not have personal
jurisdiction over the Defendant for a class action that includes
non-Kansas members.

The Defendant brings this motion under both Rule 12(b)(2) and
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It additionally
argues that the complaint fails to plead a viable class action
under Rule 12(b)(6) because the class includes non-Kansas members.

Analysis

The Defendant moves to dismiss on the basis that the Court lacks
personal jurisdiction and the complaint fails to state a claim.
Although the Defendant's memoranda attack the class allegations
throughout, the Defendant seeks to dismiss the entire complaint and
makes statements concerning the plausibility of the Plaintiff's
claim.

Based on the allegations in the Plaintiff's complaint, the Court
finds that she has plausibly stated that the Defendant violated the
FCRA. The Court further finds that it has specific personal
jurisdiction over the Defendant with respect to the Plaintiff's
individual claim. The Defendant essentially concedes that specific
jurisdiction is satisfied based on the allegations in the
Plaintiff's complaint.

The main thrust of the Defendant's motion to dismiss is that this
court lacks personal jurisdiction over the class action allegations
because the alleged class is a nationwide class with no restriction
that the conduct complained of occurred in Kansas. Although this
case is newly filed, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's
nationwide class action lawsuit cannot go forward to discovery
because it may ultimately include non-Kansas residents as members.

According to the Defendant, this would violate its due process
rights because specific personal jurisdiction would be lacking in a
case involving a non-Kansas class member and the Defendant, a
Colorado limited liability company that facilitates staffing for
companies across the United States. The Defendant further argues
that this issue is not premature and should be resolved in order to
prevent costly discovery regarding claims that are subject to
dismissal.

The Plaintiff argues that the Court can exercise personal
jurisdiction over the class claims because it has specific personal
jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's claim. The Plaintiff argues that,
with respect to class allegations, the Court need not find that
personal jurisdiction is met for the entire class. Rather, the
Plaintiff argues that the only claim considered when undertaking
the personal jurisdiction analysis is the named class
representative's claim.

Judge Broomes notes that the argument that the Court may lack
personal jurisdiction over a nationwide class action involving a
nonresident defendant, who is not subject to general personal
jurisdiction in the forum at issue, has been heavily litigated only
recently due to the Supreme Court's opinion in Bristol-Myers Squibb
Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco Cty., 137 S.Ct.
1773 (2017).

While there are differences between Bristol-Myers' mass action and
a Rule 23 nationwide class action, the Court agrees that the due
process concerns recognized in Bristol-Myers and other Supreme
Court precedent would foreclose a nationwide class action that is
not limited to a nonresident defendant's conduct in the forum
state.

Although the Plaintiff has not yet moved for class certification,
the Court finds as a matter of law that it could not certify the
Plaintiff's proposed nationwide class action against the Defendant
because it could include claims of class members that have no
connection to Kansas and would be subject to dismissal due to lack
of personal jurisdiction. Therefore, the Plaintiff is foreclosed
from representing a nationwide class action in this forum, Judge
Broomes holds, citing Chavez v. Church & Dwight Co., No. 17 C 1948,
2018 WL 2238191, at *11 (N.D. Ill. May 16, 2018).

As the parties have already fully briefed this issue and no further
briefing is necessary, the Court will grant the Defendant's motion
in part and strike the class allegations. In light of this ruling
and the early stage of the proceedings, Plaintiff is granted leave
to file an amended complaint within fourteen days of this order
narrowing her class allegations to Kansas employees or prospective
employees.

Conclusion

The Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in
part. The class allegations are ordered struck from the Plaintiff's
complaint. The Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended
complaint within 14 days of this order narrowing her class
allegations to Kansas employees or prospective employees.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated June 28,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/uratnjsh from
Leagle.com.


J. ALEXANDER'S: Brodsky & Smith Investigates Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law office of Brodsky & Smith on July 5 disclosed that it is
investigating potential claims against the Board of Directors of J.
Alexander's Holdings, Inc. ("J. Alexander" or the "Company")
(NYSE:JAX) for possible breaches of fiduciary duty and other
violations of federal and state law in connection with the
agreement to be acquired by SPB Hospitality LLC. ("SPB"). Under the
terms of the merger agreement, J. Alexander shareholders will
receive only $14.00 in cash for each share of J. Alexander they
own.

The investigation concerns whether the J. Alexander Board breached
its fiduciary duties to J. Alexander shareholders and whether SPB
is paying too little for the Company.

If you own shares of J. Alexander stock and wish to discuss the
legal ramifications of the investigation, or have any questions,
you may e-mail or call the law office of Brodsky & Smith who will,
without obligation or cost to you, attempt to answer your
questions. You may contact Jason L. Brodsky, Esquire, or Marc L.
Ackerman, Esquire at Brodsky & Smith, Two Bala Plaza, Suite 805,
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, visit
https://www.brodskysmith.com/cases/j-alexanders-holdings-inc-nyse-jax/,
or call toll free 855-576-4847.

Brodsky & Smith is a litigation law firm with extensive expertise
representing shareholders throughout the nation in securities and
class action lawsuits. The attorneys at Brodsky & Smith have been
appointed by numerous courts throughout the country to serve as
lead counsel in class actions and have successfully recovered
millions of dollars for our clients and shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN]

JASON'S PREMIER: Velasco Sues Over Lease Operators' Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROKE VELASCO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JASON'S PREMIER PUMPING SERVICE, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01812-STV (D. Colo., July 2, 2021)
brings this collective action complaint against the Defendant for
its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant in May 2014 as a lease
operator.

The Plaintiff alleges that he and other similarly situated lease
operators were misclassified by the Defendant as independent
contractors to avoid the obligation to pay overtime wages, in
addition to health insurance and other benefits that they were
entitled to receive. Despite working more than 40 hours per week,
they were not paid their lawfully earned overtime compensation at
the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for
all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, the Plaintiff
asserts.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover all their unpaid overtime
compensation and liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as may
be necessary and appropriate.

Jason's Premier Pumping Service, LLC is an oil and gas company that
provides services to oil wells in Colorado. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P.
          44009 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Tel: (713) 523-0001
          Fax: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com


JUUL LABS: Mendones Product Liability Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled GUALBERTO MENDONES, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. JUUL LABS, INC., PAX LABS, INC.,
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., and
JOHN DOES 1-13, Case No. 2:21-cv-01700-DCN, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July
6, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-05181-WHO to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged strict products
liability, negligence and/or gross negligence, fraud, civil
conspiracy, outrage, negligent misrepresentation, unjust
enrichment, and violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade
Practices Act by failing to warn the public about the dangers of
using JUUL's electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) or
e-cigarette.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Pax Labs, Inc. is an American electronic vaporizer company,
headquartered in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                            
         W. Mullins McLeod, Jr., Esq.
         H. Cooper Wilson, III, Esq.
         MCLEOD LAW GROUP, LLC
         3 Morris Street, Suite A
         P.O. Box 21624
         Charleston, SC 29413
         Telephone: (843) 277-6655
         Facsimile: (843) 277-6660
         
                 - and –

         Peter M. McCoy, Jr., Esq.
         MCCOY LAW GROUP, LLC
         15 Prioleau Street
         Charleston, SC 29401
         Telephone: (843) 459-8835

KLOECKNER METALS: Delgado Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERNESTO DELGADO v.
KLOECKNER METALS CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-07405-GW-SK
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. determining that a class action is proper as to the First,
      Third, Fourth and Sixth Causes of Action contained in the
      Class Action Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
      Procedure 23;

   2. determining that class treatment is appropriate under
      Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3);

   3. certifying the following classes and subclasses:

      a. All current and former non-exempt employees of
         Defendant in the State of California who worked more
         than six (6) hours in any shift at any time during the
         period of April 6, 2016, through the present (the "Meal
         Period Class" or "Meal Period Class Members");

      b. All current and former non-exempt employees of
         Defendant in the State of California who worked more
         than 12 hours in any shift at any time during the
         period of April 6, 2016, through the present (the
         "Second Meal Period Subclass" or "Second Meal Period
         Subclass Members");

      c. All current and former non-exempt employees of
         Defendant in the State of California who were paid
         overtime and/or shift differential wages at any time
         between April 6, 2019, through the present (the "Wage
         Statement Class" or "Wage Statement Class Members");
         and

      d. All employees of Defendant in the State of California,
         who during their employment received their normal
         payroll wages through check or direct deposit, but upon
         their separation of employment (voluntary or
         involuntary) at any time from June 26, 2018, through
         the present, received their terminating wages in the
         form of a paycard (the "Paycard Class").

   4. Finding Plaintiff Ernesto Delgado to be an adequate
      representative and certifying him as the class
      representative;

   5. Finding Plaintiff’s counsel, Larry W. Lee, Kristen M.
      Agnew and Nicholas Rosenthal of Diversity Law Group, P.C.,
      as adequate class counsel and certifying them as class
      counsel.

This case presents four undisputed class-wide policies and
practices engaged in by the Defendant Kloeckner Metals Corporation,
all of which can be adjudicated on a class-wide basis. Each of
Plaintiff Ernesto Delgado's proposed theories of liability merit
class certification because Plaintiff will be able to prove his
case with common evidence, including timekeeping records and wage
issued to employees.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify classes dated July 6,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2VflIGw
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Kristen M. Agnew, Esq.
          Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
          E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
                  kagnew@diversitylaw.com
                  nrosenthal@diversitylaw.com

KOHL'S STORES: C.A. Reinstates Putative Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
metnews.com reports that a Los Angeles Superior Court judge erred
in terminating a putative class action based on evidence that
Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. applies its "Kohl's Cash" program
precisely in conformity with the rules stated on rewards
certificates it issues, the Court of Appeal for this district held,
declaring that discovery should have been allowed to show that the
average consumer would make assumptions contrary to what is
stated.

The unpublished opinion for Div. Seven was authored by Orange
Superior Court Judge Melissa R. McCormick, sitting on assignment.
It reverses a judgment by Judge Elihu M. Berle in favor of Kohl's.

Berle on Jan. 10, 2019 granted Kohl's motion pursuant to Civil Code
Sec1781(c)(3) that the cause of action stated by plaintiffs Crystal
Waters and Tony Valenti under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act
("CLRA") has "no merit."

Berle's Ruling

He explained:

"Based upon the evidence presented and the specific plain language
of the coupons in evidence, the court finds that no reasonable
consumer would be misled regarding the use of the Kohl's Cash
coupons."

Predicated on that determination, Berle on July 2, 2019, granted
judgment on the pleadings in favor of the defendant on causes of
action under the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") and the False
Advertising Law ("FAL").

The opinion reinstates the causes of action under the CLRA, UCL,
and FAL, while noting that Berle correctly granted judgment on the
pleadings in favor of a purported cause of action for restitution,
noting that no such independent cause of action exists in
California.

Basis of Lawsuit

The action is centered on Kohl's practice in applying Kohl's
Cash-$10 coupons earned for every $50 in purchases-to purchases of
items that are offered for sale at a discounted price. The
complaint provides the example of a consumer buying a $300 blender,
thus earning $60 in Kohl's Cash which can be applied to subsequent
purchases, and buying a $100 toaster being sold for 20 percent
off.

The pleading sets forth:

"If Defendants treated Kohl's Cash as actual cash. Defendants would
first apply the 20% discount to the $100, and then deduct the $60
in Kohl's Cash, leaving the customer with an out-of-pocket expense
of $20 ($80- $60). However, Defendants first deduct the $60 in
Kohl's Cash from the $100 toaster, and then apply the 20% discount
to the remaining $40, leaving the customer with an out-of-pocket
expense of $32. Instead of paying $20 for the toaster, the customer
has paid $32. The customer has lost $12."

The complaint goes on to say that "consumers wishing to return
items are left at greater disadvantage than if they had never used
Kohl's Cash in the first place," explaining:

"In the example above, even though the customer receives the
benefit of only $48 in Kohl's Cash from the $60 certificate, when
he or she subsequently returns the $300 blender, Kohl's will deduct
the full $60 from the $300 purchase price, and refund him only
$240. The customer has now paid $92 for a toaster that would have
cost him or her no more than $80 if he or she had never used Kohl's
Cash. Defendants have retained $12 in ‘Overpayment Charges' from
this customer."

Kohl's Defense

While not refuting the plaintiffs' arithmetic, Kohl's argued that
the transactions are handled strictly in accordance with rules
plainly stated on the backs of coupon, citing this language:

"The Kohl's Cash certificate cited by Kohl's states: "Kohl's Cash
coupons and other dollar-off discounts will be applied prior to
percent-off total purchase discounts/coupons . . .. If merchandise
purchased earning a Kohl's Cash coupon is subsequently returned or
price adjusted, the value of the Kohl's Cash coupon previously
earned and/or the amount of the merchandise refund will be reduced
to reflect any unearned value. Return value of merchandise
purchased with a Kohl's Cash coupon may be subject to adjustment."

Kohl's argued that the plaintiffs "cannot claim to have mistaken
the coupons for cash, any more than Froot Loops cereal could be
mistaken for actual fruit."

Reversal came because Berle did not honor the request by the
plaintiff's West Los Angeles lawyer, Jordan S. Esensten, to put off
ruling on the "no-merit" motion until he could gain discovery,
which Kohl's had resisted. In particular, he wanted any "consumer
correspondence or complaints concerning Kohl's Cash" to fortify the
position that the average consumer would expect the rewards to be
applied after discounts were applied.

Appeals Court Opinion

McCormick agreed, saying:

"Waters should have been permitted a reasonable opportunity to take
discovery on the likelihood that Kohl's Cash certificates mislead a
reasonable consumer before the trial court adjudicated the CLRA
cause of action against her on the ground that the certificates do
not mislead a reasonable consumer. Because she was not, the order
granting Kohl's' no-merit motion must be reversed, as must the
order granting Kohl's' motion for judgment on the pleadings on
Waters's UCL and FAL causes of action, which rests on the order
granting the no-merit motion."

The case is Waters v. Kohl's Department Stores, B300638.

Counsel on appeal were Robert L. Esensten and Jordan S. Esensten of
Esensten Law for Waters and Valenti and Lauri A. Mazzuchetti, Tahir
L. Boykins and Rebecca J. Wahlquist of Kelley Drye & Warren for
Kohl's.

Ohio Case

In Ohio, the Lake County Court of Common Pleas in 2018 granted
summary judgment in favor of Kohl's, finding that the plaintiff
"and no other consumer had a reasonable belief that Kohl's Cash
would not be applied" before applying discounts. The judge found:

"The Kohl's Cash explicitly states that it is applied first when/if
the consumer also uses a percentage off coupon for one transaction.
The evidence indicates that Plaintiff did not read her Kohl's Cash
coupon and merely believed that a percentage off coupon should be
applied before the Kohl's Cash."

The Court of Appeals affirmed that decision on May 28, 2019 in
Henry v. Kohl's Dept. Stores, Inc.

In 2015, Kohl's agreed to pay $958,686.27 in civil penalties in an
action brought by four California counties over the Kohl's Cash
program. [GN]

KROGER COMPANY: Seeks July 16 Extension on Class Cert. Response
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMMY KIBLER, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. THE KROGER COMPANY,
an Ohio corporation; DILLON COMPANIES, LLC d/b/a KING SOOPERS/CITY
MARKET, a Kansas limited Liability company, Case No.
1:21-cv-00509-PAB-KMT (D. Colo.), the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order extending the deadline for the Defendants to respond
to their Motion for Conditional Collective Certification to and
including July 16, 2021, and for all other and further relief as
this Court deems just and proper.

On June 7, 2021, the Plaintiff filed its Motion for Conditional
Collective Certification. The Defendants' response to the Motion
was originally due June 28, 2021. The Defendants filed an unopposed
motion for a 10-day extension of their deadline to respond to the
Motion, which the Court granted. The Defendants response to the
Motion is currently due on July 8, 2021.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 6, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hOQmOO at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for the Defendants The Kroger Co. And Dillon
Companies, LLC, are:

          David K. Montgomery, Esq.
          Jamie M. Goetz-Anderson, Esq.
          Jeremy D. Smith, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          201 E. Fifth Street, 26th Floor
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 898-0050
          Facsimile: (513) 898-0051
          E-mail: David.Montgomery@jacksonlewis.com
                  Jamie.Goetz-Anderson@jacksonlewis.com
                  Jeremy.Smith@jacksonlewis.com

KUSHISM INC: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kushism Inc. The case
is styled as Terry Fabricant, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Kushism Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-05495
(C.D. Cal., July 7, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Kushism -- https://kushism.com/ -- is a cannabis dispensary located
in the Van Nuys, California area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LAKESIDE RECOVERY: Faces Vallian FDCPA Suit in N.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lakeside Recovery
Solution, Inc. The case is captioned as Vallian v. Lakeside
Recovery Solution, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-01472-E (N.D. Tex., June
23, 2021).

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act involving consumer credit.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Ada Brown.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

LDJ AMERICAN: Faces Charman Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Call Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
THANE CHARMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LDJ AMERICAN ONLINE BENEFITS, LLC; DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-01207-CAB-WVG
(S.D. Cal., July 1, 2021) alleges the Defendants of negligent and
willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class action asserting
that the Defendant has contacted him on his cellular telephone
number (619) 300-1119 on or about April 8, 2021 in an attempt to
sell or solicit its services. The Defendant allegedly used an
"automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS) or an "artificial or
prerecorded voice" in placing its calls to the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated persons without obtaining their prior express
consent to receive such calls using an ATDS.

The Plaintiff contends that he and other similarly situated persons
were harmed by the Defendant's unlawful conduct by illegally
contacting them via their cellular telephones which caused them to
incur certain charges or reduced telephone time for which they had
previously paid, and had invaded their privacy.

LDJ American Online Benefits provides healthcare insurance. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

LEARJET INC: Wood Seeks Extension to Respond to Clarification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK WOOD, et al., v.
LEARJET, INC., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02621-EFM-GEB (D. Kan.),
the Plaintiffs and the Collective ask the Court to enter an order
granting additional 14 days, to and including July 21, 2021, to
respond to the Defendants' Motion for Clarification/Partial
Reconsideration and for Certification for Interlocutory Appeal and
Stay.

On June 9, 2021, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order granting
conditional certification of a class consisting of "all persons who
were non-bargaining unit personnel employed in the Bombardier
Flight Test Center in Wichita, Kansas on April 2, 2016, and whose
employment thereafter ended, and were forty years of age or older
at the time their employment ended."

On June 23, 2021, the Defendants filed their Motion for
Clarification/Partial Reconsideration and for Certification for
Interlocutory Appeal and Stay. The Plaintiffs' response to
Defendants' Motion is currently due on or before July 7, 2021.

The Defendants' Motion seeks clarification of the class definition,
certification of two issues of law for interlocutory appeal to the
Tenth Circuit and a stay of all proceedings in this Court pending
resolution of such issues, and thus raises numerous complex and
potentially dispositive issues of law and fact that would affect
the course of this certified ADEA collective action.

Learjet is a Canadian-owned aerospace manufacturer of business jets
for civilian and military use based in Wichita, Kansas, United
States.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 6, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2T2LltB at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sarah A. Brown, Esq.
          BROWN & CURRY, LLC
          1600 Genessee Street, Suite 956
          Kansas City, MO 64102
          Telephone: (816) 756-5458
          Facsimile: (816) 666-9596
          E-mail: sarah@brownandcurry.com

               - and -

          Anthony E. LaCroix, Esq.
          LACROIX LAW FIRM, LLC
          1600 Genessee, Suite 956
          Kansas City, MO 64102
          Telephone: (816) 399-4380
          Facsimile: (816) 399-4380
          E-mail: tony@lacroixlawkc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          James M. Armstrong, Esq.
          Forrest T. Rhodes, Jr., Esq.
          FOULSTON SIEFKIN LLP
          1551 N. Waterfront Parkway, Suite 100
          Wichita, KS 67206-4466
          E-mail: jarmstrong@foulston.com
                  frhodes@foulston.com

LG ELECTRONICS: Suit Moved from Circuit Ct. to Hawaii Federal Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as INGRID WEISSE and LOREN
BULLARD, Individually and in their REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITIES and on
Behalf of a CLASS of All Persons Similarly Situated, v. LG
ELECTRONICS, INC.; LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC.; DOES 1-10; DOE
PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOES CORPORATIONS 1-10; DOE GOVERNMENTAL
AGENCIES 1-10; AND DOE ASSOCIATIONS 1-10 Case No.
1:21-cv-00281-JAO-KJM (Filed May 10, 2021), was removed from the
the Circuit Court of the First Circuit of the State of Hawai'i, to
the United States District Court for the District of Hawai'i on
June 22, 2021.

The Plaintiffs purport to bring and maintain this case as a class
action. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a proposed class of:

   "all individuals and entities in the State of Hawai'i that own
   LG Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner Systems manufactured and
   sold by LG, specifically model numbers LP073CDUC, LP123CDUC,
and
   LP153CDUC and all of the PTAC units sold and installed in
   Hawai'i on or after April 30, 2016 including model numbers:
   LP***CD2B; LP***HD2B; LP***CD3B; LP***HD3B; LP***CDUC; and
   LP***HDUC* (collectively referred to as "LG PTAC units").

The complaint asserts claims for breach of express warranty, breach
of the implied warranty of merchantability, breach of the implied
warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, and violation of
Hawaii's Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The Plaintiffs
allege that their LG PTAC units are defective, are prematurely and
significantly corroding and that LG PTAC units are unfit for use in
the State of Hawai'i due to the state's corrosive coastal
environments.

To remedy these injuries, the Plaintiffs seek replacement of their
allegedly defective LG PTAC units, injunctive relief, specific
performance, treble damages, prejudgment and post judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

LG Electronics is a South Korean multinational electronics company
headquartered in Yeouido-dong, Seoul, South Korea.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Edmund K. Saffery, Esq.
          Deirdre Marie-Iha, Esq.
          GOODSILL ANDERSON QUINN & STIFEL
          First Hawaiian Center, Suite 1600
          999 Bishop Street
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 547-5600
          Facsimile: (808) 547-5880
          E-mail: esaffery@goodsill.com
                  dmarie-iha@goodsill.com

               - and -

          Phoebe A. Wilkinson, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          390 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 918-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 918-3100
          E-mail: phoebe.wilkinson@hoganlovells.com

LLOYD'S LONDON: Underwriters Face Business Interruption Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Gangcuangco, writing for Insurance Business, reports that
certain underwriters at Lloyd's are being sued in a class action in
Australia.

To be conducted in the name of the representative applicant on
behalf of group members, the class action is backed by litigation
funder Omni Bridgeway and is being jointly run by Gordon Legal and
Berrill & Watson. The case involves insured jewellers and gem
merchants.

The lawsuit broadly alleges that the refusal to pay out indemnities
for business interruption losses caused by the COVID-19 pandemic
constitutes a breach of contract. The claim - at the centre of
which are policies usually described as jewellers block and
multi-perils insurance - is filed as an 'open class' proceeding.

"The class action is being funded by Australia's largest litigation
funder, Omni Bridgeway, as a registered management investment
scheme in accordance with new funded class action regulations
introduced by the Australian government in 2020," said class action
law firm Gordon Legal.

It was noted that Omni Bridgeway would be entitled to a share of
any sum received in a successful result, be it an award by a court
or an amount paid by way of settlement.

"Assuming that Lloyd's is found liable to indemnify you under your
policy, the policy itself sets out what losses can be claimed and
how your losses are to be assessed," stated Gordon Legal in an FAQ
for claimants, "and the court may make rulings about how sections
of the policy relating to the calculation of your losses are to be
interpreted." [GN]

MARYLAND: Unemployment Benefits Extended Following Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Baye, writing for WYPR, reports that Maryland's top court
has upheld a ruling extending pandemic-related unemployment
benefits until July 13.

The order, issued on July 5 by Maryland Court of Appeals Chief
Judge Mary Ellen Barbera, instructs the Court of Special Appeals to
send the case back to the Baltimore City Circuit Court, where Judge
Lawrence Fletcher-Hill plans to set a hearing in the coming days.

The ruling is the latest development in two class-action lawsuits
that challenge Gov. Larry Hogan's decision to end pandemic-related
unemployment benefits before the federal funding paying for them is
set to expire in early September. The benefits would have expired
Saturday, July 9, at 11:59 p.m., if not for a temporary restraining
order Fletcher-Hill issued that morning that extended benefits
until 10 a.m. on July 13.

The forthcoming hearing will allow Fletcher-Hill to decide whether
to issue a preliminary injunction, which would further extend
benefits.

At stake are benefits for people who would not otherwise qualify
because they are self-employed or have already received
unemployment insurance for 26 straight weeks. Unemployed workers
would also lose an extra $300 dollars a week Congress authorized
late last year.

During a last-minute hearing on July 2 held via Zoom, Meghan Casey,
a partner at the firm Gallagher Evelius & Jones, which is
representing the plaintiffs in one of the cases, said more than
300,000 Marylanders would be affected by the change.

"Mr. [Shad] Baban, for example, would be unable to purchase formula
for his 9-month-old daughter if his benefits are cut," Casey said,
referring to the plaintiffs in the case. "Mr. A.M. will struggle to
purchase life-saving medications for himself. Mr. D.M. will be
unable to pay his rent at a sober-living house and risk falling
back into addiction."

Plaintiffs argued that Hogan's move violates the intent of several
state laws, such as one that says the state secretary of labor
"shall cooperate with the United States Secretary of Labor to the
fullest extent that this title allows." Another law, passed earlier
this year, says, "the Maryland Department of Labor shall identify
all changes in federal regulations and guidance that would expand
access to unemployment benefits or reduce bureaucratic hurdles to
prompt approval of unemployment benefits."

Fletcher-Hill wrote in his opinion that the plaintiffs need to
establish that the laws mandate that Hogan and state Labor
Secretary Tiffany Robinson "seek and obtain all federally funded
benefits that are available to the State."

As Casey said during the hearing, ending the benefits early forces
the state to give up $1.9 billion in federal funding.

On the other hand, Chris Mellott, a partner at Venable, which is
representing the Hogan administration, said the governor was fully
within his right to end the benefits on July 3 under the terms of
the contract with the U.S. Department of Labor.

"In making executive decisions, the governor is balancing the needs
of the employees, the employers, and all aspects of citizens of
this state," he said during the July 2 hearing.

Mellott noted, as Hogan himself has many times, that businesses
have reported challenges finding workers to hire.

However, Fletcher-Hill wrote in his opinion that while a labor
shortage affects the state's economy, cutting off the unemployment
benefits would "also ripple throughout the economy." [GN]

MDL 1720: Merchant Trade Groups and Walmart Allowed to Intervene
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York grants
the motions for permissive intervention in the multidistrict
litigation titled BARRY'S CUT RATE STORES INC.; DDMB, INC. d/b/a
EMPORIUM ARCADE BAR; DDMB 2, LLC d/b/a EMPORIUM LOGAN SQUARE; BOSS
DENTAL CARE; RUNCENTRAL, LLC; CMP CONSULTING SERV., INC.; TOWN
KITCHEN, LLC d/b/a TOWN KITCHEN & BAR; GENERIC DEPOT 3, INC. d/b/a
PRESCRIPTION DEPOT; and PUREONE, LLC d/b/a SALON PURE, Plaintiffs
v. VISA, INC.; MASTERCARD INCORPORATED; MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL
INCORPORATED; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; BA MERCHANT SERVICES LLC
(f/k/a DEFENDANT NATIONAL PROCESSING, INC.); BANK OF AMERICA
CORPORATION; BARCLAYS BANK PLC; BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE; BARCLAYS
FINANCIAL CORP.; CAPITAL ONE BANK, (USA), N.A.; CAPITAL ONE F.S.B.;
CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION; CHASE BANK USA, N.A.; CHASE
MANHATTAN BANK USA, N.A.; CHASE PAYMENTECH SOLUTIONS, LLC; JPMORGAN
CHASE BANK, N.A.; JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.; CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA),
N.A.; CITIBANK N.A.; CITIGROUP, INC.; CITICORP; and WELLS FARGO &
COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 05-MD-1720 (MKB) (E.D.N.Y.).

On May 4, 2021, the putative Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive relief class
plaintiffs filed their fully briefed motion for certification of a
Rule 23(b)(2) class in the multi-district litigation ("MDL"). The
National Retail Federation (NRF") and the Retail Industry Leaders
Association ("RILA") (together, "Merchant Trade Groups") and
Walmart, Inc., (Proposed Intervenors"), move to intervene pursuant
to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the limited
purpose of opposing the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

Discussion

a. Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion

On May 4, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their fully briefed motion for
certification of a Rule 23(b)(2) class in the multi-district
litigation. The Plaintiffs seek certification of a Rule 23(b)(2)
class defined as:

     All persons, businesses, and other entities (referred to
     therein as Merchants) that accept Visa and/or Mastercard
     Credit and/or Debit cards in the United States at any time
     during the period between December 18, 2020 and eight
     years after the date of entry of Final Judgment in this
     case.

The Plaintiffs request that the Court certify the class without
permitting any opt-out rights.

The Direct Action Plaintiffs oppose certification of a mandatory
class, arguing, among other things, that certifying a mandatory
class would "threaten the individualized monetary claims of class
members" who are pursuing damages claims should the injunctive
relief class lose on liability issues, and would "confiscate"
claims for injunctive relief and "turn them over to parties with
different interests."

The "Direct Action Plaintiffs" collectively refers to the Target
Plaintiffs, the 7-Eleven Plaintiffs, and Home Depot. The Target
Plaintiffs and 7-Eleven Plaintiffs in turn are comprised of many
other merchants, as described in their respective complaints (See
Target Pls.' Second Am. Compl.; Sixth Am. Compl., 7-Eleven, Inc.,
v. Visa Inc., No. 13-CV-5746 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2020).

The Grubhub Plaintiffs, who opted out of the Rule 23(b)(3)
settlement, also oppose certification of a mandatory class, arguing
that certification of a mandatory class would hold them to the
"same restrictions imposed on the entities that voluntarily
accepted the Rule 23(b)(3) monetary settlement and its limitations
on their right to seek injunctive relief." The "Grubhub Plaintiffs"
refers to the seven companies described in the Grubhub Plaintiffs'
operative Complaint.

In addition, the Grubhub Plaintiffs argue that the differences
between the large companies that make up the Grubhub Plaintiffs and
the "small, single-location businesses that pay only a fraction of
the interchange fees paid by the Grubhub Plaintiffs" which make up
both the class representatives and the vast majority of the
putative class give rise to different interests and, therefore,
different remedies and relief.

The Defendants do not oppose class certification as the Plaintiffs
define it but argue that the Court "should not certify the Rule
23(b)(2) class and allow opt-outs or carve outs from the class, or
exclude the future merchants from the class as the opponents of
class certification suggest."

b. Merchant Trade Groups' Involvement in the Litigation

The Merchant Trade Groups state that they are nonprofit
associations that have merchant members that "account for over $1.5
trillion in annual retail sales, millions of American jobs, and
more than 100,000 store locations nationwide." The Merchant Trade
Groups are putative class members because they "accept Visa and
Mastercard branded cards as payment for a wide range of services,
such as payment for membership dues, conference registrations, and
a wide variety of other services that they provide."

In 2013, the Merchant Trade Groups were among the objectors and
opt-outs to the settlement for an injunctive relief class and a
monetary damages relief class ("2013 Settlement Agreement"), which
the Second Circuit vacated on June 30, 2016, and remanded to the
Court, see In re Payment Card Interchange Fee & Merch. Disc.
Antitrust Litig., 986 F.Supp.2d 207, 213, 223 (E.D.N.Y. 2013)
("Interchange Fees I"), rev'd and vacated, 827 F.3d 223 (2d Cir.
2016) ("Interchange Fees II"). In 2014, the Merchant Trade Groups
submitted one of the merchant briefs opposing the 2013 Settlement
Agreement to the Second Circuit.

After the Second Circuit's decision in 2016, the Merchant Trade
Groups requested that the Court reconsider class representation and
instead appoint independent counsel "who are willing to reconsider,
and, as appropriate, deviate from prior counsel's (conflicted)
decisions about prospective relief -- such as the decision to seek
certification of a mandatory (b)(2) class and the decision to focus
on meaningless surcharging relief."

In December 2019, the Court granted the motion for final approval
of the settlement reached between Defendants and the Rule 23(b)(3)
class (the "2019 Settlement Agreement"), see In re Payment Card
Interchange Fee & Merch. Disc. Antitrust Litig., 2019 WL 6875472,
at *2. The Merchant Trade Groups were among the 675 class members
that opted out from the 2019 Settlement Agreement. The Merchant
Trade Groups are not pursuing any individual claims against the
Defendants.

On March 26, 2021, the Merchant Trade Groups served their motion to
intervene for the limited purpose of opposing the Rule 23(b)(2)
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and the motion was
fully briefed on May 4, 2021. The Merchant Trade Groups state that
beginning in mid-2017, "counsel and representatives from the
Merchant Trade Groups began discussions with appointed Rule
23(b)(2) Class Counsel, who Merchant Trade Groups understood were
appointed to represent all merchants in the class," to "share
privileged information with their putative appointed counsel about
their views regarding the appropriate certification of any Rule
23(b)(2) class and what equitable relief would be meaningful to the
broad merchant community." While the Merchant Trade Groups seek to
represent their own interests, they state that "their interests are
informed by their in-depth knowledge of the broader merchant
community that constitutes Merchant Trade Groups' memberships."

In support of their motion to intervene, the Merchant Trade Groups
argue that the Rule 23(b)(2) Class Plaintiffs do not adequately
represent them because the Merchant Trade Groups "believe that
Defendants' core anticompetitive practices must be eliminated --
not tinkered with on the margins -- and that every merchant must be
permitted to determine whether to exclude itself from the class."
In addition, the Merchant Trade Groups argue that the Rule 23(b)(2)
Class Plaintiffs are focused on surcharging relief instead of
removing the honor-all-cards and default interchange rules.

The Plaintiffs oppose the Merchant Trade Groups' motion.

c. Walmart's Involvement in the Litigation

Walmart is a major retailer and a significant participant in the
U.S. credit and debit card markets. Walmart states that it has
"long been active in lobbying efforts to reform the payments
industry, and in particular the anticompetitive practices of
Defendants."

In 2013, Walmart opted out and objected to the 2013 Settlement
Agreement. In 2013, Visa "filed a declaratory judgment action
against Walmart in this MDL" and in 2014, Walmart brought its own
antitrust action against Visa, arguing that Visa employed
anticompetitive practices such as the honor-all-cards rule to
acquire and maintain the market power necessary to charge Walmart
supracompetitive fees (Walmart Mem. 2-3; Compl., Visa U.S.A. v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 13-CV-3355 (E.D.N.Y. June 12, 2013);
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., No. 14-CV-2318 (E.D.N.Y.
Mar. 25, 2014).

On Nov. 3, 2017, Walmart and Visa fully settled all claims against
each other and dismissed both cases. Walmart states that since
dismissing its case against Visa, it has "remained engaged with
this litigation in order to protect its interests" and attended a
meeting on April 9, 2019, with other plaintiffs' counsel, including
the Rule 23(b)(2) Class Counsel to discuss case strategy. Walmart
states that it opted out of a subsequent proposed settlement for a
Rule 23(b)(3) class.

On March 26, 2021, Walmart filed the instant motion to intervene
for the limited purpose of opposing the Rule 23(b)(2) Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification, which was fully briefed on May 4,
2021. In support, Walmart argues, among other things, that the Rule
23(b)(2) Class Plaintiffs do not represent Walmart's interests
because the Plaintiffs can be expected to pursue relief that is at
best worthless, and more likely harmful, to Walmart, and to enter
into a settlement that permits the Defendants to continue their
anticompetitive conduct and releases claims far into the future.
Walmart requests access to materials designated confidential and
highly confidential by the protective order and seek an opportunity
to supplement its objection based on those materials.

The Rule 23(b)(2) Plaintiffs oppose Walmart's motion.

Discussion

The Proposed Intervenors argue that their motion is timely because
(1) no injunctive relief class has yet been certified and they
filed their motions by the Court-ordered deadline for opposition to
the Rule 23(b)(2) Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, (2)
intervention will not prejudice the parties because the motions
will not delay the proceedings and the Court's consideration of the
propriety of an injunctive relief class just begun, and (3) denying
the intervention motion will prejudice Walmart by inviting a
significant threat to its interests, and the Merchant Trade Groups
because certification of a mandatory class would force them to give
up claims through final judgment or settlement resulting in
substantial harm by a class action judgment in which they were not
adequately represented and had no opportunity to make sure their
voice is heard.

District Judge Margo K. Brodie states that in assessing whether a
motion to intervene is timely, the Court considers (1) how long the
applicant had notice of the interest before it made the motion to
intervene; (2) prejudice to existing parties resulting from any
delay; (3) prejudice to the applicant if the motion is denied; and
(4) any unusual circumstances militating for or against a finding
of timeliness (Frankel v. Cole, 490 F. App'x 407, 408 (2d Cir.
2013) (quoting United States v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 25 F.3d 66, 70
(2d Cir. 1994))).

Judge Brodie holds that the Proposed Intervenors' motions are
timely. First, the Proposed Intervenors received notice that they
were included in the putative class when the Plaintiffs moved for
class certification which motion was served on Dec. 18, 2020, and
filed on May 4, 2021. The Proposed Intervenors moved to intervene
for the limited purpose of opposing the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification on March 26, 2021--a little over three months
after the Plaintiffs first moved for class certification on Dec.
18, 2020, but before the motion was fully briefed on May 4, 2021.
In addition, the Proposed Intervenors filed their motions by the
Court-ordered deadline for opposition to class certification.
Accordingly, the three-month period between the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification and Proposed Intervenors' motions do not
render them untimely.

The second and third factors, on balance, also support a finding of
timeliness, Judge Brodie holds. While Proposed Intervenors'
three-month delay in filing their motions may result in some
prejudice to the Plaintiffs that prejudice does not weigh heavily
against a finding of timeliness. Intervention will delay the
resolution of the class certification motions to some degree
because the Proposed Intervenors request an opportunity to
supplement their briefing should their motions to intervene be
granted. However, with respect to impairment, the Proposed
Intervenors, on the other hand, may suffer prejudice if their
motion to intervene is denied, Judge Brodie explains.

The fourth factor--whether there are any unusual circumstances
militating for or against a finding of timeliness--is neutral as
neither the Plaintiffs nor the Proposed Intervenors identify any
such circumstances, Judge Brodie notes. Accordingly, because two of
the three factors weigh in the Proposed Intervenors' favor and the
fourth factor is neutral, the Court finds their motions to be
timely.

The Merchant Trade Groups argue that they have an interest in the
proceedings because they would be included in the putative class
and therefore certification of the class would impede their own
interests, as well as those of the merchant community more broadly.
Walmart argues that it has two interests: (1) an interest in
eliminating anticompetitive conduct that can cause it injury, and
in particular it has an interest in rolling-back the Defendants'
honor-all-cards rules, and (2) in negotiating with Defendants and
using influence it has as a large merchant to try and secure the
terms that most benefit Walmart and its customers.

Judge Brodie holds that the Proposed Intervenors have a cognizable
interest in the proceedings as putative class members injured by
the Defendants' alleged anticompetitive conduct. She explains that
the Proposed Intervenors' interest may be impaired if it is not
allowed to intervene to oppose class certification because putative
class members may not be allowed to opt out of the injunctive
relief class.

While the Court is not aware of a case reaching the same conclusion
in the context of a Rule 23(b)(2) class, class members in the
putative class as defined by the Plaintiffs would not be allowed to
opt out of the litigation. Without deciding whether the putative
class would be afforded opt-out rights, the Court notes that Rule
23(b)(2) does not require that a court provide opt-out rights to
class members although some district courts have recognized that a
court may decide to do so in its discretion.

The Merchant Trade Groups also argue that there is no adequacy of
representation because (1) the Plaintiffs have differing claims,
injuries, and apparent relief priorities, and (2) there is no other
party representing their interest.

Like the Merchant Trade Groups, Walmart contends that the
Plaintiffs are not entitled to a presumption of adequacy of
representation because there is no identity of interest or shared
ultimate objective. Walmart argues that there is no adequacy of
representation because (1) the Plaintiffs prioritize different
forms of relief, (2) the Plaintiffs are comprised of small
retailers in contrast to Walmart, which is a large publicly traded
company, and (3) no other party represents their interests because
the Direct Action Plaintiffs are not similarly situated.

The Court finds that Proposed Intervenors are adequately
represented in this litigation. The Proposed Intervenors and the
Plaintiffs share an identity of interest in that both seek to hold
the Defendants accountable for alleged anticompetitive activity
stemming from the Defendants' network rules which the Plaintiffs
claim imposes supracompetitive and collectively fixed fees on the
merchants.

Judge Brodie holds that the Proposed Intervenors' arguments that
the Plaintiffs may seek a different form of relief are not
sufficient to rebut the presumption of adequate representation. She
notes that to the extent that the Proposed Intervenors' interests
are not adequately represented by the Plaintiffs, the Proposed
Intervenors are adequately represented by the Direct Action
Plaintiffs and the Grubhub Plaintiffs, both of whom oppose
certification of a mandatory class.

The Proposed Intervenors' arguments that they are not adequately
represented by the Direct Action Plaintiffs are unpersuasive
because both the Proposed Intervenors and the Direct Action
Plaintiffs share an interest in seeking opt-out rights so that they
may negotiate with the Defendants directly, Judge Brodie points
out.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Proposed Intervenors are
adequately represented under Rule 24. Because Proposed Intervenors
only meet three of the four factors required for intervention under
Rule 24(a), they are, therefore, not entitled to intervention as of
right.

In the alternative, the Proposed Intervenors argue that they should
be permitted to intervene permissively pursuant to Rule 24(b). The
Merchant Trade Groups argue that they should be allowed to
intervene because they are putative absent class members. Walmart
argues that it should be allowed to intervene because intervention
will not introduce new claims or issues into the case or otherwise
prejudice the existing parties.

The Court grants the Proposed Intervenors permissive intervention
under Rule 24(b)(1)(B) because (1) the Proposed Intervenors'
motions were timely and (2) in view of the risk of impairment of
their interests, the Court believes that the Proposed Intervenors
will significantly contribute to full development of the underlying
factual issues around the opt-out issue.

Unlike the Direct Action Plaintiffs and the Grubhub Plaintiffs,
Proposed Intervenors are not currently pursuing damages claims
against the Defendants and, therefore, they will add the
perspective of absent class members not otherwise litigating their
cases who nevertheless seek opt-out rights from the litigation,
Judge Brodie notes. In addition, the Merchant Trade Groups are the
only party to voice concerns regarding the inclusion of future
merchants in the class, which will also contribute to the
development of the issues before the Court on class certification.

Accordingly, the Court grants Proposed Intervenors' permissive
intervention.

The Proposed Intervenors request to intervene without attaching an
intervenor complaint because they seek to intervene for the limited
purpose of opposing class certification. They argue that an
intervenor complaint is not necessary because their position is
clear from their motion papers. The Plaintiffs do not address
whether the Proposed Intervenors should be required to attach a
separate pleading.

The Court waives the pleading requirement for the Proposed
Intervenors because they seek to intervene for the limited purpose
of opposing class certification and because their position on this
litigation is clearly articulated in their motion papers, which
include copies of their proposed briefing in opposition to class
certification.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court grants the Proposed Intervenors' motions for
permissive intervention for the limited purpose of opposing the
Rule 23(b)(2) Class Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The
Court directs the parties to submit a proposed schedule for the
Proposed Intervenors' supplemental briefing within seven days of
this Memorandum and Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum & Order dated June 28,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/xwx2s43w from
Leagle.com.


MELTECH INC: Deadline for Class Cert Bid Response Set for August 2
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA GROVE, individually
and on behalf of similarly situated individuals; and CHRYSTINA
WINCHELL, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, v. MELTECH, Inc.; H&S CLUB OMAHA, INC., SHANE
HARRINGTON, and BRAD CONTRERAS, Case No. 8:20-cv-00193-JFB-MDN (D.
Neb.), the Hon. Judge Michael D. Nelson entered an order that the
Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Motion to Disqualify and for
Sanctions is granted and the case progression order is amended as
follows:

   1. The deadline for Defendants to file a response to
      Plaintiffs' Motion to Disqualify and for Sanctions is July
      26, 2021.

   2. The deadline for Defendants to file a response to
      Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class is August 2, 2021.

   3. The deadline for moving to amend pleadings or add parties
      is August 2, 2021.

   4. The status conference scheduled for September 3, 2021, is
      cancelled.

   5. The deadline to identify expert witness and to complete
      expert disclosures 1 for all experts expected to testify
      at trial, and non-retained experts, is October 1, 2021.

   6. The deadline for completing written discovery under Rules
      33, 34, 36, and 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
      is November 1, 2021. Motions to compel written discovery
      under Rules 33, 34, 36, and 45 must be filed by November
      15, 2021.

   7. The deposition deadline, including but not limited to
      depositions for oral testimony only under Rule 45, is
      December 1, 2021.

   8. The planning conference before the undersigned magistrate
      judge to discuss case progression, dispositive motions,
      the parties' interest in settlement, and the trial and
      pretrial conference settings is rescheduled from October
      1, 2021, to December 10, 2021, at 1:00 p.m. CST by
      telephone.

   9. The deadline for filing motions to dismiss and motions for
      summary judgment is January 10, 2022.

  10. The deadline for filing motions to exclude testimony on
      Daubert and related grounds is January 10, 2022.

  11. All requests for changes of deadlines or settings
      established herein shall be directed to the undersigned
      magistrate judge.

Meltech provides general contracting, construction management,
environmental, and electrical services.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AGATsy at no extra charge.[CC]

MEMORIAL HERMANN: Phlegm Sues Over Denied FMLA Leave, Termination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEANDRA BOLAR PHLEGM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEMORIAL HERMANN DIAGNOSTIC LAB,
Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-02195 (S.D. Tex., July 6, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendant for violation of the Family
Medical Leave Act of 1993 by terminating the Plaintiff's employment
in retaliation for securing and utilizing intermittent leave to
take care of her father who suffered from a chronic medical
condition.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a lab technician
phlebotomist until her termination on July 6, 2018.

Memorial Hermann Diagnostic Lab is a medical facility, with its
principal place of business in Harris County, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Yancy A. Carter, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF YANCY A. CARTER
         Post Office Box 691442
         Houston, TX 77269
         Telephone: (504) 319-3625
         Facsimile: (832) 553-7261
         E-mail: yancycarter@hotmail.com

MIDLAND CREDIT: Booth Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as John E. Booth, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit
Management, Inc., Case No. 5:21-cv-00357-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla., July
7, 2021).

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

Midland Credit Management, Inc. -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/
-- is a specialty finance company providing debt recovery solutions
for consumers across a broad range of assets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alejandro Emmanuel Figueroa, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone: (630) 575-8181
          Fax: (630) 575-8188
          Email: alejandrof@sulaimanlaw.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Griffis FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is captioned as Griffis v. Midland Credit
Management, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00626-TJC-JBT (M.D. Fla., June
23, 2021).

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act involving consumer credit. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Timothy J. Corrigan.

Midland Credit provides debt recovery solutions to consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Max H. Story, Esq.
          STORY LAW GROUP
          328 2nd Avenue North, Suite 100
          Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250
          Telephone: (904) 372-4109
          Facsimile: (904) 758-5333
          E-mail: max@storylawgroup.com

MONARCH RECOVERY: Sept. 10 Extension to File Class Cert Bid Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RHONDA HAMPTON, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. MONARCH RECOVERY
MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 1:21‐cv‐00011‐TDS‐LPA
(M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
extending her time until September 10, 2021, to file her motion for
class certification.

The current deadline for Plaintiff to file her motion for class
certification is July 6, 2021.

The Plaintiff seeks an extension of time to file her motion for
class certification to allow the parties additional time to resolve
their dispute, as well as to allow time for the parties, if
necessary, to seek this Court's involvement as to the dispute.

To ensure sufficient time for the parties to work toward a
resolution of their dispute, and, if necessary, for the parties to
seek this Court’s resolution of the dispute, the Plaintiff
requests an extension of time until September 10, 2021.

The requested extension will not affect any future dates,
deadlines, or trial. No party will be prejudiced by the requested
extension.

Monarch operates as a collection agency.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated July 6,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2SZmEy0
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig M. Shapiro, Esq.
          Koury Hicks, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOHN T. ORCUTT, P.C.
          1738 Hillandale Road, Suite D
          Durham, NC 27705
          Telephone: (919) 286‐1695
          E-mail: cshapiro@johnorcutt.com
                  khicks@johnorcutt.com

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Townsend Suit Over Student-Athletes' TBI
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WADE TOWNSEND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01968-RLY-MG (S.D. Ind., July 6, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of
express contract, and fraudulent concealment.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to implement adequate
procedures to protect the Plaintiff and other University of
Maryland Eastern Shore (UMES) football players from the long-term
dangers associated with traumatic brain injuries (TBIs). For
decades, the Defendant knew the debilitating long-term dangers of
TBIs that resulted from playing college football but it disregarded
this information to protect the business of amateur college
football. As a direct result of the Defendant's alleged acts and
omissions, the Plaintiff and countless former UMES football players
suffered brain and other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA
football.

National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is an
unincorporated association with its principal place of business
located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Jeff Raizner, Esq.
         RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
         2402 Dunlavy Street
         Houston, TX 77006
         Telephone: (713) 554-9099
         Facsimile: (713) 554-9098
         E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and –

         Jay Edelson, Esq.
         Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
         EDELSON PC
         350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
         Chicago, IL 60654
         Telephone: (312) 589-6370
         Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
         E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                 brichman@edelson.com

               - and –

         Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
         EDELSON PC
         123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
         San Francisco, CA 94107
         Telephone: (415) 212-9300
         Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
         E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Liable to Student-Athletes' TBIs, Gee Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CLINTON GEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01966-JRS-TAB (S.D. Ind., July 6, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of
express contract, and fraudulent concealment.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to implement adequate
procedures to protect the Plaintiff and other Saint Paul's College
(SPC) football players from the long-term dangers associated with
traumatic brain injuries (TBIs). For decades, the Defendant knew
the debilitating long-term dangers of TBIs that resulted from
playing college football but it disregarded this information to
protect the business of amateur college football. As a direct
result of the Defendant's alleged acts and omissions, the Plaintiff
and countless former SPC football players suffered brain and other
neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football.

National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is an
unincorporated association with its principal place of business
located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Jeff Raizner, Esq.
         RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
         2402 Dunlavy Street
         Houston, TX 77006
         Telephone: (713) 554-9099
         Facsimile: (713) 554-9098
         E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and –

         Jay Edelson, Esq.
         Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
         EDELSON PC
         350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
         Chicago, IL 60654
         Telephone: (312) 589-6370
         Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
         E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                 brichman@edelson.com

               - and –

         Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
         EDELSON PC
         123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
         San Francisco, CA 94107
         Telephone: (415) 212-9300
         Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
         E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Meyers Sues Over Utica Student-Athletes' TBIs
------------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB MEYERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01967-TWP-DML (S.D. Ind., July 6, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of
express contract, and fraudulent concealment.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to implement adequate
procedures to protect the Plaintiff and other Utica College
football players from the long-term dangers associated with
traumatic brain injuries (TBIs). For decades, the Defendant knew
the debilitating long-term dangers of TBIs that resulted from
playing college football but it disregarded this information to
protect the business of amateur college football. As a direct
result of the Defendant's alleged acts and omissions, the Plaintiff
and countless former Utica football players suffered brain and
other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football.

National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is an
unincorporated association with its principal place of business
located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Jeff Raizner, Esq.
         RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
         2402 Dunlavy Street
         Houston, TX 77006
         Telephone: (713) 554-9099
         Facsimile: (713) 554-9098
         E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and –

         Jay Edelson, Esq.
         Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
         EDELSON PC
         350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
         Chicago, IL 60654
         Telephone: (312) 589-6370
         Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
         E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                 brichman@edelson.com

               - and –

         Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
         EDELSON PC
         123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
         San Francisco, CA 94107
         Telephone: (415) 212-9300
         Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
         E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Friday Suit Moved from State. Ct. to W.D.N.C.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Friday, et al., v. Nationstar
Mortgage LLC, Case No. 21-CVS-828, was removed from the Cleveland
County Superior Court to the District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina (Asheville) on June 23, 2021.

The Western District of North Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:21-cv-00165-MR-WCM to the proceeding.

The suit is brought over alleged contract violations. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Chief Judge Martin Reidinger.

Nationstar offers mortgage services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Janet R. Coleman, Esq.
          Joel R. Rhine, Esq.
          Martin A. Ramey, Esq.
          Ruth Sheehan, Esq.
          RHINE LAW FIRM, P.C.
          1612 Military Cutoff Rd., Suite 300
          Wilmington, NC 28403
          Telephone: (910) 772-9960
          E-mail: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com
                  mjr@rhinelawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robert Locke Beatty, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          100 N. Tryon St., Suite 2900
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 343-2244
          Facsimile: (704) 353-6160
          E-mail: LBeatty@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          T. Richmond McPherson, III, Esq.
          Brian Andrew Kahn, Esq.
          MCGUIRE WOODS, LLP
          201 N Tryon Street, Suite 3000
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 343-2038
          Facsimile: (704) 444-8783
          E-mail: rmcpherson@mcguirewoods.com
                  bkahn@mcguirewoods.com

NCAA: Sorenson Files Suit in Southern District of Indiana
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the National
Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Erik
Sorenson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:21-cv-01984-JPH-MJD (S.D. Ind., July 7, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association --
https://www.ncaa.org/ -- is a non-profit organization which
regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and
conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Fax: (713) 554-9098
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com

The Defendant appears pro se.


NETGAIN TECHNOLOGY: Faces Lee Suit Over Data Breach in S.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald S. Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated and on behalf of the general public, v. Netgain
Technology, LLC, and CareSouth Carolina, Inc., Case No.
3:21-cv-01144-JLS-MSB (S.D. Cal., June 22, 2021) seeks to hold the
Defendants responsible for the harms it caused Plaintiff and the
hundreds of thousands of other similarly situated persons in the
massive and preventable ransomware attack that took place on or
around December 3, 2020 by which cyber criminals infiltrated the
Defendants' inadequately protected network servers where highly
sensitive personal and medical information was being kept
unprotected (Data Breach).

Allegedly, the cybercriminals gained access to certain of
Defendants' network servers with the apparent intention of
profiting from such access. The Defendant chose to negotiate with
the criminals, paying a significant amount of 16 to them in
exchange for a promise from the attackers that they would delete
the copies of the data that was in their possession, and that they
would not publish, sell or otherwise share the data, the complaint
says.

Netgain is a cloud hosting and information technology services
provider that provides services to several organizations in the
healthcare and accounting industries nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bibianne U. Fell, Esq.
          FELL LAW, P.C.
          11956 Bernardo Plaza Dr., Box 531
          San Diego, CA 92128
          Telephone: (858) 201-3960
          Facsimile: (858) 201-3966
          E-mail: bibi@fellfirm.com

               - and -

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com

NEW JERSEY: Galicki Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZACHARY GALICKI, et al.,
v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00169-JXN-JSA
(D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (a) and
      (b)(3), defined as:

      "All persons who experienced traffic delays on September
      9, 2013, September 10, 2013, September 11, 2013, September
      12, 2013 and/or September 13, 2013 when they accessed the
      GWB from the Fort Lee Access Lanes and toll booth number
      24 and crossed the bridge from New Jersey to New York, and
      the subclasses consisting of:

      a. class members who operated a vehicle that experienced
         traffic delays accessing the GWB from the Fort Lee
         Access Lanes and toll booth number 24 on September 9,
         2013, September 10, 2013, September 11, 2013, September
         12, 2013 and/or September 13, 2013; and

      b. class members who were passengers in vehicles that
         experienced traffic delays accessing the GWB from the
         Fort Lee Access Lanes and toll booth 24 on September 9,
         2013, September 10, 2013, September 11, 2013, September
         12, 2013 and/or September 13, 2013;

   2. appointing Plaintiffs, Robert Cohen, Joan Cohen, and
      Victor Cataldo as Class Representatives;

   3.appointing Michael J. Epstein, Esq. and Barry D. Epstein,
      Esq. of The Epstein Law Firm, P.A. as Class Counsel; and

   4. granting plaintiffs and the Class such other relief as the
      Court deems just and proper.

New Jersey is a northeastern U.S. state with some 130 miles of
Atlantic coast. Jersey City, across the Hudson River from Lower
Manhattan, is the site of Liberty State Park, where ferries embark
for nearby Ellis Island, with its historic Immigration Museum, and
the iconic Statue of Liberty. The Jersey Shore includes notable
resort towns like historic Asbury Park and Cape May, with its
preserved Victorian buildings.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated July 6,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36syrYM
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Barry D. Epstein, Esq.
          Michael J. Epstein, Esq.
          THE EPSTEIN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          340 West Passaic Street
          Rochelle Park, NJ 07662
          Telephone: (201) 845-5962
          E-mail: bdepstein@theepsteinlawfirm.com
                  mjepstein@theepsteinlawfirm.com

OREGON: Bobo Case Proceedings Stayed Pending Resolution in Maney
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH DARREN BOBO v. KATE
BROWN et al., Case No. 6:21-cv-00499-SB (D. Or.), the Hon Judge
Stacie F. Beckerman entered an order granting the Defendant's
motion staying this case pending the resolution of the motion for
class certification in Maney et al. v. Brown et al.,
6:20-cv-00570.

The Court concludes that staying this litigation will conserve
judicial resources by avoiding duplicative litigation, and a stay
will not unduly prejudice Bobo.

This motion relates to the ongoing COVID-19 litigation against the
Oregon Department of Corrections ("ODOC") and/or related persons in
the District of Oregon. The Defendants will be seeking a brief stay
of all individual federal cases that could fit within the putative
classes of plaintiffs in Maney pending resolution of the motion for
class certification in Maney. This is one of those cases.

A copy of the Court's Order dated July 6, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2SZjjyY at no extra charge.[CC]


OREGON: Seeks to Stay Orr Proceedings Pending Resolution in Maney
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rodney S. Orr v. Colette
Peters, Lt. Bunnel, Sgt. French, Cpl. Brouse, Case No.
3:21-cv-00342-SB (D. Or.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an
order staying this case pending the resolution of the motion for
class certification in Maney et al. v. Brown et al.,
6:20-cv-00570.

This motion relates to the ongoing COVID-19 litigation against the
Oregon Department of Corrections and/or related persons in the
District of Oregon. The Defendants will be seeking a brief stay of
all individual federal cases that could fit within the putative
classes of plaintiffs in Maney pending resolution of the motion for
class certification in Maney. This is one of those cases.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 6, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2SZjjyY at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ellen F. Rosenblum, Esq.
          Tracy Ickes White, Esq.
          SENIOR ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
          DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          1162 Court Street NE
          Salem, OR 97301-4096
          Telephone: (503) 947-4700
          Facsimile: (503) 947-4791
          E-mail: Tracy.I.White@doj.state.or.us
                  andrew.hallman@doj.state.or.us

PROVENTION BIO: Bragar Eagel Announces Class Action Filing
----------------------------------------------------------
Tech Stock Observer reports that the various law firm has alerted
the shareholders of Provention Bio, Inc. (NASDAQ: PRVB), Washington
Prime Group, Inc. (NYSE: WPG), RLX Technology, Inc. (NYSE: RLX),
and Array Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: ARRY), regarding the Class
Action Lawsuit filed against the companies for providing misleading
information, which led to a massive loss to the shareholders.

The FDA identified shortcomings in Provention Bio, Inc.:
Shareholder law firm Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., alerted investors
of Provention Bio that lawsuit action has begun on behalf of
shareholders to provide misleading information teplizumab. As per
the company, FDA stated in April 2021 that they had identified
certain shortcomings in the trial report submitted by Provention
Bio. The FDA statements also say that the company will have to
submit the additional data to get FDA approval, and all the
deadline stated by the company were overstated.

Washington Prime Group, Inc. (NYSE: WPG), heading towards
bankruptcy: Washington Prime Group, stated that Washington Prime
Group, L.P., planned to withhold payment (interest) due on February
2021 and has a 30-day extra period for fulfilling the obligation.
In case of default, it would be led to an increase in indebtedness.
In March 2021, as per Bloomberg, the Washington Prime Group is
planning to file for bankruptcy due to an overrun of time in
fulfilling the interest payment. The lawsuit pertains to the
misleading information by the company on their business operations,
which led to a huge loss to the shareholders.

RLX Technology, Inc. (NYSE: RLX) painted a rosy picture: The
company in January 2021 raised $1.4 billion of gross proceeds
through initial public offerings. However, when filing the draft
prospectus, the company painted a rosy picture regarding its
financial position. It didn't disclose the regulation risk, which
was the key for the investor to evaluate their decision. Hence, the
paint is filed against RLX Technology.

Array Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: ARRY), information on costing was
missing: The plaint against the company is filed, as they showed
the picture was materially different from what the reality was
during the offerings. After the class period, the company stated
that an increase in steel prices and freight costs will have a
material impact on the company's future performance. The absence of
materialistic information during the offerings led to a huge loss
to shareholders, and hence, the lawsuit action was initiated. [GN]

PURDUE PHARMA: Bedford OxyContin Class Suit Transferred to Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Ray, writing for Altoona Mirror, reports that a Bedford County
lawsuit seeking damages from a consulting firm that aided in
developing a plan to market OxyContin has been transferred to
California to be joined with at least 39 similar lawsuits.

Documents in the class action lawsuit on behalf of Pennsylvania's
67 counties and 2,561 municipalities were transferred on June 28
from the U.S. District Court in Johnstown to the Northern District
of California court in San Francisco.

The case will be assigned to U.S. District Judge Charles R.
Breyer.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on June 7
decided to consolidate lawsuits filed against the New York
consulting firm of McKinsey & Company Inc., which worked for
OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma LP, and transferred 17 lawsuits filed
in multiple states to the Northern California DIstrict Court.

Since then, another 22 lawsuits have been transferred.

The lawsuits come from multiple states, counties and cities as well
as several native American tribes.

One of the lead attorneys in the Bedford County lawsuit, Barry
Scatton, a Bedford County native and a member of Morgan and Morgan
Complex Litigation Group of Philadelphia, said that transferring
lawsuits of a similar nature to one court is a way to deal with the
litigation in an organized way.

The Bedford County lawsuit was filed on June 10 in the Bedford
County Courthouse, but then was transferred to the federal court in
Johnstown.

The lawsuit deals with a period of time after 2007 when The Purdue
Frederick Co., parent organization of Purdue Pharma LP, entered a
guilty plea to using a fraudulent marketing campaign that,
according to the lawsuit, promoted OxyContin as "less addictive,
less subject to abuse and less likely to cause withdrawal" than
other opioids."

The company agreed to obtain an independent monitor of its
marketing strategy and submit an annual compliance report to with
the U.S. Department of Health inspector general. While OxyContin
abuse cases initially fell, the company, it is alleged, teamed up
with McKinsey, described as a global management consulting firm, to
boost OxyContin sales.

The Bedford County lawsuit charges that Purdue, working with
McKinsey, invested "hundreds of millions of dollars" in a campaign
to boost sales.

Within five years of signing the agreement, OxyContin sales
tripled, and the lawsuit stated, "McKinsey is responsible for the
strategy that accomplished this."

The result of McKinsey's strategy, it is claimed, was "a final
spasm of OxyContin sales before the inevitable decline of the
drug."

By 2018, Purdue no longer marketed OxyContin, and in 2019, McKinsey
stated it was no longer working for any opioid manufacturer,
noting, "Opioid abuse and addiction are having a tragic and
devastating impact on our communities."

The civil lawsuit lists several counts against McKinsey, including:
negligence, for encouraging the overprescribing of OxyContin; gross
negligence, for urging the oversupply of the pain killer; negligent
misrepresentation and fraud, for providing false information to
health care providers, and causing a public nuisance, which
addresses the thousands of deaths and devastation to the
communities of Pennsylvania caused by opioid abuse.

Scatton said he couldn't predict how long it will take to resolve
the lawsuits against McKinsey, but he pointed out the California
judge overseeing the cases is experienced in opioid litigation.

The lawsuit does not ask any specific amount of damages but wants
whatever award is received to address the medical care for those
suffering addiction, the provision of care for children whose
parents suffer from opioid disability and incapacitation, the costs
of the drug epidemic associated with law enforcement and associated
with drug courts and other resources within the judicial system.
[GN]

QBE INSURANCE: Responds to Business Interruption Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Gangcuangco, writing for Insurance Business Australia,
reports that QBE Insurance Group has issued a response after being
notified of a representative proceeding against its QBE Insurance
(Australia) Limited (QIA) operations.

"Those proceedings allege that QIA wrongfully denied cover to
certain policyholders during the COVID 19 pandemic for losses
arising from business interruption," noted QBE. "The allegations
will be defended.

"The issues raised in these proceedings appear to be substantially
similar to those currently before the Australian courts in the
second industry test case and QIA's own Federal Court proceeding
against Educational World Travel in liquidation and its
liquidator."

Backed by litigation funder Omni Bridgeway, the new class action is
being funded as a registered management investment scheme called
"The QBE BII Claim Litigation Funding Scheme (ARSN 650 744 415),"
according to class action law firm Gordon Legal which jointly runs
the case with specialist insurance law firm Berrill & Watson.

The above, said Gordon Legal, is in accordance with new funded
class action regulations introduced by the Australian government
last year. The open class action in the Federal Court is on behalf
of businesses such as Strand Fitness Pty Ltd.

Meanwhile QBE added: "QIA is committed to applying the rulings of
the courts in the industry test cases when assessing claims. QBE is
satisfied that its reserving in respect of business interruption
claims remains robust." [GN]

RANDALL-REILLY LLC: Bustillos Sues Over Unsolicited Message Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JOANNE BUSTILLOS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RANDALL-REILLY LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 7:21-cv-00900-LSC (N.D. Ala., July 1, 2021)
arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff asserts that he received multiple prerecorded voice
messages from the Defendant on her cellular telephone number ending
in 1877 on March 11, 2021, March 18, 2021, April 12, 2021, and
April 21, 2021 in an attempt to promote its business and services.
The Defendant purportedly failed to obtain his express written
consent for prerecorded message calls to be initiated to her
cellular telephone.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's unsolicited prerecorded
messages have caused the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
persons additional harm, including invasion of privacy,
aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and
conversion, as well as inconvenience and disruption to their daily
life.

Randall-Reilly LLC sells recruitment marketing services and
recruitment leads to companies in exchange for a financial benefit.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ignacio Hiraldo, Esq.
          IJH LAW
          1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1950
          Miami, FL 33131
          Tel: (786) 496-4469
          E-mail: IJhiraldo@IJhlaw.com

                - and –

          John R. Cox, Esq.
          JRC LEGAL
          30941 Mill Lane, Suite G-334
          Spanish Fort, AL 36527
          Tel: (251) 517-4753
          E-mail: john@jrclegal.net


REKOR SYSTEMS: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of August 30 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Rekor Systems, Inc. f/k/a
Novume Solutions, Inc. ("Rekor" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: REKR;
NVMM) and certain of its directors on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired Rekor securities between April 12,
2019 and May 25, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the
firm's site: www.bgandg.com/rekr.

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 misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Rekor's ALPR technology and UVED-related
business is outclassed by global competitors with an established,
dominant market share; (2) it was unlikely that states would pass
legislation authorizing deals similar to Rekor's Oklahoma UVED
partnership because of, inter alia, state and local privacy laws
and related public concerns; (3) Rekor's UVED partnership was not
as profitable as Defendants had led investors to believe because of
known impediments to enrollment rates and costs associated with the
partnership; (4) accordingly, Rekor had overstated its potential
revenues, profitability, and overall ALPR- and UVED-related
business prospects; and (5) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/rekr 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 Rekor
you have until August 30, 2021, to request that the Court appoint
you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

RGS FINANCIAL: Ezagui Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RGS Financial, Inc.
The case is styled as Esther Ezagui, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated consumersv. RGS Financial, Inc., Case No.
2:21-cv-03813 (E.D.N.Y., July 7, 2021).

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

RGS -- https://www.rgsfinancial.com/ -- provides the best possible
BPO and ARM Services—from third-party debt collection, to
customer retention and care.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
          735 Central Avenue
          Woodmere, NY 11598
          Phone: (516) 668-6945
          Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


RITE AID: Stafford Putative Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 6, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended May 29, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, Byron Stafford v.
Rite Aid Corp.

The Company is involved in a putative consumer class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California captioned Byron Stafford v. Rite Aid Corp.

A separate lawsuit, Robert Josten v. Rite Aid Corp., was
consolidated with this lawsuit in November 2019.

The lawsuit contains allegations that (i) the Company was obligated
to charge the plaintiffs' insurance companies its usual and
customary prices for their prescription drugs; and (ii) the Company
failed to do so because the prices it reported were not equal to or
adjusted to account for the prices that Rite Aid offers to
uninsured and underinsured customers through its Rx Savings
Program.

The cases are currently stayed pending an appeal of an order
denying a motion to compel arbitration of claims in Stafford.

Rite Aid Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates a chain of
retail drugstores in the United States. The company operates
through two segments, Retail Pharmacy and Pharmacy Services. Rite
Aid Corporation was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in Camp
Hill, Pennsylvania.


RK UNIONTOWN: Faces Bregan Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM BREGAN, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. RK UNKNOWN, INC., RK BELLE VERNON, INC., and
RAJA M. KHURRAM, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00845-NBF (W.D.
Penn., July 1, 2021) brings this complaint as a collective action
to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages against the Defendant
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately
March 2020 to August 2020 as a delivery driver at the Defendant's
Domino's stores located in Uniontown, PA and Belle Vernon, PA.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant employed a flawed
reimbursement policy which reimburses drivers on a per-delivery
basis that equates to below the IRS business mileage reimbursement
rate and/or much less than a reasonable approximation of its
drivers' automobile expenses which they have incurred while
delivering pizza and other food items for the primary benefit of
the Defendants. As a result of the Defendant's systemic failure to
adequately reimburse automobile expenses, the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated delivery drivers' net wages diminished beneath
the federal minimum wage requirements which constitutes "kickback"
to the Defendants. Despite regularly working more than 40 hours per
week, the Plaintiff and other delivery drivers were not also paid
overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for all hour worked in excess of 40 per
workweek, the Plaintiff added.

The Corporate Defendants operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise
stores owned and directed by Raja M. Khurram. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elizabeth Bailey, Esq.
          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, P.C.
          120 Gibraltar Road, Suite 218
          Horshan, PA 19044
          Tel: (215) 496-8282
          Fax: (215) 754-4443
          E-mail: ebailey@smbb.com
                  phoward@smbb.com


ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Agrees to Pay US$69.MM Fines Amid Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------
Beau Ushay, writing for Which-50, reports that the mobile first
trading platform Robinhood agreed to pay a record US$69.6m in fines
and customer reimbursement to settle an investigation by the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) for "systemic
supervisory failures and significant harm suffered by millions of
its customers."

The sanctions represent the largest financial penalty ever ordered
by FINRA as it determined the brokerage misled millions of
customers, approved ineligible traders for risky strategies and
didn't provide the necessary support for technology which failed
and locked millions out of access to their accounts.

The settlement with FINRA follows a similar US$65m fine of
Robinhood to settle with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) on allegations the firm failed to properly inform clients it
sold their stock orders to high-frequency traders and other firms,
contributing to major compliance issues.

Jessica Hopper, Executive Vice President and Head of FINRA's
Department of Enforcement said the moves were necessary to send a
warning to firms about misleading customers.

"This action sends a clear message -- all FINRA member firms,
regardless of their size or business model, must comply with the
rules that govern the brokerage industry, rules which are designed
to protect investors and the integrity of our markets. Compliance
with these rules is not optional and cannot be sacrificed for the
sake of innovation or a willingness to ‘break things' and fix
them later."

However, industry observers aren't so sure. Kara Swisher of The New
York Times called these moves a 'slap on the wrist', echoed by
Senator Elizabeth Warren. "Robinhood won't clean up its act with
slap-on-the-wrist settlements," the Senator said in a Tweet.

The fine hasn't slowed momentum for the business, either, with the
trading app officially filing for its highly anticipated IPO just
one day after the company received the fine from FINRA, saying it
has 18 million retail customers and US$80bn in total assets.

However, the firm may still be facing several pending lawsuits and
investigations, including that from Massachusetts' top securities
regulator, who sued Robinhood earlier this year due to its
aggressive marketing tactics and the reported dozens of potential
class action lawsuits from retail traders arising from trading
restrictions during the meme-stock frenzy.

The SEC is also still reviewing the company's role in the January
"meme-stock" rally which saw outsized gains in stocks like GameStop
and AMC Theatres in short squeeze moves partially driven by retail
traders. [GN]


ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Class Actions Over PFOF Practice Among IPO Risks
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Kronenberg, writing for Seeking Alpha, reports that
Robinhood's practice of using PFOF has long been known, but the
company disclosed in its S-1 that such payments and similar
commissions on crypto trades accounted for a stunning 81% of the
firm's total revenues in Q1.

As such, the company warned that it could suffer from "any new
regulation of or any bans on PFOF and similar practices" – a real
possibility given widespread criticism of the system.

HOOD wrote that PFOF has "drawn heightened scrutiny from the U.S.
Congress, the SEC, state regulators and other regulatory and
legislative authorities."

The company also paid a $65M SEC settlement over PFOF in 2019, and
has faced private class-action lawsuits over the practice as well.
[GN]




ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Moves to Deny Customers' Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
legalreader.com reports that online trading platform Robinhood is
facing a possible class action lawsuit involving millions of its
customers as the company prepares for a high-profile IPO.
Executives are now attempting to mitigate this litigation by filing
a preemptive motion to deny class certification.

Plaintiffs' attorneys submitted their amended class action
complaint in May, alleging customers "overpaid for their trades to
be executed." U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of
Oakland, California, who is overseeing the case, has yet to rule on
the status of the securities class action.

Robinhood attorneys from Debevoise & Plimpton, in their latest
move, are attempting to shoot down class certification before
anyone has asked for this. The motive behind the filing seems to be
to avoid the time and expense of this type of litigation.

"It's a perfect storm of unique facts," said shareholder attorney
Joel Fleming of Block & Leviton of the unusual turn of events. "I
don't see this as the start of a new wave."

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held in 2009's Vinole v.
Countrywide that defendants can move preemptively to avert class
certification. Since the Vinole decision, at least two trial judges
in the 9th Circuit have granted preemptive motions to deny class
certification.

The plaintiffs are being represented by Liddle & Dubin, Ahdoot &
Wolfson and Bursor & Fisher. They're not investors claiming that
they lost money trading on the platform, but, rather, customers
who've claimed the company "breached its duty under federal
securities law to execute customers' trades on the best terms
reasonably possible."

The lawsuit alleges Robinhood's business model during the 2016-2020
class period "depended on revenue from principal trading firms that
paid for the right to execute Robinhood customers' trades. In turn,
those firms allegedly executed trades by Robinhood customers on
suboptimal terms that allowed the intermediaries to fund their
payments to Robinhood. Robinhood billed itself as a no-commission
platform, but these inferior execution prices amounted to backdoor
commission fees."

There's no share price at issue, which the company cited in its
move to deny claims and oppose class certification. Robinhood
attorney state, "A breach of the duty of best execution does not
affect the market price of any securities. Instead, each class
member must show that she directly relied on the alleged
misrepresentations. The class can't be certified if every class
member must prove reliance and damages individually." That's why,
according to Robinhood, "no securities class has ever been
certified in a case alleging a breach of the duty of best
execution."

The investment firm was also recently forced to pay a
record-breaking $70 million FINRA penalty, which is telling of its
legal and financial woes as of late. And, earlier this year, a user
filed class-action lawsuit followed the app's decision to restrict
GameStop from trading on its platform.

"Robinhood is not acting in the consumer's best interest,"
according to DoNotPay CEO Joshua Browde. "A lot of users who sign
up aren't the most sophisticated investors. They feel betrayed by a
platform that has the literal name Robinhood."[GN]


ROBINHOOD: Court Enters Briefing Schedule on Order Flow Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE ROBINHOOD ORDER FLOW LITIGATION,
Case No. 4:20-cv-09328-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulated and
agreed, that the briefing schedule for the MTDCC is as follows, and
respectfully request that the Court enter the attached proposed
order:

   1. The Plaintiffs' opposition shall be due August 20, 2021;

   2. The Defendants' reply shall be due September 24, 2021; and

   3. The hearing shall be set on October 19, 2021, at 2:00 p.m.

A copy of the Parties motion dated July 6, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hXHFl1 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          C. Brandon Wisoff, Esq.
          Russell Taylor, Esq.
          FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP
          235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 954-4400
          Facsimile: (415) 954-4480
          E-mail: bwisoff@fbm.com
                  rtaylor@fbm.com

               - and -

          Maeve L. O'Connor, Esq.
          Elliot Greenfield, Esq.
          Brandon Fetzer, Esq.
          DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP
          919 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 909-6000
          E-mail: mloconnor@debevoise.com
                  egreenfield@debevoise.com
                  bfetzer@debevoise.com

ROCK 'N PLAY: Plaintiffs' Reply Brief on Class Cert. Due Oct. 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No.
1:19-md-2903, Case No. 1:19-cv-01107-GWC (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Geoffrey W. Crawford entered a scheduling order as follows:

   A. Briefing Schedule for Motion to Strike; Daubert Hearing

      -- The Plaintiffs shall respond to the motion to strike
         the testimony of expert witness Colin Weir not later
         than September 1, 2021.

      -- This response follows the completion of the depositions
         of Defendant's rebuttal witnesses during the months of
         July and August.

      -- Any reply shall be filed not later than September 15,
         2021. The court will schedule an in-person Daubert
         hearing for a date in late September.

B. Class Certification and Other Related Deadlines

      -- The court adopts the deadlines proposed in the joint
         status report with some modifications as follows:

         1. The Plaintiffs shall complete the depositions of
            Defendants' experts on class certification not later
            than September 1, 2021.

         2. The Plaintiffs to disclose names of additional
            experts relevant to class certification by August
            30, 2021. These experts shall be deposed not later
            than October 21, 2021.

         3. The Plaintiff's reply brief on class certification
            and the disclosure of rebuttal expert reports are
            due by October 1, 2021.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3huvcXa at no extra charge.[CC]

ROCKET COMPANIES: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of August 30 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Rocket Companies, Inc.
("Rocket" or "the Company") (NYSE: RKT) and certain of its
directors on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired Rocket securities between February 25, 2021 and May 5,
2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are
encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/rkt.

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 misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Rocket Companies' gain on sale margins were
contracting at the highest rate in two years as a result of
increased competition among mortgage lenders, an unfavorable shift
toward the lower margin Partner Network operating segment and
compression in the price spread between the primary and secondary
mortgage markets; (2) Rocket Companies was engaged in a price war
and battle for market share with its primary competitors in the
wholesale market, which was further compressing margins in Rocket
Companies' Partner Network operating segment; (3) the adverse
trends identified above were accelerating and, as a result, Rocket
Companies' gain on sale margins were on track to plummet at least
140 basis points in the first six months of 2021; (4) as a result,
the favorable market conditions that had preceded the Class Period
and allowed Rocket Companies to achieve historically high gain on
sale margins had vanished as Rocket Companies' gain on sale margins
had returned to levels not seen since the first quarter of 2019;
(5) rather than remaining elevated due to surging demand, Rocket
Companies' company-wide gain-on-sale margins had fallen materially
below pre-pandemic averages; and (6) consequently, defendants'
positive statements about Rocket Companies' business operations and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

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/rkt 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 Rocket you
have until August 30, 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.

Contacts
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]

ROCKET COMPANIES: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Aug. 30 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds
investors that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed against Rocket Companies, Inc. (NYSE:RKT) ('Rocket') on
behalf of those who purchased or acquired Rocket Class A common
stock between February 25, 2021 and May 5, 2021, inclusive (the
'Class Period').

Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired Rocket Class
A common stockduring the Class Period may, no later than August 30,
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
atinfo@ktmc.com; orclick
https://www.ktmc.com/rocket-companies-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=rocket

Rocket is an online mortgage lender that operates the Rocket
Mortgage online platform, which allows clients to apply for and
service mortgages through the Internet or by using Rocket's
proprietary mobile phone app. Ninety percent of Rocket's revenues
are derived from originating, closing, selling and servicing home
mortgages. Rocket operates two primary segments: (1) the
Direct-to-Consumer segment; and (2) the Partner Network segment. In
its Partner Network, Rocket partners with third parties who utilize
its platform to provide their clients with mortgage solutions. The
Partner Network has lower operating margins because Rocket shares
profits with its partners.

The Class Period commences on February 25, 2021, when Rocket issued
a press release titled, in part, 'Rocket Companies Experiences
Explosive Growth,' which announced Rocket's financial results for
the fourth quarter and full year of 2020. Rocket reported, among
other things, closed loan origination volume of $107.2 billion and
gain on sale margin of 4.41% for the fourth quarter. Rocket
emphasized that it had '[i]ncreased gain on sale margin by 100
basis points year-over-year' during the quarter and '[i]ncreased
gain on sale margin by 127 basis points year-over-year to 4.46%'
for the full-year period. Throughout the Class Period, Rocket
continued to tout its business operations and downplayed the
effects of competition on Rocket's gain on sale margins.

The truth was revealed on May 5, 2021, when Rocket issued a press
release announcing its first quarter results and second quarter
outlook. Rocket reported that it was on track to achieve closed
loan volume within a range of only $82.5 billion and $87.5 billion
and gain on sale margins within a range of only 2.65% to 2.95% for
the second quarter of 2021. At the mid-point, this gain on sale
margin estimate equated to a 239 basis point decline year-over-year
and a 94 basis point decline sequentially, which represented
Rocket's lowest quarterly gain on sale margin in two years.
Following this news, the price of Rocket's Class A common stock
dropped from $22.80 per share when the market closed on May 5, 2021
to $19.01 per share when the market closed on May 6, 2021, a nearly
17% decline.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Rocket's gain on sale margins were contracting
at the highest rate in two years as a result of increased
competition among mortgage lenders, an unfavorable shift toward the
lower margin Partner Network operating segment and compression in
the price spread between the primary and secondary mortgage
markets; (2) Rocket was engaged in a price war and battle for
market share with its primary competitors in the wholesale market,
which was further compressing margins in Rocket's Partner Network
operating segment; (3) the adverse trends were accelerating and, as
a result, Rocket's gain on sale margins were on track to plummet at
least 140 basis points in the first six months of 2021; (4) as a
result of the above, the favorable market conditions that had
preceded the Class Period and allowed Rocket to achieve
historically high gain on sale margins had vanished as Rocket's
gain on sale margins had returned to levels not seen since the
first quarter of 2019; (5) rather than remaining elevated due to
surging demand, Rocket's gain on sale margins had fallen materially
below recent historical averages; and (6) as a result of the
foregoing, the defendants' positive statements about Rocket's
business operations and prospects were materially misleading and/or
lacked a reasonable basis.

Rocket investors may, no later than August 30, 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]

ROCKET COMPANIES: Schall Law Reminds of August 30 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Rocket
Companies, Inc. ('Rocket' or 'the Company') (NYSE:RKT) for
violations of SecSec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between February
25, 2021 and May 5, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before August 30, 2021.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://bit.ly/36tXFWP to participate.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Rocket suffered from the highest contract
rates in two years based on increased competition with other
mortgage lenders amongst other factors. The Company was engaged in
a price war with its rivals which further eroded margins. These
adverse trends were accelerating throughout the first six months of
2021. In fact, the Company's gain-on-sale margins had fallen below
recent averages. 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 Rocket,
investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

ROCKET COMPANIES: Vincent Wong Reminds of August 30 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action
lawsuit has commenced in the on behalf of investors who purchased
Rocket Companies, Inc. ("Rocket Companies") (NYSE: RKT) between
February 25, 2021 and May 5, 2021.

If you suffered a loss, contact us at the link below. There is no
cost or obligation to you.
https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/rocket-companies-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17508&wire=5

Allegations against RKT include that the Company made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(a) Rocket's gain on sale margins were contracting at the highest
rate in two years as a result of increased competition among
mortgage lenders, an unfavorable shift toward the lower margin
Partner Network operating segment and compression in the price
spread between the primary and secondary mortgage markets; (b)
Rocket was engaged in a price war and battle for market share with
its primary competitors in the wholesale market, which was further
compressing margins in Rocket's Partner Network operating segment;
(c) the adverse trends identified above were accelerating and, as a
result, Rocket's gain on sale margins were on track to plummet at
least 140 basis points in the first six months of 2021; (d) as a
result of the above, the favorable market conditions that had
preceded the Class Period and allowed Rocket to achieve
historically high gain on sale margins had vanished as the
Company's gain on sale margins had returned to levels not seen
since the first quarter of 2019; (e) rather than remaining elevated
due to surging demand, Rocket's Company-wide gain-on-sale margins
had fallen materially below recent historical averages; and (f) as
a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business operations and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you suffered a loss in Rocket Companies you have until August
30, 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.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that 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]

RTO INFO CO: Dickens Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RTO Info Co. The case
is styled as Sharrel L. Dickens, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. RTO Info Co., Case No. 1:21-cv-03600
(N.D. Ill., July 7, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

RTO Property -- https://rtoproperty.com/ -- is a property
consulting company in Lake County, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
          Victor Thomas Metroff, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone: (630) 575-8181
          Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
                 vmetroff@sulaimanlaw.com



SAE KYU OH: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sae Kyu Oh, DMD. The
case is styled as Araceli Rodriguez, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SAEKYU OH, DMD, DENTAL CORP., a California
Corporation, Case No. BCV-21-101542 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty.,
July 7, 2021).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."

Dr. Sae Kyu Oh, DMD --
https://www.smilelanddental.com/meet-the-doctors/ -- graduated from
Tufts University, School of Dental Medicine, in Boston,
Massachusetts, in 1996.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seung L. Yang, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
          Phone: 213-232-3128
          Fax: 213-232-3125
          Email: seung.yang@moonyanglaw.com


SCRIPPS HEALTH: Rubin Files Suit in S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Scripps Health. The
case is styled as David J. Rubin, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Scripps Health, a California
corporation, Case No. 3:21-cv-01231-BTM-MSB (S.D. Cal., July 7,
2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.

Scripps Health -- https://www.scripps.org/ -- is a health system in
San Diego where top doctors practice at hospitals, outpatient
clinics, walk-in clinics, telehealth, urgent care and ERs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roy Arie Katriel, Esq.
          THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM
          4225 Executive Square, Suite 600
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Phone: (858) 242-5642
          Fax: (858) 430-3719
          Email: rak@katriellaw.com


SJK FASHION: Fails to Pay All Hours Worked, Sosa Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO MENDOZA SOSA v. SJK FASHION, INC.; MINJUNG SONG; and DOES 1
to 50, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV23396 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., June 23, 2021) alleges that the Defendants failed to
compensate for all hours worked; failed to pay minimum wages,
failed to pay overtime, failed to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, and failed to pay wages when employment ends in
violation of the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff started working for the
Defendants on or around March of 2017. At all times during his
employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff was misclassified as a
1099 independent contractor instead of a non-exempt hourly
employee. The Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants ended on
or around June of 2020.

The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff premium wages of at least one
and one-half times Plaintiff's regular rate of pay for hours worked
past 40 in a week.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ST BASIL'S HOMES: Class Action Over COVID Deaths Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Clay Lucas, writing for Brisbane Times, reports that relatives of
elderly residents who died in Australia's deadliest COVID-19
outbreak, at St Basil's aged care home in Fawkner, say an
invitation to a ceremony marking one year since the deaths is the
first meaningful contact they have had from the home.

On July 5 the chair of St Basil's Homes for the Aged, Father
Evmenios Vasilopoulos, and the home's new facility manager wrote to
families inviting them to a memorial service at the end of July to
mark the anniversary of the 45 deaths.

The letter said the home, operated by the Greek Orthodox
Archdiocese of Australia, extended "our deepest sympathies and
condolences to the families, friends, residents and staff" affected
by the deaths.

In July last year 94 of the 117 mostly Greek and Serbian-born
residents, and 94 of 120 staff members, were infected with COVID19
after an outbreak spread uncontrolled throughout the home.

A subsequent federal investigation was damning. "I've never seen
anything as appalling as this in Australia in terms of healthcare
provided to Australians," the chief medical officer of Epworth
Hospital told the review.

The church and St Basil's refused to take any meaningful part in
that investigation, with the final report saying the then chairman
and the home manager "were invited to participate in the review but
declined based on legal advice".

St Basil's is also facing a Victorian coronial investigation and a
WorkSafe probe over the deaths.

A month after the deaths at St Basil's, The Age revealed the Greek
Orthodox Church had received $14.6 million in rent and fees in the
past five years from St Basil's.

Relatives who spoke to The Age on July 5 said they were
disappointed the offer to attend a one-year memorial service was
the first meaningful contact they'd had from St Basil's since their
parents had died.

Among them was Kathy Bourinaris, whose mother Fotini Atzarakis, 77,
died after contracting coronavirus at St Basil's. Ms Atzarakis
entered the home for only a brief round of respite care in late
June 2020, and a month later she was dead.

Ms Bourinaris was not contacted by St Basil's about her mother's
death - but she did receive a call from the home in November when a
representative mistakenly rang to see if her mother was interested
in coming to St Basil's for a tour, to see if she would like to
live there.

On July 5 Ms Bourinaris called the proposed memorial service "a
damage-control exercise, an afterthought to show [they] care now,
with a class action going on and a coroner's inquest in the
background".

She said she and many other Greek families had received little or
no contact from the home since their relatives died there. "They've
not reached out to any of us in any way - no phone call, no email,
nothing."

The Age asked the church whether the invitation to attend the
memorial was the first communication with relatives of the deceased
since last year's outbreak at St Basil's.

"You'd appreciate that given the ongoing investigations and the
legal action that St Basil's is subject to we are limited in our
responses currently," a spokeswoman said in response.

"We can confirm that the St Basil's community will come together
later this month to pay our respects and reflect on the lives of
the beloved residents who have passed away."

She said those who had died "remain in our prayers, as do their
families".

"We're inspired by the dedication and support from the families we
care for and as always, are incredibly thankful for the strong
sense of community that exists at St Basil's," she said.

Before the pandemic St Basil's was registered to accommodate 150
residents. It now has just 45.

Ms Bourinaris is part of a class action against the home that is in
court next week, run by Carbone Lawyers. The law firm's managing
partner, Tony Carbone, said the invitation to relatives was in bad
taste given what transpired in 2020. "All they have done is
increased everyone's anxiety levels," he said. "They're trying to
do what they should have done at the time."

The Greek Orthodox Church got $14.6 million in rent and fees from
St Basil's in the five years to 2020. The annual rent of $2.5
million paid by St Basil's last year to the church was nearly
double the amount both a council rates valuation and one of the
state's most senior commercial agents said it should pay.

Financial records lodged with the federal charity regulator show
that between 2015 and 2020, the home paid between $2 million and
$3.65 million a year in rent to the church. The charity regulator
describes St Basil's as "a wholly owned sub-entity of the Greek
Orthodox Church in Australia".

St Basil's sits on three hectares overlooking Merri Creek,
purchased by the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia for
$525,000 in 1993. [GN]

ST. AMBROSE UNIVERSITY: Montelongo Suit Removed to S.D. Iowa
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled YESENIA MONTELONGO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ST. AMBROSE UNIVERSITY, Case No.
CVCV301038, was removed from the Iowa District Court for Scott
County to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa
on July 6, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Iowa assigned Case
No. 3:21-cv-00057-RGE-SBJ to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of contract and
unjust enrichment by failing to return any portion of tuition or
fee payments to its students after it transitioned to remote
instruction due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

St. Ambrose University is a private Roman Catholic university in
Davenport, Iowa. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
                            
         Mikkie R. Schiltz, Esq.
         LANE & WATERMAN LLP
         220 North Main Street, Suite 600
         Davenport, IA 52801
         Telephone: (563) 324-3246
         Facsimile: (563) 324-1616
         E-mail: mschiltz@l-wlaw.com

                - and –

         Gregory E. Ostfeld, Esq.
         Tiffany S. Fordyce, Esq.
         Kara E. Angeletti, Esq.
         GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
         77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3100
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Telephone: (312) 456-8400
         E-mail: ostfeldg@gtlaw.com
                 fordycet@gtlaw.com
                 angelettik@gtlaw.com

ST. LOUIS, MO: Cody Seeks Time Extension to File Class Cert. Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES CODY, et al.,
individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals,
v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Case No. 4:17-cv-02707-AGF (E.D. Mo.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order scheduling a telephonic
hearing on July 7, 8, or 9, 2021 and extending their time to file
their Motion for Class Certification until after the Court rules on
its Show Cause Order and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

1. On February 1, 2021, this Court set the deadline for Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification. The Order stated that any motion
for class certification is to be filed by Thursday, July 15, 2021.
The Plaintiffs' operative Compliant states that the named
Plaintiffs seek to represent both injunctive and damages classes
pursuant to FRCP 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3), respectively.

On June 23, 2021, the Defendant City of St. Louis filed a Motion
for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' injunctive and declaratory
claims. The Motion, filed after almost four years of litigation,
claimed that Plaintiffs lacked standing to request injunctive and
declaratory relief.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 6, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2T3YBy4 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Nathaniel Carroll, Esq.
          Blake A. Strode, Esq.
          Jacki J. Langum, Esq.
          John M. Waldron, Esq.
          Matthew Dollan, Esq.
          Nathaniel R. Carroll, Esq.
          Maureen G. V. Hanlon, Esq.
          ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, INC.
          440 N. 4th Street, Suite 390
          Saint Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: 855-724-2489
          Facsimile: 314-925-1307
          E-mail: bstrode@archcitydefenders.org
                  jlangum@archcitydefenders.org
                  jwaldron@archcitydefenders.org
                  mdollan@archcitydefenders.org
                  ncarroll@archcitydefenders.org
                  mhanlon@archcitydefenders.org

               - and -

          Gail Rodgers, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 335-4500
          Facsimile: (212) 335-4501
          E-mail: gail.rodgers@dlapiper.com

               - and -

          Dennis Kiker, Esq.
          2525 East Camelback Road, Ste 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (480) 606-5100
          Facsimile: (480) 606-5101
          E-mail: dennis.kiker@dlapiper.com

               - and -

          Aaron P. Bowling, Esq.
          DLA Piper LLP (US)
          444 West Lake St Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312-368-2173
          Facsimile: 312-251-2173
          E-mail: aaron.bowling@dlapiper.com

               - and -

          Saher Valiani, Esq.
          33 Arch Street, 26th Floor
          Boston, MA 02215
          Telephone: (617) 406-6000
          Facsimile: (617) 406-6100
          E-mail: saher.valiani@dlapiper.com

SUNRISE SENIOR: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Clarke Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARLENE CLARKE, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING MANAGEMENT,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-03762 (E.D.N.Y., July 3, 2021)
brings this complaint against the Defendant seeking to recover
damages and other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law as a result of its alleged unlawful
payroll policy.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt
hourly-paid care manager from in or about September 2009 to on or
about July 7, 2019.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to timely pay her
and other similarly situated former and current manual workers.
Instead of paying them "on a weekly basis and not later than seven
calendar days after the end of the week in which the wages are
earned", the Defendant paid them on a bi-weekly or semi-monthly
basis. The Plaintiff also asserts that she was unlawfully
terminated because she disclosed or threatened to disclose what she
reasonably believed constituted improper quality of patient care.

Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc. operates 17 assisted living
facilities located throughout New York State. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Tel: (631) 257-5588
          E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com

SUNY ALBANY: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Duguid
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIELLE DUGUID, et al.,
v. STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK at ALBANY, and MARK BENSON, Case
No. 1:17-cv-01092-TJM-DJS (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Thomas J.
McAvoy, entered an order granting the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment, denying the Plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment and denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

The Court said, "The Plaintiffs have therefore failed to produce
any evidence a reasonable juror could use to determine that the
Defendants treated a similarly situated person differently from
Graham, and the Court must grant summary judgment on this claim as
well, even without considering whether such treatment was based on
impermissible considerations."

This case originated in claims by former members of the women's
tennis team at the State University of New York at Albany
("SUNY-Albany") that the University violated their rights under
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 ("Title IX") when the
University canceled the women's tennis program in the spring of
2016.

The Plaintiff Gordon Graham, who coached the team, joined the suit,
adding claims that the University discriminated against him because
of his sex and violated his right to equal protection when the
University fired him because of his age. All of the former tennis
players have either graduated or left the University, and they have
now been replaced by other plaintiffs, who contend that the
University violated Title IX by failing to provide women with
opportunities to participate in intercollegiate athletics in
numbers proportionate to their representation in the student body.
They seek injunctive relief to address this situation. Gordon
Graham's employment discrimination claims remain in the case.

The State University of New York at Albany, commonly referred to as
University at Albany, SUNY Albany or UAlbany, is a public research
university with campuses in the New York cities of Albany and
Rensselaer and the town of Guilderland.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wGkO37 at no extra charge.[CC]

TANDEM CORP: Goes Into Administration While Facing Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
lawyersweekly.com.au reports that a major Telstra and Foxtel
contractor has gone into voluntary administration, while facing a
$400 million class action from Shine Lawyers.

The class action against Tandem Corporation, formerly known as
Infrastructure Services Group Management (ISGM), filed in November,
2018, was the largest employment-related class action in the
country. The case was due to go to trial in October this year.

Shine Lawyers launched the class action and represent thousands of
telecommunications technicians who missed out on pay and
entitlements after being wrongly categorised as subcontractors at
BSA Ltd. Shine Lawyers maintains the company should have treated
the technicians as employees.

Over 4,000 technicians were allegedly underpaid by Tandem and the
class action aimed to hold the company to account for its system of
work that caused personal and financial hardship to many of these
technicians.

Shine Lawyers alleges the subcontractors were employed under "sham
contracts" and should be covered by the Fair Work Act (2009) and
Telecommunications Services Award.

Shine Lawyers class action practice leader Vicky Antzoulatos stated
that "the technicians that Shine represents are shocked, angry and
disappointed that they will now miss out on having the Court
determine whether they are actually employees and entitled to
receive employment entitlements".

"Shine Lawyers has spoken to many technicians throughout the course
of these proceedings. Many have reported bullying and intimidation
by this company, extreme control, take it or leave it job
conditions, and not actually receiving enough jobs to make ends
meet. This has resulted in bankruptcies, marriage breakdowns and
suicides," she said.

While the class action will be stayed as a result of Tandem's
financial position, the tech contractor, who reported revenue of
$640 million a year in 2018, will partially survive. Tandem
Networks, a separate entity established in 2019, has recently
signed a new $30 million contract with Telstra, effective from 1
July 2021.

Tandem is also backed by investment firm, IFM investors, which is
run by 27 industry superannuation funds and has over $150 billion
funds under management as of March this year.

Shine Lawyers is currently investigating alternative avenues of
compensation for those affected, assisting employees to make
relevant claims for recovery and will oppose any deed of company
arrangement that does not include provision to pay all employees
their full and proper entitlements.

The firm will also be pressing external administrators to fully
investigate whether value has been shifted onto other companies to
avoid the class action, any breaches of the Corporations Act in any
past or current directors of Tandem and the liability of the
ultimate controllers of Tandem.

"The company fought these proceedings with two law firms, five
barristers and an accounting firm backed by a global investment
firm. It beggars belief that so close to trial, they put the
company into voluntary administration and then are allowed to carry
on business under a different company name," Ms Antzoulatos added.

"The actions are an affront not only to workers in the
telecommunications industry, but workers right across Australia who
are trying to simply make ends meet for their families.

"Sham contracting is a scourge on the industrial history of this
nation and needs to be stamped out." [GN]


TEACHERS INSURANCE: Faces Haley ERISA Suit Over Retirement Accounts
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA HALEY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. TEACHERS INSURANCE and ANNUITY ASSOCIATION, Case No.
1:17-cv-00855-JPO (S.D.N.Y., June 23, 2021) seeks to recover money
that Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association unlawfully took
from her retirement account in the Washington University Retirement
Savings Plan.

The Plaintiff borrowed money from her retirement account on four
separate occasions. She has completely repaid two of the loans,
plus interest, and is currently repaying the other two loans. The
interest Plaintiff paid in connection with those loans should have
been credited to Plaintiff's account.

The Defendant, however, did not credit the full amount of paid
interest to Plaintiff's account. Instead, the Defendant credited a
smaller amount of interest to her account and kept the remainder
for itself. By keeping money for itself that should have been
credited to Plaintiff's account, the Defendant violated and
continues to violate the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 (ERISA), the suit says.

According to the complaint, the conduct at issue is systematic. The
Defendant is retaining interest paid by similarly situated
investors across the country. The amount of Defendant's ill-gotten
gains exceeds $50 million per year.

This Amended Class Action Complaint is being filed pursuant this
Court's leave to amend granted in its Order of March 26, 2018. The
Plan loans to participants are specifically prohibited by ERISA
section 406(a)(1)(B), unless the loans meet strict conditions
specified by applicable federal regulations.

The Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America-College
Retirement Equities Fund, is a Fortune 100 financial services
organization that is the leading provider of financial services in
the academic, research, medical, cultural and governmental
fields.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John J. Nestico, Esq.
          Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq.
          Michael McKay, Esq.
          Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
          KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          8501 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 270
          Scottsdale, AZ 85253
          Telephone: (480) 428-0145
          Facsimile: (866) 505-8036
          E-mail: gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com
                  mmckay@schneiderwallace.com
                  jnestico@schneiderwallace.com
                  tschneider@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Todd S. Collins, Esq.
          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Ellen T. Noteware, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          E-mail: tcollins@bm.net
                  scarson@bm.net
                  enoteware@bm.net

TESLA INC: Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set for Oct. 8
-------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

IN RE TESLA, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION

Case No. 3:18-cv-04865-EMC

Class Action
NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION

IF YOU PURCHASED AND/OR SOLD TESLA, INC. STOCK, OPTIONS, AND/OR
OTHER SECURITIES FROM 12:48 P.M. EDT ON AUGUST 7, 2018 TO AUGUST
17, 2018, A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT MAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS.

YOU MAY BE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO BE A PART
OF THE CLASS, YOU MUST RESPOND TO THIS NOTICE WITH A WRITTEN
REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION (SEE BELOW). IF YOU ARE A BROKER OR
CUSTODIAN, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY REVIEW THIS NOTICE FOR INSTRUCTIONS
ON PROVIDING TIMELY NOTIFICATION TO BENEFICIAL OWNERS.

A federal court authorized this Notice. This is not a solicitation
from a lawyer.

Please read this Notice carefully and in its entirety.

The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of a class action
lawsuit now pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (the "Court") against Tesla, Inc.
("Tesla") and Elon Musk, Brad W. Buss, Robyn Denholm, Ira
Ehrenpreis, Antonio J. Gracias, James Murdoch, Kimbal Musk, and
Linda Johnson Rice (collectively, "Defendants"). This Notice is
intended only to advise you that the action has been certified by
the Court to proceed as a class action on behalf of certain
purchasers and/or sellers of Tesla securities and your rights with
respect to the lawsuit. If you do not wish to be a part of the
class, you must respond to this notice with a written request for
exclusion by October 8, 2021 (see below).

THE COURT HAS NOT DECIDED WHETHER DEFENDANTS DID ANYTHING WRONG,
AND THIS NOTICE IS NOT AN ADMISSION BY DEFENDANTS OR AN EXPRESSION
OF ANY OPINION OF THE COURT THAT THE CLAIMS ASSERTED BY CLASS
REPRESENTATIVE GLEN LITTLETON (THE "CLASS REPRESENTATIVE") IN THIS
CASE ARE VALID. THERE IS NO SETTLEMENT OR MONETARY RECOVERY AT THIS
TIME, AND THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THERE WILL BE ANY RECOVERY.
HOWEVER, YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED.

Questions? Call 1-833-636-2111 toll free, or visit
www.TeslaSecuritiesLitigation2018.com

What are my options?
Do nothing Stay in this lawsuit. Await the outcome. Give up certain
rights. By doing nothing, you keep the possibility of sharing in
any recovery (monetary or otherwise) that may result from a
resolution in favor of the Class, such as a trial or a settlement.
In exchange, you give up any right you may have to sue Defendants
separately about the same factual circumstances and legal claims
being raised in this lawsuit, and you will be bound by the outcome
of this case if tried before a jury or decided by the Court. If the
parties agree to a settlement, then you will have another
opportunity to opt out or exclude yourself from the case at that
time.

Ask to be excluded by October 8, 2021

Get out of this lawsuit. Get no benefits from it. Keep your rights.
If you ask to be excluded from this lawsuit, you will not be bound
by what happens in this case and will keep any right you might have
to sue Defendants separately about the same factual circumstances
and legal claims being raised in this lawsuit. If a recovery is
later awarded in this case, you would not share in that recovery.

BASIC INFORMATION

1. Why did I get this Notice?
The Court has certified a Class in this lawsuit and you were
identified as a potential Class Member whose rights may be
affected. A class action is a type of lawsuit in which one or
several individuals or entities prosecute claims on behalf of all
members of a group of similarly situated persons and entities
(i.e., the class) to obtain monetary or other relief for the entire
group. The Court decided that this lawsuit can proceed as a class
action because it meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23, which governs class actions in federal district
courts. Specifically, the Court found that a significant number of
investors purchased or sold Tesla securities during the Class
Period (defined below) and that the claims alleged in the lawsuit
are common enough to apply to all of those investors. Judge Edward
M. Chen of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California is overseeing this class action. The lawsuit
is titled In Re Tesla, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
3:18-cv-04865-EMC (the "Action"). More information about why the
Court is allowing this lawsuit to proceed is in the Court's Order
Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, which is available at
www.TeslaSecuritiesLitigation2018.com.
However, that Order is not a decision by the Court that Defendants
have done anything wrong, or an expression of any opinion about who
will win the case.

2. Who is included in the Class?
The Class, certified by the Court, consists of:
All individuals and entities who purchased or sold Tesla stock,
options, and other securities from 12:48 p.m. EDT on August 7, 2018
to August 17, 2018 and were damaged thereby. Excluded from the
Class are: Defendants; the officers and directors of Tesla at all
relevant times; members of their immediate families and their legal
representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns; and any entity in
which Defendants have or had a controlling interest.

Questions? Call 1-833-636-2111 toll free, or visit
www.TeslaSecuritiesLitigation2018.com

The Class definition is subject to change by Court order, pursuant
to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defendants have reserved their rights in this Action, which could
include moving to de-certify the Class, in whole or in part, or
seeking the exclusion from the Class of certain entities or
individuals at a later date.

3. What if I'm still not sure if I am included in the Class?
If you are still not sure whether you are included in the Class,
you can get additional information at
www.TeslaSecuritiesLitigation2018.com or by contacting the lawyers
who were appointed Class Counsel in this Action at the address or
phone number below.

OVERVIEW AND STATUS OF THE ACTION

4. What is this case about and what has happened so far?
The Class Representative alleges that Defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, which
prohibit individuals and entities from making false and/or
materially misleading statements in connection with the sale or
purchase of a security. On August 7, 2018 at 12:48 p.m. EDT, Elon
Musk tweeted the following message: "Am considering taking Tesla
private at $420. Funding secured." Tesla's stock price rose
following this tweet. In the hours and days that followed, Elon
Musk made several additional statements concerning Tesla possibly
becoming a private company, including the statement that "Investor
support is confirmed. Only reason why this is not certain is that
it's contingent on a shareholder vote." The Class Representative
alleges that these statements were false and/or materially
misleading because, among other reasons, funding allegedly had not
been secured to take Tesla private, investor support allegedly was
not confirmed, and allegedly no imminent plans were in place to do
so. Elon Musk, Tesla, and the other Defendants deny that they did
anything wrong and believe that the claims have no merit. Among
other things, Defendants contend that the challenged statements
were entirely true; that Defendants did not make any materially
false or misleading statements; that they did not act with
scienter; that the Class Representative and the Class cannot show
damages; and that there is no control person liability.

Beginning on August 10, 2018, several plaintiffs filed initial
complaints against Mr. Musk and Tesla. On November 27, 2018, the
Court consolidated these actions and on January 16, 2019, the Class
Representative filed an amended complaint against Mr. Musk, Tesla,
and members of Tesla's Board of Directors (Brad W. Buss, Robyn
Denholm, Ira Ehrenpreis, Antonio J. Gracias, James Murdoch, Kimbal
Musk, and Linda Johnson Rice), which sets forth the operative
allegations in this lawsuit. On November 22, 2019, Defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which the Court denied
on April 15, 2020. On November 25, 2020, the Court entered an Order
certifying the class as set forth above and appointing Glen
Littleton as Class Representative.
Discovery is ongoing. A jury trial is scheduled to begin on May 31,
2022. That date is subject to change in the future without further
notice to the Class. You can get updated information at
www.TeslaSecuritiesLitigation2018.com or by contacting Class
Counsel.

Copies of the Court's Orders referenced herein are available at
www.TeslaSecuritiesLitigation2018.com.

Questions? Call 1-833-636-2111 toll free, or visit
www.TeslaSecuritiesLitigation2018.com

5. Has the Court decided who is right?
The Court has not decided who is right and there has been no
monetary recovery. By certifying the Class and authorizing this
Notice, the Court is not suggesting that the Class Representative
will win or lose this case. The Class Representative will attempt
to prove his claims in proceedings that will occur in the future.

If a settlement of the lawsuit is reached, it will be subject to
approval by the Court. Class Members will be sent additional notice
of any proposed settlement and members of the Class who have not
excluded themselves will have an additional opportunity to exclude
themselves at that time, object to the proposed settlement, or
submit a Proof of Claim form to demonstrate their entitlement to
any payment. Similarly, the Court may also direct further notice to
the Class following any judgment that may be entered after a trial
of this case or decision by the Court, or for any other reason that
the Court may determine.

6. Is there any money available now?
No money or any other benefits are available now because the Court
has not yet decided whether Defendants did anything wrong, and the
parties have not settled the case. There is no guarantee that money
or any other benefit will ever be obtained. If there is a recovery,
you will be notified about how to ask for your share.

YOUR RIGHTS AND OPTIONS

7. What happens if I am a Class Member and I do nothing?
If you are a Class Member and you do nothing, you will stay in the
Class. This means you will be legally bound by all of the Court's
orders and judgments in this Action, whether favorable or
unfavorable, unless the Court issues an order de-certifying the
Class or excluding you from the Class at a later date. If you stay
in the Class and money is paid to the Class, either through a
settlement with Defendants or a judgment of the Court, you may be
eligible to receive a share of that recovery. If you choose to
remain a member of the Class, you do not have to do anything at
this time (other than retain your records of your purchases and
sales of Tesla securities and any other documents relating to
Tesla). If there is a recovery in the future, members of the Class
will be required to support their requests for payment by
demonstrating their membership in the Class and documenting their
purchases and sales of Tesla securities and their resulting
damages. Neither the Class Representative, Tesla, nor the Notice
Administrator (defined below) necessarily have information about
your transactions in Tesla securities.

Your broker may not keep your records for as long as may be
necessary. For these reasons, please be sure to keep all records of
your transactions in Tesla securities and any other documents
relating to Tesla. If at a later date the parties decide to settle,
then you will have another opportunity to exclude yourself from the
case. Absent settlement, however, you will not be able to exclude
yourself from the Class or subsequent orders and judgments if you
do not request exclusion at this time.

8. If I am a Class Member, why would I ask to be excluded?
If you want to pursue your own lawsuit or claims against Defendants
about the conduct in this case, do not want to be bound by what the
Court does in this case, or if you simply do not want to be part of
the Class pursuing claims against Defendants, you must ask to be
excluded. If you exclude yourself from the Class—which means to
remove yourself from the Class and is sometimes called "opting-out"
of the Class—you will not be legally bound by any past, present,
or future Court orders or judgments in this Action, and will keep
any right you may have to individually sue Defendants in the
future. However, if you exclude yourself, you also will not get any
money or any other benefits from this lawsuit, if there are any.

Questions? Call 1-833-636-2111 toll free, or visit
www.TeslaSecuritiesLitigation2018.com

If you start your own lawsuit against Defendants after you exclude
yourself, you will have to hire and pay your own lawyer for that
lawsuit, and you will have to prove your claims. Please note that
if you decide to exclude yourself from the Class, you should
consult with an attorney prior to doing so and discuss whether your
individual claim would be time-barred by the applicable statutes of
limitations or repose or face any other impediments to recovery.

9. If I am a Class Member, how do I ask the Court to exclude me
from the Class?

If you wish to be excluded from the Class ("opt-out"), you must
submit a letter stating that you "request exclusion from the Class
in In Re Tesla, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
3:18-cv-04865-EMC (N.D. Cal.)." Your request for exclusion must:
(i) state the name, address, and telephone number of the person or
entity requesting exclusion; (ii) state the type and amount of
Tesla securities that the person or entity requesting exclusion
purchased and/or sold during the Class Period, as well as the dates
and prices of each such purchase and/or sale; and (iii) be signed
by the person or entity requesting exclusion or an authorized
representative. You must mail your exclusion request so that it is
postmarked no later than October 8, 2021 to:

         In re Tesla, Inc. Securities Litigation
         c/o JND Legal Administration
         EXCLUSIONS
         PO Box 91410
         Seattle, WA 98111

You cannot exclude yourself from the Class by telephone or by
email, and a request for exclusion will not be effective unless it
contains all the information called for by this section and is
postmarked by the date stated above, unless the Court makes an
exception. Only request exclusion if you do not wish to participate
in the Action and do not wish to share in any potential recovery
that the Class may obtain.

THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING THE CLASS

10. Do I have a lawyer in this case?
As a member of the Class, you will be represented by Class
Counsel who are:

        LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
        Adam M. Apton, Esq.
        388 Market Street, Suite 1300
        San Francisco, CA 94111
        (415) 373-1671

        LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
        Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq.
        1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115
        Washington, DC 20007
        (202) 524-4290

Unless you hire your own personal lawyer, as a Class Member you
will not have any direct obligations to pay the costs of this
lawsuit. In the event there is a recovery by the Class, all costs
and expenses, including Class Counsel's attorneys' fees, will be
paid from that recovery in an amount that is approved by the Court.
If there is no recovery, Class Counsel will not receive any
attorneys' fees or expenses.

11. If I am a Class Member, can I get my own lawyer?
You do not need to hire your own lawyer, because Class Counsel are
already working on your behalf.

However, you have the right to retain your own personal lawyer at
your own expense. If you retain separate counsel to represent you
in this case, your counsel must enter an appearance on your behalf
by filing a Notice of Appearance with the Court no later than
August 19, 2021.

Questions? Call 1-833-636-2111 toll free, or visit
www.TeslaSecuritiesLitigation2018.com

GETTING MORE INFORMATION

12. Where can I get more information?
If you want more detailed information, you may contact Class
Counsel or visit www.TeslaSecuritiesLitigation2018.com, where you
will find case-related documents and detailed information regarding
the Action. You may also call JND Legal Administration (the "Notice
Administrator") at (833) 636-2111. Please do not call or write the
Court or the Defendants.

13. What if my address has changed?
If you received a postcard with information about the Action
("Postcard Notice") at an old address, or if you move, please
advise the Notice Administrator of your current address so that you
can receive any future notices and/or Proof of Claim forms. If you
are not a member of the Class, you may discard the Postcard Notice.
Any change to your address should be mailed to:

         In re Tesla, Inc. Securities Litigation
         c/o JND Legal Administration
         PO Box 91410
         Seattle, WA 98111

NOTICE TO BROKERS AND CUSTODIANS
If, for the beneficial interest of any person or entity other than
yourself, you purchased and/or sold Tesla stock, options, or other
securities from 12:48 p.m. EDT on August 7, 2018 to August 17,
2018, you must, within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of the
Postcard Notice, either: (i) request from the Notice Administrator
sufficient copies of the Postcard Notice to forward to all such
beneficial owners and mail those Postcard Notices yourself within
ten (10) calendar days after receiving them, and also provide the
Administrator with email addresses for all such beneficial owners;
or (ii) within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of the Postcard
Notice, send the Postcard Notice to beneficial owners via
electronic communication; or (iii) within ten (10) calendar days of
receipt of the Postcard Notice, provide a list of the names,
addresses, and email addresses of all such beneficial owners to the
Notice Administrator at TESSecurities@JNDLA.com. If you choose the
first or second option, you must send a statement to the Notice
Administrator confirming that the mailings and/or electronic
communications were made and you must retain your mailing and/or
electronic communication records for use in connection with any
further notice that may be provided in the Action. If you choose
the third option, the Notice Administrator will send a copy of the
Postcard Notice to the beneficial owners. If email addresses are
not available, you must notify the Notice Administrator of that
fact. Upon full and timely compliance with these directions, you
may seek reimbursement of your reasonable expenses actually
incurred (but not to exceed $0.50 per mailing, including postage)
by providing the Notice Administrator with proper documentation
supporting the expenses for which reimbursement is sought.

Dated: May 24, 2021

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


TS EXPRESS: Faces Hardin Employment Suit in California State Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TS Express, Inc. The
case is captioned as Alyxaundria Hardin v. TS Express, Inc., Case
No. 34-2021-00303118-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., June
23, 2021).

The suit arises from employment-related issue.

The Defendants include Does 1-100 and Dusko Susa.

TS Express was founded in 2000. The company's line of business
includes the arranging of transportation of freight and cargo.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented:

          Daniel Z. Srourian, Esq.
          SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
          3435 Wilshire Blvd Ste 1710
          Los Angeles, CA 90010-2003
          Telephone: (213) 474-3800
          Facsimile: (213) 471-4160
          E-mail: daniel@slfla.com

UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Regarding Indian Residential Schools
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lethbridge Herald at medicinehatnews.com reports that the Guardian
Law Group is seeking to launch a class action lawsuit against the
federal government on behalf of Indigenous families who lost loved
ones at residential schools.

"There has already been a class action regarding Indian Residential
Schools," explains Guardian Law attorney Mathew Farrell. "That
claim was about survivors. This claim is about those that died. The
claim is for the families of these children. They were not told of
those deaths, there was no transparency about how they died, and if
they tried to inquire then they were cowed, brow-beaten into
silence by an institution they had feared since they themselves
were children."

Despite these revelations of children buried at residential schools
in unmarked graves coming out during the Truth and Reconciliation
Commission proceedings between 2008 and 2015, Farrell says recent
discoveries of hundreds of graves at several former residential
schools has added impetus to launching the class action at this
time.

"Until these bodies were found nobody really took these allegations
seriously, and nobody was listening to people," he says. "In a lot
of instances individuals didn't even know definitively those family
members had likely died. Often they were told 'they ran away.' Or
'we don't know where they are.' This (recent revelation) has kind
of pulled the bandage off the wound.

"It is a shame action with respect to this wasn't taken sooner,"
Farrell states, "but I think in a lot of ways this is something
that has just come out at this point."

Farrell was also asked why the federal government was the correct
target of the lawsuit given many of the residential schools in
question were run by religious orders who have, in many cases,
failed to disclose the records as to how and when these children
died to their families?

Farrell agrees there is more than enough blame to go around, but
cites the previous class action which the federal government
settled with residential school survivors which obligated it to
disclose these records.

"The government has had years to provide records of who went to
these schools, and what happened to them," Farrell says. "And they
were obliged to do that under the previous settlement. That hasn't
happened, and it is becoming clear that we will never know how many
of these children died wrongfully. It is true, in many cases, it
was a member of a church who did the wrongful act, and there was
abuse, and many of those abuses happened at the hands of members of
the clergy– we know those abuses occurred.

"So this claim is about justice for the families of the children
that died from that abuse," he acknowlegdes, "but it is also about
the cover-up. The government was the one who was supposed to be
collecting these records and making sure that these people were
informed. And the government has tried to bury the evidence of a
cultural genocide beneath the bodies of children."

Those wishing more information about this class action lawsuit can
call Guardian Law Group at 403-457-7778 or visit the firm's website
at http://www.guardian.law.[GN]

USAA LIFE: Life Insurance Policy Class Suit Costs $90M Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Waylon Cunningham at sanantonioreport.org reports that anyone who
owns or has owned a particular kind of life insurance policy from
USAA in recent years could receive $50 - or much more.

USAA Life Insurance Co. has agreed to pay $90 million as part of a
settlement for a class-action lawsuit alleging that holders of
certain policies were systematically overcharged.

The policies in question -- so-called "universal life insurance"
policies -- combine a savings account with a life insurance policy.
These offerings are common in the industry, but critics say they
are overly complicated and ripe for abuse. Unlike standard
policies, monthly premium rates are not fixed and subject to change
with market conditions.

Because the case settled, there was no trial and no judgement on
the merits of the case rendered by a court.

The lawsuit, filed in 2017, alleged that USAA overcharged these
policy owners with inflated rate factors outside of what their own
policies allowed, which are limited to age, sex and "rate class."
The lawsuit also alleged that USAA concealed these additional
factors.

One attorney for the plaintiffs said in a declaration that their
expert calculated USAA to have overcharged its customers between
$360 million to $460 million. The company disputed the allegations
in a brief statement and said it acted appropriately at all times.

"We have reached a mutually beneficial settlement that allows us to
avoid lengthy litigation and continue our focus on serving
members," it said in a statement.

The settlement extends to the holders of roughly 122,000 universal
life insurance policies in effect since March 1, 1999.

Class members will be sent a check in varying amounts, and do not
need to file a claim. They will automatically be sent a check
within 30 days after a final settlement date.

The settlement is still subject to approval in a federal appeals
case. A hearing for the federal appeals case is set for August 26
at the United States District Court located in San Antonio.

Attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the class action suit will
collect 30% of the settlement, in addition to expenses that could
total as much as $300,000. An administrator in the case will
receive up to $200,000. The lead plaintiff, a 73-year-old man in
Florida, will receive an additional award of up to $20,000.

Further details on the settlement are available at
usaacoisettlement.com.

Universal life insurance policies have come under fire in recent
years.

Ronald Sweet, a professor of finance at the University of Texas at
San Antonio and a former USAA employee himself, said insurance
companies began to offer complicated products in the 1980s as a way
to compete with banks and mutual funds, which had come to take an
increasing share of consumer investments. Universal life insurance
was one of the first products that emerged out of that time, though
Sweet said it is not nearly as complex as other products offered in
the industry today.

Many insurance companies often downplay the complexity of these
policies during the sales process, he said.

"It's just a recipe for unethical behavior," Sweet said. He
qualified that when he worked for USAA, "they were one of the more
ethical firms in the industry."

USAA Life, unlike many insurance companies, does not pay its
salaried employees a commission for selling plans, though it does
provide an annual bonus based on performance metrics.

USAA Life is one of many subsidiary companies under USAA, the San
Antonio-based insurance and financial services giant.

Kevin McCarty, the former insurance commissioner of Florida who led
a national task force investigating the life insurance industry,
said policies that combine investments with insurance are
vulnerable to abuse. These complicated plans mean "it's more
difficult for the policy holder to understand what they're paying
for."

"Frankly, it shouldn't be widely used in the marketplace,
particularly given the breadth of other financial instruments that
are out there today to invest in," he said.

The task force he led investigated insurance companies for failing
to pay beneficiaries of life insurance policies when those
beneficiaries didn't file a claim. Often, he said, the beneficiary
simply did not know the policy existed.

In that instance, USAA shone as a positive example. The insurance
giant was one of two companies the task force found that
proactively notified beneficiaries. [GN]

VIBRANTCARE REHABILITATION: Beckwith Suit Goes to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CAROL BECKWITH-COHEN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. VIBRANTCARE REHABILITATION, INC.;
PATSY NEUMANN; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. JCCP No.
5025, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Sacramento, to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California on July 6, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-01180-TLN-JDP to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay for all hours worked, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest periods, failure to pay for all wages when due, failure to
provide accurate and itemized wage statements, failure to pay
waiting time penalties, breach of contract, and unfair business
practices.

VibrantCare Rehabilitation, Inc. is a rehabilitation services
provider based in California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
                            
         Justin T. Curley, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Telephone: (415) 397-2823
         Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
         E-mail: jcurley@seyfarth.com

               - and –

         Geoffrey C. Westbrook, Esq.
         Michelle L. DuCharme, Esq.
         Phillip J. Ebsworth, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350
         Sacramento, CA 95814
         Telephone: (916) 448-0159
         Facsimile: (926) 558-4839
         E-mail: gwestbrook@seyfarth.com
                 mducharme@seyfarth.com
                 pebsworth@seyfarth.com

VIBRANTCARE REHABILITATION: Williams Suit Goes to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled COLLEEN WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. VIBRANTCARE REHABILITATION, INC.; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. JCCP No. 5025, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Sacramento, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California on July 6, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-01179-JAM-JDP to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid
rest period premiums, unpaid minimum wages, final wages not timely
paid, non-compliant wage statements, unreimbursed business
expenses, and unfair business practices.

VibrantCare Rehabilitation, Inc. is a rehabilitation services
provider based in California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
                            
         Justin T. Curley, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Telephone: (415) 397-2823
         Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
         E-mail: jcurley@seyfarth.com

               - and –

         Geoffrey C. Westbrook, Esq.
         Michelle L. DuCharme, Esq.
         Phillip J. Ebsworth, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350
         Sacramento, CA 95814
         Telephone: (916) 448-0159
         Facsimile: (926) 558-4839
         E-mail: gwestbrook@seyfarth.com
                 mducharme@seyfarth.com
                 pebsworth@seyfarth.com

VIRGIN GALACTIC: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of July 27 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on July 4 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. ("Virgin
Galactic" or the "Company") (NYSE:SPCE) and certain of its
officers. The class action, filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, and docketed under
21-cv-03070, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired
Virgin Galactic securities between October 26, 2019 and April 30,
2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Virgin Galactic securities
during the Class Period, you have until July 27, 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.

Virgin Galactic is an integrated aerospace company that develops
human spaceflight for private individuals and researchers in the
U.S.

On October 25, 2019, post-market, Virgin Galactic was formed via a
business combination between Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings
Corp. ("SCH"), a special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC"), and
the Company's then-private predecessor, after which SCH changed its
name to "Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc." and its ticker symbol to
"SPCE" (the "Business Combination").

On April 12, 2021, the SEC issued guidance advising that SPAC
warrants, which are instruments that allow investors to buy
additional shares at a fixed price, may need to be classified as
liabilities rather than equity for many SPAC transactions, which
had previously been accounted for as equity in these deals.

The complaint 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) for accounting purposes, SCH's
warrants were required to be treated as liabilities rather than
equities; (ii) Virgin Galactic had deficient disclosure controls
and procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (iii)
as a result, the Company improperly accounted for SCH warrants that
were outstanding at the time of the Business Combination; and (iv)
as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On April 30, 3021, post-market, Virgin Galactic announced "that it
has rescheduled the reporting of its financial results for the
first quarter 2021 to following the close of the U.S. markets on
Monday, May 10, 2021. Virgin Galactic will now host a conference
call to discuss the results and provide a business update that day
at 2:00 p.m., Pacific Time (5:00 p.m., Eastern Time). The Company
is rescheduling its reporting due to the recent statement issued by
the [SEC] on April 12, 2021 relating to the accounting treatment of
warrants issued by special purpose acquisition companies (the
‘SEC Statement')." The press release further advised that
"following its review of the SEC Statement and consulting with its
advisors, the Company will restate its consolidated financial
statements included in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020. The restatement is due solely
to the accounting treatment for the warrants of Social Capital
Hedosophia Holdings Corp. that were outstanding at the time of the
Company's business combination on October 25, 2019. The Company
expects to file the restated financials prior to the new conference
call date and estimates that it will recognize incremental
non-operating, non-cash expense for each of the fiscal years ended
December 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019."

On this news, Virgin Galactic's stock price fell $2.01 per share,
or 9.07%, to close at $20.14 per share on May 3, 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 [GN]

VIRGINIA: Judge Wants Unemployment Insurance Claims Issue Resolved
------------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Moore, writing for The Virginian-Pilot, reports that when
she was undergoing radiation treatment for cancer, Virginia Beach
resident Leah Marshall was calling the Virginia Employment
Commission.

She filed for unemployment benefits two days after becoming
unemployed in August 2020. Six months later, she still had no
decision.

Marshall ran out of savings and began filing for bankruptcy.

One month later, she got an award letter and began receiving weekly
payments. Marshall, 47, said she used the money to get through that
period and pay for health insurance.

About two months later, the benefits were cut off without notice.

She's not the only one struggling through a system so dysfunctional
it now faces legal action.

The VEC faces a court order mandating it to process backlogged
unemployment insurance claims by Labor Day and Gov. Ralph Northam's
executive order to fix staffing and technology issues by Oct. 1.

Until then, thousands of Virginians still wait for desperately
needed aid.

Customer service unreachable
Nancy Niles, a part-time temporary contract worker since 2003 for
an educational testing company, applied for unemployment benefits
many times.

The 66-year-old Virginia Beach resident said she has always had
trouble with the Virginia Employment Commission.

"In normal years, they're hard to get a hold of," she said. "Truly,
you can wait online a long time trying to get a hold of somebody to
talk. But this year, it was impossible."

She had lost her PIN, or personal identification number, to log
into her account, which locked her out and prevented her from
creating a new account. Niles said that after 15 calls and four
emails to customer service without reaching a live person, she
stopped trying. Her husband's income is enough to support them this
year, though she would have used the money to pay the bills for
which she's responsible.

When there are no available representatives, the VEC customer
service phone line hangs up on callers.

"If you try to call, it just hangs up on you. I've tried calling
all different hours of the day and various days of the week, same
thing," Marshall said.

Frank Hirtz of Virginia Beach said that when he calls the VEC
Customer Contact Center to find out the status of his unemployment
insurance, the service tells him he has an "outstanding issue" but
nothing more.

"I have no idea what an ‘outstanding issue' is for me, and I have
no way of contacting anybody to find out what it is," he said.

As of June 16, the agency has offered 20-minute phone appointments
to discuss issues with individual cases.

"Appointments are very limited and are not guaranteed to lead to
any resolution or payment of claims," the website says.

On June 24, the website had no available appointments for the next
several years. On June 30, the scheduling tool no longer allowed a
person to click through a calendar view for several months and
years into the future. Instead, it said appointments can be booked
only two weeks in advance. If the calendar is booked, the website
said it will not show available appointment times but new slots are
released every 20 minutes.

Benefits cut off
Several people say their benefits were cut off without receiving
notice as to why.

Pat Levy-Lavelle, an attorney at the Legal Aid Justice Center,
knows many people are having difficulties getting in touch with the
agency. As for cutting off benefits, he said the VEC acknowledged
it was a problem that needed to be solved quickly.

He said issues on claims, such as a dispute about how a job ended
or an alleged decline of a job offer, would cause the VEC to
suddenly cut off benefits -- but that switches the presumption of
the law, he said.

"Federal law is pretty clear that if somebody has already started
getting benefits and an issue like that comes up, in almost all
cases the benefits are supposed to continue until that case is
adjudicated," he said. "And what has been happening instead was
that when an issue came up, benefits would be stopped until an
issue was adjudicated."

He said the VEC started programming in December to resolve that
problem and prevent more people from facing that situation. But
many are still reporting their benefits were cut off.

Levy-Lavelle said that if benefits are cut off after being
determined that the person doesn't qualify, it would be proper to
do so.

In Marshall's case, the cease of payment coincided with the
beginning of her approved community college classes.

The commission selected Marshall to complete the Reemployment
Services and Eligibility Assessment Program with the purpose of
helping her create a reemployment plan, according to the letter she
received. She completed the program and began the community college
training course that VEC personnel had approved.

She never got notice that her benefits would be halted, but she
stopped getting checks. Marshall sent emails to agency personnel
who had approved her reemployment plan and to the program
representative at the community college, but they referred her to
VEC customer service.

The Virginian-Pilot reached out to VEC personnel for clarification
and comment on June 23. Marshall received a letter with the same
date saying the agency would reinstate her payments, which are now
up to date.

The response to The Pilot was that the agency cannot discuss
claimants' information or the details of their claim with a third
party.

"The claimant can always reach out to us for information about
their specific claim," said Roger Bushell, Trade Act supervisor in
case management with the VEC. "There is a process we use to verify
identity and provide the needed assistance as requested."

'The services are inoperable'
The identity verification process was another obstacle for
Marshall. The VEC mandated her to complete it in order to continue
receiving benefits.

Joyce Fogg, communications manager for the VEC, said ID.me is new
to the commission to verify identity and was implemented to help
stop fraud. A May 18 news release from Northam says about 4% of all
claims are flagged as potentially fraudulent or ineligible.

Marshall said the website asked her to upload a copy of her
driver's license as well as biometrics such as a face scan, which
she likened to iPhone Face ID technology. After a week of trying,
she said she finally got the website to work.

"They give you things to comply with, but then the services are
inoperable," she said.

Legal measures
Five legal organizations -- Legal Aid Justice Center (where
Levy-Lavelle works), Legal Aid Works, and the Virginia Poverty Law
Center, along with Consumer Litigation Associates PC, and Kelly
Guzzo PLC -- filed a class-action lawsuit April 15 in response to
the VEC's extreme delays in processing claims. As of May 10, VEC
had a backlog of 92,000 unpaid claims.

Shortly after it was filed, U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson
signed a court order directing the VEC to resolve the backlog of
claims in 100 days -- a Labor Day deadline. Levy-Lavelle said the
processing of the lawsuit did not go far because the judge wanted
the issue resolved.

"Our efforts here have been all about trying to get desperately
needed aid as quickly as possible to Virginians who are suffering
through unemployment in the middle of the economic crisis," he
said.

Fogg said in an email that the state agency has about 1,200
employees and more than 400 contracted employees who work around
Virginia. She said 110 adjudicators have been added to the eight
there were before the pandemic.

"The VEC is continuously recruiting and training," she said.

In conversations since the order, Levy-Lavelle said the agency has
acknowledged issues such as claims taking a long time to be
processed or people receiving benefits, then having them cut off.
The legal organizations have been monitoring the agency's
progress.

According to a status report filed with the court on July 1 by the
legal advocacy organizations, VEC reported reducing the backlog of
claims by roughly 50,000, but the legal groups estimate that at
least 30,000 new claims have been added to the backlog since May
10.

"I think the agency has made a lot of progress, but obviously
there's still a lot of progress to go for a lot of Virginians," he
said.

Governor steps in
Northam acknowledged the issues with the Virginia Employment
Commission through a May 18 announcement in which he directed the
agency to invest $20 million to adjudicate claims more quickly and
make technology upgrades.

Fogg said that money will be used to add additional staff and
maintain and upgrade systems. She said more than $13 billion has
been paid out to claimants and that more than 1.6 million claims
have been filed since last March, more than in the past 10 years.

Three-quarters of the money comes from the budget passed by the
General Assembly for technology and infrastructure upgrades, and
the remaining amount is being reallocated within the VEC's
administrative budget to specifically boost adjudication staffing,
according to an email from Alena Yarmosky, a senior communications
adviser in Northam's office.

State Sen. Bill DeSteph, R-Virginia Beach, said those actions are
too little, too late.

Since the start of the pandemic, DeSteph's office has used their
contacts at the VEC to help roughly 2,000 people navigate the
process, according to their records. He said leadership starts at
the top, and the administration should have been paying more
attention to the agency.

"He should have done that a year ago," DeSteph said. "I'm not
trying to be critical of the governor but in this case, when you
have a leadership issue and when you have a problem, you put your
money and resources into it -- not at the very end." [GN]

WASHINGTON PRIME: Pomerantz Law Investigates Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Washington Prime Group, Inc. ("WPG" or the "Company") (NYSE:WPG).
Such investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980.

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

On February 16, 2021, WPG disclosed that its operating partnership,
WPG L.P., had "elected to withhold an interest payment of $23.2
million due on February 15, 2021 with respect to WPG L.P.'s
outstanding Senior Notes due 2024," and that "WPG L.P. has a 30-day
grace period to make the interest payment before such non-payment
constitutes an 'event of default.'" The Company further advised
that, in an event of default, certain counterparties to the senior
notes "could accelerate the outstanding indebtedness due . . .
making such indebtedness due and payable, which would result in a
cross-default with respect to some of WPG L.P.'s or the Company's
other indebtedness."

On this news, WPG's stock price fell $4.59 per share, or 38%, to
close at $7.49 per share on February 16, 2021.

Then, on March 4, 2021, Bloomberg reported that WPG "is preparing a
potential bankruptcy filing as time runs out to avert default after
it skipped an interest payment on its debt, according to people
with knowledge of the plans." On this news, WPG's stock price fell
$3.77 per share, or 60%, to close at $2.51 per share on March 4,
2021. Then, on March 16, 2021, WPG disclosed that it had entered
into a forbearance agreement with respect to the Senior Notes due
in 2024 and stated there was substantial doubt as the Company's
ability to continue as a going concern. The Company confirmed that
it had engaged in discussions for a financial restructuring.

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

WATERSONG REALTY: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Baran Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EVAN BARAN, Plaintiff v. WATERSONG REALTY SERIES I, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00492 (M.D. Fla., July 1, 2021) brings this
complaint on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
employees against the Defendant for its alleged intentional and
willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff, who has worked for the Defendant from approximately
March 2020 through April 12, 2020, alleges that the Defendant has
not been properly compensated him for all hours he worked for the
Defendant. Throughout his employment with the Defendant, he was
denied of his lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of
one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours her
worked in excess of 40 in a single work week. Also, the Defendant
failed to maintain proper time records, the Plaintiff adds.

The Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime compensation for himself and
those similarly situated current and former employees of the
Defendant who was not paid proper overtime for hours worked in
excess of 40 in one or more workweeks. The Plaintiff also seeks
liquidated damages in an amount equal to the unpaid overtime, as
well as reasonable attorney's fees and litigation costs and
expenses, and pre-judgment interest.

Watersong Realty Series 1, LLC operates real estate business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bill B. Berke, Esq.
          BERKE LAW FIRM, P.A.
          4423 Del Prado Blvd. S.
          Cape Coral, FL 33904
          Tel: (239) 549-6689
          E-mail: billberke@gmail.com

WINN AND SIMS: S.D. California Doe's Bid to Reopen Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled JOHN DOE, Plaintiff v. LAW OFFICES OF WINN
AND SIMS, a Professional Corporation; BRIAN N. WINN; RALPH L. SIMS;
and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
06-cv-00599-H-AJB (S.D. Cal.), the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California issued an order:

   (1) granting the Plaintiff's petition to re-open the case; and

   (2) granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's
       supplemental motion to seal.

On June 21, 2021, the Court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part Plaintiff John Doe's motion to seal. On June 25,
2021, the Court ordered the Clerk to file on the docket a petition
to re-open the case and a supplemental motion to seal the case
filed by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff's supplemental motion to seal
sets forth additional facts in support of his request for the Court
to either seal the entire case or, in the alternative, redact his
personal information from the record.

After reviewing the Plaintiff's filings, the Court denies the
Plaintiff's supplemental request to seal the entire record. To seal
a judicial record, a movant must present compelling reasons that
outweigh the public's interest in access to the record (Oliner v.
Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d 1024, 1025-26 (9th Cir. 2014)).

District Judge Marilyn L. Huff opines that sealing the entire
record would be overbroad and undermine the "strong presumption"
favoring the public's interest in the case, a class action against
a debt collection service, citing Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler
Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016); Oliner, 745 F.3d at
1025-26.

That being said, Judge Huff states, sufficient cause supports the
Plaintiff's supplemental request to redact his name from the docket
and allow him to proceed under the pseudonym "John Doe." The Ninth
Circuit allows parties to proceed anonymously when the party's
"need for anonymity" to avoid physical injury outweighs the
"prejudice to the opposing party and the public's interest in
knowing the party's identity" (Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced
Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2000)). That is the
case here, Judge Huff points out.

Additionally, redacting the Plaintiff's name from the record would
not prejudice any party because he voluntarily dismissed the action
over 15 years ago, Judge Huff notes. Further, the public's interest
in this case primarily centers around the underlying nature of the
action, a class action against a debt collection service, not the
Plaintiff's identity. As a result, the Court grants the Plaintiff's
supplemental request to redact his name from the record.

For these reasons, the Court grants the Plaintiff's petition to
re-open the case. The Court then grants in part and denies in part
the Plaintiff's supplemental motion to seal. Consistent with its
Order, the Court directs the Clerk to replace the Plaintiff's name
with "John Doe" on the docket and in all publicly and
electronically available documents so as to conceal his true name.
Thereafter, the Court directs the Clerk to re-close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 28, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ruv7c4se from Leagle.com.


YANGTZE RIVER: Bid to Dismiss Claims in Behrendsen Granted in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Dora L. Irizarry of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York grants in part the Defendants' motion
to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims in the lawsuit entitled MICHAEL
BEHRENDSEN and MARION GARCIA, Plaintiffs v. YANGTZE RIVER PORT AND
LOGISTICS LIMITED, XIANGYAO LIU, XIN ZHENG, TSZ-KIT CHAN, JAMES
COLEMAN, and HARVEY LEIBOWITZ Defendants, 19-cv-00024 (DLI)(LB)
(E.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs Michael Behrendsen and Marion Garcia bring the proposed
securities class action based on a Dec. 6, 2018 article published
by Hindenburg Research entitled "Yangtze River Port & Logistics:
Total Zero. On-the-Ground Research Shows Assets Appear to be
Largely Fabricated," which allegedly caused a 29 percent drop in
the stock price of Defendant Yangtze River Port and Logistics
Limited.

The Plaintiffs seek relief under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5, against Xiangyao Liu, Xin
Zheng, Tsz-Kit Chan, James Coleman, Harvey Leibowitz, and Yangtze
and under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 78t(a), against the Individual Defendants.

On June 3, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. On July
17, 2019, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The
Plaintiffs opposed the motion and the Defendants replied.

Background

In support of their motion to dismiss, the Defendants submitted
copies of their filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") and the press release, which are at issue in this action.
The Court considers these exhibits because they are incorporated by
reference in the Amended Complaint.

The proposed securities class action is based on the Dec. 6, 2018
Hindenburg Report, which the Plaintiffs allege caused a 29% drop in
Yangtze's stock price. The Plaintiffs claim to have purchased
Yangtze's securities during the putative class period of Feb. 2,
2016, through Dec. 5, 2018, and seek certification of a purported
class.

Defendant Yangtze is a Nevada corporation with headquarters in New
York City that traded on the NASDAQ stock exchange under the ticker
symbol "YRIV." When Yangtze began trading on U.S. Markets in
December 2015, it represented that it was developing an
infrastructure project ("Port Logistics Center") through its
Chinese operating subsidiary, Wuhan Yangtze River Newport Logistics
Co., Ltd. ("Wuhan Newport"), which it believed to be strategically
positioned in an important trading window between China, the Middle
East, and Europe and would provide shipping berths for cargo ships,
residential and commercial buildings, professional logistic supply
chain centers, and direct access to the Yangtze River and the
Wuhan-Xianjiang-Europe Railway.

Defendant Liu was Yangtze's CEO and Chairman of the Board of
Directors during the putative class period. Defendant Zheng served
as Yangtze's CFO from the beginning of the putative class period
until May 2017, and Defendant Chan has served as Yangtze's CFO
since May 2017. Defendant Coleman was Yangtze's Executive Director
of the Board of Directors and Chief Representative in the United
States during the putative class period. Defendant Leibowitz served
as Yangtze's chair of the Board of Director's Audit Committee
during the putative class period.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants deceived investors by
making materially false or misleading statements or omissions. The
Plaintiffs identify the following public filings that contain
purportedly false and misleading statements concerning Yangtze's
financial condition and operations: (1) Yangtze's 2015 Form 10-K
Annual Report ("2015 10-K"); (2) Yangtze's Form 10-Q for three
quarters of 2016 ("2016 10-Q") and 2016 Form 10-K Annual Report
("2016 10-K"); (3) Yangtze's Form 10-Q for three quarters of 2017
("2017 10-Q") and 2017 Form 10-K Annual Report ("2017 10-K"); (4)
Yangtze's Form 10-Q for three quarters of 2018 ("2018 10-Q"); and
(5) an April 17, 2017 press release (the "Press Release").

Yangtze's 10-Ks and 10-Qs represented that Yangtze had anywhere
from $379,711,509 to $422,448,212 in assets, the majority of which
were in "real estate properties and land lots under development."
Additionally, the 10-Ks and 10-Qs noted that Yangtze was not
involved in any litigation that could have a material adverse
effect on its financial condition or results of operation. The 2017
and 2018 SEC filings also stated that Yangtze "may be materially
and adversely affected if [Wuhan Newport] declares bankruptcy or
becomes subject to a dissolution or liquidation proceeding."

The Plaintiffs allege that Yangtze's representations "that it had
assets of approximately $400 million, mostly in real estate
properties and land lots under development" were misleading
because, in reality, Yangtze was not a firm capable of executing a
major infrastructure project and had no assets and no
infrastructure project in development. The Plaintiffs further
allege that Yangtze's representations that it was not involved in
any legal proceedings that would harm its business were misleading
because, by 2017, its Chinese subsidiary, Wuhan Newport, had been
declared insolvent in China and had at least 11 judgments totaling
$110 million against it.

With respect to Yangtze's developments, the Plaintiffs allege that,
while Yangtze "had repeatedly told investors that they intended to
build the Port Logistics Center on 1.2 million square meters of
land leased from" a Chinese rural village called Chunfeng Village,
they had not leased the land, and in fact, Chunfeng Village does
not even have 1.2 million square meters of land to lease. Yangtze's
representations that it partially had developed the Wuhan Centre
China Grand Steel Market also purportedly were misleading because
the Steel Market was a ghost town with no sign of activity.

Indeed, according to Plaintiffs, its investigators had visited
Chunfeng Village and the Steel Market and discovered that the Port
Logistics Center was not under development in Chunfeng Village and
that the Steel Market had been empty since 2012.

As to the Individual Defendants, the Plaintiffs claim that they:
(1) directly participated in the management of Yangtze; (2) were
directly involved in Yangtze's day-to-day operations "at the
highest levels"; (3) were "privy to confidential proprietary
information concerning Yangtze and its business and operations";
(4) were "directly or indirectly involved in drafting, producing,
reviewing, and/or disseminating the false and misleading statements
and information alleged" in the Amended Complaint; (5) were
"directly or indirectly involved in the oversight or implementation
of Yangtze's internal controls"; (6) were "aware of or recklessly
disregarded the fact that the false and misleading statements were
being issued concerning Yangtze"; and/or (7) "approved or ratified
these statements in violation of the federal securities laws."

Discussion

The Defendants move to dismiss on the grounds that the Plaintiffs
fail to plead adequately: (A) material misrepresentation or
omission; (B) scienter; and (C) loss causation.

The Court finds that: (1) the Plaintiffs adequately plead material
misrepresentations as to the Individual Defendants with respect to
certain SEC filings and, as to Yangtze, with respect to all SEC
filings, but fail to plead material misrepresentations with respect
to the Press Release; (2) the Plaintiffs adequately plead scienter
as to Defendants Liu and Yangtze, but fail to plead scienter as to
Defendants Zheng, Chan, Coleman, and Leibowitz; and (3) the
Plaintiffs adequately plead loss causation.

Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted only with
respect to Defendants Zheng, Chan, Coleman, and Leibowitz for
failure to plead scienter, but denied as Defendants Liu and Yangtze
with respect to material misrepresentations in the SEC filings.

Judge Irizarry finds that the Plaintiffs adequately plead
misrepresentations in the SEC filings. Moreover, these
misrepresentations are material as there is a substantial
likelihood that reasonable shareholders would have considered
information about Yangtze's assets and Wuhan Newport's bankruptcy
important in deciding how to act.

The Defendants assert that the Press Release is exempted under the
safe harbor of the Private Securities Reform Act of 1995 because it
contains forward-looking statements and contains a section entitled
"Forward-Looking Statement" with cautionary language. Judge
Irizarry explains that unlike the SEC filings, which contained a
combination of forward-looking statements and statements of present
and historical facts, the Press Release contains only
forward-looking statements about what the Port Logistics Center is
"expected to provide" upon its completion. Accordingly, the
Defendants are exempted from liability for the purported
misrepresentations in the Press Release.

Having concluded that the SEC filings contained material
misstatements, the Court must determine which Defendants may be
held responsible for these misstatements.

Judge Irizarry finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to allege
facts that give rise to an inference that the Individual Defendants
were involved in Yangtze's day-to-day operations such that the
group pleading doctrine would apply to them. The Plaintiffs allege
that the Individual Defendants were "directly involved" in managing
Yangtze and disseminating the misleading SEC filings.

Judge Irizarry holds that such allegations are conclusory and
insufficient to establish the Individual Defendants' liability,
citing In re Braskem S.A. Sec. Litig., 246 F.Supp.3d 731, 762, n.10
(S.D.N.Y. 2017). Accordingly, the Individual Defendants may not be
held liable for the purportedly misleading statements in the SEC
filings that they did not sign.

The Defendants contend that Plaintiffs do not plead scienter. The
Plaintiffs contend that they sufficiently allege motive and
opportunity as to Defendant Liu, Yangtze's CEO. The Plaintiffs
allege that Liu claimed to have made advances to Yangtze and then
used the proceeds that Yangtze made from capital raises to repay
himself for these purported advances.

The allegation of Liu's specific goal of collecting Yangtze's
proceeds as repayment for loans that he never actually made
establishes motive as it shows that Liu benefited in a concrete way
from inflating Yangtze's stock prices, Judge Irizarry holds.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have pled scienter adequately as to
Defendant Liu.

The Plaintiffs, however, do not allege motive as to Defendants
Zheng, Chan, Coleman, and Leibowitz, Judge Irizarry finds.
Accordingly, to plead scienter with respect to them, the Plaintiffs
must plead circumstantial evidence of their "conscious misbehavior
or recklessness." The Court finds that the Plaintiffs failed to
plead scienter as to Defendants Zheng, Chan, Coleman, and
Leibowitz. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss with
respect to these Individual Defendants is granted.

Because the Plaintiffs have pled Liu's scienter, his state of mind
is imputed to Yangtze, Judge Irizarry opines, citing In re Vivendi
Universal, S.A. Sec. Litig., 765 F. Supp.2d at 543. However, even
if the Plaintiffs had not pled Liu's scienter adequately, they
nonetheless would succeed in pleading corporate scienter.

Significantly, Yangtze's representations in its SEC filings that it
had approximately $400 million in assets are drastically different
than the representations its subsidiary made to the Chinese court
where it declared bankruptcy and, thus, are sufficient to
demonstrate corporate scienter, Judge Irizarry holds. Moreover, the
Plaintiffs' allegations that its investigators visited Chunfeng
Village and the Steel Market and discovered that the Port Logistics
Center was not under development in Chunfeng Village and that the
Steel Market had been empty since 2012, are "red flags that
contribute to support a reasonable finding of scienter."
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have pled scienter adequately as to
Yangtze.

The Defendants also contend that the Plaintiffs fail to allege loss
causation plausibly. According to the Defendants, it is unclear
whether Plaintiffs are relying on a corrective disclosure theory or
a materialization of risk theory.

The Hindenburg Report is directly linked to Defendants' prior
statements in their SEC filings. Specifically, the Hindenburg
Report states, inter alia, that: (1) "conversations with officials"
from Chunfeng Village revealed that Yangtze had not leased any land
from them, contradicting statements in the SEC filings that Wuhan
Newport had signed an agreement to rent 1.2 million square meters
of land; (2) "Chinese court records show that Yangtze has at least
11 judgments filed against it" totaling $110 million, contradicting
statements in the SEC filings that Yangtze was not involved in any
litigation that could affect its business operations; and (3)
"local court records show that creditors were unable to locate
assets and the Chinese court has recently taken the extraordinary
step of placing Yangtze on its list of 'untrustworthy debtors' due
to its mass of unpaid judgments," contradicting statements in the
SEC filings that Yangtze had total assets of approximately $400
million.

Thus, the Hindenburg Report possesses a "sufficient nexus" to the
misstatements in the SEC filings to form an adequate basis for the
Plaintiffs' loss causation allegations, Judge Irizarry concludes.

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have alleged loss causation
adequately, as it is plausible to infer that the Hindenburg Report
revealed to the market some part of the relevant truth concerning
Yangtze, thereby, causing a 29% decline in its share price.
Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied with
respect to Defendants Liu and Yangtze.

The Plaintiffs seek to impose liability against the Individual
Defendants pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
in their capacities as controlling persons of Yangtze. To state a
claim under Section 20(a), a plaintiff must allege: "(1) a primary
violation by the controlled person, (2) control of the primary
violator by the defendant, and (3) that the defendant was, in some
meaningful sense, a culpable participant in the controlled person's
fraud." Carpenters Pension Tr. Fund of St. Louis, 750 F.3d at 236.

Judge Irizarry holds that the Plaintiffs satisfy the first two
elements of a Section 20(a) claim. With respect to the third
element, the Plaintiffs adequately allege "culpable participation"
only as to Defendant Liu. Judge Irizarry points out that the
Plaintiffs have pled facts sufficient to support a finding of
scienter as to Defendant Liu, but failed to do so as to Defendants
Zheng, Chan, Coleman, and Leibowitz. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs'
Section 20(a) claim against Defendants Zheng, Chan, Coleman, and
Leibowitz is dismissed.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth, the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' Section 10(b) claim is granted as to Defendants Zheng,
Chan, Coleman, and Leibowitz and denied as to Defendants Liu and
Yangtze, and Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Section
20(a) claim against the Individual Defendants is granted with
respect to Defendants Zheng, Chan, Coleman, and Leibowitz and
denied as to Defendant Liu. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Section
10(b) and Section 20(a) claims against Defendants Zheng, Chan,
Coleman, and Leibowitz are dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated June 28,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3nrktkvu from
Leagle.com.


[*] Global Corp Exposure to Rule 10b-5 Suit Amounts to $37.7B in 2Q
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Global exposure of publicly traded companies and their directors
and officers to stock-drop securities class action (SCA) lawsuits
that allege violations of the federal securities laws under Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, amounts to $37.7 billion in 2Q'21 -
in line with $37.8 billion reported in 1Q'21.

U.S. SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure of U.S. issuers amounts to $30.5
billion in 2Q'21, a decline of 9.2% relative to 1Q'21. ADR SCA Rule
10b-5 Exposure of non-U.S. issuers that trade via American
Depositary Receipts (ADRs) on U.S. exchanges amounts to $7.2
billion in 2Q'21, a material increase of 68.2% relative to 1Q'21.

According to the SAR Securities Class Action Rule 10b-5 Exposure
Report – 2Q 2021, the U.S. SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure Rate of U.S.
issuers declined to 0.06% in 2Q'21 from 0.08% in 1Q'21. The U.S.
SCA Rule 10b-5 Litigation Rate declined by 13 basis points to 0.81%
in 2Q'21.

In 2Q'21 the ADR SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure Rate of non-U.S. issuers
increased by one basis point to 0.02%. The ADR SCA Rule 10b-5
Litigation Rate decreased by 5 basis points to 0.15%.

"During 2Q of 2021, our data indicates that aggregate securities
class action exposure of publicly traded companies in the U.S. has
been the lowest since SAR began tracking this data," said Nessim
Mezrahi, CEO of SAR.

2Q 2021 Securities Class Action Landscape:

-- 31 U.S. issuers were sued for alleged violations of Rule 10b-5.
Based on allegations presented in the first-filed SCA complaint
against each defendant corporation, U.S. SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure
amounts to $30.5 billion. Quarterly frequency declined slightly,
and exposure declined by 9.2% relative to 1Q'21.

-- 7 U.S. large cap issuers were sued for alleged violations of
Rule 10b-5. The Large Cap SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure amounts to $16.8
billion, a decline of 26.1% relative to 1Q'21. The Large Cap SCA
Rule 10b-5 Exposure Rate decreased by 2 basis points to 0.04%. The
Large Cap SCA Rule 10b-5 Litigation Rate decreased to 0.64% from
1.06% in 1Q'21.

-- 6 U.S. mid cap issuers were sued for alleged violations of Rule
10b-5. The Mid Cap SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure amounts to $8.5 billion,
a material increase of $6 billion, or 256% relative to 1Q'21. The
Mid Cap SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure Rate increased to 0.52%. The Mid
Cap SCA Rule 10b-5 Litigation Rate increased by 23 basis points to
0.85% in 2Q'21.

-- 18 U.S. small cap issuers were sued for alleged violations of
Rule 10b-5. The Small Cap SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure amounts to $5.2
billion, a decrease of $3.2 billion, or 38% relative to 1Q'21. The
Small Cap SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure Rate decreased by 50 basis points
to .65%. The Small Cap SCA Rule 10b-5 Litigation Rate decreased by
7 basis points to 0.90% relative to in 1Q'21.

-- 3 non-U.S. issuers that trade via ADRs in the U.S. public
markets were sued for alleged violations of Rule 10b-5. The ADR SCA
Rule 10b-5 Exposure increased by $2.9 billion to $7.2 billion, or
68.2% relative to 1Q'21. The ADR SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure Rate
amounts to 0.02%, an increase of just 1 basis point relative to
1Q'21. The ADR SCA Rule 10b-5 Litigation Rate declined to 0.15%, 5
basis points lower relative to 1Q'21. [GN]

[*] Insurance Companies Face COVID-19 Suit Over Business Losses
---------------------------------------------------------------
lexology.com reports that in May 2020 the vessel "APL England"
encountered rough seas off the coast of Australia during its voyage
from Ningbo, China to Melbourne, Australia. Valuable goods were
either lost overboard or were damaged as a result of the incident,
which was a huge blow for supply chains during what was the peak of
the pandemic's lockdown. Around 30 containers were lost overboard
and around 50 were damaged. Popular Sydney beaches were also closed
when debris washed ashore including face masks, plastic containers,
air-conditioning ducts and entire shipping containers.

After negotiations with the vessel's owners and demise charterer
broke down, the insurers of the cargo owners that suffered losses
commenced proceedings against the owners and charterers in the
Federal Court of Australia.

Class actions typically see proceedings launched against the big
financial institutions, particularly insurance companies. Most
recently, a group of small businesses are investigating a class
action against insurance companies alleging that COVID-19 related
losses are covered under their business interruption policies.
Similar class actions of this nature have been launched around the
world.

However, it is unheard of for a group of insurers to commence
proceedings as the plaintiffs. Even the Court struggled with how
the class action regime was to be applied in this instance as it
had to delicately balance the interests of the insurers and the
insured cargo owners who are the named group members in the
proceedings. For example, insureds had to be properly informed of
their rights, yet also be advised that they needed to closely
consult with their insurers on aspects of the proceedings, as it
may impact on their cover.

Insurers are pursuing the vessel owners, CMB Ocean 13 Leasing
Company Pte Ltd and demise charterers, APL Co Pte Ltd, for
breaching their duties as bailees as they failed to deliver the
cargo in the same condition as when it was loaded onto the vessel.
Due to the defences raised by these parties, and in order to
preserve the interests of all group members (particularly noting
that shipping claims generally have a one year time limitation) the
plaintiffs have also had to join a number of contractual carriers
to the proceedings, suing under breach of contract.

The insurers have also come to a cost sharing arrangement between
themselves and Mills Oakley, which is again unique, given that
there is no litigation funder involved in the proceedings. To make
matters more extraordinary, any uninsured losses will be pursued by
the group members themselves, at their own cost.

This is the first Court approved class action commenced by
insurers. Accordingly, it has the potential to be a ground-breaking
development in cargo recoveries. This is particularly where there
is a common event which has caused the loss of multiple insureds
each of whom are insured by different insurers. This regime allows
subrogated insurers to aggregate multiple claims but keep costs to
a minimum. This is achieved through the class action mechanism
which allows the determination of common questions on liability and
quantum for one lead class applicant which are binding on the
defendants in so far as the common questions impact all class
members. This means that there does not need to be multiple
liability or quantum trials, which will save significant costs for
the insurer class members, increasing their net recovery, and which
will avoid the risk of inconsistent factual findings in various
judgments.

It goes without saying, that the procedural dynamic of the class
action is novel. The matter will be watched closely as a precedent
for insurers seeking recovery from a single incident that has
impacted a number of individuals and their respective insurers .
[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 ***